NIH All About Grants Podcast: Training Grants Part 1

DAVID KOSUB: Training grants. If you're like me, this was your first introduction into the world of NIH. But what exactly are these training grants and how are they different from normal research? What should we know about them, what is the importance of mentorship? My name is David Kosub, and let's discuss this on NIH's All About Grants

>> From the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, this is All About Grants.

DAVID KOSUB: All right, well welcome to the show everyone. I'm glad to say that we have two guests for this conversation about the training grants here at NIH. We have Dr. Maria Carranza, she is a senior training officer with the National Institute on Aging, and we also have Dr. Kenneth or Kenny Gibbs, he is a branch chief who focuses on training grants at the National Institute of General Medical Sciences. And I welcome you both to the show.

KENNETH GIBBS: Thank you so much.

MARIA CARRANZA: Thank you.

DAVID KOSUB: Wonderful. So let's just start off with the bigger picture. What exactly are these training grants, and how do they actually fit into the wider goal of supporting the future workforce?

KENNETH GIBBS: Yeah, David, that's a great question. When people think about NIH, they think about the research that we fund and the cures that we help advance through that research. But you know what, all research is done by researchers. And so NIH recognizes that you don't just need to have good research, you need to continue to help cultivate future researchers, and that is where training grants come in. We don't just give money for research, we give money to institutions to then identify and support undergraduates, pre-doctoral and post-doctoral scientists so they can get the skills that they need, then take leadership roles within the biomedical research workforce. Whether that is leading their own research group, teaching future students, or even maybe working at the NIH on these issues. But this is a really important aspect of what we do here at NIH is, using these grants to fund future researchers.

DAVID KOSUB: Well, thank you very much Kenny for that explanation. I guess in the next question I have is like, what is unique about these training grant applications and, you know, how are they different from say like an R25 or a research education grant? You mentioned focusing on the workforce, but maybe y'all can both kind of talk about that a bit more.

MARIA CARRANZA: Thank you, David. Training grants and R25 awards are very similar, but at the same time, they have certain differences. Training grants can be focused on a particular career level of the trainee, that could be undergraduates or pre-doctoral students or post-doctoral researchers. And institutions receive a certain number of slots that they can offer to prospective participants at these career levels. And in these training grants, trainees will conduct research as part of their experience as a T32 or other type of award appointee but the T32 grant application is focused on the training program plan rather than on the research strategy, like traditional research project grants. And as I mentioned, similar to the R25 awards, these are institutional awards that offer research experiences to individuals, rather than funding individual researchers. And both typically offer in addition to research experiences, formal coursework, and other types of training to prepare the next generation of researchers. And training appointees typically work full-time and that is actually a requirement of training grants.

KENNETH GIBBS: I'll just add to that, right? I think highlighting what Maria said, you know, training grants tend to be full-time appointments, so people are on that 40 hours a week, you know, 9, 12 months. R25s are quite flexible so is the research education grants, those are used across the institutes for a wide variety of functions. At NIGMS, for example, we have one that supports post-backs because they're not students, so they can't be part of NRSA programs, but we also have others that say, "Hey, put on some courses to help researchers develop new skills." And those can be sort of short-term coursework. And so really I think training grants are often a little bit more of a structured full-time program compared to R25s which can have some structures, but they often are much more flexible in how they're utilized.

DAVID KOSUB: And just for clarification, NRSA is National Research Service Awards and T 32s are a form of NRSA just for the audience to be familiar. And so thank y'all both for explaining that a bit more and maybe getting into a little bit more of what Maria was talking about with regard to the training plan, you know, what else should a researcher be thinking about when they're putting together the actual application? What should they be focusing on, what should they be looking at? How should they be interpreting this or presenting this information?

KENNETH  GIBBS: Yes, I would say, you know, Maria made a great point. For research grants, we think about the strength of the research, for training grants, we think about the strength of the training program and experience. So what you're really thinking about is, is this a coherent experience for people at this training stage? Will they get skills that will help them to move forward in their careers? And I think it's important to really look at the program-specific goals because the training grant is a type of mechanism, but each program will have a certain type of goals. Our undergrad training programs at NIGMS which are the only undergrad training programs at NIH, really focus on expanding opportunity, promoting broader access within the biomedical research workforce, and preparing people to go on to get like a PhD or MD-PhD so they can be competitive for subsequent awards. A post-doc training grant, for example, might be helping people who have clinical experience get some additional research experience or a post-doc gets some, you know, focus attention in this area, some certain skills development. And so what you need to think about is, you know, what's the funding announcement asking? But is this a coherent, cogent program of training? They're not meant to be sort of scholarships or financial aid to subsidize students and post-docs doing research. They're really actually meant to have a, you know, again, curriculum. There can be courses, opportunities to go to conferences and present their research, gain additional skills. You also want to think about who the mentors are, and not just necessarily people who have a lot of NIH grants, but people who have a commitment to mentoring future researchers and have skills in mentoring those researchers. And then do you actually have a pool of trainees, right? Because you need a pool of trainees, you need strong mentors in a coherent program. That's often what we see in the strongest training applications. Maria, did you have anything you want to sort of add to that?

MARIA CARRANZA: Absolutely. In practical terms, researchers should be thinking about the number of slots that they are requesting and how well-justified those are. And then more big picture researchers should be thinking about how supportive is really their environment in order to provide these enriching research experiences to students and post-docs and for them to be successful coming from a very wide range of backgrounds. And also researchers should be considering what measures will they have in place to ensure that trainees will receive strong mentorship and will be kept in a nurturing environment and safe from any toxic environment.

DAVID KOSUB: So it's a lot to definitely be thinking about as you're putting together this application. I assume that the peer reviewers are kind of looking at these same sorts of things, making sure that they're hitting on these important points. Maybe y'all can talk about that bit more and like specifically if it relates possibly in like a new application or even a competing application who wants to get funding again and likewise, you know, like if someone didn't get funding, how they can respond to the reviewer's critiques. Like what would you recommend?

MARIA CARRANZA: Certainly. So in general terms for both new applications and renewals or even revisions reviewers are taking a look both at the training program and the environment, and the structure of the proposed program including courses and experiences for trainees as well as strong institutional commitment. The reviewers are also going to be looking at the training program director or principal investigator and what is their scientific administrative and training experience to provide the overall coordination for the program. In addition, reviewers are strongly interested in knowing about the diversity of the trainee pool and the preceptor or mentor faculty. And what has been the success of these individuals in promoting the growth of previous trainees, if any? And then again as Kenny mentioned, you know, the pool of trainees and that there will be a wide pool of trainees that can take advantage of the proposed program, the training record of the institution, the theme of the overall training program is very important, especially if the application is going to a specific institute. For example, the National Institute on Aging, we want to make sure that the theme really fits within the mission of the institute. And then of course, strong evaluation plans and feedback loops that will allow the program to learn as it goes along and make adjustments as needed. Yes, and then for renewals, it's really important to show evidence of success of the program and also of the trainees that have gone through the program, where are they now and how has the program specifically facilitated or enabled some of that progress and success? And then again, as I mentioned, how the program has learned from itself and its record and has made improvements along the way. And then if an increase in the number of slots is required, how well justified this is, and how more students are going to be interested and offer these new slots? Kenny, would you like to add anything?

KENNETH GIBBS: That was great and comprehensive. I would just add a few things. When you talked about renewals, you talked about success and I think really making sure that the outcomes are framed within the context of the goals of the funding announcement. And so are we seeing the trainees appointed being able to, for example, develop skills and, you know, conduct research in a manner that is consistent with their training stage? So if it's an undergrad program that's like, Hey, maybe you were able to go do a summer experience and then present that at a conference as an abstract, that's great. Post-doc programs you expect probably a little bit more in terms of research productivity and maybe more tightly aligned career outcomes. That said, and this is one of those things that has been out there in the community. You know, success doesn't just mean everybody has a first-author publication in a single-word journal and then goes on to get an RO1 from NIH. That is one metric of success that is not the only metric of success. And again, whether you're new or renewal, I think framing what you're doing in the context of what is already happening. And so sometimes you say, Hey, we have a lot of great stuff happening. NIH funds will help us to intensify those efforts all the more, right? Sometimes you say, Hey, we've identified that we have this need and these funds are really needed to help us pull the various communities together to successfully recruit and sustain this diverse pool of scientists who will be, you know, future contributors to the NIH-funded workforce. So I just really want to make sure that we think about what the outcomes are, and it's like everything else. If you have desired outcomes, say, these are my goals for the training program, make sure that the underlying components align with those goals, right? It's pretty straightforward but sometimes, you know, people have goals. Goals are proposed that either are deemed not realistic or even if they are realistic, the underlying activities aren't clearly connected to the outcomes.

DAVID KOSUB: Hopefully, people can see hosting a podcast series as a success for a former trainee [LAUGHTER].

KENNETH GIBBS: So I jokingly say that I'm a proud failure of NIHS training programs because I'm here overseeing very, very many of them. but it's just to say, seriously, there are lots of positive outcomes [LAUGHTER] and we don't have to, you know, if you're continuing to contribute and sustaining NIH research, NIH relevant research, some people do that by leading their own research groups, but NIH does not administer itself. You need people who are here to help move that forward. And even, you know, industry and other careers that are really utilizing and leveraging the training that you get to further the NIH mission, which is advancing and applying research for the benefit of all

DAVID KOSUB: Well said. I hope folks have enjoyed this part of the conversation, learning more about what you should be doing when you're putting together your training grant application, as well as how peer reviewers may be thinking about it. Join us for our follow-up conversation when Dr. Gibbs and Dr. Carranza we'll be speaking more about mentorship and what trainees should be thinking about and also what you should be reporting back to us after you perceive a training grant award. This has been David Kosub with NIH's All About Grants.