Can I apply if I am reusing a previously submitted grant proposal topic that was either not awarded or is still under review with another institution?
Yes, we are asking you to expand on your most innovative ideas, independent of additional funding for the work. We actually often don’t consider additional funding mechanisms, we’re really trying to focus on how to best support exceptional science.
Why is there a five-year eligibility limit?
Helping people early in their career get a start can have a huge impact. Early success breeds success. If you do something really exciting early, that will help you get the next set of really good students and postdocs. It’ll help you get the next set of funding. It’ll help you get invited to give talks. The foundation is committed to helping people early when that extra boost can really have the biggest impact.
What kinds of leave are accepted that could add time to the five-year eligibility window?
We currently only allow exceptions to the five-year eligibility window for parental leave. We do not allow exceptions for other reasons such as lab closure due to Covid or otherwise. For parental leave, we would ask for documentation of the length of the leave, and simply add that time to your clock for eligibility. If you think you would qualify to apply with parental leave exception, please reach out to Joel Krogstad immediately to discuss your situation before you put a lot of time into an application.
When is best to apply within my five-year window?
You can apply at any time within the five-year window of eligibility. If you have an idea right at the outset and you really can articulate and propose a crisp novel idea, there is no need to wait. One of the requirements is that you can only apply twice in that five-year period. So you need to use your judgment to evaluate whether your ideas are sufficiently well formulated, or if it’s better to wait a year or two when you will have a clearer vision of where your science will take you.
Does the committee have a preference for basic science or translational science?
The overall mission of the Scholars program is to fund basic neuroscience. But that doesn’t mean we don’t consider clinical or translational science. There are other facets of neuroscience that are not so often represented in past awardees that we would definitely consider, especially as there are new methods and new kinds of ways to address questions that would be very impactful and still provide insight into the kind of broader understanding of basic neural mechanisms.
Are proposals with a drug discovery/ chemical biology/synthesis component responsive to this funding opportunity?
Again, we really welcome all facets of neuroscience. It depends on whether this particular avenue is something that you can highlight why the drug discovery, or chemical biology/ synthesis would provide unique insight into some fundamental aspect of the nervous system. We’re looking for, what is your unique angle? What is the creative approach you’re taking? And how is it going to have broad impact?
Is pilot data necessary or encouraged for building a strong application?
Pilot data are not required in the way they are for the like an RO1 application. But you want to convince us that this idea is plausible. So pilot data is one way to do that. Your track record of doing things that are different than the incremental work of your previous labs could also be evidence. Then there are the letters. We’re going to be asking, is this a unique idea, and is there some chance it’s going to work in your hands?
Should reference letters be from people we have worked directly with or from others in the field who are familiar with our work?
Either can work. The letters of reference really can be used as a mechanism for other people to convey what they know about you. I think it’s very common for people to have letters from their former mentors as postdoctoral mentors, for example. But it’s also very compelling to have letters from people in the field, maybe, who have not worked with you directly as long as they can speak in depth about your strengths. We would like to hear about you, not about the field. It’s important to consider that they should know you well, and know your science well to be the most compelling, and to have the most impact. These letters all say everybody’s smart and hardworking and has done good things to get to the point of having a faculty position. So anything that your letters can provide that’s specific about why you would be good at doing something, that is, you know, really pushing the boundaries of science and making it work. Those specific examples can really have a lot of impact.
Will the committee consider applications from a PI with a non-neuroscience background, who is doing neuroscience research in their independent lab with the appropriate collaborators?
We have in the past awarded scholars who are moving into neuroscience as a field from other areas, and who were able again to articulate how their background in some other subdiscipline, for example, cell biology or structural biology or other areas, and would actually be able to open up new insights into neuroscience. So we would encourage people from all related disciplines to apply. Neuroscience is increasingly interdisciplinary. There are many different ways to think about how to tackle the fundamental mechanisms of the brain. We think it actually provides the greatest kind of diversity in the community, and the most kind of flow of different ideas if we have people coming into neuroscience with a kind of distinct lens.
How many lead author publications are expected of the applicant, and is it recommended to wait to get a last author publication before submitting?
If you’re in your first year of your faculty position, it’s very rare that you have a last author publication, we don’t think you should necessarily wait to that point. It is worth it to apply if you can demonstrate again that you have a question that’s ripe for discovery, you can articulate it, and you can say that this is something that you should be implementing and tackling at this at this moment. If you are pretty far along in your assistant professorship, then we may expect to see some evidence that in your own lab you can produce and get the science complete and out. So it it really depends how much we would weigh that based on where you are in your position.
In our proposals, when talking about visions and aims, should we be thinking about a 3-year timeline, or 5, or 10, or whole career?
We want to hear about your unique or creative vision and sometimes that’s not totally compatible with a 3-year timeline. We recognize the fact that $225,000 over a 3-year period may or may not fund a whole new research trajectory in your lab. The benefits of the award are numerous in many ways for the longevity of your career. Very often it’s good to try to not to constrain yourself to ask, okay, what can I accomplish in the next 3 years that I could put down onto paper. We would rather see something that is a direction your lab is taking. It’s a direction that is a foundation, a kind of runway for many other questions that you’ll be able to work on down the road. And that kind of longer-term vision is really what is most exciting to hear about.
Is there an estimate of success rate from previous competitions?
Each year we receive between 50 and 80 applications. We then invite about 20 to virtually interview in person in a second round. We’ve also increased the number of scholars awarded yearly to ten, from what was previously six or seven. So that also improves your chances as well. We hope you will consider applying!
How do I apply?
Please visit our How to Apply page for step-by-step instructions.