Click the play button to listen.
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Amazon Music | PodBean | Spotify | YouTube
See the full Episode List
Or watch the video podcast on YouTube:
In this episode, host Lora Parent, Director of Strategic Partnerships & Research Development for the CTSC, welcomes Ian J. Neeland, MD, and Amar Desai, PhD, for an open conversation on funding and publishing in today’s research environment. Together, they discuss how the funding landscape has evolved, strategies for navigating grants and manuscripts across career stages, and the realities of rejection, resilience, and mentorship. The episode highlights the value of collaboration, adaptability, and expanding funding pathways as researchers work to move science from discovery to real‑world impact.
Transcript
Ian Neeland:
That's that's the other thing about publishing funding is you have to have a thick skin for, for this, this work. And the more you do and the more feedback you get, the thicker it will get and the easier it will get.
Lora Parent(Host):
Welcome to From Research to Real Life. This is our final episode of season two. So welcome to the two of you. We're going to get into introductions here in a moment. I'm your host, Laura Parent. Today's episode talks about something that is very central to every research career, and that is funding and publishing. I don't think we talk about it very often. When we talk about it, it's because of how successful it is and maybe not the challenges of it. So I'm excited to dive in today to talk a little bit more about how rewarding, but also challenging that can be. So join with me today I have Dr. Ian Neeland welcome. He is our CTSC pilot co-lead. He is also the director at University Hospital Center for Cardiovascular Prevention. He's a clinical investigator in cardiometabolic disease. Welcome.
Ian Neeland:
Thank you very much.
Lora Parent(Host):
We also have with us Dr. Amar Desai. He's also the CTSC pilot program co-lead, and he is an assistant professor at Case Western Reserve University, the Comprehensive Cancer Center. And he's a translational researcher in pharmacology.So welcome to you as well.
Amar Desai:
Thanks. Excited to be here.
Lora Parent(Host:
Today we are talking about funding, some publishing, some of the challenges. Alongside of that, both of you are very versed in funding, because also you're helping guide our CTSC members through that process, through a pilot program. But I really am interested today to talk about your research journeys and what funding has meant to you, and maybe what are some things that you've encountered along the way, with respect to national NIH funding, with respect to maybe some private or philanthropic funding? But I'm also very curious, as the human component, what happens when maybe something doesn't go your way when you don't get that funding? And what next? I don't think we talk about that quite often enough. And I'd like to start with you tell us a little bit about your research journey. What does that look like and what role has funding really played in your your career journey?
Ian Neeland:
Sure. You know, I first started kind of getting interested in research a little bit in high school. Went to the state science fair and, presented on, a project that I did, and then in medical school, like many medical students, did some research. It was really basic science research at that time. That's mostly what medical students kind of have access to. Never really spoke to me, per se. And so in, residency, I got more involved in clinical research and, start to get interested in cardiology or vascular disease research and had some good experiences. And then after residency, the decision was whether or not I actually wanted to do research as a, you know, significant, component of my career or not. And to give myself the greatest chance of even figuring that out and being successful. I actually,did a research first fellowship. So is it on a T32 grant in Texas, where I was two years of research upfront and then two years of clinical work in cardiovascular disease. And that really opened the door to my research career and led to all the subsequent,things that I've done since, funding, though, didn't really become, top of mind until the very end of my fellowship when I was about to transition to, you know, faculty, and, a K23 award, came up in terms of, you know, securing funding as a career development, to then move toward independent funding later on. And, the great thing was that I had fantastic mentorship and, a great, institution and a place to, you know, grow and learn. And I was successful in, securing a K 23 grant right out of, fellowship and to faculty. And that really jumpstarted my career. From then on, funding has been much more important and, center in terms of making sure that I can continue my research career. They have the time to do so, and the, you know, the ability to do different things. So, now, at this point in my career, I guess I would have called mid-career, is the, you know, funding is a big component of it, obviously. And so, really just trying to, you know, keep things going, do different things, look at different sources of funding. Me be, you know, flexible, and facile in terms of, you know, getting funding from everywhere. I mean, I think I had a I had a mentor, along the way who made a great point that. There are a lot of sources of funding out there. And in the end of the at the end of the day, right, if you have, funding to support your work and you're doing the work you want to do, and that's what matters, right? Doesn't really matter where the money comes from. But, but, you know, it's a it's always a daunting, challenging task. You know, in something I think, as a lot of, researchers, anxiety and, you know, sometimes, you know, you know, sleep well at night because of it, but, you know, it's it's just kind of the part of, of, of living as a researcher and something that we have to do. And, you know, there's ways to, to learn and to get better at it. And, you know, that's why I think that help people can listen to this, discussion today, too. And I've learned some tips and tricks, I think, to help them along.
Lora Parent(Host:
Yeah. A couple of things that are popping out when you talk about your journey is that, mentorship, collaboration. I think all of these things have been the most common phrases that we've heard doing our podcast. And how critical that is not only in research, but the the goals that you hope to achieve throughout your career journey is that it's not only attributed to the work that you're doing, but how other people have, helped that along the way and maybe have paved the way, you know, at times as well, and learning from their mistakes.I think is something that proves to be incredibly helpful. Yeah. And what about you, Amar? Let's talk about your research journey and and what that looks like.
Amar Desai:
Yeah, sure. And before I get started, I should say that for my clinician scientist friends and colleagues like Ian, it's I'm constantly amazed at how you're able to find time to seek out and apply for funding because, you know, as a basic science researcher who runs a cancer research lab, I would say the vast majority of my day is thinking about and writing grants.
And so to the idea that someone like Ian and his, you know, physician scientist colleagues can can find time to also carve out dedicated mental space to to think and write is it's pretty baffling. So I gotta give as well at the same at the same token, you know, the PhDs that they spend, like you said, a lot of time doing it. And I'm, you know, I'm always amazed at, the persistence and the prowess that they have with, with doing funding. So if you ever want to know how to write a grant, you talk to a PhD. Basic science research. Yeah, persistence is probably the right word there. Yeah. So my story, you know, similar to, you know, I got really interested in research, during my undergraduate, I went to Kenyon College, you know, for a long period of time that really thought I was going to be a creative writer. And then you go to a school like Kenyon, and you realize your creative talents and your writing ability are quite subpar compared to actually creative and talented people. And so I sort of, you know, pivoted to what I might have actually been good at, which is which was research and science. And, after a couple of really, exciting and, fulfilling summer internships during undergrad, I realized I wanted to go get a PhD, and study cancer biology. In large part, that was due to a summer experience I had in 2007, which was here at Case Western, in the pharmacology department summer research program. Sort of fell in love with case, fell in love with the environment. You know, was really just amazed at how much collaboration and how much, like, really innovative, scientists are coming from sort of really the breakthrough, sort of scientists at the forefront of their fields. So I went to case for my PhD. I think I realized really early on the importance of funding, even in a graduate students career, because I was given the advice from senior graduate students, and junior faculty who told me your Pi is going to like you more if your funding life gets a lot easier if you're a funded graduate student because your stipend, and your, some of your expenses are not on your PiS or your research mentors,books. Right. And so then, you know, I sort of really early started seeking out T32 opportunities, either within the university or on a national level, and was great about cases, you know, a lot of departments sponsored t32, which means, you know, they will pay for students to sit on their training grants, get trained under their departments. But you can still work in any lab that you want. And so, you know, through I took that advice to heart and was funded, I believe, five of my six years of, of graduate school through the t32, through the Department of Pharmacology and then through the Department of Cell Molecular Biology.You know, the big advice there to, to graduate students or to young scientists is you got to learn how to sell yourself and your science, and storytelling becomes incredibly important there. And so, When I transitioned to my postdoc, which was also a case, sort of followed that same path, which is I know my, my postdoc mentor in this case is going to appreciate my contributions to the lab even more if I'm funded. And so I went out and, secured a T32 that was offered by the University of Rutgers. And it's a consortium between several institutions. And case was one. So for the first two years of my, postdoc, I was funded by that TI 32, which then led me to apply for similar to Ian, a K Award. And I received a K 99 R00 award, which is, it's called the Pathway to Independence Award from the NIH. Which I was very lucky enough to, to get funded. The second half of my postdoc. So, you know, since then, similar to you and I think every minute of every day, much to my family's chagrin, I'm thinking about funding. And, you know, we've had some success. But, you know, you persistence is really the most important thing here. And so, always writing, always seeking new funding opportunities. And we can get into some of those later. But that's sort of the the big picture of how I got here.
Lora Parent(Host):
Sure. Now, one thing that I've noticed, in my time working through the CTSC, is that funding has changed over time. What the NIH is funding, how we're funding, and also number of funding opportunities have either increase or decrease over time. What do you think that means? I mean, I, I see what that means for, you know, the CTSC in general and in our researchers. But with your opinions, how do you think that the changing or evolving landscape has affected either how you research, or what that means for the outlook for future moving forward?
Amar Desai:
Uh Sure. So from a PhD's point of view, you know, NIH funding is is at a really critically low funding rate at the moment.
You know, if you're applying to NCI, it's, it's single digits. Every other institution, we've been funded by the NIH, the National Institute on Aging, the NHL by the National Heart, lung, and blood Institute. The funding rates. So, they're typically in the past they've been thought of in terms of percentages. So if I submit a grant, I would get a percent, and that percent could be 15%, which means that of all of the other grants that were submitted that cycle, mine is in the top 15%. And previously, when even when I first started my lab in 2019, that number that right around 15% could get your grant funded, which means you had to beat out 85 of 100 other people. And if you were that good and that lucky, then you could get funded. Now those numbers are dropping. You know, we're I'm hearing anecdotal stories of, you know, folks who are, scoring 7% or 8% and still not sure if their grants are going to get funded. So, the impact on, on academic science and the biomedical research field in general is, in my opinion, really, really, I don't want to say catastrophic, but that is how I feel at times, which is it's incredibly hard to get funded. And I was already submitting every cycle, and now I'm trying to submit 2 to 3 grants every cycle, which is, you know, ultimately going to dilute my ability to focus on a project. And then also, you know, the the likelihood of funding continues to go down, which forces, you know, myself and many of my colleagues to think creatively about how we spend in the lab, how we hire, how we allocate resources for projects. And we're sort of forced to prioritize projects that we think have the highest likelihood of being funded, rather than those that might be the most exciting or the most innovative. And that's sort of it's a very scary prospect.
Lora Parent(Host):
Yeah. It's a tough balance, I would imagine.
Amar Desai:
Yes. Yeah.
Ian Neeland:
Yeah. I mean, it takes hundreds of hours to write a grant. And, when you send it off and it comes back and it's not even discussed at a, study session meeting, you know, it can be very distracting. But, you know, again, you have to kind of, be facile in this, in this day, in this day and age, I think, when I first started and even before that, a lot of grants were kind of one PI, one team, you know, and, and that was it. And now things are moving a lot more towards collaborative science. You know, multiple, multiple different disciplines, expertise coming together, people like that a lot more. I think that funding is easier to get if you have a team science approach, to things. I do think the pay line has gone down, significantly over time. But that's really more for kind of independent award grants, like an R1, whereas I still think for career development grants for kind of junior junior faculty and young, younger scientists that, it's it's easier. So like when I did my K, I think the pay line was 35%, withheld by and so, and then it decays. So it's like, you know, that's, that's definitely doable. Right. And so I think don't get discouraged, when you're just starting out in terms of funding, it's a lot easier to get funding for career development awards than it is towards later on. And the other thing is that once you get funded successfully, the chances of, you know, further funding is, is higher. So you learn from what you've done wrong in the past. You learn how to be a better grant writer. Better scientist and where funding can come from and also how to allocate resources, I think. And so it gets easier from that standpoint. So there's the other thing I think that's changed is, into translational science, for example. Right. Implementation science. I don't think implementation science was much of a thing, you know, 15, 20 years ago. And the funding for that was probably was much lower. Now there's a lot of interest in it. And so there's, you know, people who are interested in delineation in science and doing that kind of work. It's somewhat easier for them now than it was before. But, you know, everything changes. The budgets are always changing with every administration, things change. But I think, yeah, persistence, as a Ma said earlier, is is the key here.
Lora Parent(Host):
Yeah. Well, even the CTSC, when we first started almost 20 years ago now was all basic science, cells, mice. And now we are not funding any of that. You know, over time that that shift, we've gone more translational end of the spectrum, bench bedside. So, you know, even what we're funding and what we choose to fund and what people can apply for funding. And it's kind of heartbreaking to have to tell somebody, I'm sorry we can't fund your project. Because ultimately they internalize that. Right. Fortunately, there are other places to look for funding, which is great, but I'm actually quite curious. And both of you alluded to this is how do you balance then your regular workload while you're trying to revise and resubmit?
Ian Neeland:
I mean, I think you have a very good time management. And, you know, make sure you have the appropriate balance. Like I said, hundreds of hours can go into a grant. And, and b few people can look at it for 20 minutes and that's it. I mean, it can be very disheartening if you think of it that way. I think you have to look at everything you do as a learning experience to make it better. Right. And so if you have a grant, you spend a ton of time on and you put your whole effort into it comes back, maybe triage, then, you know, that's okay. Revise, resubmit. Keep going. And I think trying to separate your success and funding and getting and publishing, for that matter, and your worth as a scientist, as a person, as a faculty member, as a teacher, do you need to separate those two things out? I remember that, I spoke with one of my mentors, and he was telling about somebody else who his whole self-worth was tied up in it because he's getting an R1 or not. If he doesn't get the R1, is it all not worth it? That's the that perspective is going to lead to failure, because nine times out of ten, the top scientists in the world may not get the funding. You know, it's a lot of times it's happens to be what's going on right then in in society and science. Who's reviewing it, how it's reviewed. And so, you know, ultimately it's not up to you that you have to put your best foot forward and do the best you can, but, but it's, you know, you shouldn't take it personally, right? Yeah. As I say, it's just business. So, you know, I think that's that's the best way to approach it. And, and, you know, and I also have a balance because if you, you can get burned out pretty easily, working on grants all the time, you know that.
Amar Desai:
Yeah. Yeah you know, I didn't really give it a full introduction, but we run a, hematology oncology drug development based research lab. So we're interested in developing therapeutics, to treat malignancies, and promote stem cell function. So, you know, for, for my scenario, I have a team of researchers that are in our lab space, and then I'm in the office. Right. And so the way that I've found, to to really be able to balance that time and for me, focus the majority of my time on writing is, you know, really good training and mentorship to my team. And I hope that they're watching this, that they would agree with the fact that, you know, I, I try very hard to, distill independence in my team as quickly as possible, which is, you know, at times it's going to feel like trial by fire. You're going to jump in the deep end of the pool. But guess what? When you got out, you designed this experiment, you executed it, you analyzed it, and then you're presenting to me sort of next steps on how to proceed. And that's the most rewarding thing possible and what that allows me to do. And I'm incredibly grateful. I think we have a really wonderful culture in my lab. And, you know, sometimes I'll hear that like, oh, how do you how did you build that culture? It's necessity because I cannot do my job unless there's a culture of folks who are willing to run through a wall to to sort of answer the questions that we want to ask. And so, you know, if you look at my team now and, you know, we're small, we're not a big lab, we're not incredibly well funded. We have a senior PhD student and about 8 or 9 undergrads who, you know, we go to Case Western, which is, you know, a top, you know, 25 to 30 school in the world if you believe it. And so we have an under tapped resource of incredibly talented undergrads, absolutely, incredibly talented, who are so much more driven and focused and organized than I was, is a 19 or 20 year old, and so I'm just, I lean hard on a young group of scientists who are continuously proving that instinct right, which is they're going to deliver time and time again. So, that's my secret to to balance and not work 18 hours a day. You know, I had I told you I had oatmeal with my kids this morning, and we're gonna have dinner together tonight, and that's in large part due to allocating time appropriately and then trusting your team to be able to deliver for you.
Ian Neeland:
Yeah, I think when it comes to publishing, that's especially true, my experience, is giving, you know, trainees, younger people, the ability to, take a project and own it and go from start to finish in terms of writing it, publishing it, you know, you have to go through the motions to learn. And, there are tons of great people out there who are very motivated. And, that also allows you to mentor a lot more and many more people, and not over extend yourself to one individual or one project. You can do a lot at the same time and juggle those areas, because you have great people and a great team working together with you. I mean, that that's that's what I was given when I was a young, you know, starting out with young trainee. And, and I feel that's so important that that collaboration and, be a mentor to them, to a to a mentor and a mentee relationship, to let them understand how you write, how you revise, especially when the revisions come back from reviewers, you know, how do you understand what they're what they're asking you to do? How do you respond? It's invaluable for, for for learning. And, you can't just do it all yourself. That's not going to not going to help you is not going to help other people, and you're going to be successful.
Lora Parent(Host):
Yeah. So I, I'm curious to know we all know the definition of insanity, right? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. At what point have you told yourselves, do I keep just resubmitting the same topic because this is my passion versus I think I need to go in a new direction. Have you ever thought that? And let's talk a little bit about what that looks like.
Amar Desai:
Yeah, it's it's a great question. I'm probably clinically insane and that we know we
Lora Parent(Host):
Aren't we all?
Amar Desai:
We're very proud of the ideas that we have because we built years and years. My training goes deep 15 years into understanding mechanisms regulating hematopoietic stem cell biology and the grants. I want to write in. The science I want to do involves understanding that biology and then therapeutically modulating that biology to produce, you know, outcomes in, hematologic malignancies. So we submit 95% of our grants along that topic. Now, I do realize that, a lot of reviewer respect for me is going to come from my body of work, the publications that we've had specifically on that topic. And so it's not so easy to just say, hey, let me go submit on another topic, because if you try to enter a field that you have no experience with or basically no business being in, your reviewers are going to tell you that really quickly. And what Ian is says is right. It's hundreds of hours to write a grant. So if I say, you know what, I'm going to go jump in Ian's field. I'm going to write cardio based grant. I'm going to get laughed out of the room. I won't get scored, and I'll have wasted my 200 hours. Right. And so, you know, I'm not saying that you get stuck in a certain path, but I chose a path that I still very strongly believe in. And I think what you can do is you can try to sort of hedge a little bit and say, you know, some of my most exciting collaborations now are with researchers outside of my primary field. But I very clearly understand my contribution is my deep specialization in understanding stem cell biology. So we're now applying that to issues like traumatic brain injury. And we're collaborating with Andrew Pieper, who's a brilliant, neuroscientist, to study what happens to the blood in the bone marrow following a brain injury. And we're working with co-lead sociology and Bill Sharman at Case Western, who are breast cancer researchers, and understanding what happens to the blood system during metastatic breast cancer. So I think the insanity component is I'm never going to stop writing, him focused grants. I'm willing to sort of blur the lines a little bit and understanding other disease models. But, yeah, I think, you know, 50 years from now I'll still be writing the same type of grant. Maybe it'll be in a different context, though.
Lora Parent(Host):
That's great.
Ian Neeland:
I think I'm a little more flexible in that aspect and pragmatic in the sense that a lot of my projects have come through collaborations, and areas of the gray lines where I'm, you know, I may not have as much expertise as others. If just for example, we're doing a NIH sponsored project on, I should do inhibition and obstructive sleep apnea. I'm a cardiologist. I study cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity, obstructive sleep apnea is kind of connected, but it's by no means a sleep specialist. So. But when I collaborate with several different researchers across the country on a post hoc analysis of a clinical trial to look at the relationship between those two things, and it shows and promise, well, that's an opportunity for me to collaborate with,sleep researcher and to do, you know, a project together and,and do a clinical trial. So those are there's several other examples like that that I've kind of collaborated on the edge of something. And then that's led to a different role or a different new project, a new pathway. And so, you know, I tried to do various things because the more I feel like you can kind of throw at the wall, the more will stick. And so that's kind of I've, I've taken it the same. The same thing applies when it comes to, revising, you know, manuscript, I would reviewers want I try to give them as much as possible. I'm also an associate editor for a journal, so I kind of see it on the other side. And the more responsive you are to. And if you feel like it's not the right thing to do, then, you have to have a cogent explanation. Why not, then people will respect that and, and appreciate that. And so you'll get your science published. I think being responsible and flexible for reviewers. What even if you think like well, I think is this, you know, but everyone's different perspectives are really helpful. That's why peer review is peer review because ultimately it makes it a better, better paper. I've had some situations though, where they've wanted x, y, Z that have been, you know, unreasonable to do and, you know, had to, to going to fight back, so to speak. But, you know, that's, that's your job as a scientist to know your science, to be, clear about where you think things are going and what they should be. But obviously have, humility and, you know, maybe be able to take the criticism. That's that's the other thing about publishing funding is you have to have a thick skin for, for this, this work. And the more you do and the more feedback you get, the thicker it will get and the easier it will get. I remember my very first paper that I, I sent out, to publishers to circulation, which is one of the top journals for cardiology. And the reviewer, I'm pretty sure I know who reviewed it. She was, you know, a big person in this field, and I was just entering. I was a fellow, something I was just learning about and and finding finding out my my place, and,they didn't they didn't take it, but my mentor, he said, you know, I disagree. I think you should repeal it, you know, appeal for it. So I appealed and came back. No, again. And, but but what I learned was that you know, first of all, you can't appeal, right? You can always state your case. And if they don't think in the end, they don't take it, we publish it somewhere else. It's okay, you know, it'll get published somewhere. I think that everyone wants them. The journal in Jama and Science and Nature and things like that. But again, it's just because you publish and don't publish in one of those journals. Doesn't mean you're a bad scientist. You're not successful. You know, you have to kind of take the good with the bad and and be flexible like that.
Lora Parent(Host):
So I'm gonna put my therapist's hat on here for a second, and I want you to take me back to that moment when you first got that, you know. No. How did you feel about that? And was there kind of this, this mindset of, you know, what did I get myself into? Do I even want to put in 100 more hours to do this again and just get the same answer?
Ian Neeland:
Yeah. No, you have to take a deep breath. And, it's a lot of work. It's it's not fun to get a rejection. But, as Mark said, you have to be persistent and you have to keep doing it and keep working at it. No one, no one submits a paper and then it's like, gets accepted immediately. Everyone loves it. I, I've never I've seen that one time in my life.
Lora Parent(Host):
The unicorn! Yeah?
Ian Neeland:
Yeah. But but but most times it's 1 or 2 revisions, maybe more. I mean, who knows? I tell trainees that when the timer starts to write a paper to get it published can be a year or more. That is shocking to most people as a clinician, right?
When I first started research, I was like, you know, things happen, right away when you do when you do work. But here, you know, research, the time horizon is so long and so you just have to be, you know, buckle in and go in for the long haul because that's that's how you going to be successful if you if you want instant gratification research is not for you.
Lora Parent(Host):
Oh so yeah.
Amar Desai:
Yeah I think that's right. I think that's very well stated. And also to add on to that, I think the no is the norm now and that very much goes it goes along with what Ian's saying, which is, you know, most experiments you run aren't going to work. Most of your publications are. None of your publications are going to get accepted on the first try. You're going to have to go through two rounds of resubmission. You're going to put on your boxing gloves, and you're going to fight for ten rounds, and then you're going to get it in. And so that initial no, it doesn't sting the way that you might think or that, you know, a lot of non-scientists might think, oh my goodness, I can't believe you got rejected. Well, I was sort of expecting the rejection. I was actually very much looking forward to reviewer comments to understand. All right. Experts in my field think that we got this right and we got this wrong. And more often than not with good peer reviewers. And if you go to the right journal and you have reviewers who actually care, they're going to guide your science in a way that actually improves the project in a way you couldn't have done yourself. Right. And so I'm actually always very much looking forward to peer review comments, that come with a no. And I take the no. And I put it here, and then I take the comments and I absolutely absorb them because, oh, well, I didn't have that perspective. And so, you know, they there's been so many times where a no has actually informed research directions from my lab that then turned into a yes elsewhere. And it's hard to directly connect those dots, but you absolutely can. And so, you know, I think and Ian wanted to give a message to trainees. I think it's also very important outside of the thick skin which you'll develop is, you know, imposter syndrome is very, very real. Early in your scientific career, because you'll sometimes be in the room with Nobel laureates and field defining juggernauts, and you're just a kid, who's trying to figure out the difference between mitosis and meiosis, and you don't want to admit that to anyone. So you keep quiet and you keep your hand down. And my biggest regrets from grad school, whenever I teach this is the same thing I say is if I'm talking, you know, whenever I teach, if I'm talking for the next hour, you guys all did something wrong and you're not benefiting from your education. You should have questions because I'm teaching you something, and I just. I think that imposter syndrome just realized that Ian has it, and I have it, and Laura has it. And it's very important to be able to realize that the second you raise your hand, you've actually overcome way more than you realize, and you're going to learn and benefit from that. And so, yeah, I hope some young folks are watching this and will realize that, you know, the best thing you can do today is raise your hand and ask a question. Whether you're in school or you're you're in college or at your job or anything, and you'll realize the person who you asked that question to is going to appreciate and respect you for caring enough to ask a question, right?
Ian Neeland:
That's how you open doors also to collaborations and friendships and totally in the future. I remember, I published a paper and I was a fellow that, I was very proud of, but it was in a field where there's I was, you know, very a junior fellow. And but there and it was presented at a national meeting and discussed by one of the top people in this field. So, you know, you can imagine it's cool. That is. But at the same time, how nerve wracking that is, right? They can you can totally tear apart your work. You just start in such a in their field. They've been doing this for 30 years. Well, the person who did it, he was first of all very, very nice, very humble, very, appreciative. And he you know, he spoke about it and then we met. And that has become a friendship and collaboration for the next. It's also the last 10 or 15 years, you know, plus I've been doing this. And so, you know, now it's like he considers me a peer. I still consider him. You know, way more knowledgeable and, and, expert than me. But, you know, is is growing into this relationship is opportunities to publish together, to present together. He's given opportunities to to do certain things. I've given him opportunities to do certain things. It really that's how science team science is the best is everyone's building everybody else up and helping everyone else, succeed and progress.
Lora Parent(Host):
Yeah, it's a really great club to be in, so to speak. I, I want to shift gears a little bit. We have been talking kind of more of the traditional paths. Let's talk a little bit more about what other funding opportunities are out there and what opportunities those provide, either.Philanthropic, private. Can you guys talk a little bit about how maybe those funding sources have either, helped your journey or maybe have inspired you to do something a little bit different?
Ian Neeland:
I think those are incredibly important. I've,look for opportunities for nontraditional funding, you know, as much as I can. And sometimes it kind of falls into your lap. Honestly, I got an opportunity to do two grants with, looking at GLP ones and different nuts that are funded by two different organizations in the country looking at pistachios and peanuts. Wow. That's those are not areas that I would have looked at or gone online. It just kind of came up in this collaboration and it's been successful. And, the other one is like American Heart Association, right? Don't for for those who are interested in cardiovascular and general health like that American Heart Association and those type of, societies have a good funding. That's easier sometimes to get grants than many times to get grants than NIH. And, the peer review is a little, smoother sometimes. That doesn't take as long. I would say look for whatever opportunities you can get because they're helpful. I think philanthropy also, wouldn't undersell that. I mean, I have a clinical program that is, supported in large part by philanthropy, but then leveraged for research and people out there in the community. Who have means to support, love, research like to be in cutting edge. Like, you know, they have their own ideas about health. They want to ask about. And so there are plenty of opportunities to get through philanthropic funding for your research career. It's great for preliminary things. Grab information for larger grants. And then I would also give a plug for the CTSC for all the pilot grants that we have. Right. Are really, I think, under utilized. We've been growing, you know, year over year. I think more and more grants and people are recognizing the resources, but it's invaluable to have something like that because it comes from, you know, CTSC is age funded, it's peer reviewed. It'svery, prestigious to get one. But it's a great opportunity to move things of science forward. So please look at the CTSC resources, go to the website. Become a member of CTSC and, you know, and there's a lot of opportunity out there.
Amar Desai:
Yeah. Well, that sounds like a shameless plug. The CTSC is actually invaluable to a lot of researchers who are looking to bridge, you know, to just buy time in between funding decisions. And I'll chat about that in a second. But, you you asked about nontraditional funding mechanisms, you know, so I, I will forever believe the NIH is the backbone of biomedical research, and forever it will be. So there's $50 billion a year that the NIH disperses to academic research labs and to private organizations to fund their research programs, and that's every academic researcher should continue to to explore NIH as a viable sort of option. And in most cases, a first line option to speak on, foundations and society grants. I think Ian did a good job of that, which is, you know, there's a lot of organizations and charitable foundations that are looking to, you know, build towards a cure for whatever disease that they're interested in. And there's multiple that we're engaging with now. You know, sometimes they all solicit us. Oftentimes I will solicit them and say, hey, you know, I know that we're you have this funding mechanism and you're looking for things like this. I think we can really provide, not a solution. There's there's not a solution for much of this, but I think we can provide another break in the foundation to try to get to a cure. Philanthropy is the one thing that I think I really want to stress on, which is in uncertain times. And, you know, with the current funding landscape being what it is, you'd be surprised at how many individuals are interested in building up health care and building up research and getting the backs of scientists. And, you know, we've really benefited from these can be high net worth individuals, or these can be your neighbor who just really care about the fact that,
at times it feels like science might be under attack or science might be, you know, not being, the priority that it's been in years past. And, you know, we, you know, I don't want to get into specifics, but,researchers can work with their development office. So Case Western has a fantastic development office that will make introductions. But I tell my dev offices, I will have lunch with anyone, I will zoom with anyone. I will go to their house and have coffee with them. If I can tell them over and over again why what we do is important and how every dollar they spend will go to either funding, a trainee in my lab to be able to contribute to science or to buying reagents that are going to help us run this experiment and there's going to be transparent accountability for every dollar they put in. You know, there's a really high ROI on philanthropic funding. And I think the smart, adept researcher in today's day and age is going to realize that, hey, it's time to go tell those stories. You know, we built how, you know, we built the scientific acumen, but we haven't built enough about how to tell our neighbors or our parents or, you know, our coworkers just what we do, why it matters, and why funding it can actually lead to, you know, really remarkable thing. So, yeah, reach out. Your development office in case has a really great one.
Lora Parent(Host):
Yeah, yeah. So I want to play devil's advocate for a second because there's a lot of people and, and possibly listeners who have no clue what, what your research is. What a Stem cell does, how it can be applied to multiple studies. And same thing.
Why are we spending money on GLP ones? And, you know, peanuts. So how do we make people care that we are spending so much money and we are investing in research? How do we make people care about that? Because in academia, within our communities and our networks, we care. We we know. And so it's really easy for us to sit here and talk about this today. But we need to make other people care. And I'm curious what your perspective is on that?
Ian Neeland:
Yeah. And I think disseminating your research and what you're doing to the community, large is very important. You know, I speak at various places, and invited to speak at functions where they have community members, they have laypeople, and I do a lot of clinical talks as well, talking about the link between what we're doing clinically and what we're doing from a research standpoint to try to drive, clinical success forward. And I think that the more people understand and appreciate what you're doing from research standpoint, the more they can get behind it, whether it's with dollars or, just generally supporting, you know, research, and institutions in general, I think important. You know, that's why the NIH makes you do these lay summaries, right? Because you might think, well, why, who's reading these things? But people go online, they, they search the that, you know, your research, they try to find out, and also the other thing that is people may be interested in joining research. So I do a lot of, you know, clinical trials. And so,we were trying to recruit people, people who like the idea of helping research and helping science may and participate in your trial. They may have friends to participate in your trial. It really just improves the whole idea of research generally. You know, the more and more we kind of go away from real science to pseudoscience in some ways, and in society, the less, people realize that real research, true research, helps to drive medicine forward. Cures, for example, like a mars trying to find. And so we need that we need people, everybody on board to to understand how important research is, for for society as a whole.
Amar Desai:
And I think it's efforts like this, too, which are, it's time to humanize the scientists and it's time to humanize the institutions as well. So, you know, Ian is a world renowned cardiologist. I know he had egg whites and milk for breakfast today. You know, I was on the treadmill this morning watching the new Batman movie, and, you know, then we go to work, and we put on a different cap, and we try to go, you know, be as effective as we can, but there's things we're interested in, you know, there's hobbies, there's interests. There's the fact that we care about our communities, and we're on the PTA and our kids schools. And, you know, I played pickleball with my wife. You know, I think it's really important to realize that, you know, we are not behind sort of a curtain. There's no shroud that's in front of us. And the biggest issue has been the lack of engagement with between researchers in the community. And, you know, we're at fault as well. So I could point a thousand fingers, but, you know, when when I call my parents on my way home and they ask, how was your day? I was pretty good. They don't really know what I'm doing or why it matters or how, you know, we study age associated malignancies. When you get older, your stem cells get defective, and that leads to a rise in incidence of things like myeloid disease. I've never told my parents that who are an aging population who actually, you know, would benefit from that information. And so, you know, we are to blame. I think actually the the entire burden comes on the researcher to find ways to engage their community, their family, their their coworkers, their kids. And so, you know, things like this are great, you know, for, for a while, I think, you know, if we can engage with local publications and we can do this on the local level, which is, let's tell Clevelanders why Cleveland biomedical research institutions and health care systems are the absolute best in the world, and why we are so good at what we do, in large part because we have an infrastructure here in Cleveland that allows us to sort of survive and thrive. And so, yeah, I'm hoping things like this podcast really, you know, open folks eyes to the fact that, you know, Ian and I are here and we're we're regular people who get to go have really cool jobs and we're grateful for them. But, you know, I would love to, to be able to, to be out there more.
Lora Parent(Host):
Yeah, yeah. Okay, so as we wrap things up, I want to give you both an opportunity to talk to viewers and to say, here's maybe one golden nugget of advice you've given some really great advice along the way is really to just kind of keep an open mind. Don't let things, you know, get you down. But what is something kind of maybe oddly specific, that you could think of that would be beneficial if it's somebody applying to their first grant. Right. We have a mock study session coming up. So this is an opportunity for somebody submitting a K, and R, you know, a T finding that opportunity, getting some really helpful feedback in a positive environment. But we don't have those all the time. So what is something that they could maybe retain in the meantime.
Ian Neeland:
The first thing I would say is let's say if you're going to write your first grant, find three people who have written the same grant and be successful. Get their grant from them, read through it. See what you think about it. What do you think may be worked for it? Find out what they're the summary statements. When they got back, their feedback was and take those and and do your grant based upon the learnings that you did based on those three, you know, three grants because the successful grants, people read these reviews, read hundreds and hundreds of grants. Right. So the most successful grants are the ones that pop out to them, that somehow jump off the page. That is a lot of grants ownership that people, do, and a lot of these, you know, cool techniques, you know, don't, don't, don't don't be shy about asking someone, hey, can I read your grant? Can I see your grant? The people will give it to you because a successful grant breeds more successful grant. So I think that's what I would do know, the first thing you do start is get someone else's grant, read it.
Amar Desai:
Yeah. And the reason that's great advice to anyone watching this. You have a 23 award winner and a K 99 award winner who will send you our proposals when you want them. So, you know, get our email addresses. And if you want your very first one of three, I think there's two right here that that kid that would be willing to send them, the second is mine is probably more philosophical. I don't feel like I'm in a position to give advice on how to be successful in academic science, because I'm still figuring that out, and we're still navigating sort of how to be stable and confident. And maybe that never comes. But, you know, I don't think I can tell someone, hey, go do this and it'll work. My most important thing is, prioritizing mental health and well-being. It's a it can be a very dark industry. It doesn't have to be, but I've seen a lot of people just sort of get so lost in the minutia of their science that they lose the individual. And that's a it's a really sad and scary thing to see where, you know, I think this can be part of your life, but it should not be your whole life. And you know what I tell everyone in my lab is, hey, go have fun. You guys are young. Like, you don't owe me Saturday evenings here. In fact, I don't want you here Saturday evening. You know, it's time to go make friends. Go on a walk, call your parents. You know, read a book, do something. And so, I think finding that balance between how can I be a happy, well-rounded individual and then also be a badass? Scientists are for swearing. I think is a really great balance and a sort of secret recipe to a happy life, which is it's okay to not think about it sometimes and to go, you know, swing a baseball bat or go jump as high as you can in the air and just, you know, breathe in the cool air. And so, you know, I think it's very, very important. And this is an industry that suffers from a lot of depression and mental health issues because, you know, a lot of our as we talked about earlier, a lot of our self-worth is is determined by an increasingly narrow pay line, which is just silly. And so my advice would be, hey, just realize that that, you know, it's there's many facets to an individual and your work can be one, but all the other things are what are actually important.
Lora Parent(Host):
Yeah. Well, these are really great words to live by from both of you. And I just want to thank you both for your insights. While funding and publishing can be really challenging, it is also very rewarding. And clearly, from the two of you, that's very apparent. So I thank you for your wisdom and your insights today. And if our viewers are watching and you are maybe stuck or you have some questions about funding, we, of course, now have two volunteers that will be, readily available to take your questions, but also through the CTC. I mean, we have proposal development opportunities. We have scientific editing opportunities. You know, we are here to support your grant submissions, revisions, you know, resubmissions, all the way. So I appreciate your time. And we thank you so much for joining us. So until next season, thank you for watching. From research to real life.