Conversations with NIH Program Officer: Dr. Brad Newsome| By Dr. Juliet Iwelunmor
In one word, how would you describe grant writing? Is it a science or salesmanship? How do graduate students contact program officers for their research ideas? What happens if these ideas are not innovative enough? And if they do submit their grants, what should they do if it’s not reviewed or scored?
In today’s installment of our conversations with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) program officers, we spoke to Dr. Brad Newsome, a program officer in the Division of International Training and Research (DITR) at the Fogarty International Center, part of the U.S NIH.
To Brad, one word to describe grant writing is “opportunity.” Grant writing provides researchers with the opportunities necessary to be probing, to be transformational, as ideas are tested or turned into reality. Grant writing offers researchers not less but more opportunities, not a narrow exploration, but a broader implication of research in service to humanity.
Is grant writing science or salesmanship? It is both, especially when you consider the reviewers’ perspective. Reviewers have to read numerous applications and so you have to create an application that tells a compelling story. Of course, the science driving your research matters, but don’t forget you also have to persuade reviewers that your approach matters as well. Grant writing fosters the lost art of persuasion in a written format and as a technical way to persuade reviewers on why your story matters. But what happens when your grants are reviewed or scored poorly? To Brad, resubmission of grants whether discussed or not, is our best weapon. However, many researchers do not resubmit their grants. This is often common among minorities and women. Both groups have extremely low rates of resubmission, something I can personally attest to. Brad shared that all feedbacks received are important, alongside the 1-page introductory page that enables researchers to explain their revisions on a resubmitted grant.
Early in the semester, we read a paper by Hoppe et al (2019) on how the topic choices of minority scholars contribute to a lower rate of NIH funding [link to this article is provided at the end of this reflection]. Brad made reference to that paper to expand on the discussions for why resubmission matters. He noted that most minority scholars are exploring topics essential at the last mile of research, whether it’s with community-based participatory research or research focused on health disparities or even implementation science. While NIH is working really hard to close the funding gap, it’s imperative that scholars proposing such topics continue to propose them and talk to program officers too. Every program officer is eager to form relationships with researchers, to work together to help push science forward. Brad mentioned that reaching out multiple times is necessary especially when scholars need advice on topics at the last mile of research that is critical for reducing some of the pressing health disparities that populations face on a daily basis. Few relationships are as important as the relationship with a program officer and so Brad advised that we work to nurture whatever relationship we may have with one.
As if his advice and insights were not enough, and being mindful that some of my students are international students, Brad shared resources within Fogarty that international students should consider, like the Fogarty Global Health program for fellows and scholars with deadlines in early November [Link to the fellowship: https://www.fic.nih.gov/Programs/Pages/scholars-fellows-global-health.aspx]. Also as a former American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Science & Technology Policy Fellow, Brad shared that the program exists to help connect good science to government decision-making [Link to AAAS fellowship:https://www.aaas.org/programs/science-technology-policy-fellowships]. The fellowship provides opportunities for scientists and engineers to learn firsthand about policymaking while contributing their knowledge and analytical skills in the federal policy realm. Brad encouraged all students to consider the fellowship as it was the catalyst to his journey into working at the NIH.
Finally, in describing what keeps him going with his work at the NIH, he described that he is a humanitarian in all sense of the word, a humanitarian with making contributions to the world, a humanitarian with helping to push science that will impact people’s lives, a humanitarian with supporting the breadth and depth of a researcher’s work, a humanitarian with fostering the broader implications for research at the last mile. Being a humanitarian, serving and supporting research that impacts people’s lives is a motivating force for Brad.
Simon Sinek in his book ‘Start With Why,’ shared that “it is important to inspire people to do the things that inspire them, so that together, we can change the world.” Your reflections today were inspirational and on behalf of my class, I say thank you for motivating us eloquently to seize the opportunities grant writing offers to make our own unique scientific contributions that will change the world.
Program Officer Meeting Corner: Brad Newsome, PhD
Dr. Newsome is a program officer in the Division of International Training and Research (DITR) at the Fogarty International Center, part of the U.S National Institutes of Health (NIH). In his role, he oversees a global health research portfolio geared toward advancing mobile and digital health, point-of-care technologies, data science and innovation, dissemination and implementation research, and medical/research capacity-building efforts. Prior to Dr. Newsome’s career at the Fogarty International Center, he led the global health and implementation research portfolio at NIH’s National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI). Dr. Newsome’s work is driven by the idea that diverse, global partnerships drive our best, most effective, most informed, and most equitable health innovations.
***Link to the Hoppe et al. Manuscript Titled “ Topic choice contributes to the lower rate of NIH awards to African-American/black scientists”: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/5/10/eaaw7238.full.pdf
