Human Genetic Variation Alters Anthrax Toxin Sensitivity
Martchenko, Candille et al., PNAS
Researchers at Stanford University School of Medicine show that genetic variation affecting capillary morphogenesis gene 2, or CMG2, dramatically alters toxin sensitivity in humans. In its analysis, the team reports on "a CMG2 single-nucleotide polymorphism occurring frequently in African and European populations [that they found] independently altered toxin uptake." The group goes on to suggest "testing of genomically characterized human cell populations may offer a broadly useful strategy for elucidating effects of genetic variation on infectious disease susceptibility."
What Exactly Does This Mean?
September 02, 2010
When it comes to submitting grants, what does it really mean when a reviewer says you're being "too ambitious" or not ambitious enough? Gerty-Z at Balanced Instability: Adventures on the Tenure Track is confused on this point. When she was writing her first postdoc fellowship application, her advisor warned her not to be "overly ambitious," she says, so she tried to be as conservative as possible. When the review came back telling her she was, indeed, "too ambitious," she thought she wasn't going to get funded. But she was. And when it happened again, she got confused. "I was actually a little concerned that I was not ambitious enough. My final K99 application ended up being only one Aim from the original outline," she says, adding "I clearly do not understand what makes an ambitious project."
Blogger Comrade PhysioProf says worrying about the "too ambitious/not ambitious enough" issue is "pointless" because it's a "red herring." Any reviewer can say anything about the ambition of any project because it's a subjective measurement, he says. "Thus, reviewers frequently lazily fall back on this kind of criticism if they just don’t feel like making the effort to come up with a more analytical criticism," CPP adds.
DrugMonkey agrees that the critique can be a "meaningless throwaway" for reviewers, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored. If your grant is rejected based on the degree of your ambition, you should consider that critique when preparing your revision, he says. The blogger adds that being called too ambitious can be a good thing because it gives you the opportunity to streamline your proposal. "Like it or not, 'overambitious' and 'cannot be completed in the time proposed' are realities of review. And your job is not to change NIH study section culture all by your lonesome. It is to get your grant funded," he says.
Interesting concept here.
Interesting concept here. Some proposals can obviously be done - and hence have been or will be done independent of funding the grant in question. Stamp those "Not Ambitious Enough!"
Others venture into the unknown and thus it is not clear whether they can succeed. Stamp those "Too Ambitious!" Yet if it IS clear they could succeed then the proposal is NAE, and if it ISN'T clear....Auugh! How does anything get funded? And is that funding in any way related to promotion of scientific progress?