By |

There was a time, all I did was fail with every grant I wrote. Welcome to a new month. I woke up to an email sent to the entire university celebrating a recent success today. I am honored and grateful but I can’t help but remember the times of failure. Yes, failure. Sure the messages and all the well-wishes, have been heartfelt and words fail me. But it’s the failures that I want to dwell on today. I want you reading this to know that success comes at a major cost. For me, with every one grant you see that is successful, there were close to 7 (in my beginning days, but now 2-3) that were not successful. So when I see this beautiful write up of one success, my heart goes out to wrinkles along the way. All of them that paved the way to make this one success come through.

So with the story of STAR, what many may not know was that it was written after a major loss. I had written a grant called, I-ARISE. I love naming all my grants by the way and everyone writing a grant should always be intentional with their names.

I-ARISE was over $13 million or so. It was and still remains the most expensive NIH grant I have ever assembled. It also failed. I went into depression. I still remember seeing the news of it’s failure that faithful July month and just being in a rot for days. I didn’t eat. Just slept in my room and cried and cried and wondered why such a beautiful grant failed. When I got through the sadness, I got our team together and we immediately started taking pieces of it apart. What many may not know was that I-ARISE became LIGHT (see here:LIGHT), which was literally a sidenote on the grant. I turned one massive failure into the thing that gives me joy everyday.

See the side of the magazine. lol.

With the beginning of LIGHT, came thoughts on what else to do that would literally bring more light. Enter STAR. I-ARISE is also STAR and much better. We began writing that grant in August (please I do not recommend writing an NIH grant in a month. I just have a decade of experience with plenty failures).

We were also writing an NIH Fogarty D-43 at the same time. I tend to write 2 grants with similar deadlines. It seems to help me see things better. The D-43 was aptly called I-RISE, and yes it was my self-care attempt at getting over the failure of I-ARISE. The name alone got me through the failure. I worked on the D-43 literally feeling like I was rising from the ashes like a Phoenix.

While writing the D-43, I came across the NIAID R-25 announcement. They were both similar in nature, only that one was for my work in Nigeria, while the other would allow me to finally give back in the US. It was no brainer. I am a Penn State McNair Scholar, a Penn State MHIRT scholar, a Penn State Bunton-Waller scholar, all of which were geared towards helping minority students succeed at Penn State. McNair in particular was my first foray to research with Dr. Cassandra Veney, a woman studies professor, as my very first mentor ever. Dr. Airhihenbuwa was my second mentor. The two of them are the foundation upon which I stand.

I wrote the D-43 and R-25 at the same time. Deadlines were very close. D-43 in August, R-25 in September. The D-43 failed. It wasn’t even discussed. In fact, reviewers said I had no business or experience writing one, my paraphrase of their summary statement. The R-25 is what we celebrate today. I share this story because behind every success, there are failures and honestly I made crucial mistakes with the D-43. I saw them while writing the R-25. I needed to write the D-43 in other to get the one that was meant for me. I am nothing without my failures and I hope they inspire you to keep yours too. They will one day inspire your success. You can read the successful story here: STAR R-25 Grant . I only want you to keep all your failures in mind.

By |

If we keep doing what we have been doing, the odds of getting the same results will be high. It’s for this reason I am drawn to grants that ask for innovation. Transformative ones too. Today, I sat through an NIH webinar focused on a transformative grant application to address health disparities and advance health equity. I was curious to know what the NIH was interested in. For starters, they want the most innovative and most impactful research. It must have the potential for transformative impact. No preliminary data is required too. Bring your best ideas the NIH says and when you do, may they be transformative, as such activities are urgently needed to prevent, reduce, or eliminate health disparities and advance health equity.

Ever since I came across this request for application, I have been struck by 2 things: 1) what does the word ‘transformative’ mean and 2) by whom. One of the best grants I have ever read once stated the follow and I’m paraphrasing; ‘individual researchers innate tendency to group think often results in homogeneous ideas that are then implemented on communities without an understanding of whether these interventions are truly what communities want in the first place.’ Ever since I came across that grant, I have always wondered whose agenda truly wins in the end. Certainly not the communities as many of them do not have the necessary skills or time to write such complex grants in 2 months. You guess it. You only have 2 months to write this particular grant. Meanwhile, communities have more pressing issues to deal with like today. Then there is the word ‘transformative’, by who, another researcher, another member of the academic community with their views on what is right or wrong that is often not in alignment with those of communities. It’s for this reason that I adore my background in culture. For starters, as my advisor would say, I don’t have any answers. It’s a privilege to even work in communities. Our research approaches communities from the standpoint of communities themselves having all the solutions to their problem. They live in and love their communities after all. We get to come in and out but communities remain with or without us. Making sense of what then is transformative would be futile if the community is not invited to the table in the first place.

So back to the request for proposals. What does the NIH want? You guessed it, transformative research to address health disparities and advance health equity. And how will we know that a research is transformative. Honestly, your guess is as good as mine. But if individual researchers innate tendency is to group think, then what is transformative would indeed be subjective since it left to researchers to decide what they feel per your scientific rationale of course. Now when you bring in the lens of communities, when you tell them that it’s up to them to decide just what they believe is transformative to them, then maybe we may get to the bottom of health disparities. It’s why I am drawn to these types of request for proposals and ask that you pray for our success. Keep communities designing transformative interventions by communities themselves not researchers in mind with our own agendas. That to me is where transformation begins.