Podcast – Getting funding and grant writing

Voice Over:

Welcome to the Dementia Researcher podcast, brought to you by dementiaresearcher.nihr.ac.uk, a network for early career researchers.

Dr Chris Hardy:

Hello, my name is Chris Hardy, and welcome to our podcast recording for the NIHR Dementia Researcher website. This week we will be looking at getting funding and grant writing. And I am joined today by Simon Mead, David Llewellyn, and Adeel Razi. So welcome, everyone. Thank you so much for coming. First guest is Simon Mead, who is a professor of neurology at UCL, where he is the program leader for the MRC prion unit. Simon, can you tell us a little bit about yourself and your research interests?

Dr Simon Mead:

Yeah, so I’m in my late 40s, and I have an interest in a rare form of dementia, prion diseases. So I’m a neurologist as well, and I split my time about half between the prion clinic, where I see patients, and leading a research program at the prion unit, where I focus on genetics and development of treatments. So a lot of my funding has come through the core funding to the MRC prion unit, which is a long-term organization. But I’ve certainly had plenty of failures and minor successes in winning grants along the way.

Dr Chris Hardy:

Good to hear. Well, we’ll come onto that, I’m sure, in a little bit.

Dr Simon Mead:

Yeah.

Dr Chris Hardy:

So our next guest is David Llewellyn, who is a senior research fellow in clinical epidemiology at the University of Exeter. So David, welcome to the podcast. Who are you and what are you researching?

Dr David Llewellyn:

Well, I’m a senior research fellow, as you said, at Exeter. I do a lot of research on the natural history of dementia. And what really got me started doing research was trying to understand what was driving dementia, I guess things which might be amenable to intervention, so modifiable risk factors. And we did a lot of work on lifestyle factors like the Mediterranean diet and exercise and so on, things which have now become quite mainstream, really, when we think about opportunities for dementia prevention. And more recently I’ve started thinking about how we might be able to harness artificial intelligence and machine learning and advanced analytics and computational approaches to help clinicians produce things like clinical software, which might be usable in the NHS, for instance.

Dr Chris Hardy:

Okay, great. Well, welcome.

Dr David Llewellyn:

Thank you.

Dr Chris Hardy:

And our final guest is Adeel Razi. Adeel currently works as a senior research associate at the Wellcome Trust Center for Human Neuroimaging at UCL. Hi Adeel, can you tell us about yourself and your research interests?

Dr Adeel Razi:

Hi. Yeah, so as you said, I’m working at Wellcome Trust Center for Human Neuroimaging. So my work, I’m electrical engineer turned neuroscientist. So my approach is using computational modeling to understand basic disease mechanisms. So I have been using functional MRI in rare disease, dementia like Huntington’s, especially those symptomatic stages, very early stages, where we know the people that they have a disease, but they haven’t started to show symptoms. So we are looking at some basic mechanisms like functional compensation. So that’s what I have been looking at for the past four or five years now.

Dr Chris Hardy:

Great. Well, it’s lovely to meet you. As always, I’m by far the least most important person tonight. But I’m a postdoctoral research associate and teaching for the, working in the Dementia Research Center at UCL. And as somebody who is currently writing several fellowship applications, I’m eagerly poised to hear your pearls of wisdom this evening. Before we get going, just a reminder that if any listeners out there would like to join in the conversation with the podcast, you can use the hashtag #ECRDementia. You can follow us on Twitter @Dem_Researcher, and you can find lots of content on our website, dementiaresearcher.nihr.ac.uk. So let’s get going. The premise for this episode is that as we progress through our scientific careers, we all have to spend more and more time writing funding applications, applying for support for research and our salaries, and writing successful grant applications is a really important skill, and one that invariably requires insight and support from others. So Simon, I’m going to come to you first. What is your general approach to writing a funding application? How is it unique compared to other forms of research writing?

Dr Simon Mead:

Well, I think you’ve got to be really excited about the idea. We spend a lot of time doing this. A lot of it is going to be out of your regular hours. So I think the first thing is, you’ve got to be really grasped by an exciting, novel idea, something you do really want to work on. I think any grant which is motivated by, how can I put it? Survival, you’ve been told to do it, you have to bring in the money. It’s not going to motivate you on a Sunday afternoon. Well, let’s not say you have to work on a Sunday afternoon. You don’t. But realistically there’s going to be some time, but extra effort you have to put in to meet that deadline. So I think the first thing for me that I think about is the excitement. Why am I doing this job? Why am I spending my life doing it?

Dr Simon Mead:

I’ll say I think the other thing, the next step after that, the way I would look about the writing in general, is a like a suit of armor. And you imagine all the different plates that have to go on a medieval suit of armor. Forget one of those, and on the battlefield you’ll get the knife stuck in and it’ll be fatal. So it’s a rather systematic approach, perhaps a bit like the pilots go through when they’re on the runway before they’ve even started, hopefully, this checklist of safety. I think my approach to writing would be that checklist based approach. For example, start it, the one thing that I put at the top of my checklist, eligibility. I’ve actually failed to get a grant simply because I didn’t read properly about exactly who was eligible for it. Now that, it may be something I spent a week writing full-time, and yet I just didn’t read a very simple bullet list that, no, this wasn’t for PhD students. This was only for postdocs. That’s pretty dim.

Dr Chris Hardy:

That sounds quite galling, actually.

Dr Simon Mead:

But you know.

Dr Chris Hardy:

Yeah.

Dr Simon Mead:

I mention it so no one else makes that mistake.

Dr Chris Hardy:

Oh, thank you very much. David. If I come on to you, the same question, what’s your general approach to writing for the application? And how is it, again, different to any other forms of writing?

Dr David Llewellyn:

I think for me the difference is, it’s just a fundamentally different game trying to work out what the funders want. You will look at the website and they’ll tell you one story. But I recommend if you can get hold of a list of what they’ve actually put money towards, that will tell you more.

Dr Chris Hardy:

Okay.

Dr David Llewellyn:

Because there’s nothing more annoying than pitching to a funder who’s not interested in your field of science or medicine. And it’s just, life’s too short. There are other funders out there who might be more appropriate. And I wouldn’t target funders just because you think that it would be nicer to get money from them rather than somewhere else. Because you see that a lot, I think, especially in the early days. Think about what’s actually going to allow you to build up your profile and get the job done, get the science done that you’re excited about. And it might be that you start small, or very small. I certainly chased ridiculously small pots of money at some points. But you’re building up your CV. It’s like when you’re doing a PhD, even if you can get your travel fellowships and things like that, it all helps, doesn’t it?

Dr Chris Hardy:

Yeah.

Dr David Llewellyn:

So yeah, I would say try and work out what the unwritten rules are with the different funders.

Dr Chris Hardy:

Okay. That sounds like really good advice. Thank you. And Adeel, coming to you, the same question.

Dr Adeel Razi:

Yeah, I think to me the fundamental difference … So I have been writing mostly papers where you actually have done all the work and you know. So when you sit down to write your paper, you know what all the results are, what the data has been, already been collected. You know everything about your study and you are now trying to tell about it. While when you’re writing a grant, you actually are thinking about what you are going to do next. And now you have to make it something which is balanced in terms of, you have to be sort of … To be a blue sky sort of thing, what excites you, but it also has to be something which is … because always in the grant you have a feasibility, it should be feasible as well.

Dr Chris Hardy:

Right.

Dr Adeel Razi:

And it’s about selling your stuff, which you usually don’t do in your paper, you are just telling about your work that you have done. You do a bit of salesmanship. But in grants I think you actually have to sell it like you are in the street telling people about your product that you want to, why it’s the best and why it stands out from the rest of the other people. So it’s most like the tone that you use when you’re writing the grant is fundamentally different from when you are writing, which is more passive when you’re writing your paper. While it has to be more active when you’re writing up a grant application.

Dr Chris Hardy:

Okay. Thank you very much. And so David, I’m going to come to you next, and Simon and Adeel both touched on the component parts of a grant application, and Simon talked about this suit of armor, and you need all of those elements. What do you find the hardest part when it comes to writing an application?

Dr David Llewellyn:

The hardest part of writing a grant. Choosing a good acronym. No. Well, it’s one of those things, isn’t it, that it’s often things like the abstract and the first sections, which are really punchy, that are the most difficult to write. So I often leave them to the end. Because I guess when you’ve got a lot more space in the main document, you can dance around and go into great detail about specifics. But if you’re trying to distill it and communicate it really quickly to someone who’s reading it on a train who’s stressed and distracted and you’re trying to get them excited about it, I think that’s really hard. And the title in particular, I suspect that actually carries a lot of weight.

Dr Chris Hardy:

The title?

Dr David Llewellyn:

Yeah, with the reviewers. And the abstract, taken together.

Dr Chris Hardy:

Yeah. Okay. Simon, what do you think?

Dr Simon Mead:

About the justification?

Dr Chris Hardy:

About which part is the hardest?

Dr Simon Mead:

The hardest part?

Dr Chris Hardy:

Yeah.

Dr Simon Mead:

Well, I think the hardest part is being … Or the most important job to do, and therefore the one you really focus on and is difficult, is to be succinct. And you’ve got to be realistic, particularly about the different stages of grant review process. And that there may be, depending on the process you’re following, there may be a very short triage step where people are literally skim reading, looking at summaries. And to make that exciting, coherent point that is logical, justified, but is clear, is the hardest bit, I think.

Dr Simon Mead:

The bit I just want to bolt onto that is that you’ve got to try and do that without making that argument clear to a specialist. You’ve got to, it’s almost as if it’s an intelligent lay. You’re going for a scientifically literate man or woman on the street. And I think getting that right is tough. It’s really tough, and requires a lot more iteration than those sections of detail, the pilot data. All of these other things, of course, can be done with time. But the hardest bit to craft is that coherent, succinct justification of, did you get the overall reason for funding this piece of work?

Dr Chris Hardy:

Okay. Okay, thank you. And Adeel, do you agree with that?

Dr Adeel Razi:

Yeah, I think because I have been writing those grants for the past 1 1/2 years, the most important thing for me was to actually look at myself as someone else. So I’m trying to look at the big picture where I fit in the whole thing. And that’s, I think, to leave yourself behind, look at yourself as someone who is actually writing your own, so you are basically. And second thing is about writing about yourself. So basically that’s what you never do. So you have to write in your grant application why you are excellent. And that’s a part, so you’re talking yourself up, “Adeel Razi is an excellent researcher.” And it’s difficult to write these kinds of things, which are basically a transition from writing papers to writing grants.

Dr Adeel Razi:

So I think it’s, for ECRs, which I’m only five years out of my PhD, so this assignment where you think about, you are going into your new territory as a different style, as I was saying before, different style of writing, different style of thinking about things, which we are usually not used to. We have been trained in a certain, we have to craft a paper, but just start with certain headings and all that stuff. And you never talk about yourself. And now you’re suddenly, you have to talk about yourself.

Dr Chris Hardy:

Right, right.

Dr Adeel Razi:

So yeah.

Dr Chris Hardy:

Yeah, that’s an interesting point.

Dr Simon Mead:

Maybe someone who’s starting off might be worried that they’re not clearly excellent. And to them I would say, don’t worry. Find somebody who is, and use your enthusiasm and time to bunch together. And I think, looking at grants that come through the different boards or committees that I’ve sat on, there is a huge determinant of success that comes with prior success. People like to give money to people that are already well funded. You may say that’s daft, but it’s just a reality. Because people trust that someone with a really well established track record that’s publishing really well is going to continue to do that. And I think it probably is a good marker of success. But starting off, I don’t see there’s anything wrong, you don’t have to be an independent writer at day zero. Bolt yourself onto somebody that’s really winning a lot of money, and volunteer your time, work with them, and go for it together as a co-applicant. That’s a good way to start off.

Dr David Llewellyn:

Definitely.

Dr Chris Hardy:

Okay.

Dr Adeel Razi:

Yeah, that’s good advice, to start early, as you were saying, writing the small grants, even, which I actually didn’t do much. Yeah.

Dr Chris Hardy:

Okay. That’s great.

Dr David Llewellyn:

Just to add to that, I think that’s excellent advice, but some of the time very successful, senior people maybe difficult to bolt yourself onto.

Dr Simon Mead:

That’s true.

Dr Chris Hardy:

Yeah, right.

Dr David Llewellyn:

So it may be that actually someone who’s … You can have a wider team as well, and that may include people who are able to spend a bit more time with you. Because you’re learning the ropes, aren’t you, if you’re learning how to write grants and so on. And some senior people devote an extraordinary amount of time to help junior researchers, and that’s fantastic. But it may be that you need to think about your team, because normally you’ve got more than one co-applicant or whatever.

Dr Chris Hardy:

Yeah. And in terms of, I think that’s a really interesting point, in terms of co-applicants you put on your fellowship application, for instance, how much weight does having the head of your department as a collaborator, or the head of another department, does that carry a lot of weight, or is the expectation that person won’t actually do so much on the project because they will be so busy?

Dr David Llewellyn:

I think it just depends whether it makes sense for the project. I’ve definitely seen ones where it’s obviously almost like name-dropping.

Dr Chris Hardy:

Yes.

Dr David Llewellyn:

And you can’t believe that they’re really going to help with this project. And I think it stands out sometimes.

Dr Chris Hardy:

Right.

Dr David Llewellyn:

Not that that would sink a project, certainly not in my eyes, but it wouldn’t add anything.

Dr Chris Hardy:

No.

Dr David Llewellyn:

But I think where there’s evidence of actual collaboration of any kind, if you’ve written even a conference abstract or something like that, that would seem a bit more genuine. So again, start early, build it up.

Dr Chris Hardy:

Build that relationship early.

Dr David Llewellyn:

Yeah.

Dr Chris Hardy:

Okay.

Dr Adeel Razi:

Especially on the grant panel, they are all very senior people. So they will pick you off if you’re doing a CV padding, there being influential people on your team. It’ll probably reflect poorly on you, then you have to be very well aligned with your … There must be a coherent story. Everyone should be …

Dr Chris Hardy:

Yeah, I think those are really good points. Thank you. And so I know all of you been or are involved in interviewing grants and fellowship applications. So Simon, I come to you now, I’d like to know your top tips from the reviewer’s perspective insofar as what you look for in applications.

Dr Simon Mead:

Yeah, well, there’s lots of different components. Again, my reviewing is like a checklist too. And so I think I’ve said, in the justification I look to be excited by a really coherent and well-explained argument without too many acronyms, TLAs.

Dr David Llewellyn:

Just one good one.

Dr Simon Mead:

Just one.

Dr David Llewellyn:

That’s what I [inaudible 00:18:24].

Dr Simon Mead:

Yeah. So I don’t like a lot of assumption about the background history, with seven citations and think that’s job done. I want to have it properly explained to me. I’m looking in the justification, novelty, importance, impact, or something that is a game-changer for the fundamental biology of a disease. So I’m looking for, I guess that’s what I mean by excitement. It has to be one of those things. So that, when you show your grant to someone else, you need to ask them, “Do you feel this is really novel? Do you feel this is going to have impact, do you feel this is going to change the field?” And I think those are things that are going to be a lot stronger. I certainly look at, as David was saying, I certainly look at the strength of the team. And that, where there isn’t clear track record of excellence in the PI, I look for a feasible effective link with somebody that is a leader. And where I feel there’s any expertise lacking, I need to be convinced there’s a strong collaboration that solves that problem.

Dr Simon Mead:

Now, I think one of the trickiest things in terms of reviewing is the level of detail needed in the methodology. I always find that one quite tough. And I know, sitting on review boards and committees, that people like completely different things. Some people want all the detail, almost like a lab protocol. And I’m not that interested in all of that detail, because I think, “Well, it’s not going to be exactly done like that.” I think one way of dealing with that is with boxes, annexes, and things like that, and I think that’s a nice thing to do. I like to see limitations discussed. So I like to see the obvious criticisms identified, contingency plans, acceptance of a potential problem. I don’t like it just to be completely ignored.

Dr Simon Mead:

I like to be convinced that this is feasible. That may mean pilot data, but showing too much data can either convince you that they’ve actually done it already.

Dr Chris Hardy:

Already done the work, yeah.

Dr Simon Mead:

Or it can raise questions about the legitimacy of the work. So just be a little bit … You’ve got to think very carefully about how much you show. You don’t want to show so much that it raises questions about, as I say, whether it’s done already or whether there are obvious weaknesses in the way that the data is displayed. I think there’s other boxes I like to see ticked, are about the training aspects, whether for the PI or for a student. And I do look at the budget, but rather the bottom line. And do I feel, given the totality of the work, that this is broadly justified? So I wouldn’t say I go through those with a fine-toothed comb, but that has to be right.

Dr Chris Hardy:

Okay, thank you.

Dr Simon Mead:

It can’t be over the top.

Dr Chris Hardy:

I think these are some really, really good points to think about. Adeel, do you have any to add to …

Dr Adeel Razi:

Yeah, I think the most important, what I have realized is that when I’m reading or reviewing a grant application, is the first page of the grant. So the first page is when I’m reading it, if it doesn’t hit all the … It has to be the most polished part. Because if by the time that I have read the first page I’m not excited about it, I’m not going to be motivated to read the rest of 30, 40 pages, because the first page of your grant where you put your synopsis, it has to clearly tell what the novelty is, the significance, the innovation, the feasibility. It has to hit all these things briefly, few sentences, and it has to be the most convincing. So I think I cannot stress more than, the first few paragraphs just makes or breaks. To me it seems as simple as that. While down the line you probably have a lot of stuff that you are … But if you didn’t do well in the beginning, you are probably in a difficult situation then.

Dr Chris Hardy:

Okay. Okay, thank you. David, how about you?

Dr David Llewellyn:

I suppose tips that I have in mind that I would add to that is, probably before you even start writing, try and find some, collate as many examples that have been funded as you can beg, borrow, or steal. So I’ve found that really useful, to see more senior people, to go to them. And if you’re lucky you can get their advice as well. But if not, they’ll often, particularly within your own institution probably, they’ll probably share with you confidentially, your draft. I think that’s really useful to just go through. And if you go to someone successful, hopefully they will tend to be well-written. So personally, I use that a lot. I still do to a degree, I would say. If I’m going to a new funder and I’m not quite sure what … Again, try and give the funder what they want.

Dr Chris Hardy:

Yeah.

Dr David Llewellyn:

And then take care of basics. So before you submit, go back through and think about what is actually required for the different sections. Because I think it’s surprising how often, I was joking a while ago because I was reading all these applications where they were uncertainretain around in this section on doing a power analysis. So it was like, “This will be the biggest study of its kind,” and you’re like, “You haven’t done a power analysis.” Yeah, or, “This is bigger than studies that have been done before.” All right, yeah, but that doesn’t mean it’s adequately powered. Do you know what I mean? So the section is, “Present your power analysis here.” So I think, again, just taking stock, just think about the basics, and make sure you tick the boxes. It’s like Simon was saying about basics like eligibility.

Dr Chris Hardy:

Okay.

Dr David Llewellyn:

Yeah. I think it affects more applications than you might imagine.

Dr Chris Hardy:

Okay. Thank you. That’s really helpful. So we’re rapidly running out of time. This has been super interesting, very informative. I want to ask one final question, which is something we touched on as we were chatting before we started recording. And so Adeel, I’ll come to you first. Thinking about feedback and thinking about resilience in research, when you get rejected from a grant application that you spent days, weeks, months slaving over, how do you cope with that and how do you move on to the next application?

Dr Adeel Razi:

Yeah, that’s, I think, tough. So you have to convince yourself that you are going to get rejected a few times, but it doesn’t matter how many times you get rejected, it’s only once you get … It’s about getting lots of zeroes and then you get one, and then that’s all, you don’t need many grants initially when you start, I think, as an ECR. So it’s big about resilience. And once you have resilience, the signal lies above the noise. And the only way is to be positive. And yeah, it’s difficult, because I have been through this quite a few times.

Dr Chris Hardy:

Sorry to bring up a sore subject.

Dr Adeel Razi:

Yes, it is. It’s difficult, but you have to have faith in you, because most of us who have gone that much far, it’s all about having the faith in yourself, and then pick up yourself again and invite it. And every time try to improve, get the feedback as much as possible, and then try to improve. And hopefully, yeah.

Dr Chris Hardy:

Fingers crossed. And David, coming to you, what would your advice be for somebody in that situation?

Dr David Llewellyn:

It’s difficult, isn’t it? I think it’s horrible to be rejected, feel upset and angry, and you go through that whole raft of emotions. I would say just let those emotions die down before you even start to consider what to do next. Just leave it, leave work if you need to, go talk to your family and your friends and so on, and come back to it when it’s not quite so raw. And then try and be as business like as you can. If you’re applying for schemes where 20% get funded and you’re early in your career, you’d be very lucky to be funded first time.

Dr David Llewellyn:

And I recommend getting as much feedback as you can. So it varies a lot between funders. I’ve certainly found when I’ve been rejected sometimes I’ve been able to get more feedback. And that in turn has been very useful for deciding what to do next. So if it’s something damning that you can’t fix, then move on, do something else. But it may be that you were just unlucky.

Dr Chris Hardy:

Yeah.

Dr David Llewellyn:

So be realistic that part of it is just random, and go again.

Dr Chris Hardy:

Yeah. And with that feedback you can make your application better the next time you submit something.

Dr David Llewellyn:

Absolutely. But sometimes the key will not be changing application. It will just be having the bloody-mindedness to go again and to go again until you get funded.

Dr Chris Hardy:

Yeah.

Dr David Llewellyn:

It may take many, many applications, so just be prepared for that.

Dr Chris Hardy:

Okay. So you need that of armor you were talking about, then.

Dr David Llewellyn:

Yeah.

Dr Chris Hardy:

Simon, coming to you, the same question, how do you cope with rejection?

Dr Simon Mead:

Yeah, I agree with what the others have said. You’ve got to look at the process as being extremely subjective. Perhaps for someone starting out, what they will have probably had more experience of is submitting papers, and you’ve seen how different reviewers’ comments can be. You might be surprised about just how dominant a very small number of people are in the decision about the success or failure of a grant application. And I think the grant I’ve had this gone through the most iterations, actually with very little change, just like you were saying, David, the sixth time, and it was successful on the sixth attempt with great reviews.

Dr Chris Hardy:

Right.

Dr Simon Mead:

That’s actually active now.

Dr Chris Hardy:

Okay. Well, I’d guess which one that is.

Dr Simon Mead:

Yeah, clearly I’m obviously bloody-minded enough not to change it very significantly, but it would have been quite easy to drop it, right, on the fifth attempt?

Dr Chris Hardy:

Okay.

Dr Simon Mead:

Which I don’t think even passed triage. It was that bad.

Dr Adeel Razi:

Your chances are getting better every time you get rejected. So you know that there is a [inaudible 00:29:41] karma that keeps you, because the law of large numbers, you are going to get that if you try enough times.

Dr Chris Hardy:

Okay. That’s very good to hear. And so we need to finish shortly. Does anyone want to say any, have any closing comments, things that you think would be really important for early career researchers to know that we haven’t covered yet? Simon, you’re looking at your notes.

Dr Simon Mead:

Yeah. I think something that people tend to overlook is their own CV that often goes in with grants. I often find them quite badly written, quite difficult to follow the kind of things I want to look at. Badges of success a first-class honors degree, prizes. I want to see the papers that you’ve genuinely led, first, second author, or you’ve got a good reason why you made a big contribution. And sometimes the way the CV is formatted, it’s quite difficult to pull that out, and gets lost. I wonder whether some of this is a bit of an afterthought, and the formatting of the web portal makes it difficult for people. That “you” is a very important bit about that subjective decision. So put as much time in that as you would if you were applying for a job interview. So I don’t think that came across from our earlier discussions. That is important.

Dr Chris Hardy:

Right, that’s helpful.

Dr David Llewellyn:

I would say when you’re structuring a grant, think about the different sections and try and write a single sentence that describes what you’re going to cover in each of those sentences, so that you’re clear in your own mind how the overall argument flows together. And if you can’t do that, it may be that you’re not ready to actually start the writing. And you need to read a bit more or think a bit more about the methods. Because if you can flesh out, if you can start with a skeleton which is coherent and then you add more and more detail around that, you flesh it out, I think that narrative that underlies it will be clearer. Because sometimes you just get lost in the detail. And it’s not like a good novel where you’re turning the page and one thing flows seamlessly into the other.

Dr Chris Hardy:

Yeah. Okay. That’s really helpful.

Dr Adeel Razi:

Yeah, I would just reiterate what others have said. I think the important thing is to be … I think the main challenge is to have one piece of coherent reading, which has the balance in terms of, which reflects your skills and shows enthusiasm. It should show enthusiasm what you’re going to be doing for the next four, five, six years. So it has to stand out from your application. And that’s, I think, the tricky bit. You have to sound excited about what you are doing,

Dr Chris Hardy:

I think that’s great. And so just to summarize what we’ve talked about over the last 30 minutes or so, I think the big things that have come across, that you need to be excited about these grants that you’re writing. You need to be aware of what the funders want. And we talked about that being the visible and the and the hidden desires of the funders as well. We need to focus on getting the start right, because that’s the bit that’s read most frequently or the bit that’s read, perhaps. And it’s really important to get that right early on. We talked about how important is to address limitations and to have contingency plans in place for if one of your experiments doesn’t work.

Dr Chris Hardy:

And I think the most important message for the early career researchers out there like myself is to be sheer bloody-minded and keep trying it and then trying again. So with that in mind, it’s time to end today’s podcast recording. I’d like to thank our panelists, Simon Mead, David Llewellyn, and Adeel Razi. And we really hope that you enjoyed today’s episode. So thank you all so much.

Dr Simon Mead:

Thank you.

Dr David Llewellyn:

Good luck. Good luck with your application.

Dr Chris Hardy:

Thanks. And please do remember to subscribe to this podcast through SoundCloud and iTunes. Tell your friends and colleagues, and share via social media using the hashtag #ECRDementia. Thank you.

Voice Over:

This was a podcast brought to you by Dementia Researcher. Everything you need in one place. Register today at dementiaresearcher.nihr.ac.uk.

END