Podcast – Failing Forward: What My Grant Rejection Taught Me

Voice Over:

The Dementia Researcher Podcast, talking careers, research, conference highlights, and so much more.

Dr Fiona McLean:

Hello, listeners, I'm Dr. Fiona McLean, an Alzheimer's research UK fellow at the University of Dundee, and my research interests lie in learning and memory, with a particular focus on neurodegenerative diseases and the links with metabolic syndrome. And I've had multiple grant rejections over the years. So today, to join me to talk about this topic, are three fantastic guests who have also had their fair share of grant rejections. We have Dr. Sarah Marzi, a group leader in the UK DRI at King's College London. We have Dr. Kate Harris, a research fellow at Newcastle University, and Dr. Dayne Beccano-Kelly, a group leader at the UK DRI at Cardiff University. I know long-term listeners of the podcast have met you, but let's start with a refresh and get to know a little bit about each of you again. Can you each introduce yourselves and share what kind of research you do? And we will start with Kate.

Dr Kate Harris:

Oh, hello. Hi, everyone. I was expecting that. Yeah, I'm Kate. As Fiona very nicely said, I'm a research fellow at Newcastle, and from December, I will be a senior lecturer, which is exciting. And main interest lies in drug discovery for neurodegenerative diseases.

Dr Fiona McLean:

Fabulous. Dayne, can you do a little introduction for yourself?

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

Hi. So, I'm Dayne Beccano-Kelly, I'm a UK DRI future leader fellow and group leader at the Dementia Research Institute at Cardiff University. And my focus is on Parkinson's disease, and synaptic dysfunction early in that, to try and identify ways of finding new targets for therapeutic stress. So, we should talk, Kate, [inaudible 00:01:56].

Dr Fiona McLean:

This is one of the fun things about the podcast, is there's collaborations that come out of the podcast itself. And last, but absolutely not least, Sarah Marzi.

Dr Sarah Marzi:

Hi, everyone, I'm Sarah, I'm a senior lecturer at King's College London and a group leader within the UK DRI, and I study the epigenome, so how our genes are regulated, in order to understand how genetic and environmental risk factors impact different neurodegenerative diseases.

Dr Fiona McLean:

All super cool research, and I love all your areas of research so much. But today, we are actually here to talk about rejection, and specifically grant rejection, which I've had many, many times myself, and I hope you all don't mind me saying, but I think you will all have had a lot of grant rejections yourself. For those of you listening on the podcast, there's a lot of nodding going on. So, let's just jump right in, let's talk about it, let's unpack it, and let's see if we can find some positives in the rejection as well. So, let's start with Dayne. So, can you remember how it felt for the first time, when you had a grant rejected, especially one that you'd worked on for quite a while, how did it feel? What was the project idea? Give us a wee introduction to it.

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

We'll probably come onto it later as well, but having some rejections, it doesn't stop when you get any level of seniority. I mean, I've had a couple of rejections a couple of months ago, so it's still happening right up until now, so those are very fresh in the memory, and the wounds are still sore. But one of the first ones I ever did was actually when I was in Dundee, and I was applying for a fellowship to look at hypoxia in an Alzheimer's model, and to look at electro-physiological changes there in, because that's something that I was marrying up with my previous PhD work, alongside my then current postdoctoral work. And as you said, I kind of put a lot of effort into it, and a lot of time was spent it, and a few different iterations, and I was handing it out to different people to read it. And I thought, as we all do, by the time it got to the finished, uploadable, final copy of it, that it was stellar, it was shiny and it was polished, and it was like, "There's no way I'm not getting this."

That sort of false sense of grandeur behind your work, but it's only because you've worked on it so well, for so long, and you think you've got rid of all of the different caveats to it. So, when I did hear back, that I hadn't got it, it can be quite crushing. There are different ways to deal with it, and yeah, it was a little sad, would be a very British understated way of saying how I felt at the time, I think.

Dr Fiona McLean:

Oh, absolutely. I mean, yeah, I think you've summarised the feeling that you actually have before you get the rejection, which is usually you're putting in a grant that you've worked on for a really long time, and of course, you believe in it, that's why you wrote it.

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

Yeah. Absolutely.

Dr Fiona McLean:

And yeah, like you say, especially those bigger grants, maybe fellowships, big project grants, you work on them, not just usually by yourself, but with multiple people, so it builds up your confidence in that grant. I actually think that's one of the tricky things, is because you have that confidence and people around you believe in it as well, when it does get rejected, it makes you kind of be like, "What?"

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

Yeah, "How dare you?"

Dr Fiona McLean:

[inaudible 00:05:33].

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

It's not possible. So yeah, I think there's also the element, it's tied so deeply with something that you... I mean, we're all in science likely, because we all sort of care passionately about science, or are nerdy about it, so it's almost like it's in a... Sometimes it feels personal, like an affront to you.

Dr Fiona McLean:

Yes.

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

And so, you're like, "Oh, my god." So, you feel really low after it. It's quite hard to do that thing of dissociating yourself from, it's not an attack on you as a person, it's just that was not the right thing at the right time. So, yeah.

Dr Fiona McLean:

I think as well though, it depends what type of grant. So, I find project grants are less personal, but rejections on fellowships I've found a lot more difficult. And the first big piece, like really big grant I wrote was for a fellowship, a very well known one in the UK, which shall not be named. And I really believed in it. And again, I had that people around me being like, "This is really good, this is really exciting." And it didn't even get past the first round. But just to explain the structure of that, so basically, there was multiple rounds, and there was such a short turnaround time between finding out if you'd passed the first round and getting ready for the second round, that you kind of had to prepare for the second round before you'd even found out if you'd got past the first round.

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

You've got past the first round, yeah, okay.

Dr Fiona McLean:

So, I put a lot of work and energy into, not presuming, but just getting ready for that second round, in case I did get through. I remember finding out I hadn't, and it was right after I'd had a really long meeting about it and getting prepared for it, and I opened my emails and had the rejection there. And I'm not embarrassed to say it, but I burst into tears. And I was standing in the middle of Dundee, on Perth Road, for anyone who knows the area well, and it's a very public area, and I remember some local people stopping and asking, "Are you okay?" And I was like, "No, I'm not okay." They were like, "Do you need help?" And I was like, "Not the kind of help you can offer."

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

I need funding, that's what I need.

Dr Fiona McLean:

I need funding for my research. And having a meltdown, to the point that my, now, husband had to come and pick me up and take me home, because I was actually so devastated. Now, in hindsight, I think I was quite sleep deprived from trying to get the grant in, the fellowship in. But what I would say is from that I received a lot of really helpful feedback. It took a wee bit of a wee while, because you tend to get the rejection, and then it's a couple of weeks later, or a month later, you might get some feedback. And funders who are really good will make sure, especially ECR, to get that feedback. Because then I was able to take that feedback, once I dissociated myself a bit from it and felt less personal about it, I was able to be a bit more objective, listened to what the reviewers had said, apply it, and then I actually rewrote that application, and then that was application that did get funded by Alzheimer's Research UK in the end.

So as much as my own experience, from as devastated as I was, it actually really did help the process, and the grant that did get funded was much, much better, much better written than the one that did win. What I will say though, is that one of the reviewers in that first one got very personal, and that can happen. So just to bring Sarah in, so have you had a grant, just give a wee bit of a brief background on it, and specifically, did you get feedback, and were you able to use that feedback, and how did you use it?

Dr Sarah Marzi:

I was actually just going to come in on your... It did get personal. My very first grant rejection was so painful, and I still don't think I got much useful out of the feedback there, it was just personal. And it was an MRC New Investigator grant about-

Dr Fiona McLean:

Naming, shaming.

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

Yeah, go for it.

Dr Fiona McLean:

We're looking at you, [inaudible 00:09:33].

Dr Sarah Marzi:

Yes. Well, it was the reviewers, so we're not naming anyone because they're one of us. And it was on Parkinson's and pesticides and looking into organoid models of pesticide exposure. And actually, it was really innovative. I think it could get funded now, and nobody has done anything like this. Yes. But basically, I had just started my lab with my fellowship, a year earlier or so, and so all the negative feedback was sort of "Does she even know what she's doing? She's not worked on Parkinson's before. And does she even know how to lead a group?" So, I haven't found any of that particularly beneficial or helpful in designing my future grants and going forward. Those things, I can address better now, because I've led a group for longer, and I've had output, so I can prove that I can lead research. So actually, there are things that just with time and experience, become easier, I think.

Dr Fiona McLean:

Can I just say something that's really frustrating though, is that that is a new investigator award.

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

Yeah.

Dr Sarah Marzi:

Yes, exactly.

Dr Fiona McLean:

For new investigators. And something that frustrates me a lot, is when sometimes you feel like the reviewer hasn't maybe understood the remit of what the application is.

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

Yeah, absolutely.

Dr Fiona McLean:

I had a criticism on one of mine one time, that said my salary was too high, but I was still a postdoc at that time, and it was a postdoc salary, it wasn't a grade up. I was like, "This is so unfair. What should I get paid for having my own money, my own fellowship?"

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

Fit into whatever criteria this person has for you, yeah.

Dr Fiona McLean:

Yeah. And that was my sort of personal arc, I was like, "You don't know me." I didn't think it was unreasonable, just asking for a continuation of actually what I was already on as a postdoc. So yeah, my point is it'd be nice if they could read the remit. Sorry to interrupt, Sarah. So yeah, so I guess that feedback did really help.

Dr Sarah Marzi:

That was not an answer to your question at all, that was not very useful. I'd say the only useful feedback, well there was some scientific feedback, and actually, I'm writing, not the same grant, but something in a similar vein at the moment. And one of the things that was highlighted a lot in that grant by the reviewers was they really wanted us to look into sex-specific effects. And we had put that in, but we hadn't really made it obvious that we were going to do stratified analysis, and look, because I think that's something that you would do by default anyway, but I didn't. So that was my inexperience in grant writing. Now, when I write variations on this, I would put that in very explicitly, and say, "We will look stratified at the sex differences," and it is actually really important. So maybe I learned a little bit of something, but overall, it was... And also, the recovery time from that grant, until I was ready to write another grant, was incredibly long, and it's been getting shorter, luckily.

Dr Fiona McLean:

That resilience, as you sort of get rejected more and more. I always say to people, I sometimes tell ECRs that are coming up under me, "You do build resilience." And I talk about that first one, where I had a meltdown, whereas now, I'm like, "Oh, another rejection. Cool, next." So sometimes I'm like, "Maybe I'm dead inside now, I don't know. Academia took my soul and made me not care." But no, anyway, that's aside, another part.

Dr Sarah Marzi:

Or it's also about, I find, having multiple things cooking at the same time, and overlapping things going in, so that when you get rejected, you're like, "Oh, but I still have these other things that are still in the running."

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

I completely agree with that. I think that the ability to have that going though is it comes with an increased level of seniority, right? When you're on post-doc, and you've probably put all your eggs in one, maybe two baskets, and so it maybe hurts more at the beginning stage. Yeah, I would completely agree though, if you're going to do multiple things, then one can drop. It's still kind of sting a little bit, depending on which one it's that gets dropped.

Dr Fiona McLean:

Absolutely. And another word I just want to pick up that you said, Sarah, was explicit, and I think that's something I've learned as well, is sometimes you can be so in a grant, and so into a topic, that you forget what information needs to be explicitly stated for the reviewer to really get what you're saying. So yeah, I've also learned that from reviewers, is sometimes you need to just be super obvious, even if you think it's already obvious. And Kate, would you come in and just tell us about that first grant that you put in, and maybe got rejected? And yeah, did you learn from that feedback? How did you pick yourself up from it?

Dr Kate Harris:

Okay, so I actually have a rejection self-care regime.

Dr Fiona McLean:

A set of steps to take.

Dr Kate Harris:

It's a set of steps. I now don't need it every time, because like you, I'm like, "Yeah, I'm due a rejection." I don't know, I wait for it, if I'm honest. Which I know sounds a bit depressing, but hopefully, sooner or later, something will stick. I will admit that I'm on a bit of a journey at the moment, of, and we might come onto this, interdisciplinary grant writing is a whole world, and I have yet to really convince anyone that I'm capable of doing both. That is the feedback that always comes back. It doesn't matter how many years I've had a chemistry and a biology lab, there is always that doubt, like "She can't possibly do both."

Dr Fiona McLean:

That's frustrating.

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

That is very frustrating,

Dr Fiona McLean:

Especially with this remit of grants being very cross-discipline now, and you're like, "Hello, I'm cross-discipline," and they're like, "No."

Dr Kate Harris:

My first one was another fairly well-known fellowship that I went for, and I was so excited. And I think again, it's that first one that hits the hardest, because I had been very fortunate up until then. I had got my second postdoc that I applied for, the first one, I didn't even really care about. I was in a place where people, because I did my postdoc in Oxford, I don't even know how I got that. Like literally, still to this day, don't understand how I got that.

Dr Fiona McLean:

Because you're great, that's why you got it.

Dr Kate Harris:

That's very kind, but no. And everything kind of came quite easy for a while, and I just thought... I was told, "Well, if you've got a great idea, you'll get funded." You know, those lovely pieces of advice you get given. And I was so proud of this idea, and my collaborators and my sponsors were so excited by the idea, they were like, "This is going to change dementia." And it was this idea of what if you could...You do mass spectrometry on the vesicles that are excreted from microglia to see whether or not the amyloid has actually been broken down, or whether they're just having it whole and then spitting it back out, and therefore, not making any difference to inflammation. And there was precedent for all of it. Very excited, and I was like, "Yeah, but I really want to move into the air," blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

And I'd been culturing stem cells myself, for a couple of years. I had taught myself, in my postdoc, but I'd been doing it for a couple of years, and it had been going well, so there was data. And I had the world leaders in the field backing it, as... Oh, I was just so excited, I was like, "We're going to go from microglia function, we're going to talk about it like that, not about immunology," and blah, blah, blah, blah. No M1, M2, we're going to get to the heart of it. And then with that fellowship, you found out if you'd got an interview on a certain day, and I remember literally having knots in my stomach. I was having panic attacks all day, being like, "Oh, my god. Oh, my god. Oh, my god." And then I didn't get a message, and I knew. I hadn't even had the rejection, I just knew. And I'd already started preparing the video I was going to create for the interview, and all these kinds of things, and they wanted something innovative, they wanted something interdisciplinary, but-

Dr Fiona McLean:

Did you ever get feedback though?

Dr Kate Harris:

Yes.

Dr Fiona McLean:

Apart from them saying, "Oh, can you do both," did you get feedback, and did that help? Were you able to use that feedback?

Dr Kate Harris:

I think what I learned was that in interdisciplinary research, it is very hard to cater to everybody. Chances are what you're going to get, is you're going to get an expert from one field, and I'm sure you have this as well, Sarah. I'm just thinking about trying to convince data scientists and epigenetic, bringing that together, and what can often happen, is that because you're doing both, and there's a lot of implicit knowledge, is you sound like you are not good at either, when actually, in reality, what you're doing is going, "That bit of detail is kind of unnecessary at this point, please trust that I know what I'm doing."

Dr Fiona McLean:

Yeah. And that's where interviews can be really good.

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

Yeah.

Dr Fiona McLean:

And unfortunately, that's what you don't get with project grants. You get them typically with fellowships, so you have a bit of a chance to... If you get past the first few rounds, to the interview stage, you have a chance to really justify why actually you can bring two areas together. That's what frustrates me about project grants a bit more, is that you have usually less space and less opportunity to explain that.

Dr Kate Harris:

Unless it's a programme grant, in which case you do, but those are obviously massive.

Dr Fiona McLean:

Yes, yeah. And I guess that comes down again, to funding. But also, this is something that we should say to listeners, is there's a lot of luck involved. It really depends on what... And I mean that in the sense of it depends whose desk that application lands on.

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

Yeah.

Dr Fiona McLean:

Because if it's someone who believes in that idea, then that's great, or finds it really exciting, they're going to be slightly more positive. If it lands on a competitor's desk, which it can often do, because if you work in the same field, you might end up with a reviewer that is an expert in that field. One of the things I get really paranoid about is yeah, what if this lands on a competitor and they don't want to fund it because they feel it's too close to what they're doing?

Dr Kate Harris:

Do you really think people do that?

Dr Fiona McLean:

I think the cynic in me says potentially.

Dr Kate Harris:

I just surely think the more people doing great work, the better.

Dr Fiona McLean:

You would hope so.

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

You would hope so, right.

Dr Kate Harris:

Sorry, naivety.

Dr Fiona McLean:

I do think there's a lot of different personalities in academia. And when I'm reviewing a grant, I like to just think of, yeah, the idea, is it the right person, is it the right place, is it achievable? Is there, for example, examples of pilot data that shows that the techniques will work, even if it's not in the model, for example, that they want to do. That's what I look for in a good grant. But you just don't know how some people are. And I think tone of review can sometimes give a lot away, on whether someone's been on your side or is rooting for you or not.

Dr Kate Harris:

This is my review face.

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

I mean, there can be that fear. You've reviewed grants before as well, as you just said, but I think there's quite a lot of the time... Just in case people at home don't know how it's working, you usually get this, you'll apply with whatever bids you're making, and then it will get distributed by programme and project managers from that particular institution that you've applied to. And it will land on the desk of, not one, but more like two or three, what you'll end up calling introducing members, who will then review it. And they'll all give it a grade, and then they'll usually have to justify it at this collective meeting. And so, it becomes a little harder, I think, to sink somebody's project if you have a vendetta, because you've got to make the argument to the other interviewing members, if the scores are really dramatically different from each other, which is what would happen if somebody was trying to sink your stuff.

And so usually, you can get the other way around as well, by the way. Somebody might want to try and artificially elevate your stuff as well.

Dr Fiona McLean:

True.

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

That was nice. But I mean, it's one of those things where, because they have two or three members, you'll have sort of an average score. If everybody's score is in line, and it's below a cut-off, then everybody’s in line. But if there's a disparity, then they'll want you to defend why you've given that score. So hopefully, it gets rid of that sort of thing, which is quite good.

Dr Kate Harris:

There is a huge move, isn't there now, to root some of this out. So that's actually a really important thing, I guess, for our listeners, is we came up professionally in a time where maybe things were a little bit different, and maybe before that big... Well, not before, but around the time that big welcome trust of re-imagining research article came out, and when a lot of things were starting to have attention paid to them, so I think there's been a lot of work done. Obviously, everything can always be improved, but there is work and emphasis now being highlighted on the tone of reviews and who things are going to. I know when I review, they even say, "Look, we don't look for this, we do look for that." So, there is hope. We do bear scars, and everyone bears scars, because like you said, it's so personal. And even if it's not personal, it feels personal. But there is a lot of hope.

Dr Fiona McLean:

I think funders are becoming more conscious of having grant boards, not just a couple of reviewers. They do have boards to review the reviewers in a way, and I think that those steps are really positive as well. And making sure that the reviewers also have guidance, and I think that's really key as well. So, when you got rejected, out three of you, did you tell anyone? Did you tell colleagues? Yep. Sarah's nodding, Dayne's nodding, Kate's looking less sure. Dayne and Sarah, did you find it beneficial to tell those colleagues?

Dr Sarah Marzi:

Yeah. So, peer networks and peer support groups are so important for everything you do in academia and figuring out how to run your own lab. And so, for sure, having those sessions, because everyone will get rejection, so you have a lot to share together, and commiserate and vent maybe a little bit. And yeah, sort of this idea of shared suffering is less suffering.

Dr Fiona McLean:

And that's something I prefer about putting in grants, which are maybe a project grant, where there's co-PIs, because then you can all commiserate together, and all say, "Hey, how did they not fund this? It was amazing." And again, I guess that's where it maybe comes in with fellowships, or maybe a little bit more personal. Dayne, how did you find telling colleagues, did you find that beneficial?

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

Again, it depends on which phase you're at. I suppose if you're doing something now, it's likely to have co-Is on it, so you're going to have to tell at least some people, right, that it didn't get through, or whatever have you. But when it was more, as you say, like a fellowship that was personal, I did tell people, not least of which would be mentors, and they would be really good in giving you pep talks, or if you've got good mentors, that is, giving you pep talks that can help revitalise your enthusiasm for resubmitting the bid elsewhere, or breaking it down into pieces, or maybe going over any review of comments that you did get back. It's quite interesting when you guys are talking about the review of comments coming back, I applied to a number of different places that have often just not given me any review and information. And I was going to say, "Which one do we theoretically prefer?" Do you want it to be personal attacks, or do you want it in inverted commas, or do you want nothing back at all? Which is that's not-

Dr Fiona McLean:

Nothing's worse, I think.

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

Yeah, I think so too.

Dr Fiona McLean:

Nothing is worse. Because one of the things I found useful is taking the reviewer comments to a colleague, or multiple colleagues, and then them being the ones to say, "Actually, this is a good point, this is a good point. Ignore this, this is irrelevant," or "This is too picky," or "They've not understood the remit," to almost help me understand what is relevant in the comments as well. Because I think if you took everything on about everything that's said, it can maybe change the grant too much, or I think if things have been misinterpreted from your grant, you don't want to build that back into the grant, you want to just make sure that the grant, as we said earlier, is maybe more explicit about certain things. So that's something that can be really helpful.

And so out of everyone who's had a grant rejection, say maybe a rough percentage, so we can try and quantify it a bit, but how many grant rejections have you taken on to resubmit and kept the idea, and how many have you dropped? So, say what's the percentage of grant ideas that you have continued to try and get funded? Sarah?

Dr Sarah Marzi:

I'm a terrible example, because I was spread too widely. I would say for me, it's quite low. It's maybe like 20%.

Dr Fiona McLean:

So, you like coming up with a fresh idea. If something doesn't work you think, "Right, actually I'm going to try something new?"

Dr Sarah Marzi:

It's not exactly the same then, it feels like it might have elements and experiments that would've been in the other grant, but with a new remit and a new story. And even the ones that were rejected, so we're talking now about like what, five years’ worth of rejections? I still have them, and I go back to them for different pieces and elements, motivating things, how did I describe, sometimes even how did I calculate the sample size, or things like that. So, they are useful, and they're giving me information for my other grants. And I might come back actually, to the specific projects, but it might've been too early to do some of them.

So, one of my things that I've learned is that actually, you want a good solid base of pilot data and previous research that motivates the exact next step for many of the funders. Very few of them want super blue skies, high risk research, and so that's something that I had to learn, because I thought the most exciting stuff is really innovative and really out there. And for those maybe, I'm still spending the time now to build that base to then maybe come back to them.

Dr Fiona McLean:

I completely agree, you almost need a little bit of each aim started. And certainly, for myself, I found the technique needs to be proven. It's very different. Unless you've got a grant that's specifically to develop a technique or technology, I think you have to have that in place, because grant funders, they want to see good mitigation, and that's part of it, is knowing that technically, you're able to do it in the environment that you're proposing to do it in. Kate, what about yourself, how many ideas have you left behind? How many have you reworked or taken forward?

Dr Kate Harris:

I think I might be the opposite of you, Sarah. That's really interesting. I'm a bit like a dog with a bone, and I wanted to share at some point in this podcast, a really positive experience I've had about reframing an idea and the journey I'm on, if that's okay, because maybe in a little bit of a later thing-

Dr Fiona McLean:

No, go for it now, tell us about it.

Dr Kate Harris:

So basically, like I said, I'm on a bit of a grant writing journey, so I'm hopefully failing forward, but we'll see. And what it was is, and we were talking about no feedback versus feedback, and I've been getting the same kinds of feedback, internal, external, people like, "Well, we don't know what she's trying to do." And then that, combined with the fact that you're transversing disciplines, or whatever. So, what I did, absolutely terrifying, it was a savage week, was I took my latest application to someone that I knew was quite hard to please. Terrifying.

Dr Fiona McLean:

I think that's a good approach.

Dr Kate Harris:

Oh, my goodness, I felt so destroyed after they read it through, because it was like pages of critique. But I needed it, and it was done very kindly, but it was like, "No, this is not good." And what got to the crux of it was that I was assuming too much knowledge, and they were saying "Your writing," I think they used it, the analogue being like "At the moment, people act like they want arthouse film, but in reality, they feel safe with a Marvel, and you're arthouse in a world of Marvel." You have got to meet them part way. You've got to convince them that you're bringing not two, but now three disciplines together. It is a hard sell. People who know you know you can do it, but you have got to convince people that you have this capability, you need the pilot data, and you need to be articulate.

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

Yes.

Dr Kate Harris:

And I was like, "But, but..." And I remember talking to him, and he went, "Look, when you speak, it is unbelievably clear. When you write, I just don't have a clue what you're trying to do."

Dr Fiona McLean:

I actually think that's one of the most important lessons. From that failed fellowship that I was talking about previously, to the one that got funded, one of the biggest changes I made was in the structure of my writing. So, I was writing in paragraphs, and I just changed it more to bullet point and title style, and I always show it again with any ECRs that I'm mentoring, I show them the two different applications, and like "This one got funded and this one didn't. If you read the content, the content for this section is actually almost identical. The main difference is it's written in a different style." So, I think your point there, Kate, is absolutely crucial, it's not just what you write, it's how you write as well. And actually, that's been a really good thing that you've done is go to that colleague to get that feedback.

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

I was going to say that it's hard to do that, to give something again over to somebody you love, that is going to tear it apart, but you need it to be honest.

Dr Kate Harris:

You want them to like you as well. So went in there, and I was secretly wanting them to be like, "Oh, my gosh, you're so impressive."

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

Yeah, right.

Dr Kate Harris:

And particularly where I work, where I do a lot of work with research culture, and that's what I'm more visible for, rather than the science. Not that I don't do the science, I work very hard on it, but I kind of feel like that's a given, so I don't really publicise it, whereas I publicise the research culture. I just really wanted them to be like, "Oh, she's such a good scientist." Then I got her back, and he was like, "I don't know what this is about." But it got better, if this is an interesting... So, then it came out in a conversation that there are colleagues within the department who don't actually think that my field really has any point, and that people-

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

Wow.

Dr Kate Harris:

No, I think that's fine, because you need a healthy sceptic in your life. And then this reviewer said, "Well, that is a person who's supposed to be on your side. They're in your general area. That is a dragon you have got to slay, because there will be reviewers who also think the same way." So, then I had a one-hour conversation with someone I absolutely adore and really want to respect me but also has a lot of critiques of the way that I... Not the way I do anything. No, not at all, but the field. I was like, "Right, why don't you like this?"

Dr Fiona McLean:

But I think that's interesting to the field of dementia in general, because I mean I work in metabolism, as I said, and it took a long time, for years, to convince people that type-two diabetes and obesity were a factor in dementia. It took years, but now it's very accepted. There's been the Lancet paper that came out about lifestyle, and so I always think it's really important to keep an open mind with grants, if you're both reading them and writing them, because the field shifts, and it would be a shame to miss something important. Especially with diseases like dementia, where we don't have effective treatments and we don't have a cure, you don't want to shut any doors that might be really important. And I think actually, I think as a field, dementia has become a lot more aware, and we are thinking about stuff like pesticides and those environmental factors, plastics, stuff that we weren't considering before, we are now considering.

Dr Kate Harris:

Stress.

Dr Fiona McLean:

So that's more fuel a researcher to shut off a field, in my opinion. But I just want to move on to just talk about how those rejections have impacted you. Has anyone actually thought about leaving academia because of a rejection? I've certainly been in a situation where I've maybe been almost forced to leave because I've not maybe had a job because I've needed a salary, and I've been very fortunate that it's always come through in the end. But has anyone ever thought, "I just don't want to deal with these rejections, I'd much rather do something else?"

Dr Kate Harris:

I've not thought I don't want to deal with it, I've thought I will never be good enough, I should leave.

Dr Fiona McLean:

Oh, no.

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

Wow.

Dr Fiona McLean:

But you're still here.

Dr Kate Harris:

I'm still standing.

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

Yeah, I was literally going to break into song with you then. I'll stare everybody back.

Dr Kate Harris:

I'm so glad we met. I'm so glad we met.

Dr Fiona McLean:

What about yourself, Dayne, have you ever thought you're step back?

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

No, because I'm belligerent and just keep going.

Dr Fiona McLean:

You need to be.

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

No. I think there is something to be said for the fact that you kind of have to... It's easier said than done, to have the resilience to just go, "Right, it's more, it landed on..." So, when you were speaking earlier about it being luck and where it's landing, another thing is it might be that funding agency is just not the flavour of the month right now, and they're trying to look to push towards some other areas. And so again, to tie into something that was said earlier, have I ever resubmitted grants? I have, to the same funder before. And I've reworked it and then been successful, right? So, it just goes to show that you could do something in consecutive years, consecutive rounds, and it be torn down one time, and then elevated the next.

So I think because that actually happened to me fairly early on, and I'd already been coached in the fact that that could happen, that actually seeing it happen made me go, "Huh, if I do get rejections, it doesn't mean that I'm actually a failure with my ideas, it's just that it could have landed in the wrong place, I've not styled it right for that particular agency, for that particular panel." So, to carry on is easier when you know that it's not you, it's them. So, it's one of those things where it's a breakup, it's not you, it's them, definitely them.

Dr Fiona McLean:

It's not me, it's them.

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

Yeah, it's definitely them.

Dr Fiona McLean:

They're the problem.

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm brilliant.

Dr Fiona McLean:

I always say that I think my experience on dating apps really helped me handle rejection in academia, because I think once you've been through some brutal rejections on Tinder, or other dating apps are available, I was like, "It just builds out the resilience." You're like, "I'm not the problem, these people are the problem." And Sarah, so what about yourself, have you ever felt like leaving, or has it actually even made you more ambitious in a way?

Dr Sarah Marzi:

So, I don't think I've felt like leaving. I was just thinking back, when you asked that question, to a moment when I was also my very first year of independence. I was on holiday in Mexico at the time, but I really wanted to put in a grant, and it was a collaborative grant at the time. And I worked for a week during my holiday in Mexico, for... I didn't work the whole day, I did like four hours every morning, and then I went out, and then I didn't get the grant, didn't get any feedback. It was so not worth it. I had such regrets of having worked on my holiday, and I kind of try and not do that anymore, if at all possible.

I guess part of me, at that point, the applications I was putting in, I wasn't being very selective. I was going after the big things that people were talking about. But I think I've become way savvier about going for grants where I know my chances are better because of the remit of the funder, like where I, and my research, fall in within what they're interested in, because of how many people I think will be applying. So, lots of different little factors. And I've become more opportunistic about that, I'd say, and not just go for this is the big-name thing that everyone is going for. And because everyone is going for it, it's going to be terrible odds. It's going to be like 5% funding rate, and then is it surprising that I didn't get it? Not really.

Dr Fiona McLean:

I think that's a really good point as well, is actually not just the remit itself, but also is there anything that you can do to put yourself in a position of being more successful? And I find one of the easiest things to do is to speak to, usually there's a programme coordinator linked with the grant, speak to them ahead of time, and say, "I'm intending on applying for this. Do I fit in the remit? Am I at the right stage of my career? This is my idea, this is a rough outline of my idea, is this the type of thing you're looking for?" Because that can save you a lot of time.

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

You're absolutely right. People are scared to do that as well. And they feel like you're not supposed to approach people.

Dr Fiona McLean:

I've been scared to do that.

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

No, you've got to do it. You should do it. That's the absolutely right thing to do, Fiona. I think you should-

Dr Fiona McLean:

And a lot of time, they're so nice and supportive as well.

Dr Kate Harris:

I've occasionally been like I thought about doing it, or I've sent a little thing, and been like, but I've never... Or I've put in a general remit inquiry, which I now do with UKRI, because I feel like they always have to decide where I'm going to go. But to actually have that really honest conversation of this is the idea, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, that can be quite intimidating, so to know that it's worth it.

Dr Fiona McLean:

Yeah, I think you've highlighted a really important point there actually. If you are doing multidisciplinary work, especially if you're going to UKRI-

Dr Kate Harris:

Remit inquiry.

Dr Fiona McLean:

Where does it go? Does it go to BBSRC, does it go to MRC, does it go [inaudible 00:40:18]?

Dr Sarah Marzi:

Even within the MRC, which one is the board that you're going for?

Dr Fiona McLean:

The board, yeah.

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

Yeah.

Dr Fiona McLean:

Absolutely.

Dr Kate Harris:

So, every single time I do it, because otherwise I find that I very easily get told I'm not in remit. Fair enough. But then if you've put it in and they've said, "It can come to this," then you've got that evidence that they've already agreed.

Dr Fiona McLean:

Yes. And sometimes they can tell you about future funding calls that aren't even announced yet, and they can say, "Actually, you're not quite right for this one, but we are releasing a call in six months that this would be better for. You should prepare for that." So, I'm all about cold emailing people, and I think it's really helpful.

Dr Kate Harris:

Thanks guys, I'm learning so much.

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

Yeah. I'm fully on board with this. Because they're there to help you, right? They're there to help you.

Dr Fiona McLean:

And they want the best grants.

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

Yeah.

Dr Fiona McLean:

They want to fund the best work, so it works for both sides, I think. So just to talk a little bit about failing and the culture in academia and research, to build on that. So, do you think that we talk about failure and research enough? And is there a change in culture, in terms of do we talk about failure as a positive thing, a negative thing? Does it impact our career trajectories, if you admit that you fail? And Dayne, why don't you comment on this?

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

I don't know if it's changed. I've always had senior investigators, mentors, tell me that they've had hundreds of grants put in and only won like 10% of them. And so, it is one of those things that I've heard for a long time when it comes to that. We're talking about papers and manuscripts, I think that might be slightly different, but when it comes to bids and grants, I personally feel like people have always been honest and open. I think that's a good thing. I think it helps to normalise when you do get a rejection, that you can speak about it with people. I don't know if that's been other people's experience, but I would certainly think that it's got to be something that's continued. I've opened my door, and the topic of fellowship writing with my PhDs and my postdocs, of which those that have wanted to go through it, I've started coaching them and trying to take them through it, and getting them to write mock ones, and trying to take them through the idea of doing that.

And I've shown them my previous ones, ones that did get funded, a bit like you, Fiona, and ones that didn't get funded, so that you showed them two together, right? And I think that it's important to do that, because first of all, you can see what the difference is and what might have changed. But secondly, just to show that perhaps people may think, possibly of you guys and not me, that you're untouchable, right? When you've got to the senior levels, you must just be throwing these grants out, and that people are just accepting it left, right, and centre, but it doesn't work like that. So, you need to be able to, if they come back, and go, "Well, they rejected it." It's like "Welcome to the club. We'll repackage it, we'll send it somewhere else. We're going to get this funded because I believe it's a good idea, and let's see what they said. Let's break it down, and maybe let's try and partition it, package it up so it can go to multiple different places. This is not the end."

And so, I think to know that people senior, above you, have had the same experience is critical to how you gain and build resilience yourself.

Dr Fiona McLean:

Yeah, absolutely. I couldn't agree more. What about yourself, Sarah, what do you think?

Dr Sarah Marzi:

I think similar experience as Dayne, you know that they are having rejections. I've not had so much exposure to this is a good grant and this is one that didn't get funded, so I'm learning this myself. Yeah, I've seen successful grants mainly, a few examples. But yeah, that sounds extremely useful, what you're doing for your mentees, that would've been quite helpful. I feel like people also don't as often share what their comments were and why they got rejected, but I think it's very widely accepted that failure rates are very high, and I don't think within my surrounding, nobody would feel like embarrassed that a high number of grants get rejected, because just by statistics, that's what's expected. And you're just expected to put in enough that you do get funded.

Dr Fiona McLean:

And yourself, Kate, because you say that you've got a good experience dealing with research culture and trying to improve it, do you think that there is a shift in failure and how it's perceived in academia, and the pros and cons that can come from it?

Dr Kate Harris:

Do wonder if maybe there's a bit of disciplinary difference here? Because my primary discipline is chemistry, and I would say that my experience has been not yours, in the terms of openly admitting that things don't work. A lot of it is about showing strength, and so you'll have people say, "I haven't had a grant rejected in five years," and then you'll find out that 80% were. So, it is a different way of looking at things. I don't know why that might be, but so for me, actually hearing that this is a thing, is delightful. But as part of our research culture, we are trying to normalise it. So recently, in a talk that I gave, I said I got rejected from seven fellowships before I got this one at Newcastle, and that was actually quite a shock to people. They were like, "Oh, my goodness, you admitted it in public."

So, there's definitely work being done to try and normalise rejection. Certainly, when you get rejection, people find out, then people might go, "Oh, yeah, I got rejected too." I don't know, did anyone find that with their driving test, everyone pretended they passed first time until you got rejected, until you failed, and then everyone was like, "Yeah, it took me four times." So, I think with the research culture, one of the things we're trying to normalise is failure and accessibility. So, it feels like because especially in the world that we're in, in academia now, you have to be excellent, and it's trying to redefine that concept of excellence. What is it? So, we're trying to make it normal. We're trying to make, accessible sounds like a strange word, but I want people to look at role models, and go, "I can see myself in them." And many of us can't see ourselves in these classically stereotypically brilliant people that we admire, and actually finding that they're more human, I find empowering, because it means that there is a way forward.

Dr Fiona McLean:

I think as well, in sort of a practical sense as well, I know one thing that Dundee is trying to do, the research service is trying to do, is allow access to grants which have been successfully funded from grant group that you are looking to apply to. Because as we said, each funder can have sort of a specific style of writing they like, or specific things they look for. I find that charities look for more kind of maybe broader package of your research, but how does that fit in with public engagement, with impact, with policy? Whereas some of the UKRI ones can be a bit more technique, science funded, science-focused, sorry. So, I think also tailoring the extra information that you build into an application can be dictated by the funder as well.

Dr Kate Harris:

Honestly, our research funding team are insanely good at that. They have a stockpile, and it makes such a massive difference.

Dr Fiona McLean:

Good bit of advice for any ECRs in particular, listening, especially if you've not written a grant before, is approach your research services, and ask them, "Do you have any grants that I can read that went to X funder," then it just gives you an idea of the writing style as well, as we were talking about earlier. So just to move on for resilience, we've kind of touched on, how do you mentally prepare for rejection? You said that you had some steps, Kate, earlier.

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

Yeah, I just want to hear these.

Dr Kate Harris:

I have some post-rejection steps.

Dr Fiona McLean:

And how do you distinguish between just needing a break or completely moving on from an idea? So yeah, we'll start with you, Kate. So yeah, how do you mentally prepare, and then how do you decide after rejection, do I move on, or do I keep going with this?

Dr Kate Harris:

First thing I was going to say, is I found it just really interesting on the topic for resilience, do you think, I wonder, that if our experiences of how failure is normalised for us might buy into why potentially, the three of you look at an idea, and go, "I'm not going to give up on this. I'm not going to leave," versus me going, "I'm not good enough, I should leave." I wonder if actually the narrative of how failure is framed to us might have had a huge part in that. And this is why I need a self-care routine, because for me, every time I fail it's like this is another nail in your coffin kind of thing.

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

I understand that, yeah.

Dr Kate Harris:

But so, failure routine, it used to involve a unicorn-themed onesie back when I was earlier Korea, but since having babies, I no longer fit in said unicorn-themed onesie. Now it involves a very fluffy dressing gown. The Vampire Diaries, please don't judge, everyone, it's who I am. Specific Ben and Jerry's, and it has to be Phish Food.

Dr Fiona McLean:

Yes, I was... Sorry. I really judge people in what flavour they pick, and for me, Phish Food is peak, absolutely peak. So sorry to interrupt, yeah, correct answer.

Dr Kate Harris:

You have to have that chunky, chunky, the crispy, chunky, chocolatey bit, and endless Professor Layton or Stardew Valley on Nintendo Switch, and I do that for a good 24 hours. My husband is a patient, kind man, not so much with the kids now, because they don't care. They're like, "I've had a poo, wipe my bum," and I'm like, "Okay, fine. Rejection's over."

Dr Fiona McLean:

So, shift in focus maybe is quite helpful, too, distracting.

Dr Kate Harris:

Yeah. But it's that. And then once I've got over my wallowing, that period does shrink, and has shrunk. Now I'm at the point where I think about the Phish Food, and then I'm done, then you come and look at it more dispassionately.

Dr Fiona McLean:

Mine is sport. So, I go out and play badminton and netball, and-

Dr Kate Harris:

It's probably a healthier way to look at it rather than the ice cream.

Dr Fiona McLean:

Well, no, the ice creams involved as well. It's to balance it all up. But yeah, go smash some shuttlecocks and-

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

A great way of doing it.

Dr Fiona McLean:

Yeah, absolutely. Dayne, what about yourself, how do you mentally prepare? And yeah, do you move on from ideas, do you sort of say "No?"

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

I think I sort maybe do as you do, Fiona, I go and run, walk. Music is a good escapism, I often find.

Dr Fiona McLean:

Yes.

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

So, I'll immerse myself in old tunes, something that I can just get lost in, something I like. Finding a new band, listening to death to them, and then just try to get-

Dr Fiona McLean:

Rage Against the Machine is a good one.

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

That's a great one.

Dr Kate Harris:

System of a Down.

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

Yeah, yeah, just scream and just shout along with it. Yeah, that's definitely a good one. Some Bloc Party, it's [inaudible 00:51:33] quite intense. It's quite fun. But yeah, no, that's how I probably would deal with it. In terms of the preparation for it, I kind do it a bit... I don't know how it was with you guys, but when I submitted my thesis for the PhD, it was almost more of a joyous day than the actual [inaudible 00:51:50], because I'd worked so heavily on it, and once I sort of gave it away, there was nothing I could tinker with. So, I could just go, "All right, I just to leave it alone for a bit now and just not think about it."

So that's kind of what I do with a grant, it's kind like "I worked, I did everything I possibly could on you, now it's up to the gods to decide," right? And so, I'll just throw that out there and put it out there, and then I go, "Right, I've got other stuff to do anyway, so I'm just going to forget about it for a bit." I don't know if that's something that other people do, but I can't control it anymore, it's out there in the ether, and so for me to fret about it for the next month and a half is kind of futile. I'll just kind of let it go and go work on other things, is what I will do.

Dr Fiona McLean:

I love that. I think that's a really good approach. Also, so I put everything into it, and then once it goes, I try and switch my mentality to instead of being like, "Oh, I really want that," I go, "If I get this, this is a really cool bonus. And if I don't, then that's the normal status of things," because I've not lost anything.

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

No.

Dr Fiona McLean:

I've just not gained it.

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

Gained anything.

Dr Fiona McLean:

Unless, apart from when it was the fellowship stuff, because I was like, "I might be unemployed."

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

Yeah. I laugh because that's true. That's really true.

Dr Fiona McLean:

That was also bit more stressful. What about yourself, Sarah?

Dr Sarah Marzi:

So, I actually treat myself, usually when I have submitted a grant, or a little celebration, because I do think putting in the work and finishing up all that grant writing and getting over... I'm a terrible time manager, making it all in and prepping everything in time, is I reward myself maybe with ice cream or something nice to eat. But then after that, I feel like I'm much like you, I take it out of my mind for the waiting period. I'm not constantly thinking about it while it's in review, until the decision comes around, and I just go on with other things in life. But yes, I do feel like we deserve to reward ourselves for just having completed the grant writing as well.

Dr Fiona McLean:

Absolutely, 100%. I actually like that as well, because that in itself is an achievement, and that should be celebrated. Yeah, I guess we're coming a little bit to the end of our chat about anything, so just to end on, what advice would you give to someone currently going through their first major rejection? What would you say to them? What's your key bit of advice, Sarah?

Dr Sarah Marzi:

I've become quite cynical about grants, so I do also tell people, "Don't let it get to you." I let it get to myself. Of course, it hurts, and that's okay too. But remember, think about the statistics, think about the randomness, and think about context and who's reviewing it. I'm a bit cynical about, I think too much time and effort goes into what is more polishing, the writing and the marketing of the grant, that doesn't really have anything to do with the science. So, what you were saying, your same content grant got funded once, when you changed how you presented it with the bullet points. I think that's not a good thing, because I don't think we should be spending our time on polishing the writing, we should be doing good science. So, I'm a bit conflicted and cynical about that kind of question, and I think that has only become more prevalent and more prominent over time. Grant writing has become more of a writing art than the science art.

Dr Fiona McLean:

That's a very good point. And I think with the introduction of narrative CVs alongside some grants, like fellowships, I think this area is still developing, on writing style and how that can impact your success at a grant. And sometimes that's something to remember for people, because I wouldn't say that, for example, English wasn't my strongest subject at school. I've always been more maths and science, so for me, writing is a task, very much a task, and I have to really work at it.

Dr Sarah Marzi:

There are so many factors that are nothing to do with who you are, how good your science and your ideas, how good a scientist you are, that can determine these outcomes, so really do not ever let it tell you that you shouldn't be here or that science isn't right for you.

Dr Fiona McLean:

What about yourself, Kate, what's your one bit of advice for someone listening?

Dr Kate Harris:

Find someone you trust and who is always in your corner, and if you don't have them, get in touch, I'm in everyone's corner.

Dr Fiona McLean:

Yeah. I'm going to take this opportunity to shout out to a couple of my mentors, because I have a really good mentor here, Mike Ashford, whose lab I was in beforehand. But also, Yvonne Couch, who's a Dementia Researcher favourite. She was the one who actually, she gave me a grant that hadn't got funded but was very close to getting funded, and it was actually from her showing me that grant, that I realised that I probably needed to change my writing style. So, find a mentor, use the networks that are available, like Dementia Researcher, to find those mentors if you don't have someone in your institute as well. Dayne, what's your bit of advice for anyone listening?

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

I have and would continue to tell somebody it isn't personal. You have to try and separate the science from the person, right? And so, it does feel like it's a personal affront, a personal attack, it never should be, and it likely isn't, but it is hard to dissociate yourself from it. But if you do, and in doing so... The other thing I would say is when you get back comments, maybe you give yourself a day. So, before you read them, because it's so raw, that effectively the top line is "No, but" and then you can't see the rest of it. You can't see the rest of it, the wood for the trees, because you're just so upset, angry, whatever it is you're feeling at the time, so just give yourself a little bit of time. And then I think somebody said it earlier, go through it with somebody, and then let them pick out what is actually accurate and what is not.

If you've got a good set of mentors, or colleagues, they should be able to be brutally honest with you, and say, "Well, this bit is true and this bit's not," and that is actually way more helpful than a yes man in your corner, who's just like, "Oh, they don't know what they're doing. They don't know what they're talking about." Because otherwise, you're just going to end up feeling hurt again because you have so much vested interest in it being accepted, and it being a part of you. It's the science that you actually want to get done is something that you're probably likely getting done because you want to help people. And the idea is the science is supposed to be top-notch and good, and all you're getting from people that say yes is just coaching to not elevate your work again. Whereas, if you get some honest feedback, that might feel brutal, that's going to elevate your work, and that's what's going to push it forward. So don't take it personally.

Dr Fiona McLean:

And I think one of the things from talking about the initial grant submission, which is getting someone quite critical to read it, which is what Kate did. I also give that same advice for if there's an interview part of that process too. Pick the scariest people in your institute to interview you. It's one of the best things I've done multiple times now, because it will never be as bad as... When you go to that final actual interview, it'll be so much nicer than the people who won't hold back in your institute. Definitely, go to those scary people, and just let them tear you apart. I know it sounds brutal, but it is better in that environment than walking into something, like the moment where it does matter, and having to then deal with those feelings in the moment. You don't want to have to do that.

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

Absolutely.

Dr Fiona McLean:

And that's again, about building resilience and being able to take on criticism. The other thing that I think is important to point out to listeners is you don't just get one reviewer, you get usually at least two, if not three, four-plus. And what's useful about multiple reviewers, is you get a sense of the grant more broadly. So, if you have one grumpy reviewer, it tends to stand out, and you can then focus in on the more constructive criticism that you're hopefully getting back. I always remember I put in a grant to do with mouse work, and one of the criticisms was all the fly stuff I was going to do and how I didn't have expertise, and I thought, "There's no fly work in this grant. They've clearly copied and pasted from another."

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

Oh, gosh. Oh, no.

Dr Fiona McLean:

So I was able, and it was interesting, it was one of the later points, and it had been this really brutal review up to this point, and then I just thought, "Oh, my goodness, you haven't read this properly, or you haven't done your review properly, so I'm just going to not even bother wasting energy thinking about that." So yeah, multiple reviewers, and just try and focus in on that constructive criticism. Just to summarise our discussion, I would say that we all get rejected. That's the main thing, everyone gets rejected. It's okay. It's not just you, it's not personal. But resilience is key, and some of the best ways to do that is to build up that resilience before it becomes critical in your career. So, build up by getting that criticism from people that you know, or people who aren't making that ultimate decision.

And also, yeah, feedback is key. It's key for improving the grant, moving forward with a grant, or even deciding whether a grant should be moved forward or not. I guess, something I'd like to add in there, and it's maybe something that Sarah touched on as well, is how many ideas you have is important. You want a balance, I guess, between not spreading yourself too thin, but having a few different ideas out there means that you become less, maybe, invested in just one thing that could get rejected. And I guess, taking a break.

Just before we finally go, if you could send one anonymous message back to a grant reviewer that maybe sticks in your mind, what would it say? I'll start. Mine would be "I don't work on flies and my names not spelt like that." Kate, what would your anonymous message be?

Dr Kate Harris:

Why did you only start referring to me as she when you were talking about my competence?

Dr Fiona McLean:

Dayne, I don't know how you follow that. What would your anonymous message-

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

I'm doing the complete opposite, just being like, "You need me. You've clearly not read it properly, what's going on?"

Dr Fiona McLean:

[inaudible 01:02:52], what's your anonymous message?

Dr Sarah Marzi:

It would probably be computational research is real research, and you do not need to be a clinician to work on research regarding diseases. Get with the times.

Dr Kate Harris:

But also, audience, it is really worth it. Please, please. I mean we've been a bit cathartic, I know, but we're all together. We're all in it together.

Dr Fiona McLean:

Yeah. Do you know what, I think there's such a really, in the UK certainly, there's a really lovely dementia research community, and I just think resources like Dementia Researcher, but also the Alzheimer's Research UK networks across the country are such great places too, for ECRs actually to start trying to get money through small grants and learn that grant writing process. But also, yeah, that's a great network to tap into to get people to review your work. You never know whose desk it's going to end up on, so just tap into those networks and get advice and get support.

I think most people do read a grant, and when you start it, you're like, "I really want this to be successful." And certainly, UKRI ones that land on my desk, and it's a dementia one, I'm like, "Yes, I really want a dementia research grant to be funded by the government, that's really important." So, there are reviewers out there that are rooting for you, just remember that too. That's unfortunately all we have time for this episode slash therapy session. Thank you so much to my brilliant guests, Dayne Beccano-Kelly, Sarah Marzi, and Kate Harris. And don't forget that the episode notes are available on the Dementia Researcher website, and you can learn more about our panellists, their work, and resources to deal with grant applications and rejections. I'm Fiona McLean, and you've been listening to the Dementia Researcher Podcast.

Dr Kate Harris:

Bye.

Dr Dayne Beccano-Kelly:

Bye.

Dr Sarah Marzi:

Bye.

Dr Fiona McLean:

Bye.

Voice Over:

The Dementia Researcher Podcast was brought to you by University College London, with generous funding from the UK National Institute for Health Research, Alzheimer's Research UK, Alzheimer's Society, Alzheimer's Association, and Race Against Dementia. Please subscribe, leave us a review, and register on our website for full access to all our great resources, DementiaResearcher.nihr.ac.uk.