Synopsis

Keywords: Transferable skills: Grantsmanship

“The only constant in life is change” - Heraclitus of Ephesus. In the course of your grant-funded research you will constantly need to pivot. This talk describes some causes, and some metrics for when to pivot and how pivots might integrate with a funding mechanism.

One way of characterizing research would be simply as a series of pivots; they will happen. I break the topic into scientific and externally induced pivots and proceed from the ‘big-picture’ toward details of grant execution/administration.

Scientific pivots The brilliant science enthusiast and science fiction writer Isaac Asimov is attributed to have said: “The most exciting phrase in science is not ‘Eureka!’ but ‘that’s funny’…”. This suggests that interesting science is not planned in advance but actually occurs mainly from unplanned pivots. If you know so much about the subject that you don’t encounter some surprises where your initial guess/direction was wrong, why are you bothering to study it in the first place? It would be foolish not to pivot and act on the new insight. This is not, however, how large funding agencies think. They tend to lean toward the other end of the scientific spectrum; that of the clinical trial where the smallest detail is planned in advance and the study consists of simply executing the plan. This makes perfect sense and ensures that a coherent plan is completed allowing a clear interpretation of the results. While one would be crazy not to pivot in response to an interesting new observation, we have all seen investigators that scientifically pivot so much that they don’t really complete anything. One metric for executing a scientific pivot might be whether the data suggesting the pivot is of sufficient quality/extent that it can be published on its own. If not, perhaps you are being too hasty and in danger of bouncing around without recognizable results.
For most of us, a successful research career will consist of balancing the two extremes. If you are contemplating a significant scientific pivot, it is probably wise to discuss your plans with the granting agency’s program officer. While I frequently disparage funding agencies for leaning toward the cut-and-dry clinical-trial end of the spectrum, in my experience, the scientific program officers (of, say, the NIH) fully understand the potential of pivoting toward an interesting new direction. Keeping them in the loop can provide you with advice from an invested but arms-length observer or perhaps even additional resources to facilitate the pivot. The flexibility stems from the difference between a grant (flexible) and a contract (rigid).
The scientific pivot that is always present In the standard grant-funded scenario, you are expected to gather so much preliminary data to justify your approach that executing the grant really is just a matter of acquiring additional data or constructing or evaluating the full device/software (rather than a prototype). In this case, the proposed research really is more like a clinical trial (but still not as rigid). Of course, you also need to be laying the groundwork for future grants with data and proof-of-concept of new (but related) directions. This will involve research of the more pivot-filled type. While we might be funded to perform a specific project.
The “new idea” scientific pivot In the course of the work, you get a new idea that is perhaps adjacent but not directly related to the original work. Do you drop everything to pursue it? If there was actually nothing wrong with the old plan, I would say; no, don’t drop the old plan; expand to also work on the new plan with the goal of securing an additional grant. Yes, this involves diverting enough effort to lay the groundwork for the new grant, but if the idea is adjacent, this path is not that different from the standard research cycle, where you are always acquiring the copious preliminary data needed for your next grant (in addition to executing the old grant’s plan). Again, part of this lies with the flexibility of the granting agency and where your award lies on the spectrum between a research grant and a contract.
Externally induced pivots
Externally induced scientific pivots; One morning you open up the MRM table of contents email and read about your wonderful idea fully developed and characterized by another group. This will eventually happen to you! It won't be very comforting to realize that this is actually an external validation of your idea… But, if it really did work well, there are probably several follow-up ideas that you can pivot towards. If it didn’t work well, the other group saved you some effort; you should abandon it or figure out how to fix it. After calming down by thinking about this for a week and formulating a few possibilities, it is probably a good idea to meet with the grant program officer and discuss. Again, this definitely happens; it will not be the first time they encounter this problem.
Perhaps it's not another group, but your own efforts show that your proposal will not work. Definitely, time to pivot! Again, a metric of “have I tried hard enough” might be whether you have enough interesting investigation to publish the negative result. Enthusiasm for negative results is never as high as it should be, but if the investigation is complete enough, they are valuable. It’s a harder paper to write; look for some examples where people have successfully turned a negative result into a useful paper. Hopefully, the direction of the pivot will emerge from the data that proved the idea unworkable.
Pivots in response to the skills of your hires; It would be lovely to think that after getting the grant that needs X, Y and Z done, you place a job ad on the ISMRM website for a postdoc and hire someone with exactly the skills and interests needed. In reality, I have found it beneficial to at least partially adapt the job to the person. However, some adaptation of the person to the job (training new skills for the person) is also valuable. This pivot is designed to make maximal use of the postdoc/student’s training, skills and interests, as well as get the tasks done. It might mean a project gets 50% effort from two postdocs rather than 100% effort from one (although this has dangers at publication time!)
Pivots in response to staffing changes; People will come and go. A co-investigator changes institutions, a key postdoc gets a great offer; do you need to change your grant direction? Probably not. There will be a change, but hopefully, this does not fully induce a scientific pivot. The co-investigator can likely still participate and the expense of more paperwork (a subcontract and painful IRB expansion). Maybe there is a replacement in your institution. The key postdoc might even still be able to participate. Postdocs are anticipated to leave, suggesting the constant need to plan for this and openly discuss the 1-2 year timeframe with your postdocs so there are fewer surprises. No one is irreplaceable (including you!); these might slow you down, but hopefully not derail your plans.

Acknowledgements

No acknowledgement found.

References

No reference found.