The beginning of the R01 twin strategy

Parents of twins will probably laugh at my naivete, but as someone who always wanted two kids

Mother with twins

I always thought that twins were the most efficient way to achieve that goal: you have two of them at once and you're done. So I didn't bat an eye when one if my senior faculty mentors outlined what I will call the "R01 twin strategy" to me.

His reasoning was that getting a first R01 with early investigator status, a good funding history and good productivity should be doable, but the big ordeal is then getting that second R01, which is orders of magnitude harder that the first one. If my first R01 goes in in June and the second in October as planned, the Just In Time update for the second grant will include a funding decision for the first one...the unlikely chance that the first one gets funded could kill the second one. The alternative strategy is to develop them as fraternal twins, separate in all fashions (topic, approach and study section) and send them out into the world, i.e. the CSR, together. Then the JIT will say "pending" for both. If they get rejected, you resubmit together. If one gets funded, mazel tov! If both get funded, double mazel tov, golden confetti, and a serious discussion with the dean about lab space!!

It's bold and some will say it's suicidal. The huge issue is planning, because splitting the time to work on two major grants means half the writing effort and, in this funding climate, that could mean disaster. Yet, this is very appealing to me. I thought some of my other senior mentors would yell at me for proposing this, but they actually were intrigued and thought it was a viable idea as long as it was carried out correctly. Anyone who ever knew me in college knows my multitasking schedules to be the stuff of legend (and cause of endless teasing)... I have 19 weeks: if split in alternating 4 weeks intervals for each grant, that gives me 2 full months each, plus 3 extra weeks. So I'll commit to a pilot run: 1 week to outline 2 sets of specific aims, 4 weeks for each grant, then I'll decide whether to drop one or keep going on both. I've been on break from grant writing since August and this is an exciting new challenge.

I'll try and blog through it. Just as a preview of what's to come, today I had an experiment planning meeting with the co-PI on one of the grants and I started working on the new biosketch that will be used starting in June. This last endeavor caused a minor meltdown. You see, the new biosketch gets rid of your publication list and asks you to point out your major accomplishments and contributions to science, and I had nothing to say. What have I done that is really significant? I don't have a single major discovery that pushed science forward. No Science, Cell or Nature paper. How do I fake this? After a moment of panic and some soothing rounds of Candy Crush, I started writing possible contributions and grouping papers under them. I have been at the forefront of next-generation sequencing identifying multiple novel disease genes. I have defined guidelines for genetic testing in different population. I have pioneered blah, blah, blah. I have made sure healthy babies were born, goddammit! Okay, maybe R01 #2 will have a presentable biosketch...but that's the one with the least preliminary data. Where are the cell biology and mouse genetics pubs for R01 #1? Crap, that's the R00 conversion. This paper we're writing better be going out pronto!...And as you see I'm rapidly spinning out of control.

What do you think, readers, am I a) insane, b) ridiculously cocky, c) just right? Will I survive?

PS: I think the twins need names...