 Okay, so while I'm pulling this up, how many of you, is that the right one? Yes. Are grandfunded predominantly? Okay, so just a couple of people. How many are grandfunded at all? A couple more people. Okay. All right, so I hope this is going to be interactive or else this is going to be not the most exciting talk. So hopefully you guys will interact. Well, that's originally what you asked me to talk about, was success at grants without a PhD. I noticed that part went away from the title, but I kept it in there because, you know, you don't have to have a PhD to be successful at having grants, but I can talk about that as we go as well. So this is, you don't have to actually read this, but I thought it would be helpful to talk about my grant history because it might be, I don't know, useful for you all to hear a little bit about how these things sort of build. And then I'll give you some advice for how to maybe go about this. But I think the point of this, again, is not necessarily reading through all of these, but I'm going to talk about a couple sort of major themes. And one of them is building experience because I think one of the things that really is not, is a common thing in health care providers. It's not a genetic counselor thing, but it's a clinician thing that clinicians want to just start with an R01. I'm just going to write a grant. I'm going to be the PI of an R01, and you can't do that. So one of the things I'm going to talk about is sort of building a history. And so you can get a feel this is in reverse chronological order that you kind of need to start with a project director role and move into a co-PI role and then move into a PI role. And these are not all research grants. Actually only the first three, the most recent three are research grants and actually the rest of them are education and programmatic grants. So there, and even the PCORI, PCORINet isn't really a research grant either, even though we're doing a lot of research under it. So, you know, there is a sort of building and history that needs to come here. The other thing I want to just point out is that you see that my funding comes from lots of different places. And I think another thing I'm going to talk a lot about is not getting so focused on my research funding has to come from the NIH. That, you know, there are lots of other good opportunities. And I will also say, in case I forget to say it later, that I wrote three grants that failed to achieve funding. So you don't get funded for everything. And that's actually a really good fund rate. And I can tell you some of the tips that helped me get that rate, but some of it's luck. So there is some of that right time, right place sort of thing. So just to sort of start, before we get into this, I'm going to just make sure everyone understands what the principal investigator role means because people use it all the time. And really a lot of times if you've been involved with research, sometimes the PIs do more or less. And sometimes they don't actually take on the true PI role. But this is what the role really means. Basically you're responsible for meeting the goals that you laid out in your protocol. You have to comply with all of the reporting that's required, which is quite a bit. You're responsible for that. And then you're responsible for complying with the financial terms and conditions. So really it's, you know, it's my role as a PI to literally verify every expense that comes through my grants. There's a lot of very basic mundane administration that goes along with it. So these are the basically the PI role. So you see there's nothing in the PI role that says anything about your degree, what level of training you have, what background you have. It's not part of the definition of the role. And I will, you know, at bolded at the bottom, lots of institutions actually have very restrictive roles for PIs, but most funding institutions don't. And I'll talk a little bit more about that. But these are the things that PI is supposed to do under the role. Okay, so these are the four major things I'm going to talk about. One is the idea of building your experience base. The second is finding the right opportunity for the right research question. The third is collaborating with the right team. And the fourth is helping reviewers to score you favorably because really that's mostly in your power. And the bottom thing I'm not going to talk about specifically, but this is an overarching theme and something we've already talked about today. It's really finding a mentor is so important to making all four of these work well. And your mentor can, you know, Barbara brought up a, you know, going to these different sorts of meetings and finding mentors. It doesn't need to be a clinician. It doesn't need to be someone who even does the kind of research you do, but it needs to be someone who is an experienced successful grant writer. So they can walk you through the process of writing a grant, what it means to actually administer a grant, the different roles within the grants. And there's a lot of kind of behind the scenes sort of old boys network that happens, even though it's not all boys obviously anymore. And really having that inside track and how these relationships work and how you can jump ahead a little bit in line by calling this person here. And those things are really important and you get that through finding that mentor. Okay. So feel free to interrupt and jump in at any time. All right. So I'm going to start by talking about building this experience base. So generally, this depends on the funder, but generally most funders in their program leadership, they have the PI and the project director. And so the project director is a defined role, sometimes in non-research grants, the project director and the PI are the same thing, but usually they're pulled apart. So the project director is generally the person who is in charge of the day-to-day implementation. The PI keeps track of whether that implementation is happening, but the project director actually moves the project through the stages and is in charge of the day-to-day implementation. So one of the things that my mentor has told me very early on that was really helpful to me is making sure that you have a project director role if you're interested in getting grants for yourself. And one of the things to think about is whether a project director is a reasonable title for one or more of the roles you have now. You don't have to be under a grant to be called a project director. And being able to show that you have project director experience and having that title actually is helpful because that's what reviewers look for. So if that title seems reasonable with the kind of roles you're doing and you anticipate wanting or receiving grant funding, consider asking whether that can actually be part of your professional title because it just helps build that knowledge base and reviewers understand what that role means. Also, project director experience that can be in a non-research setting, and I showed you that in my CV, it transfers perfectly well. It's a set of skills that are more administrative and not research skills. So again, think about whether you have education roles, whether you have administrative roles. They don't have to be research roles where the project director designation would fit and think about whether you can use that to build your experience base as well. And if you're being written into a grant as a project director, we're going to say help write the grant because that is where you really get that down and dirty experience of how you were things. So reviewers find the most compelling things that there are phrases you don't want to use in research grants. There are phrases you should be using. A lot of it depends on the funders, and those things come from writing a grant with an experienced grant writer, so you have to really be involved in that process. Really volunteer to help write any grant if it's something you're interested in who are being written by these well-respected, well-funded colleagues, and that experience matters an enormous amount. So even if, you know, one of the things I did was I offered to proof it. I like to edit things. So I offer, until really recently, I offered people I knew writing grants that I would be happy to proofread their grants and reread them quickly, and it really was very helpful to get a feel for how people go about writing grants in different ways, and you can learn a lot from doing that. So this is, you know, none of this, this is all I should have started by saying, this is all my opinion. I don't think I have anything in here that's set in stone, but what I think is most helpful for people is to think about having two project director experiences because those experiences really are very helpful. It would be really overwhelming to be stuck in a PI role immediately, and then ask for a co-PI role as your first step and do that with a successful investigator, especially if you have a mentor experience with someone already. Many people are very willing to have someone be a co-PI, and a lot of times what that means is you do all the work and they, you know, don't do as much work, but that will work well for you and will help you get, again, a lot of really good experience. So do ask for that co-PI role and make that be your transition to a full PI. And, again, lead the writing of the grant proposal because that experience will be tremendously helpful to you. So when you build this experience base, some of this is selling it, and I'm going to talk more about selling it, but you need to demonstrate this history. So you need to be creative about ways you tie your roles together. You know, you can have had roles that look very much like Project Direction and have a lot of administrative roles in the clinic that you can tie together with your research-related roles, and you need to commence people that you are capable of administering a grant. And, you know, the expertise, you can pull in expertise from your collaborator, so you don't have to be a stats expert to be able to be a PI, but you do have to be able to administer the grant. So you need to just be able to tie together the history that you have. Creating a niche for yourself is really important, and it's really useful if you can forecast out about what your niche is going to be, and sometimes that's really easy, and sometimes it's not. And I'll give you an example of when it was easy. It was very clear a couple years ago that this patient-focused drug development, patient-centered outcomes, patient-oriented research, all of these different ways, patient engagement is now this huge lingo around patient engagement. You could see this coming years away, right? So I started doing a lot of patient-engaged research. I was already doing it. I started calling it patient-engaged research, community-based participatory approach. You need to find, you know, you can think about things that are coming, and for you all in the room, guess what it is? It's whole exome sequencing and whole genome sequencing. You guys are already experts in that area, and that's going to be a major funding source for the next five years. Anticipate that. Make yourself a niche. Get people thinking about you in those areas. And I'll talk a little bit more about ways you can sort of keep an eye out for this, but it's good to get people to start thinking about you as one of these people who are in this particular niche. Okay. So the last thing is just, again, think when you're creating your history for yourself. Do think about, broadly, about your experience. It's not going to include clinical work, advocacy, research, other experiences. Yeah, so it doesn't, just because you're doing a research grant doesn't mean that the only kind of history that's important is your research history. What's the wrong one? All right. So then finding the right opportunity. So before I actually move on to that, were there any questions at this point about these ideas of experience-based? I know it's late in the day and this is not the most exciting talk. Okay. All right, so I will- That's a good question, Holly. Okay. Good. Yay. Yeah, it just occurred to me when you were saying that you volunteered to proofread things. And I'm curious about how you couch that and it depends on who you are, the extent to which you volunteered to proofread something and then offer substantive comment. Or were you actually just saying, let me check your commas? Like, let me- No. No, no, that's a good question. I mean, you know, you could very early on say, I'm just a real- I'm a good writer and a lot of people really aren't good writers and it could be started by, you know, I liked writing and if you're writing a grant, I'm happy literally to copy edit your grant. I approach- I tend to approach it more, you know, I'd be happy to read it with the perspective of whatever, you know, as a clinical genetics person, someone who's worked in this population and have a more content. But really what you want is you want to get your eyeballs on someone else's grant. You can ask them questions about how, you know, once you see it, people really want to talk about their grants. They spend enormous amount of time writing them. And if you come up with a reasonable question, I don't care how you got your eyes on it, if you come up with a reasonable question, they'll talk about it forever. So it's whatever you think people would welcome in terms of your input. Yeah, no, thank you for clarifying. And I just find that, you know, it's- I don't know. I feel like it's a pitfall that people fall into to serve administrative roles that are below their brain and their face or whatever, because that work needs to be done and because someone needs to do it. So thanks for clarifying. You take full advantage of the opportunity when you've got your eyes on it. Okay, all right. Any other questions or thoughts? Yeah, that is a good point, Mark. You don't want to sell yourself as someone's, you know, assistant, right? Yeah, you do have expertise, but it really- the main thing for your learning experience is getting your eyes on their grant. Yeah. Okay, so finding the right opportunity. So a big part of finding the right opportunity is matching it to your research question. And that's so obvious that I'm only going to talk about that when I get into the funding sources and you guys know how to write a good, compelling research question, but can you sell it? So one of the reasons I think I have a reasonably good success rate with my grants is you have to- so they use this term in industry, which is kill the baby. So if you have a bad- I know it's- it's frowning. It's a really horrible term, but you have a drug candidate and it's not working well. You got to kill it when it's a baby. You don't want it to become a teen or an adolescent or an adult drug development target and then kill it because you put millions of dollars into it. Well, so if you- I'm going to make Barb sick, all right, I'll go away from that term. But you know, the idea is you really need to stop yourself pretty soon after development. Usually for me, it takes about four months to write a grant. About a month in, I stop and sit down with whoever I'm writing and can we really sell this? Can we convince ourselves? So one example, I was writing a grant for AHRQ and they have an enormous amount of money. It was very hard not to write this proposal and we could almost do it, but we just couldn't quite get there. And about a month in, I said we're just not- we're not doing this because it's either going to be all of our full-time jobs for the next three or four months until it's due, which was not going to realistically happen. Or we're just- we can't- we just weren't convinced we could sell it. So we killed it. And you really need to be willing to take that. I think a lot of people, you get so caught up, this is the best idea, we have to do this. And the question is, you have to do it now and is now the right time and are you ready? And we clearly couldn't- we didn't have the economic data we needed to support this thing for AHRQ and we clearly weren't going to get it and you've got to kill it, you've got to let it go. So I do encourage you, before you get- have an adolescent protocol that you step back and say, you know, is this proposal really going to fly and if not, just you've got to kill it. And that doesn't mean you never do it. Keep it in your files, but you know, don't do it. Don't try to do it right then. You may need a different funding source. You may need a different call for proposals. You may need to think through your research idea for a couple more years. So the other thing that I mentioned this before a little bit, but really identifying trends on hot research topics is really important because you're- I mean it just increases your ability to get funded so much. I can't even tell you, and you guys were so lucky because we are in an area where people like to fund the sort of- they don't necessarily want to fund outcome studies and genetic counseling, but they're very interested in funding a lot of things we're interested in. So this idea of patient-centered research research that informs policy, which is a lot of the research that we're doing. These issues of whole exome and whole genome sequencing, there are lots of funders that are targeting the kinds of research that we want to do. So you got to do some searching out there, identify where these trends are and where the funding sources are because that's where you're going to be able to write your proposal. And some people, especially people who I think are very tied to all of their dollars being tied to grants, kind of have to follow the funding source and write grants specific to different calls. But I think for most of us in the room, we would have the luxury of actually coming up with an idea and then going out and looking for a call that the idea fits well under so that it tastes a little bit longer to do it that way because you have to wait for the right call to come out. But typically things we're interested in again are pretty- there's dollars behind things we're interested in these days, so that's good. Another thing, and this is something that I've only in the past couple of years started to really pay attention to. If you have a very limited area of interest, so for me doing research these days on muscular dystrophy, you can track dollars coming through the government through the appropriations. So you can look two years ahead. Here is the- Congress is voting on a piece of legislation that's going to earmark $10 million to the DOD looking at Duchenne-related research. Okay, you can follow it. You can start preparing protocols and ideas and having those things, and you can actually follow- it's all public record, so you can just follow it through. So you do need to- if you're really going to be interested, especially in a niche area, you can start looking at things like appropriations. But consider a variety of funding sources, and you'll be able to talk about those funding sources. So looking at who funds programs in your area, and you'd be surprised if you have a specific area, whether it's a disease-specific area, whether you're looking at health-related outcomes, whatever it is. There are lots of different funders. Who's going to start funding? Again, this is being able to forecast, talking to people who are very familiar with these areas, because there are always new funders coming up, and exploring concordance with the organization's mission and strategic plan, and that's true for NIH and outside of NIH. If you're interested in something that looks like a good match for NINDS, Neurological Disorders and Stroke, go read their strategic plan for the next three years and see how well what you're proposing fits in their strategic plan. You've got to be able to sell it. Being creative about where you're looking for funding sources, and I'll show you just a very brief list in the next page, and you do need to take advantage of being a new investigator. They're all kinds of fun, interesting programs for new investigators, especially in the government, but not just in the government. You get to take advantage of sources of funds that are earmarked for new investigators, but they also tend to have more permissive rules around how information is provided and how they're reviewed and scored. Take advantage of that as long as you possibly can. It's sometimes tied to your year of graduation. It's sometimes tied to a particular degree, but a lot of times it's just that you can't have received a particular amount of funding before from the government. So this is not an inclusive list, but to the obvious one, NIH is on the top. You do need to understand institute priorities, so you guys probably know this, but when you apply to the NIH, lots of NIH calls have lots of institutes that are involved. Not all institutes are involved in most calls, but you can target your proposal toward a particular institute. So if you're interested in... So I'll use one of my examples. So we were interested in doing a study on expectations and experiences in clinical trials for Nuchen. So neurological disorders of strokes is an obvious partner with that, but there are four or five institutes that seem like they're good partners, and one of the ones we were very interested in going to was the National Institutes of Nursing Research, because it was literally almost word-for-word one of the things in their strategic plan for the next three years. So, you know, you need to talk to the institutes, talk to the grant officer, and get a feel for their priorities and their interests. And a lot of times they're willing to say to you, you know, you'll be better off if you target this to another institute. You'll probably get a more favorable review. There are also some institutes, and this is very... This is totally my opinion. So, I mean, in the NIH, I feel like I have to give a lot of caveats to this, but some institutes seem to be more willing to fund untraditional research teams, whether it's a set of funding going to an advocacy foundation like where I work, whether it's a new investigator, someone who has a different kind of expertise than they typically see. You know, of course, the reviewers are not... The reviewers are... The people who make the decisions about the funding are different than the institute, because the reviewers are separated from the institutes. But the institutes can save proposals they're very interested in. The institutes can give a little nut. You know, so I don't want to give you the impression the institutes can pick and choose, but they can help a little bit. And so I think it's important to take advantage of that little bit of help when you can. I'm probably gonna... Someone's probably gonna come out of the wall and get me now for saying that. So they're also, obviously, regional, state, or local resources. These are great actually for clinic support. So we had a grant... Gosh, it was years ago at this point. We wanted to fund a clinical service, and it was actually a local foundation that funded it, but you need to look at resources that are local. There is a foundation directory, so they're actually a source where you can go and get information on the 10,000 largest U.S. foundations, and they tell you what they want to fund. You know, it tells you the, you know, the contact information, how they do their funding, are you allowed to go to them without them coming to you first? How much money do they give, and what are their programmatic areas of interest? So there are lots of resources. You all probably know the Department of Defense does a lot of funding and genetics, interestingly. The Department of Education does some. The CDC, they don't fund research, but they do a lot of research-like programs. So they're actually an interesting target. We've already talked a bit about PCORI. It's the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. PCORI was funded through the Affordable Care Act, and they have a really quite significant amount of money that they're actually mandated to get out the door very quickly. So they're really looking for engagement with lots of different investigators. Professional societies sometimes give funding, lots of disorder-specific society funding, and there are lots of other sources. So I think people tend to look really at the very top of this list at the NIH and think, that is my one and only target. So just be very creative about where you would look for funding. Okay, so before I move to the right team, does anyone have questions about sources of funding? Not yet. Okay. So again, okay, to be a PI, you do not have to be an expert in everything and you don't have to be a research expert, but you do have to be able to get, to critically assess your own expertise and experience to hold together the right team. So do you need someone who can develop very sophisticated statistical plans and lead the analysis, even if they're not the one running the analysis? Do you need someone who's a particular clinical expert? You need to really identify, take out some time and identify who would be on the team. And many people, I think you'd be surprised, my experience has been really great with folks being willing to be written into grants, especially if you can promise them maybe less than 10% because they're awful out of, especially academic folks who have an enormous number of like 2% pieces of their time written into grants. So do try to identify the right people to run a successful program and that really is critical to be able to sell yourself, especially as a new investigator. You have to be able to justify your team to a reviewer. So why do you pick these people and what expertise do they bring? The budget becomes a huge constraint and I'm not going to talk specifically about writing a budget because we would all be asleep in five minutes, but writing a budget is really hard. It's really complicated and it takes a lot of practice. So this is one of the places where you really need to lean on a mentor to be able to develop the budget appropriately. Okay, so how do reviewers rate you? So really, how do you get yourself to be considered to be an acceptable PI or project director or whatever kind of role you want? So, you know, they rate you by what you give them in your proposal. I have only one time ever had a reviewer reference something I had done that was not written into the proposal. It's very rare that reviewers go out and do an enormous amount of research about people. They take what you give them so you've got to sell yourself and genetic counselors don't tend to be so good at doing that. So really, you have to demonstrate that you understand the grant process. So you need to, you know, take the time, write the proposal in a way that demonstrates your understanding of the process. You have to comply with the requirements. I know that sounds so obvious, but the requirements sometimes aren't as straightforward as you would hope they were and they tend to be quite complicated. So you really have to demonstrate compliance. You need to write a very good biosketch and this is where you really, again, need to lean on your mentor and your biosketch needs to sell your experience. So again, it's kind of bringing together your history and being able to sell it. You need to write a well-written proposal, obviously, with compelling and feasible objective aims. You need to demonstrate that I can do this because I'm showing you by writing a really good proposal that I have the expertise to do this and that's how you're judged. One other thing I think is really helpful, especially for new investigators or if your organization's experience isn't super high in running grants. So if those of you in academic settings don't need to do this but I needed to do this, Jessica, if you were going to do this in a situation that is not a research setting, you want people who are writing your letters of support, which are really important to actually say, Trisha, I worked with Trisha for 10 years and she is an incredibly good investigator and she will be able to lead this grant successfully. You want people to say things about your expertise and then your organization, if necessary, that you have the capacity to do this. You know, understanding the grant process, as somebody mentioned before, most funders have very clear guidance on their overall processes and you can find them. They're not always on the call for proposals, but especially the NIH has incredible resources and one of the things that's sort of a bummer is a lot of times you don't find them until you get funded and they start emailing you these incredible newsletters and they do these great things and you're like, no, I wouldn't have been really helpful before I wrote my grant. But especially the NIH, but most funders have really good guidance. The individual call for proposals tend to be much less well-defined and this depends a lot on the funding source and the time of the year. So sometimes people get stuck with extra money and they end up having to write a call really quickly and they're not as well-defined as you would hope. But there is a grant officer any call and you should call them. You should absolutely, you can't hurt yourself doing that. Call them and ask them questions, ask them about their interest in your topic, how well do they think that your topic meets the call for proposals and use any resources offered by them. You really cannot be penalized for doing that and it helps a lot. And it also will, again, the idea of not the baby, I'm not using the baby, but really getting rid of things that aren't going to fly very early. It's really helpful with the grant officer because they can be very straightforward about, you know, the call may not have been as clear as we wanted, but I know this will not fit within our priorities. So you can get rid of things very early by doing that. Also, just last, I'm not talking much about your own institution, but especially if you're in an academic institution, they tend to have very stringent policies and processes about how grants are written, who gets to write them, the process works, the timeline required. And so you need to really pay attention to those because a common thing that I've had is people ask us to, you know, collaborate on a grant and they're in academic institution and, you know, when does it do well, my institution requires it in a day because they need three months to review it or something ridiculous. So you have to be really careful about the amount of time required on your institution side as well. Writing a good proposal, I'm not going to go very much into except to say you really need to read the request for proposals very carefully, very early on. They're very complicated. They have a lot of parts to them, but you guys are smart. It's just really a matter of being detailed and taking the time to think very carefully about all of the things they require, read through the entire thing several times before you get started because there will be a surprise. I promise you on page 54, there's going to be something that no one ever mentioned before that will be a surprise to you. So I'm going to end with a couple common pitfalls. So one of them is misunderstanding the time and process. I've had a lot of people who are writing their first grant who've come to me and they end up, it's almost always you don't give yourself enough time. It does take several months to put together a good grant and you really just can't do it in, you know, 10 days before the grant suit. It's just not possible. So you really have to pay attention to the time and process and the time and process. People also expect to get their proposals funded and I laugh because I'm one of those people who still, I still expect to get mine funded and I expect to get funded on first submission, which is very naive, but, you know, a lot of times people don't, most times, people do not get funded on first submission and you revise and you resubmit and different institutions have rules about how that's done. Insufficient commitment or expertise on the team, insufficient resources in the budget, over-promising, over-promising is a huge problem. You guys, if you promise something in the grant, you are required to do it. And one of the things you hear a lot is people over-promising to get funding and then thinking they can kind of, you know, negotiate out. There are grants and cooperative agreements. If you're going for cooperative agreements, sometimes you can sort of do that, but it's just be really careful because what you put in there is what you're required to do. And applying for an R01 with insufficient supporting data and experience, I'm just at the point now where I'm thinking about applying for an R01 and I'm going to do that with a co-investigator, a co-PI. The rest of these are pretty straightforward. I will just talk about the last one, which is last-minute submission problems. So I had a grant that I worked on for months and months and actually because of something that was a glitch on the funder side, we could not get the proposal in on time. It was their fault and they would not review it. Okay, so you have to give yourself a cushion, a big cushion. I'm a last-minute person, so if it's due at 12 o'clock, I tend to want to submit it at 11.30. You cannot do that with a grant. You have to really be careful because you really don't want to spend four months watching your baby grow into a teen and be ready to launch them and then get this little no-bag, so sorry your grant's not going to be reviewed because you did not comply with our timeline, even if it's your fault that the institution doesn't necessarily think it's your fault. So be very careful about the submission. The submission takes way, way longer than you think it will and it's way more complicated than you would ever expect. I've already talked about knowing when to let an idea go. So I think that, oh, that's it. That truly is it. So any questions or thoughts about now? Are you guys like, I'm never ever writing a grant? It's kind of fun. I'll just reiterate the important, like that I laughed with the bullet with you expect your every grant to get funded and I think it's such an important point to make. It's great when you're writing the grant to have that expectation because you've got to believe it's going to get funded, otherwise you can't be motivated enough to get through it, but having as my primary grant writing mentor, Deborah, I was able to temper some of that optimism with Deborah who very happily will always say, we're going to write this, but I never expect anything to get funded. So having that sort of mentorship around being okay when it doesn't get funded the first time around and that you know that there are researchers who live their whole careers this way and it's fine. You'll get it funded. You'll get the next idea funded and that's all right. Having those sorts of expectations, I think are really important. What drives you to do it now? Oh, goodness. Okay. It would be interesting. Okay. That's part of it. I always want to do something else and I like to direct my own research and that's really how I can get away with doing the things I want to do is I have to get funding to do it. So I keep getting funding to do it. I think that's a big part of it, but I really like the process. I think there's something sort of, it's a really intellectual, interesting process to actually go through and write the grant and pull the team together. It's fun. Not all of it is fun, but most of it is. It depends on the source. So there are some funders who absolutely will not fund particular sets of potential fundees, but that's very rare. And so, you know, especially like the government, every call has a set of requirements around who can receive the dollars and usually they're very permissive. So this is kind of piggybacking off your answer to Matt's question, but to what extent in your experience do you feel like it actually helps with your thinking and your science? Like the whole idea that the exercise of writing the grant makes you actually really work through your research design and really think about your ideas. Has that actually been true in your experience? Definitely. I mean, it's like, it's like writing an IRB protocol and steroids. I mean, you have to like really carefully think through every process and step along the way. So it requires you to be very systematic in your thinking. Yeah. Which doesn't always feel good during the time, but it does feel good at the end when you have a very clear plan. So the part Holly's not telling you? Her PCORI grant was for a million dollars. Yeah, it is. I'm responsible for all of those dollars. It's kind of alarming actually. Yeah. Let's have wine. Also, it's a complicated models too. You have to know the rules and the different sources about how to combine different sources of funding for research in ways that are permissible by the granting agency, and you just have to kind of learn those things. But it can widen your opportunities in your collaborations to learn more. All right. Wonderful day. Thank you to all of you for your patience and contributions and ideas. There's lots to mull over. I want a whole second day so I can start processing some of this. Anybody want to add anything before we break for wine? I'm really focused on the wine today, I guess. I can't make a PC work anymore. Oh, I'm just pulling out. Sorry. All right. Because we have a video recorded, Lori and I might talk about writing down, not notes from the whole thing, but maybe some themes or some bottom lines or some ideas that we can distribute to everybody. And in fact, maybe we'll make it a group document so you guys can add to it if you'd like. So we have some kind of tangible outcome that we can refer to. I know many of us have our own notes, but it might be nice to have kind of a collaborative piece summary because I think we're interested in different pieces. That might be a nice little take-home thing. And we'll follow up with you about the every other month, our mentoring, consultation, phone service. And realistically, we probably won't start it until September, but we'll send it around. Actually, we'll probably try and do a doodle poll so we can capture a time when the most people can, because there's no way we can always capture everybody, but we'll try to do a time we can capture as many people as possible. Probably pretty easily, yeah. I'm doing my consent study over the phone, and I'm just putting it on speaker and recording it, so we could do that. Okay. All right. Thank you all. Thank you especially to those of you who traveled afar to come and carve out the time in your busy schedules. I hope all of you will show up at the house. I don't think I put the address on here. It's 5523 Oakmont. And if you kind of remember where the street is across from the fire station, it's the 10th house down on the right. Most of you have seen it at some point in your life. And I'm going to leave now. Give me, you know, give me 10, 15 minutes. There have been children there, unmonitored, so.