Letters of Support Comments – Mock Study Sections/NIH Summary Statements

Strengths

Personal, Genuine Touch:

  • Mentors and collaborators uniformly submitted strong letters of support for the candidate, most with comments on the individual characteristics of the candidate implying they know him well.
  • Beautifully written and very extensive letter is provided by the mentor outlining in detail (and in many pages) the plan to develop the applicant into an independent clinician-scientist.
  • Strong letters of support are provided by Dr. X’sprimary mentor and his advisors. They all speak to his past accomplishments and future promise as aclinician scientist in the area of leukemia. In particular, Dr. X notes that of more than 100trainees he has worked with, Dr. X “…is the single best clinical and translational fellow that I have been associated with…”
  • The mentor Dr. X is an outstanding mentor for Dr. X. He writes avery impressive letter and indicates that Dr. X is already working on two manuscripts that have beenderived from the work that Dr. X did in Dr. X’s laboratory. There is adequate detail in the mentoring letter for times that they will meet.
  • Dr. X’s letter outstanding: “[U]ndoubtedly the most focused and efficient trainee I haveever had. …very organized … manages to achieve his goals better than most trainees… experiments are always well-designed and invariably yield clear results due to thecombination of careful thought and execution. …extraordinary level of independence that Grant exhibits; this proposal is entirely his conception.”
  • Dr. X manages a laboratory with insight and strong support to develop exceptional talent. His letter is detailed, genuine, and wholly positive. His interactions with the candidatehave been productive, yet nurturing independence. The scope and plan for future mentoring isvery convincing.
  • Five letters of recommendation describe him as an exceptionally mature, brilliant, and productive scientist.

Strong Institutional Support/Clearly Stated Protected Time:

  • The environment for the propose training and researchplans is outstanding. A letter from Dr. X, Chair of the Department of Medicine, confirmsa strong institutional commitment including 75% protected time, appropriate office and laboratory space, full cancer center membership and privileges and CRA support of his clinical trials.
  • All other supplies/laboratory space/travel funds have been provided to Dr. X per the letter from Dr. X or from Dr. X.
  • The environment will support the applicant’s successful proposed studies. In the institutional support letter, Dr. X, Chair of Medicine, stated “providing startup package and independent laboratory space”.
  • Letter from Head of Psychiatry confirms 75% protected time for research; remainder of time on clinical activities.
  • The letters are strongly supportive, and there is even a letter from the chair of the Department of Medicine stating that the applicant will be transitioned to a tenure track position after two years.

Clear with Specific Details:

  • In their letters of support, they have each outlined detailed plans by which their contributions will be made and this clarity greatly enhances ability to appreciate the value of the applicant’s proposed training strategy.
  • In his letter to the committee, the mentor(s) strongly address the candidate’s potential and his/her strengths and areas needing improvement.
  • Transition (K99): Dr. X completely supports the candidate’s transition to independence and states in her letter that she will help guide him during his search for a faculty position and ensure that his future aims do not compete with hers.

Likelihood for Success:

  • Letters all mention high likelihood of success for this candidate.
  • Very strong letters of reference from senior faculty at multiple institutions.
  • She has an outstanding scientific and mentoring record and her letter of support indicates a clear commitment to the candidate.
  • Letters of support are outstanding, describing a highly intelligent, motivated, and productive young scientist with great potential for an independent research career.

Uniquely Qualified Applicant:

  • His letters of support as well as his publications attest to his ability to collaborate across disciplines and an ability to collaborate successfully in developing countries where field studies will be conducted.
  • Candidate’s ability to work productively across disciplinary boundaries, important to the next phase of his training, was specifically mentioned in both letters of support.

Grantsmanship:

  • Good integration of the candidate’s career development plan and research plan into all of the mentor letters of support.

Weaknesses

Generic, non-specific letters:

  • Only two mentor letters are sufficiently strong: Dr. X and X – the others are generic.
  • Collaborator letter needs strong enthusiasm, define who will collect data, and describe measurements in more detail. The letter can include why the proposed research is timely and important.

Mentor role not defined:

  • The provided LOS does not articulate what he adds to the education or mentoring plan. Dr. X is not a pediatric ophthalmologist and does not screen for or treat ROP which may have contributed to the poorly formulated research plan in Aim 1.
  • The support letters from Drs. X and X do not state clearly what the routine follow up for their donors and recipients is. This is a key point for this grant. We need to know that the donors and recipients are all followed by the local program for the required minimum 6 months. In some places and even perhaps here, many recipients return to their local nephrologist at 6 weeks or 3 months post-transplant.
  • Mentoring of the advanced methods of MRI is not well characterized in the proposal. Dr. X is an Instructor. He offers a letter of support but is not specifically listed as a mentor. Aim 2 is completely dependent on advanced MRI.

Mentor letters not from the appropriate people:

  • No LOS from Drs. X or X. Are they more appropriate as consultant (X) and collaborator (X)? If so make this clear in the career development plan.

Inconsistent/Inaccurate Letters of support:

  • X/X guaranteed 75% protected time; X 60% protected time from VA; time between facilities.
  • The career development plan and letters are for her prior critical care fellowship application, not a K23
  • Check on the letters of support – were they written for the K12 application?