University Times

Pitt’s senior administration grabs most of the headlines. The faculty here get noticed when they bring in research dollars, win teaching awards or publish in their fields.

But behind the scenes, University staff, some 7,200 strong across five campuses, often toil in jobs ranging from the mundane to the esoteric.

From mailroom workers to data entry specialists, costume designers to biosafety officers, photographers to accountants, staff at Pitt perform tasks great and small, year-in and year-out, for the greater good of the University.

This is one in an occasional series profiling University staff, providing a glimpse of some of the less recognized employees whose primary business is making Pitt work.

***

In an environment in which competition for research dollars grows ever more fierce, University investigators need every advantage when applying for grants.

Assisting researchers in putting their best foot forward are Pitt’s scientist-administrators who help investigators review, critique and polish grant applications before they are submitted.

When fully staffed, the Office of Research, Health Sciences has three scientist-administrators dedicated to helping faculty from the Schools of the Health Sciences prepare proposals to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other funding sources.

“We give people that extra edge to try to be as competitive as they possibly can,” said Jeremy Somers, OORHS associate director for science. In a typical year, his office’s scientist-administrators assist with about 100 applications, not only for individual research grants but also for larger center or program project grants. The OORHS service is free, but limited to faculty in the health sciences schools.

The role scientist-administrators play is increasingly important in the wake of recent NIH changes that have tightened page limits and cut resubmission opportunities from two to one. Somers said researchers want to ensure they make the most of their limited chances to submit, and in light of the changes, even some experienced, successful researchers are seeking guidance on how to write a good grant application in the new format.

Good scientist-administrators are a rare breed. “It’s incredibly difficult to find qualified individuals,” said Somers, who has two vacancies to fill. A PhD in an area such as chemistry or the biological sciences isn’t enough. Because the job involves editing and critiquing science, a high level of written professional communication also is required, he said. “There are lots of smart people, but it’s hard to find lots of smart people who can write well,” he said.

Julie Myers-Irvin

Increasingly, individual departments are recognizing the value of having grant proposal reviewers on staff and adding or wishing for scientist-administrators of their own. Julie Myers-Irvin is the OORHS’s most-recently departed scientist-administrator, having moved this month to a newly established position in the medical school’s radiology department.

Myers-Irvin has a bachelor’s degree in biology with a minor in chemistry. She earned a PhD in pharmacology at Pitt and did a two-year post-doc in tissue engineering at the McGowan Institute for Regenerative Medicine.

She discovered in graduate school that academic research wasn’t for her. “I like to talk about science, I like to think about science, I like to read about it. But I didn’t want to be the one actually standing at the bench doing it,” she said, citing an aversion to the constant pressure to maintain funding support — not only for herself, but for others in her lab who would be depending on her.

In addition, “I like variety,” she said — another advantage over bench research, where an investigator’s focus typically must be narrow.

Myers-Irvin became a scientist-administrator at Pitt in 2007, having learned about the job from a graduate school colleague who had become a scientist-administrator at OORHS.

She hasn’t regretted the move. “I’m not an expert on anything, but I know a little about a lot of things,” she said. “I get to read about science and I still talk with investigators about science.”

Myers-Irvin said she initially had some misgivings about her ability to critique applications in sciences outside her field of study, but soon found she could offer valuable assistance. “Grantsmanship is grantsmanship,” she said. “There are basic rules you learn and can apply across different disciplines.”

Conversely, being outside an investigator’s area of expertise can be beneficial. Grant applications may be reviewed by someone who is in a related field but is not intimately familiar with a specific area, she said, adding that removing jargon can increase the clarity of the application.

Scientist-administrators may juggle as many as five or six projects at once, assisting investigators through face-to-face meetings or by exchanging documents electronically.

Some investigators seek help early in the process — perhaps with only a few paragraphs prepared, or even just as they begin to consider applying for a particular grant. Others seek a quick review of finished applications just before a submission deadline.

Myers-Irvin prefers to work with researchers early on, when there is time to exchange drafts and hone an application. “There, you really get to see some of the end results of your work,” she said.

Given that NIH grants make up the bulk of the University’s research funding, part of the job centers on staying current with NIH requirements. Scientist-administrators also ensure an application’s details — such as adhering to page limits and using the proper fonts and margins — are in order. For applications that are being resubmitted, scientist-administrators ensure the issues raised by the reviewers are addressed in the revision.

Their services also can be an invaluable resource for faculty for whom English is a second language.

But scientist-administrators go far beyond checking spelling and grammar to provide critical input by reading an application in the way an NIH reviewer might.

“We give them advice, critiques and a little tough love here before it’s reviewed by a study section,” Myers-Irvin said.

The most difficult part of the job, she said, is telling an investigator an application isn’t ready to be submitted. Delivering the “I don’t think this is ready for prime time” message isn’t meant to be a personal criticism, although it can be perceived that way.

Myers-Irvin said she especially wouldn’t want to discourage a new investigator. “It’s hard to tell them to wait until the next cycle,” but sometimes more time is needed to present an application in the right way. And, given the new NIH resubmission limits, “you really have to put your best foot forward from the get-go,” she said.

Some investigators take her advice; others don’t. “I can only offer suggestions,” Myers-Irvin said. “At the end of the day, it’s their application.”

Because the awards process can be drawn out — “It can be a year until you hear anything,” she said — scientist-administrators might never learn whether the application they helped with was funded.

Myers-Irvin admitted she sometimes searches the NIH online database or checks in with investigators to see how things turned out.

“Those that do get funded, I give myself a pat on the back,” she said. Even if an application isn’t funded, Myers-Irvin said she feels good knowing she’s been helpful. “It’s gratifying when an investigator calls and says ‘You really made a difference in my application.’”

Being a scientist-administrator isn’t for those who thrive on being the center of attention. “You have to be willing to be someone who is behind the scenes. You won’t have your name on the grant; you won’t be in the limelight,” she said. “There’s no recognition. But you know you did it.”

—Kimberly K. Barlow