I think you got some good advice and made a good choice. I wish there were some sort of course or book that could explain the whole process and what the best options are. The non-research part of science can be as mind-boggling as the actual lab work!

@Odyssey - It's definitely something to think on. I have 2-3 aims - with some preliminary data - that are fairly distinct from (although related to) the K grant aims, and I had envisioned those being the core of my R01 submission, sometime into my 2nd year. But nothing is set of course. I'm sure I'll be sitting down with my chair and other PIs in the department (if I get a job), and talking to lots of others, to map out the grant apps. And I certainly won't depend on the R21 alone. I think the suggestion was based on the idea that the R21 could be a ready-to-go grant, in addition to all those other pilot/small org grants I write the first year, while getting more preliminary data for an R01.

@Nikkilina - There is a good book out there from HHMI, called "Making the Right Moves". You can download it for free here. If you're interested in an academic career, it's a must-read, IMO. Also, talk to everyone you can about how they got their job and set up their labs. Everyone has a different philosophy, but it gives you an idea of what not to do. Also, plan ahead. I've had a pretty good idea of what my research program will look like for a couple of years now. It may change, but at least I haven't been (and won't be) wandering around trying to figure out what to do instead of working on getting money. 

Good point! You guys are a wealth of information!

There is definitely no requirement for a K99 grant. And it can't even really get you on the interview list without the rest of the package (pubs, research that folks think is interesting). I am sitting on my first faculty search right now, and it seems to me that the general view is that it gets you "credit" for another publication. Great, but not required. Good luck! I think you chose a good plan of action.

I had envisioned those being the core of my R01 submission, sometime into my 2nd year.

You say this as if you anticipate writing a single R01 application over your first few years as a PI. This is totally fucken wrong.

You will need to think very carefully about how to strategize this--including with extensive mentoring from PIs who are either senior assistant professors or have recently been promoted to associate--but you should plan to submit multiple distinct R01 applications during your first few years if you want to have a good chance of having one funded.

@CPP - I have three potential R01 projects that I can submit in my research plan (in addition to the K22 project, which can be extended to an R01 - I'm definitely not sold on the R21 idea). The one I referred to is closest to being ready to submit. I was planning to work on getting one R01 funded at a time, but it sounds like you're saying it's a better idea to be working on several overlapping? I just hadn't thought of doing this and want to make sure I understand your point.

@OPR - I've heard several philosophies on when to submit the first R01, anytime from immediately to 3rd year when you're start-up money is running out. I was shooting somewhere in the middle with my "sometime into the 2nd year" statement, but this is certainly not a hard & fast timeline right now. I def plan to take advantage of the strategic planning that CPP mentioned to determine the timing of these submissions. It also seems that the type of place I end up is going to be relevant in the decision-making process, yes? (I'm thinking undergraduate institution with more teaching responsibility versus med school where I'll need several R01's for tenure.)

You seem to be operating on the assumption that you will be able to get any given R01 ultimately funded, and this is where you are totally wrong.

Good point to keep in mind CPP, especially with the paylines right now and only one resubmission. I guess I had put the idea of not getting funded out of mind, which isn't the smartest idea in the world. :P  It does push the idea of expanding the K22 into an R01, especially with as much preliminary data I already have for it after two submissions.

@Grant Slave:

I believe it's called cautious optimism. If you don't have it you're not likely to ever be funded. Reviewers can detect optimism, confidence and enthusiasm in a proposal. That's good. They can also detect pessimism, a lack of confidence and a lack of enthusiasm. That's bad. Really, really bad.

Oh, I like the "cautious optimism" rationale a lot better, Odyssey. :)

Dr. O. Remember that your grant application strategy / knowledge has already been put on the table if you refer to scores and planned grants in your cover letter or plan of research in your application for a job. The more convincing you are to the local associate professors that you know what time it is on NIH / NSF street, the better. PP is not kicking your ass, he's providing mentoring to help you think through your approach.

Remember that many of us shooting our blog mouths off are doing so precisely because we were even more clueless than you are earlier in our careers....

I absolutely agree. I was trying, somewhat unclearly, to respond to Grants Slave's rather snarky comment.

The point I should have made is that being overly pessimistic about funding can easily lead you down the wrong path, such as blanketing agencies with hastily written sub-par proposals, or at the opposite extreme, grant submission paralysis. I've seen both. It ain't pretty. Being overly optimistic can lead to submitting too few proposals. There is a balance. The realistic approach is the one outlined by CPP. Coupled with cautious optimism of course. :-)

People seem to get all caught up in the doom and gloom of reduced funding levels and forget that a lot of money is still being given out. Billions in fact.