Latest / Voices of Otolaryngology / Clarity, Originality, Rigor, Effect: The CORE of a Winning Research Grant

Transcript

Clarity, Originality, Rigor, Effect: The CORE of a Winning Research Grant · Voices of Otolaryngology

0:01
Welcome to the Voices of Otolaryngology podcast series, where we spotlight
0:05
diverse perspectives and insights within the field of otolaryngology.
0:08
I'm your host, Rahul Shah.
0:10
Let's jump into it.
0:13
Welcome to Voices of Otolaryngology.
0:15
I am super excited today to be here with Doctor Matthew Bush.
0:19
This is his second recording, so you’re an alumni, Matt, welcome back.
0:23
Thank you, Rahul. Good to be with you.
0:26
Do you kindly mind reorienting our members
0:29
to yourself where you are, your specialty and then your academy roles?
0:33
Doctor Bush, please.
0:35
Absolutely. Thank you.
0:36
Matt Bush is my name.
0:38
I'm a professor and the chairman of the Department of Otolaryngology
0:42
Head/Neck Surgery at the University of Kentucky.
0:44
I'm an otologist and neurotologist by clinical training and clinical practice.
0:49
I have had the immense pleasure and opportunity to be able
0:53
to serve the Academy and its members as the Coordinator
0:57
of Research and Quality, relatively new role.
1:00
I'm in my first year.
1:01
Haven't been fired yet, so, so far, so good.
1:04
But very thankful for this opportunity to be involved in this impactful role.
1:09
Yeah.
1:09
Thank you for those looking to get involved with the Academy.
1:13
The coordinators
1:14
are the ones that roll up their sleeves and keep everything moving.
1:18
So much gratitude to all of our coordinators.
1:20
We have a handful of coordinators.
1:22
There's open applications.
1:24
There's an interview process and Doctor Bush sealed the deal.
1:27
It's been my honor to work with him.
1:29
I don't want to get into his practice and his research, which has
1:33
been revolutionary and groundbreaking based on hearing health care.
1:37
Listen to our prior episode of Voices of Otolaryngology where he goes into it.
1:41
Today, Matt, I want to talk about four letters: CORE.
1:46
What does that mean to you?
1:48
The CORE Grant is all about careers
1:51
on the move, the career grant program.
1:54
The CORE Grant program is really a signature program that, from the research
2:00
and quality aspect of the Academy, that is immensely impactful
2:05
not only in the research that it funds, but the researchers
2:10
whose careers are really moving forward thanks to the CORE Grant program.
2:15
So you've told me you've had an interesting journey
2:18
with CORE Grants, probably probably unique.
2:21
Could you tell everybody how you've been involved with the program?
2:25
Yeah.
2:26
You know, within my role in research and quality in the Academy,
2:30
the CORE Grant was really the heart behind why I wanted to apply for the position.
2:36
There's so many impactful things that the Academy is involved
2:39
in, in research and quality, from the Regent program to the evidence
2:44
based work that goes on with Cochrane scholars and evidence based products
2:48
and guidelines.
2:50
But the CORE Grant program is really something that I feel
2:54
a direct connection to because my career has been changed thanks to CORE Grants.
3:00
I got a CORE Grant when I was entering into my fellowship.
3:04
My neurotology fellowship at a Ohio State was funded through the American Hearing
3:09
Research Foundation, the Wiley Harrison Grant, which was a $25,000, two year
3:14
grant, was funded from 2009 to 2011.
3:18
And that was, you know, a paradigm
3:21
shifter for me, just to figure out, how do you even write the grant?
3:25
How do you enter into this academic, competitive environment?
3:28
But the Academy really has such immense infrastructure and support
3:33
to be able to provide these opportunities for people that are in really vulnerable
3:38
career positions to help propel them forward.
3:42
And honestly, getting that grant funded set me on a career for research success.
3:48
So CORE: C.O.R.E.
3:50
Doctor Bush presides over it.
3:53
I am not going to embarrass him for the acronym because we always trip
3:57
up: Centralized Otolaryngology
4:00
Research Efforts, C.O.R.E.
4:03
CORE Grant.
4:04
Centralized Otolaryngology Research Efforts.
4:06
So, Doctor Bush, you you got a CORE Grant?
4:11
And then you moved on the continuum, right.
4:13
So then you you had CORE Grants and then what did you do?
4:17
And now you kind of preside over what was that
4:19
middle step you served as a reviewer, I believe?
4:22
Yeah.
4:22
So, you know, really getting a CORE Grant helps
4:27
you to feel like you're in the club.
4:28
And it sounds so arrogant and erudite to say this,
4:32
but research is really difficult to get into the community
4:36
and honestly for for funders to trust you that are you worthy?
4:41
Are you responsible?
4:43
Are you smart enough or you sharp enough?
4:45
Are you efficient enough to be able to balance,
4:48
you know, what you do as a clinician or as an educator, or
4:52
is just a human being and be a researcher and manage these funds?
4:56
And so when you get your first grant, it sort of makes you credible
5:00
for other grant fund grant opportunities and other funding opportunities.
5:04
So I got my first grant, that CORE Grant,
5:08
thanks to excellent mentorship and support and just a wonderful research team,
5:13
which is really an important theme that will come back to you later.
5:16
But that set me on a trajectory to be able to do some work,
5:21
have this work then presented at an Academy meeting in front of my peers,
5:25
publish it in our signature journal, “Otolaryngology Head/Neck Surgery”,
5:30
and then be able to use that data for subsequent applications.
5:34
So I was able to then get another career development grant during
5:40
then my first couple of years as a faculty member, once
5:44
I came back to the University of Kentucky.
5:46
But what then it did is also endeared me
5:50
to other funding opportunities within CORE.
5:52
So I actually applied for and got a second CORE Grant
5:56
when I was in a key transition phase where I really needed to compete for NIH
6:01
funding and sort of go, go for the coin of the kingdom.
6:06
But I was able to get an Academy CORE
6:09
Grant that was co-sponsored by The Triological Society.
6:12
It was a career development award.
6:14
I was funded from 2014 to 2016, and being able to get that award
6:21
helped to create further dialog with my research with colleagues,
6:25
help me identify additional collaborators that have continued to pay dividends to
6:30
this day.
6:30
But again, it's it's fanning the flame
6:34
that you're already feeding as a researcher, as a
6:38
as a professional in the field, just to make you successful in research.
6:43
So did I get it
6:44
right, you’re a two time CORE awardee?
6:48
Indeed.
6:49
There's no rings that you get, but I think that may be something
6:52
that we should look into.
6:53
Maybe we can find a way to fund that.
6:56
But yeah, indeed.
6:57
It's a it's it's really a really special club to be a part of,
7:01
to be a CORE Grant recipient.
7:04
And then you have the unique perspective of then being a reviewer.
7:08
And we're going to talk about all this, but I want to set your credibility.
7:12
You, you you explain it to me this morning.
7:14
You've received two CORE Grants.
7:16
You've been a reviewer,
7:17
and now you and Doctor Chris Schultz preside over the program.
7:20
Yeah.
7:21
So I served as a study section member
7:24
on the Otology study section for the CORE Grant.
7:27
And that also was amazing because I'm learning
7:30
about the House of Otolaryngology, and the amazing researchers
7:34
and the brilliant scientists that we have that are our trainees,
7:38
that are now faculty members, that are, you know, other grant reviewers.
7:42
And it just has only deepened my love and respect for people in this field.
7:47
And it was just immensely helpful.
7:50
And I think being able to provide helpful criticism,
7:54
not that just you say something like this Grant's terrible.
7:57
You did a bad job, that that's not helpful.
7:59
But learning to be able to communicate clearly helped me
8:02
to mature professionally as well as scientifically.
8:06
Do I really understand the science?
8:08
How do I help this person?
8:09
And honestly, you know, the CORE Grant program
8:13
is so great in a sense that first of all, the pool of applicants is smaller.
8:17
So your chances of funding are much higher than almost any other type
8:21
of funding mechanism.
8:22
So that's an important issue to remember.
8:25
But secondly, you've got your peers who I would hope in a general sense
8:30
that we’re for you, that we got your back
8:34
in a sense that otolaryngologists care about the field of Otolaryngology.
8:38
Yes, we want to fund the right kind of science that's going to be impactful,
8:42
and there's competition, but we want to give you helpful feedback.
8:47
So that really has helped me mature within the field of otolaryngology
8:52
and and just help me want to help others.
8:55
And then, you know, as I said, having having this opportunity
8:59
as the coordinator that is responsible for the trajectory,
9:04
the direction, the impact of CORE - I care
9:07
that much more about it because now I've seen all the inner workings.
9:10
I have seen the amazing people within the Academy,
9:14
our staff that that coordinate and run this CORE program.
9:19
I promise you, there is no no group of people who are more dedicated,
9:23
more qualified to support your career trajectory then
9:27
this CORE staff at within the Research and Quality aspect of the Academy.
9:33
And that's what's amazing, is that you again,
9:35
you've got people that are for you and to be able to see
9:40
we've got opportunities to engage with industry partners
9:44
and other people who are doing and other institutions and organizations
9:49
that are doing some really important work,
9:51
and they want to partner with the Academy and they say, hey, we trust you.
9:55
Because for all of these years, decades, the CORE
9:59
Grant produces winners, it produces funded researchers,
10:03
and we want to invest in the future of scientific advancement.
10:08
All right.
10:08
We're going to plant a golden egg in just a second.
10:11
All right.
10:11
Because we just came over the Easter holidays.
10:13
So a golden egg Doctor Bush
10:15
is going to give us some secrets on how to be a successful CORE Grant.
10:19
Let me just make some comments.
10:21
The Academy since 1985:
10:24
800 grants, $14.5 million dollars.
10:29
Grants range from $5000 to $150,000.
10:32
I'm very proud we continue to increase that.
10:35
Don't hold me to this, Doctor Bush, but I think about a half million some
10:38
something like that.
10:40
This year is what we've allocated and budgeted.
10:42
And that continues to grow.
10:44
We find industry partners where they say
10:47
we want to support this grant for $10,000, $20,000.
10:51
They don't choose it.
10:52
Your group chooses it.
10:53
But as Doctor Bush said, this time and era, it's more important
10:56
that not profits medical association's invest back in their people.
11:00
That was just a little “commercial.” No comment needed.
11:03
So Doctor Bush: find me a golden egg.
11:06
What makes a successful application?
11:09
That's a huge question you get all the time.
11:12
Go ahead.
11:13
Well, thanks.
11:14
I've got some helpful things that I hope will give you some
11:18
some focus and some hope about this.
11:21
Doctor Shaw just shared the real name, real acronym, the real letters for CORE.
11:27
But I'm going to share with you a researcher’s acronym for CORE:
11:31
C.O.R.E.: 1) clarity 2)
11:35
originality 3) rigor 4) effect.
11:40
That's your CORE acronym.
11:42
Clarity, originality, rigor and effect.
11:45
Let me go through these.
11:46
First of all, clarity.
11:48
If you want to be successful in any research program
11:51
and to write grants, you need to strive for clarity.
11:55
And when it comes to clarity, you have to realize
11:59
that you're not writing this grant for your grandmother.
12:04
You're writing this grant for a stranger, and you don't know the stranger.
12:09
The stranger doesn't know you, and you want to take them on a journey.
12:14
You want to tell a story.
12:16
There's similar elements of clarity and and
12:19
and writing skill that is involved
12:23
in producing really meaningful manuscripts that are, that are publishable.
12:28
So this is a ubiquitous concept
12:31
in professional research and academia, is that you need to be able
12:36
to tell the story and a story, you know, has to start with it.
12:39
There's a big problem, there's a problem, and there's high stakes.
12:44
And that guess what?
12:46
A hero has just entered into the story. That's you.
12:48
That is your research team, that you are the right team who've done the right work.
12:53
You are prepared to deal with this problem.
12:57
And guess what?
12:58
You have the right strategy, the right approach to deal with this.
13:02
And then once the dust settles, you
13:06
finish the work, the field will be changed.
13:09
The problem is, is dramatically changed or improved.
13:13
And I think it's really important because when you look at a research grant,
13:19
you often become kind of overwhelmed thinking like, wow,
13:23
I have to come up with 12 pages,
13:27
single spaced 11 point font.
13:30
These walls of text are just oppressive
13:35
and overwhelming, but just don't lose the story.
13:39
That is what is the most important thing.
13:42
And I'm telling you that people that are reviewing these, I've done it myself.
13:47
You know, my mind and my life was clouded and filled with lots
13:51
of other competitive things that are trying to take up cognitive space.
13:55
When I see a grant that really takes me on a journey that's
13:59
telling a story, and that this is a team that's really committed to try
14:04
to change the narrative and deal with this big problem, whatever that may be.
14:08
Hearing loss, head neck cancer, chronic rhino
14:11
sinusitis, whatever it might be, you're the right person to do it.
14:15
But just to be clear in your writing, as you take people on this journey,
14:19
originality.
14:21
All right.
14:21
So I'm going to I'm going to pause here because it's just a break for everybody.
14:25
Let you get some water.
14:28
Cool.
14:28
That was a pause. All right.
14:30
So clarity clarity clarity I got it.
14:32
All right. Originality go.
14:35
You got to be innovative.
14:36
You need to be creative and innovative about what you do.
14:40
And you want to be an original.
14:41
You're a unique person and you're going to try to
14:43
present yourself, your approach, your team,
14:47
and maybe the population
14:50
that you have access to that your original and you are
14:55
the best person or best team to be able to conduct this work.
15:01
So that's being able in a very clear and succinct way,
15:05
present your prior work or the work of your team,
15:09
because as you submit this application, you are one and the same.
15:13
And their CV as co-investigator or co-PIs are attached to you.
15:19
And so you're connected.
15:20
But highlighting that and telling people don't be, you know, modest,
15:25
but you also don't have to, you know, you know, inflate the truth.
15:30
But the reality is, is that you need to be original and clear
15:34
about how you're taking an innovative approach.
15:38
So so I'm going to help us with this.
15:40
So we talked about clarity. Originality.
15:43
I'm not a basic science researcher
15:46
I don't know Crispr I don't know pipette.
15:49
Is there a role for me?
15:50
Doctor Bush I like socioeconomic outcomes,
15:53
I like simulation, I want to study: “Can robots drill and mastoid as fast
15:59
as Doctor Bush?” So is the spectrum of CORE only basic science?
16:03
Because maybe then it's not for me.
16:06
The CORE Grant program is for the whole House of Otolaryngology.
16:10
Anything that otolaryngology touches, connects to
16:13
is impactful in a CORE Grant would fund and support.
16:18
My first CORE Grant was a basic science grant.
16:21
I studied drug development,
16:24
tumor microbiology of Vestibular schwannomas.
16:27
And you know, that's not what I do today, but it's what I needed to do then.
16:33
It’s what was important then.
16:34
My second grant, my career development grant, was all about rural
16:38
hearing healthcare and a clinical research study
16:42
involving patients getting access to care.
16:44
So I myself have been on either end of the bell
16:48
curve in the the variety of types of grants.
16:52
So absolutely all all are welcome to apply and can find the home.
16:58
And we've got the reviewers, the experts of the field on these study
17:03
sections that will give you the feedback that you need.
17:07
I promise.
17:08
We're going to get to rigor. But one more thing.
17:10
I think it's really important.
17:11
I'm on the website and CORE is not the Academy.
17:15
CORE is the House of Otolaryngology.
17:18
As you said.
17:19
I don't want you to forget one of our friends.
17:21
So I'm going to read off the website the Academy
17:24
Eli Lilly, sponsored, ISSS:
17:27
International Surgical Sleep Society, SFA, Snot Force Alliance, AHNS:
17:32
Ness, American Head Neck Society, Association of Migraine Disorders,
17:36
American Neurootology Society, American Rhinologic Society,
17:40
and American Society of Pediatric Otolaryngology.
17:43
Doctor Bush, can you explain that for members
17:46
that are involved with CORE and members that aren't.
17:49
What does this mean?
17:50
Why do we have all these other groups?
17:52
Think of otolaryngology not like the taskmaster, the dictator,
17:57
over all of research in Otolaryngology that we decide
18:00
in the Academy who gets funded, who can progress in research.
18:04
Think of us as your concierge.
18:07
Think of us like your expert.
18:10
You say, hey, I want to get some funding.
18:12
I want to get support.
18:13
Look at us to kind of help you get those dinner recommendations, those
18:17
those local town hotspots, you know, just like you would want a concierge.
18:22
But to think about research, empowerment is what CORE is about.
18:27
And this is where we've helped the other societies
18:29
and the other organizations that you described to be able
18:34
to have the infrastructure and have the rigor to be able to have,
18:39
you know, key core members in their respective
18:43
associations and societies that are also a part of the Academy.
18:46
And the House of Otolaryngology, to get that work reviewed, get it funded,
18:50
get it published, and just to to send it out.
18:54
Well, thank you for that.
18:55
I everybody's waiting with bated breath.
18:58
We made it halfway through.
18:59
We did clarity.
19:00
We did originality.
19:01
Doctor Bush take us to the third one.
19:04
So rigor makes sense.
19:05
It's not, you know, a groundbreaking that I would bring this up.
19:09
But that's about how what you're going to do, how you're going to do it.
19:12
And that's going to be about taking 2 to 4
19:15
very specific research aims that are independent of each other.
19:21
That means if your aim one fails and is a disaster
19:25
that you cannot do, aim to and aim three but it at least has some independence.
19:30
But yet they are unified and they work together in harmony.
19:35
Connected to that story
19:37
that I talked about, because you're writing with clarity.
19:40
So this is the work that, you know, I don't know what you need to do.
19:45
And I don't know if it's a Western blot or some other type of analysis
19:49
at the bench.
19:50
I don't know if it's some type of prospective trial that you need to run,
19:55
but work with your team to come up with a very clear,
20:00
innovative, rigorous plan to be able
20:03
to produce the evidence that you need that's going to change that problem.
20:08
So rigor is critical.
20:10
Doctor Bush, I'm fired up.
20:12
All right.
20:13
So I want to study I know this is going to scare you.
20:15
I won't do this CORE, if somebody wants to do it, Doctor Bush can help them.
20:19
I want to study robot tonsillectomy.
20:22
I'm just making this up.
20:23
And the clarity is, “can
20:26
the robot work through the oral cavity to perform a tonsillectomy”?
20:30
I think it's original and rigor.:
20:34
You just said we need to have aims that are independent.
20:37
So help me, let's help our thinkers.
20:39
So one of them, does the robot have the mechanics
20:43
in articulation to work in an oral cavity?
20:46
Maybe we build a model for that.
20:48
Then that's aim one and then aim two.
20:51
Does it have maybe the ability to quickly switch instruments and stop a bleeder?
20:57
I don't know if that could be an aim to, but is that what you're saying?
21:00
The aims have to be independent and you can riff on that robot tonsillectomy.
21:04
We'll give you credit.
21:06
Yeah.
21:06
I mean, you can totally do work in any area
21:11
and it's all a part of the same story, but they can give you different pieces
21:15
of the puzzle.
21:16
For example, you could start with, you know,
21:19
I think as a clinical researcher of what if you did a focus group
21:23
or some qualitative work with a group of patients to think about,
21:27
you know, what do you think about, you know, technology, robotic work within,
21:32
you know, pediatric ENT surgery, you know, a robot being involved.
21:36
Does that sound smarter? Does that sound scary?
21:38
Because you want to know
21:39
that you want to think about the patient's perspective as a part of this as well.
21:42
So that could be an aim.
21:44
And then you recruit patients as a part of a feasibility study.
21:48
And then you and you look at a clinical outcome.
21:51
And then you could have a third
21:52
aim to say, what are the real challenges to actually implement this.
21:55
And you look at a lot of things like what was the setup time?
21:58
What if the robot goes down, is there a backup?
22:00
Or do you have, you know,
22:02
you have to cancel the rest of the lineup of tonsillectomies.
22:05
Do you switch?
22:06
What is the implications of that?
22:08
So those are all things that are part of the big story but yet
22:11
have they're they're unified and there's harmony amongst them.
22:15
But they are independent in the methods and the conclusions
22:19
that will lead you to.
22:21
Well, you are so good, man.
22:22
I just threw that there.
22:24
Now, I mean, you're going to get me CORE funded.
22:25
This is going to be great!
22:26
Clarity, originality, rigor and then effect.
22:31
This is all about the “what” results.
22:33
You know, what you're producing the so what and what's next
22:37
is what the effect is about.
22:39
And so it's not only about the evidence that you produce.
22:43
Is it publishable? Is it meaningful?
22:45
Will it lead to
22:46
you getting a bigger grant, more funding, more opportunities in research?
22:50
But also we think in CORE Grant about you, the grant recipient,
22:54
what's next for you?
22:56
Does this help you succeed?
22:58
Does this help you get the career, job or opportunity?
23:03
And honestly, we can't do the interview for you.
23:05
We can't write your NIH bio sketch for you in Research and Quality.
23:10
We probably would try, but we wouldn't do a very good job.
23:12
But the reality is, is that what we care about is also though
23:16
your your success.
23:17
And so there's accountability and support that goes from the CORE side of things.
23:21
But we need you as the applicant to be able to articulate
23:27
what really matters about what you think you'll find out.
23:30
And if you don't find out, you know, that that those results, what will you do?
23:35
And then how does this also impact you?
23:38
Especially these career development opportunities or career
23:40
development awards - There's big components of the grant application
23:44
that's about: This is how you are maturing and growing as a scientist in the field.
23:49
So you want to document and clearly describe that effect.
23:53
The “so what?” And “what's next?” Yeah I just the website
23:58
has so much information.
24:00
You can start with a $5,000- $10,000 grant.
24:02
You can get $100,000 grant.
24:04
You can go within head and neck. ASPO.
24:06
There's so many different ways to go.
24:08
It's pretty exciting Doctor Bush.
24:09
So clarity, originality, rigor and effect that's CORE
24:14
married up to the centralized otolaryngology research efforts.
24:17
So tell me - you've taught me how to write a CORE Grant.
24:22
I was not in the room. What is it?
24:24
What does I say from Hamilton?
24:25
You're the one in the room where it happens.
24:27
So you all came together in Dallas.
24:29
So then what happens? We write the CORE Grant.
24:32
Then it goes into a black box and get magically picked out.
24:35
No, no, no, there's a rigor and there's a whole process.
24:38
I was blown away by what you all did in Dallas.
24:40
You literally sequestered in a hotel room directly from the airport
24:44
and walk us through what happens in those in the ballroom?
24:50
Yeah.
24:50
So the CORE Grant review process is, you know,
24:54
just a time honored tradition because there's people that, again,
24:58
for you that are on your side, that are in Otolaryngology,
25:01
and we don't have conflicts of interest where we can't ethically
25:05
and legitimately review grants.
25:06
But the reality is, is that we really want to see the field move forward.
25:10
And so we feel committed.
25:12
Some of us are CORE Grant
25:13
recipients, some of us NIH funded, some of us just brilliant clinicians
25:17
who have the the right perspective to evaluate these grants.
25:20
But you've got a room of individuals for each of these different
25:25
topical areas that are meeting together of different career
25:28
levels, different institutions with a study section lead
25:33
who are going to be able to review the grants.
25:37
There's a lot of work that's done before people arrive in Dallas
25:40
for the grant review that each review, each
25:43
each of these grants are reviewed by three different people,
25:48
as well as likely the study section lead and have reviewed
25:53
them have given the pros, the cons, the critique of a numerical scores.
25:58
Decisions are made based on the number of applications on the scores.
26:01
How many actually need to be discussed in great detail.
26:05
Every grant is mentioned.
26:07
Every grant is talked about during the study section.
26:10
But some of those grants that are sort of in the more fundable
26:14
range of the scores are going to be talked about in the tiniest of details.
26:19
And it's really amazing because someone comes in and says,
26:23
this is really not fundable, this is not going to work.
26:26
And then there's a great discussion with the group.
26:28
And that reviewer says, well, I've learned something.
26:31
I didn't realize that perspective they were coming from.
26:34
I didn't realize how unique what that was.
26:36
Minds change.
26:38
And then that Grant then becomes a fundable grant.
26:41
So it's really a magical experience because, again, you've got people
26:46
who really care, who are putting in the work
26:48
that are your peers and your colleagues doing it.
26:52
And you sit there, you work as a group.
26:56
You I guess the word is score or evaluate the grants.
26:59
Correct? And then walk us through a little bit what happens from there.
27:02
Do you choose all your best friends?
27:04
Do you choose everyone from your university?
27:06
It's blinded. It's fair, it's equitable.
27:09
It's an amazing process. I'm just being facetious.
27:11
So it's a terrific people really rigorous process.
27:14
Absolutely. It's the truth.
27:16
If there's anyone with a conflict of interest,
27:18
they're excused from the room during the discussion
27:21
and then they're not aware then of sort of that priority in the score.
27:24
And we're not writing checks at the end of that meeting.
27:28
In high fiving, we are basically doing our best
27:32
to kind of give the order and the scores a final score.
27:35
And we present that to not only our core leadership and our staff,
27:40
but then we communicate with the funders and say, look, these are the scores.
27:45
This is what we view is, you know, you know, the best grants
27:49
and that they would then kind of make some of those decisions.
27:51
So it's a collaborative process in making these decisions.
27:54
And there's just as I said, there's not one taskmaster dictator.
27:58
It says you you succeed.
28:00
And then you, you know, go back to the drawing board.
28:03
It's it's a concierge that's really supporting and hoping.
28:07
And we're giving everybody feedback and really helpful
28:11
critique and constructive criticism.
28:15
Yeah.
28:15
I can't believe even in the five minutes now, you've emboldened
28:19
me on my robot tonsillectomy. You gave me three good aims.
28:22
So maybe if I do the iterative process during the time of my contract,
28:27
maybe I'll get funded.
28:28
So give me give me numbers.
28:30
I believe in full transparency and we work for our members.
28:34
I don't know if you and Doctor Schultz are able to talk about it,
28:36
but you can round up or you can give rough numbers.
28:39
Do we have ten applications?
28:41
Do we have 10,000?
28:43
You know, walk us through that funnel a little bit
28:45
to the best of your ability, Matt.
28:46
Because I know there's sister societies we work at,
28:49
but just just walk us through that funnel,
28:50
you know, the call for interest and then how it goes down.
28:54
Yeah, I think there are probably
28:57
in the low hundreds in letters of intent.
29:01
And that may vary from year, but it's usually over 100.
29:04
You know, there are tens of applications that, you know, hover,
29:12
you know, close to 100 some years and much lower, maybe 60 to 70.
29:18
It varies sometimes depending on some of the trainee awards
29:21
or training applications, like resident research grants and applications.
29:25
But, you know, again, when you're looking at other pools
29:29
where you'd compete against whether that would be PCORI or
29:34
NIH or other foundations,
29:37
you know, you're going to have hundreds and hundreds of applications coming from
29:43
the top tier
29:44
people who already, you know, the rich getting richer kind of situation.
29:48
And this is really about, you know, helping anyone at any career level.
29:53
And we're we're not trying to only fund those that have all the money
29:57
or the institutions that have all have been the only ones
30:01
to publish on the topic, but just trying to find people
30:04
with the best application, the best potential to do this work.
30:09
So try try to get this right.
30:13
So all comers start with X letter of intent, and then
30:17
think of how many grants the whole CORE gives out
30:20
is: 5%, 95%, maybe 25-30%?
30:26
Everything all into one bucket.
30:28
It's a little bit tricky, but try your best there.
30:31
1 in 3 chance? 1 in 4?
30:33
I think the funding chances
30:35
are probably depending on which mechanism that you go for.
30:40
Its either you know it's as high as probably 80%.
30:45
You know,
30:45
if you've got 2 or 3 people that are applying for some of the less
30:48
applied for programs.
30:49
And honestly, this year we had grants that nobody applied for.
30:53
Maybe they were unaware
30:54
they didn't have a topic to present in that area, but that's on us.
30:58
We're going to, mea culpa, we're going to do our part to put that out there.
31:01
So people do know there's money on the table for their work.
31:05
So Matt, that's important.
31:06
So you all you all didn't just throw money away.
31:10
If somebody didn't apply, if it didn't fit the charter
31:13
of a sister society of the Academy, you paused and you said, we're going
31:16
to work to develop investigators in that area to honor the granteuer.
31:20
Is that right? Is that what you're saying? You don't just throw them, right?
31:23
Yeah, yeah. We're not trying to be stingy.
31:25
We're just trying to be responsible.
31:27
You know, we want to be service oriented
31:28
and fund the people in this community of Otolaryngology.
31:32
But we also need to be responsible to to the funders and know
31:36
that they're investing wisely in an organization and researchers
31:40
that are going to take this, take this seriously.
31:42
But I would say, you know, 80% in some of these less applied for programs
31:46
and maybe more like 10% in the really, really, you know,
31:50
heavily applied for some of those are the some of the resident applications,
31:55
but still, you know, 10 to 25% funding opportunity.
32:00
And the more that you apply, if you reapply again,
32:03
your chances are going to go up.
32:04
If you've addressed those concerns, you know, maybe you were 10% year one,
32:08
but then you're going to go up to probably 30 or 40, maybe 60% chance of funding.
32:14
You know, the second go around. Yeah.
32:17
Have you heard the southern phrase “you never know how far a frog can jump?”
32:25
Matt?
32:26
You don't know that? I'm sure you've never heard of that.
32:28
Sometimes you never know how far frog is going to jump.
32:31
You ever heard that?
32:32
Apparently not.
32:33
Maybe I've just.
32:34
I'm just not been in the right parts of Kentucky.
32:37
Yeah, if you look at a frog, you don't know
32:39
how far they're going to jump.
32:40
And so I'm looking back.
32:42
I don't have my CV in front of me,
32:43
but I got a couple thousand dollars grant a long time ago, maybe 30 years ago,
32:48
to do a survey study of looking at errors:
32:52
that made my whole career 150 publications later.
32:56
And we needed that money to buy surveys and to buy mailers
33:00
because the university wouldn't pay for that.
33:02
Something as small as that.
33:03
I guess
33:04
I'm calling myself a frog that can jump, but I think that was your point too, Matt.
33:08
It's not just about the dollar value - sometimes that, you know,
33:11
that had clarity, had originality, had rigor and effect.
33:15
So really interesting.
33:17
Yeah.
33:18
Let me give some very practical gave kind of the big acronym and, you know,
33:21
kind of gave you the but I'm going to give you just a little, a little tiny,
33:25
you know, limoncello and a little cookie
33:29
to, to, to enjoy as we finish: read the instructions.
33:33
That's the first advice,
33:35
you know, piece of advice that's really, really practical and down to earth.
33:38
Read the instructions.
33:40
We have so many grant applications that get submitted.
33:43
Sometimes it's by a first time applicant and they're busy.
33:46
They've been on call.
33:47
They're just sleep deprived.
33:49
And you know I get it.
33:51
But please read the instructions and follow the instructions.
33:55
Getting the signatures that you need, getting all the bio sketches,
34:00
you know, writing grants stuck.
34:03
Okay I said that.
34:04
So that must be heartbreaking.
34:05
That must be heartbreaking.
34:07
Somebody doesn't read the instruction,
34:08
they miss something, then they're out of cycle
34:10
because you can't come back to your meeting again. Right?
34:12
That's what you're saying.
34:13
that's right.
34:14
I mean, it's just as important as, you know, detail of writing admission orders.
34:18
And, you know, we need to be perfect.
34:20
We're not perfect people, but do your job to just at least submit
34:24
the things that you know you have to submit.
34:26
But secondly, have the right team.
34:28
And this is really important that it's not just about you.
34:32
Team science wins.
34:34
Team science wins every time over individual science,
34:38
no matter how bright or how brilliant that you are.
34:40
And that's a matter of having the mentors, the collaborators, the content experts
34:45
that if you don't know them,
34:46
maybe your mentor does, but just have them as a part of your team.
34:51
Their CV becomes your CV and your their credibility becomes your credibility.
34:56
And that then is expressed in the grant application
34:59
as letters of support and their bio sketches.
35:02
And that is absolutely critical.
35:04
And that can make the difference between a grant that is not going to
35:08
get funded and a grant that gets funded with the exact same science.
35:12
So that's critical.
35:14
So hold on, hold on.
35:15
I'm a surgeon, I'm individualistic, I like to do my own thing.
35:19
I want to submit a CORE next year.
35:21
And you're saying, that's great, Rahul, find that mentor, find that partner,
35:26
find that expert on data and kind of build that and put that in the application.
35:30
Is that that's what you're saying, Doctor Bush?
35:32
And that's what NIH and others look for? Well, absolutely.
35:34
I mean, it's 2026 and you're an otolaryngologist of,
35:39
you know, the contemporary age and you know how to be a team player.
35:42
You're heck, you're a leader at teams.
35:44
So this this should be, you know, singing to the choir here
35:50
because we know how to work in teams clinically.
35:53
But you've got to work as a team.
35:55
And, you know, maybe you're the one who's writing all a lot of the parts
35:58
of this grant, but just assemble your squad,
36:01
get your team together and get that stuff submitted.
36:05
I I'm still on the lemon cello and cookies.
36:08
So instructions teams any other kind of micro details.
36:12
Because then I want to ask you two more questions.
36:14
This is incredibly rich.
36:16
Instructions teams. Any other micro details?
36:19
Don't think of CORE Grants just for residents or fellows
36:23
or assistant professors.
36:25
Again, CORE Grant is for the House of Otolaryngology.
36:28
You'll see with the diversity of the grants
36:31
that we've got out there and those of you that are more senior researchers
36:35
that are listening to this, you know that the ground is dry
36:40
and the conditions are arid, and it is not hospitable to try
36:45
to find dollars that are laying around to fund your research.
36:48
And, you know, take a look again at the CORE menu,
36:54
see what you like, see what's there, and you know some of the work
36:59
that you've thought about,
37:00
maybe doing a different direction or something like this.
37:03
Take advantage of the CORE program and just find
37:07
then the the energizing,
37:10
reengaging, you know, impact
37:14
that it could have to have another 25 or $40,000 to fund your work.
37:19
So just I just encourage everybody within Otolaryngology
37:24
to consider it and be a collaborative team.
37:27
And as you describe, Doctor Shah, about, you know, you're a surgeon, you're busy,
37:31
but you work with maybe bench researchers or public health experts,
37:35
and you can work together to put together some really impactful science.
37:41
And where's your nurse partner?
37:43
Where's your dyad leader? Where's your business person? Right.
37:45
Depending what you do,
37:47
Matt, have you seen those Uber commercials where they say that
37:50
football is all about food and it's like the Uber Eats commercials?
37:54
You're like doing that to me, man. You're talking about lemon cello.
37:56
You're talking about cookies, you're talking about menus,
37:58
and you're talking about appetite where you're killing me here, Matt.
38:02
I want to tell you conversation I had this weekend.
38:05
It was true.
38:06
Talking to a mid-career otolaryngologist, 53 year old who will be transitioning
38:11
from a privademics (private academics) to an academic medical center.
38:16
And part of the package is some startup funds for research.
38:19
And you know what? He said this will make you so happy.
38:22
He said, I will be applying for a CORE Grant.
38:25
Amazing.
38:26
You got to be thrilled by that, Matt. And you just said it.
38:29
It's not just for residents, it's not for fellows or assistant fellows.
38:32
Can you reflect on that?
38:34
Does that make you so happy that somebody is transitioning
38:37
and they're going to apply
38:38
for a CORE Grant which will move science but also their career?
38:42
Yeah, that really does.
38:44
That does warm my heart because, you know, I just turned 49 just a few weeks ago.
38:49
So I'm I'm feeling mid-career nervousness.
38:52
And you know, we never lose some elements of imposter syndrome.
38:56
And, you know, the fear of failure.
38:58
And, you know, you want to be successful.
39:00
You want to answer hard questions.
39:02
You want to stay engaged and, you know, to be able to be involved in research.
39:07
And I'm trying to answer
39:09
difficult questions is something that can be really exciting.
39:13
Maybe not for everybody in the House of Otolaryngology, no problem.
39:16
But for those that say, yeah, this is this is so interesting to me,
39:21
then, you know, this is, you know, here's another food analogy.
39:24
It's just, you know, like like a Red bull, a Red bull or an espresso shot, a
39:30
an infusion of really impactful, available,
39:34
feasible funds to get your program energized and moving forward.
39:40
Yeah.
39:40
My wife and doctor don't allow me to have Red Bull and Espresso.
39:44
I think you would second that.
39:46
Going back to that, that individual.
39:48
So his package is $75,000, but then he says, if I could get,
39:53
you know, 25, 50 from CORE, then, then I'm talking and that's,
39:57
that's what, what kind of will help this mid-career.
40:00
I want to ask you two more questions, but I want to make sure they wasn't more
40:04
lemon cello and cookies. You wanted to serve.
40:06
Instructions.
40:07
Teams, CORE Grants for everybody.
40:10
Doctor Bush, any other tactical details you wanted to talk?
40:14
Just be aware of the deadlines.
40:16
That's that's really important.
40:17
You know, I understand that deadlines and sometimes writing that grant
40:21
within minutes of the time that it's due, you know, is,
40:26
you know, might infuse some creativity and some really high levels of cortisol.
40:32
But do your collaborators do your research administration
40:38
a huge favor by being prepared, thinking ahead of time.
40:42
And the CORE Grant helps you in that,
40:43
because you do have to submit a letter of intent that usually comes due
40:48
and, you know, winter time, usually around December.
40:51
And so thinking in the late summer
40:54
and the fall, hey, could we put a CORE Grant together?
40:57
Let's begin to sketch this out.
40:59
Have your parts and pieces of that.
41:01
And it's not that onerous, not that difficult.
41:04
And it's not we're not trying to turn people away.
41:07
We just want to know that we have the right number of reviewers
41:10
and the right infrastructure to make it successful.
41:13
Incredibly helpful.
41:15
This episode will probably air sometime in early summer,
41:19
so I'm thinking get a letter of intent by December.
41:22
These are not firm dates, folks.
41:23
Doctor Bush is just helping us.
41:25
Then walk me through what is kind of do.
41:28
And then when I hear
41:29
because I think the cycle time is important for those that are competing.
41:34
Yeah.
41:34
So you don't want to just write your grant
41:37
just after you've submitted your letter of intent.
41:40
Hopefully you've already been thinking about the details,
41:43
been starting to get together some of the components of the application
41:48
in the fall, in the the winter, you know, November, December,
41:53
get that letter of intent submitted and then hit, you know,
41:58
the fast lane to get all of the things finished up, to get it
42:01
reviewed, to make sure that you're getting the signing official.
42:05
This is honestly one of the most challenging things,
42:07
and heartbreaking is that if you've got to get a signing official
42:10
or like a department chair to sign it, they've got to get that signed.
42:14
And I promise you,
42:15
I sign every one of my faculty members and residents, and I'm always available
42:20
because I'm a CORE, you know, evangelist here.
42:24
But the reality is, is that January is when the grant's going to come due.
42:28
And if you're a minute past the due time, you're not getting it submitted.
42:31
I mean, it's it's it's got to be done by the deadline.
42:35
So that's, that's really critical in that deadline.
42:38
And then when do we hear back?
42:40
If - and don't we're not going to hold you accountable.
42:42
You can give month. You can give season.
42:44
But everything's tucked and tied by January.
42:46
Then I'm the researcher and then I wait. How long do I wait.
42:49
1 or 2 years. How long do I wait?
42:51
Not not that long.
42:52
Thankfully, we're we're more efficient than some funders, but March is
42:56
when the CORE study section is going to meet together.
42:59
The reviews will happen in late February,
43:03
in early March on their own, before the CORE Grant study section meets,
43:07
they meet in March, and within weeks they get the feedback
43:12
finalized and finished up communication with the funders.
43:16
So usually people are hearing by May-June
43:20
something like this April, late April, May, June.
43:24
I would say May is kind of the sweet spot of when people hear.
43:28
Thank you, Doctor Bush.
43:29
It just really helps people. I've got two now.
43:31
I've made it three more questions.
43:33
I'm sorry.
43:33
I'll be very cognizant of the time for our listeners and for you.
43:37
So I'll ask these quickly. Letter of intent.
43:40
So does it say like “I am Doctor Shah, I am the man.
43:44
I'm going to study robot tonsillectomy.
43:46
Fund me”?
43:48
No, that's not a letter of intent.
43:50
What is a letter of intent?
43:51
Can you quickly just walk people through it?
43:53
And how much ID and specifics do I need on that.
43:56
And could you give me a resource?
43:58
Does NIH have instructions about letter of intent?
44:00
So the letter of intent is in a very professional way,
44:05
telling the the reviewers and the
44:08
and the CORE Grant staff who you are,
44:11
what you're going to apply for and what you're going to do.
44:14
And in a general sense, there may be some nuances that are different
44:19
between different funding opportunities, but basically it's a bio sketch.
44:24
There is a NIH template for that.
44:27
There are templates that are available on the the proposal central
44:32
that we utilize that you can download, and your mentors can give you support.
44:38
And again, we're your concierge. We're for you.
44:40
So you can reach out to any one of us.
44:42
You can reach out to me even if I have nothing to do with your research.
44:46
I don't care because I care about you, and I care about otolaryngology
44:49
and the research in our field.
44:50
We’ll help you with the components that you need.
44:53
But a bio sketch that tells us who you are
44:56
and then usually a specific aims page.
44:58
This is a one page impactful thing that kind of gives us in a sense,
45:03
this is the problem.
45:04
You're telling that story with clarity.
45:06
This is the problem. This is the
45:09
innovation of what we're going to do.
45:11
And then this is the methods, the aims, and then the “so what?” And then,
45:17
you know, you're describing which mechanism you're applying for.
45:21
So it's really not that onerous.
45:23
We're talking one, two, three pages, you know in general.
45:28
And then from the LOI do we hear back saying proceed kid
45:32
or no we don't hear back.
45:34
We just proceed.
45:36
In general, it's an open door.
45:39
You get you get feedback that we've received it.
45:41
You know, this is now the this is the deadline.
45:44
Please be aware of.
45:45
Late applications will not be accepted.
45:48
You'll you'll just be reminded of the instructions and the and
45:52
the process for uploading the attachments and things like that.
45:56
But yeah it's going to be, you know, Welcome now you know into the inner
46:01
sanctum and carry on with proceeding with the grant application.
46:06
So again we're not a gatekeeper.
46:08
We're not like “No this doesn't matter.
46:10
This is an interesting.” We're
46:12
all about just being prepared
46:14
as you're being prepared to do this right.
46:18
Awesome.
46:19
Two more questions.
46:20
And we have not prepped for these.
46:23
So if these questions don't make sense,
46:24
we can just take a siesta from our food and circle back on them.
46:29
You are in the coordinator role.
46:30
A+ board appreciates it. We appreciate it.
46:34
And the staff and members do.
46:36
What's next for CORE?
46:38
You and Doctor Chris Schultz?
46:39
Chris Schultz is our chief
46:40
research officer and the team under Research and Quality.
46:43
I will not name them all, lest I forget 1 or 2, but you've mentioned
46:47
they're awesome. What's next?
46:48
How are you?
46:49
We talked about growing, growing, but what else can you talk about publicly that
46:54
you're thinking about for CORE centralized otolaryngology research effort?
46:58
Yeah.
46:59
To me, the theme continues to be service, you know, because that jazzes me.
47:04
That that makes me, gives me a good you know,
47:06
it's a good reason to get up out of bed each day is to help people,
47:10
whether they're patients or whether they're my colleagues and friends.
47:14
And so you, your CORE team is working to serve you.
47:17
What we're trying to do is we're trying to give you more opportunities.
47:20
We want to understand, you know, that that science,
47:24
health, healthcare is constantly evolving and changing.
47:28
And how do we find the right type of funders
47:33
and the right type of support financially to be able to,
47:39
you know, investigate some really cutting edge research?
47:42
Maybe that's genetic hearing loss and trying to do gene therapy and reverse,
47:48
you know, pediatric genetic congenital hearing loss
47:52
from a really innovative grant funding mechanism.
47:57
Perhaps that's also looking
48:00
at resources that the Academy has, like Regent, which is an ocean
48:05
of incredibly important data that is generated
48:09
by the House of Otolaryngology and regent members.
48:12
And how do we really understand practice, population health?
48:17
Policy change?
48:19
We want to be able to give researchers that are interested in that aspect
48:23
of the translation of science opportunities.
48:26
So we're we're looking at
48:29
Regent connected/Regent supported research opportunities.
48:32
So again making sure that that menu is diverse.
48:36
We're not just giving you a price fix menu of,
48:39
you know, a salad or soup, fish or chicken
48:43
and then, you know, dry cheesecake.
48:47
We've got, you know, a smorgasbord of opportunities.
48:50
And we want to continue to give you additional menu opportunities.
48:54
The other thing that we're really
48:55
passionate about is not just individual researchers
48:58
having different opportunities, but we want to understand that,
49:02
you know, in the Academy, we want to serve other organizations.
49:06
As, Rahul, you read off, you know, that amazingly, you know, diverse and deep
49:12
list of all these different industry partners, professional organizations.
49:18
We want to know how that we can ease the burden and the complexity
49:23
of research infrastructure, reset research reviews,
49:28
and just to be able to facilitate work to be done.
49:32
It's not about making money for the Academy or necessarily
49:36
trying to do anything that would be negative
49:39
in any way but, or take over somebody else's turf,
49:43
but we just want to see can we help any other organizations
49:48
get the right researchers funded, get their careers moving along?
49:52
So I think that's the way that we're thinking about, you know,
49:57
the the growth, the trajectory.
49:59
And honestly, we want to make sure that there's never a grant that goes unfunded.
50:05
We're not trying to just throw money away.
50:07
As we said, we do have a fiduciary responsibility
50:11
to those that provide the funds, but we want to make sure
50:15
that there are people that are doing work in all of these different areas.
50:19
We want to make sure they're aware, make sure they're putting together really
50:22
meaningful CORE Grant, and then it gets funded.
50:25
This has been absolutely amazing.
50:27
I've learned so much,
50:28
and it might have been one of our longest podcasts, which shows
50:31
where my heart and bias is when we think of the Academy.
50:34
And as you said, during this time of low funds, it becomes very important.
50:40
We're going to end with the game.
50:41
So this will just take 30 seconds , I promise.
50:43
You know how I roll, Doctor Bush.
50:45
You know, my “High/Low/Buffalo.”.
50:47
So I'll talk for a second so you can think about it.
50:49
What has been your high with the CORE program?
50:52
The low with the CORE program and the buffalo?
50:54
The buffalo's like the zebra or unusual thing like Doctor
50:58
Shah, the EVP submitted a grant for robot tonsillectomy.
51:02
And it was so bad.
51:02
And you didn't have the heart to tell him that it sucked and you canceled it.
51:06
High, low buffalo with the CORE Grant program.
51:09
What's been the high Doctor Bush over your whole career?
51:11
Or even in the last year,
51:13
or even at your December meeting, your your Dallas meeting in March?
51:17
Doctor Bush the high.
51:19
Yeah, the high for me is
51:23
seeing CORE Grant recipients
51:27
come back and be a part of the CORE Grant study section.
51:31
To me that is about legacy.
51:35
That is about the proof is in the pudding.
51:37
It's right there because you got those people that started
51:41
as a resident or as a fellow and thought, I don't belong in this field.
51:45
And they got funded and then they got funded
51:48
and then they got funded, then they got promoted.
51:51
They went on, they got on a CORE Grant study section.
51:53
To me, that's that's amazing.
51:55
And that makes me so happy.
51:57
The low point.
51:59
On I want to go on that the high and you've you and Doctor Schultz had
52:03
mentioned this many of our Neil lectures, which is the highest honor.
52:08
It's an endowed lecture
52:10
at the Academy on research and quality work for grand winners.
52:14
A high proportion is that crazy, Matt.
52:16
They just started homegrown.
52:18
Yeah. It's true.
52:19
I mean, it's it's it's sort of like a Hall of fame.
52:22
But to me, you know, to be in the Hall of Fame, you really got to, you know, hit,
52:27
you know, 700 home runs or you have to, you know, play and, you know,
52:32
600 playoff games like LeBron or something like this.
52:36
But and to be a CORE Grant recipient, you don't have to do something
52:40
that's superhuman.
52:41
Just do something that's fundable, feasible.
52:45
And it's amazing what happens thereafter.
52:48
So you really think my superhuman robot will get funded?
52:51
I just heard you say that, man.
52:52
You said superhuman. I'm on that path, man.
52:56
I'm going to remain unbiased, and I'm going to trust the peer
52:59
review process to review your tonsillectomy grant.
53:02
So that that was your high. Low?
53:05
You don't have to have a low, but just thinking about it
53:07
and maybe it's increasing the the breath increasing funding.
53:10
But but what is a low of CORE over the last two decades that you were like,
53:15
I wish we could have one that I wish we could have done this?
53:18
You know.
53:19
The low point for me was doing
53:23
the study section over Zoom.
53:26
You know, Zoom has kicked
53:30
a lot of us in the teeth, you know, in a lot of ways.
53:33
And it's deflated a lot of our culture and a lot of our, you know, engagement
53:38
with the people that we care about
53:40
and the people that we need to meet and we need to interact with.
53:43
And so I'm thankful that CORE survived and we continued it.
53:48
But the Academy was gracious,
53:50
sent some DoorDash gift certificates out to recipients.
53:53
But it's kind of sad and lonely
53:55
and pathetic to be actually in this exact room in my house.
53:59
When I was doing a CORE Grant, and I felt like it was
54:01
a little bit of a prison sentence because I really didn't
54:03
have the same engagement, interaction - The conversation wasn't as free.
54:09
I think the peer review process was intact and rigorous and accurate.
54:14
So again, I think we did our job during those times, but
54:17
I love that we've gone back to being in person.
54:20
That's a special thing.
54:22
And I think that really helps people just fall in love with CORE all over again.
54:27
Yeah. Right on.
54:28
I'm not a Taylor Swiftie, but that was a song right there.
54:31
I think you said sad, lonely and pathetic.
54:33
Just just just saying that back to you.
54:35
All right.
54:35
Buffalo, what's the most bizarre CORE thing is it
54:38
Doctor Shah submitting robot tonsillectomy letter of intent next month?
54:42
What's the most bizarre or interesting?
54:45
Or zebra or, you know, you didn't think this would get funded?
54:48
And the next thing you know, it's groundbreaking research.
54:51
I mean, we get humbled by that. And that goes back to the adage,
54:53
you don't know how far frog is going to jump.
54:55
So kind of the most buffalo thing you've seen.
54:59
Yeah, it perplexes my brain that we have
55:02
and have had not necessarily every year,
55:05
but that we have grants that don't get applied for.
55:09
And I will tell you, that's a very small minority.
55:12
You know, you can count them on one hand as far as the mechanism.
55:15
So it's very, very few.
55:17
Sometimes those are new grants.
55:19
But again, like I said
55:21
now as your coordinator may culpa like I take personal responsibility.
55:25
Like okay, I need to do a better job.
55:27
We need to do a better job to make sure
55:29
these are advertised, that the people that might be interested in whatever
55:32
that type of science or specific area that that was focused on,
55:37
that they are aware that they have plenty of time to apply for.
55:41
And so we've got strategy, we've got approaches to address that.
55:45
But that perplexes me because it's like, wow, you know,
55:48
that's money that could today be on the move.
55:52
Could be buying, you know, research equipment and
55:57
or funding, you know, participants to participate in their work.
56:01
But that's okay. We can we can work on that.
56:03
That's a that's a fixable problem.
56:05
But that surprises me sometimes.
56:09
Doctor Bush I don't think this has ever happened,
56:12
but I just think you won “Hi/Low/Buffalo.” I mean that was awesome.
56:16
I know you've got a you've got a big family.
56:18
So if you do with your family,
56:19
can I give you a tip on how to win “Hi/Low/Buffalo?” All right.
56:23
So it's a dinner table tradition at our house.
56:25
And the children are like when they were young 4 or 5 years old.
56:27
Here's the winning answer.
56:28
Ready, Matt?
56:30
The highest spending time with you children.
56:32
The low is going to work.
56:33
Because I miss you, children and the buffalo is
56:36
when the neighbor's kid comes over.
56:37
Because I want to spend more time with you kids.
56:40
But but man, other than that,
56:41
you just crush the “Hi/Low/Buffalo.” Thank you, Doctor Bush.
56:45
Thank you for serving as our coordinator for pushing us to do better with CORE.
56:49
Thank you.
56:50
Thank you for actually starting people on their track,
56:55
whether their mid-career, late career, early career, by giving them a chance.
56:59
I will give you the final word on CORE or research.
57:01
Anything you want.
57:02
Doctor Busch, bring us home.
57:04
Thanks again for the opportunity to talk about this.
57:06
You can tell I'm passionate about it because you know to
57:10
whom much is given, much is required.
57:12
And I, I live that, I feel that and as I said, you know, it's about service.
57:18
So those of you that are listening, you know, let us be your concierge.
57:21
Let us tell you, you know, you want really good, fresh sushi or you want to,
57:26
you know, find the cool hangout place, cocktail bar, and, you know,
57:29
the San Francisco or wherever you're traveling.
57:32
You go and talk with a with an expert.
57:34
And we've got a team of experts in the CORE group with the research
57:38
and quality of the Academy. And we care about you.
57:40
We're going to support you.
57:42
We'll tell you the truth.
57:44
Sometimes the truth hurts when you get that constructive criticism
57:47
or you don't get that grant funded, but we don't want you to give up.
57:50
We want you to be successful.
57:51
So let us serve you.
57:55
Doctor Bush, thank you.
57:58
Thank you.
57:58
Appreciate the opportunity.
58:00
We hope today's We hope today’s episode sparked some fresh ideas.
58:03
If it resonated with you, please subscribe and share it with friends.
58:07
Have thoughts or suggestions?
58:08
Use the feedback form in the show notes.
58:10
We'd love to hear from you.
58:11
And don't forget to follow us
58:13
on social media for highlights, behind the scenes content and updates.
58:17
Thanks for listening. See you next time.