Week 6: The Conversation Most Researchers Get Wrong

Last week, I walked you through the three doors — revise, reframe, or walk away. How to read your summary statement not as a verdict, but as a set of instructions for what comes next.

But before you commit to any of those doors, there is a conversation you should have. And it is the one most researchers either skip entirely or approach in a way that undermines them before they begin.

The program officer conversation.

I want to demystify this, because the anxiety around it is almost always disproportionate to the reality. Program officers are not gatekeepers deciding your fate in a back room. They are scientists managing a portfolio. They have expertise in your area. They have context you do not have. And in most cases, they are genuinely trying to help you find the right path to funding — because funding strong science is literally their job.

The question is not whether to reach out. It is when, how, and with what frame.

When to reach out

Timing matters more than most people realize.

There are two windows. The first is before you submit — ideally before you have written the Specific Aims page. At this stage, you are not asking the program officer to evaluate your science. You are asking whether the question you are pursuing fits within the institute's current portfolio and priorities. This is information only they can give you, and it can save you months of effort directed at the wrong mechanism or the wrong institute.

The second window is after you receive your summary statement. Not the day after. Give yourself enough time to read the critiques carefully, sit with them, and form your own assessment of what happened. The program officer conversation is more productive when you arrive with a perspective — not just a question.

What I would caution against is reaching out in the gap between submission and review. Your application is in the system. The program officer cannot influence the review process, and contacting them during this window can signal anxiety rather than strategy. The exception is a genuine logistical question — a change in your institutional affiliation, a key personnel issue, something administrative. But if what you really want to know is how your application is going to do, that is not a question anyone can answer yet. That is the uncertainty you have to hold.

What program officers can tell you

This is where the mystification lives — and where I want to be precise, because the boundary between what a program officer can and cannot share is real, and misunderstanding it leads to frustrating conversations on both sides.

Program officers can tell you whether your research area aligns with the institute's strategic priorities. They can tell you whether the mechanism you are considering is appropriate for the scope of work you are describing. They can discuss, in general terms, the funding landscape — whether the institute is investing in your area, whether there are upcoming funding opportunities that might be a better fit.

After review, they can walk you through what the summary statement means in context. They often have insight into the study section discussion that goes beyond what appears in the written critiques because they had the opportunity to be “in the room” (on the call) during the study section meeting. They can help you understand whether a resubmission is worth pursuing — not by telling you what to change, but by helping you assess whether the foundation of the application held.

At NCI specifically, they no longer publish a payline. This is something applicants often do not realize, and it changes the nature of the conversation. You will not get a number that tells you whether you are above or below a line. What you may get — depending on the program officer and the conversation — is a sense of where your score sits relative to the current funding landscape. That contextual information is valuable precisely because it is not a binary.

What program officers cannot tell you

They cannot guarantee funding. They cannot tell you what score you will need. They cannot intervene in the review process or influence a study section's evaluation. They cannot tell you exactly what to write in your resubmission — that is your scientific judgment, not theirs.

And here is the one that surprises people: they are not obligated to return your email or take your call. Most will, because most are generous with their time. But approaching the conversation as though you are entitled to their guidance — rather than respectfully requesting it — changes the dynamic in ways that do not serve you.

How to frame the conversation

This is where I see the most consequential mistakes.

The most common one is treating the program officer call as a petition. The researcher presents their case, explains why their score was unfair, and asks the program officer to advocate for them. This misunderstands the relationship. The program officer is not your advocate in the adversarial sense. They are a scientific partner who can help you navigate the system — but only if you approach the conversation as a collaboration, not an appeal.

The second mistake is asking questions so vague that the program officer cannot help you. "What should I do with my application?" is not a question that leads anywhere productive. It puts the burden of interpretation entirely on them, and it signals that you have not yet done the work of reading your own summary statement carefully.

Here is what I have found works. Come to the conversation with a specific read on your summary statement. Name what you think the central critique was. Share your preliminary thinking about whether this is a revision or a reframe. Then ask the program officer whether your reading aligns with what they heard in the discussion.

This does three things. It shows that you have done the intellectual work. It gives the program officer something concrete to respond to. And it positions you as a scientist exercising judgment — which is exactly what the resubmission process requires.

A version of this might sound like: "Based on the summary statement, it seems like the primary concern was about the feasibility of the recruitment strategy given the timeline. I am thinking about restructuring the first aim to address that directly. Does that align with what you heard in the discussion, and is there anything else I should be considering?"

That is a conversation a program officer can work with. It is specific. It is grounded. And it makes clear that you are not asking them to do your thinking for you — you are asking them to refine it.

The conversation underneath the conversation

Here is what I want you to understand at a level that goes beyond mechanics.

The program officer conversation is a microcosm of everything the grant process tests. Can you receive critical feedback without becoming defensive? Can you hold your own scientific vision while remaining genuinely open to other perspectives? Can you communicate clearly under conditions of uncertainty and vulnerability?

These are not just grant skills. They are leadership skills. And they are the same skills that the Lost in Translation curriculum is built around — the ability to translate what you know into language that lands with the person across from you, whether that person is a reviewer, a program officer, a community partner, or a patient. [If you are working through the curriculum, the communication framework in Module 3 maps directly onto how to structure this conversation.]

I have had program officer conversations that changed the trajectory of an application — not because the program officer told me what to do, but because the conversation forced me to articulate what I actually believed about my own science. There is something about saying it out loud, to someone with expertise and context, that clarifies thinking in a way that staring at a Word document cannot.

And I have had program officer conversations that confirmed what I already suspected — that the application, as conceived, was not going to get there. That the right move was to redirect, not to push harder. Those conversations were harder. They were also more valuable.

One more thing

When you do reach out, keep the initial email brief. Introduce yourself and your application. Reference the study section, the review date, and your score or outcome. State clearly what you are hoping to discuss. Ask whether they have fifteen to twenty minutes for a call. Do not attach your entire application or paste your summary statement into the body of the email. Keep it to one short paragraph that makes it easy for them to say yes.

Program officers are managing large portfolios. Respect their time, and they will respect yours.

Next week: what I have learned about building — and rebuilding — a research team around a resubmission. The personnel question that most applicants underestimate.

~Lisa Carter-Bawa, PhD, MPH, APRN, ANP-C, FAAN, FSBM

More insights at https://www.lisacarterbawa.com/insights

Lost in Translation is available as an institutional cohort for cancer centers, training programs, and research-intensive departments. Contact lisa@soultosoulleadership.com.

The Founders Cohort launches in August, and an October cohort is open to individual researchers who want the cohort experience outside of an institutional partnership. Applications for the August and October cohorts are live. You can also join the waiting list for future cohort experiences by emailing me at lisa@soultosoulleadership.com.