(upbeat music)
- So I view this session more as
an opportunity to just share
some lifters in the context
of experiences I, and my
colleagues Shivani have had
but really I view this as a
way for us to have a discussion
about strategies that we
can mutually share together.
Let me just introduce myself.
I should've done that earlier.
My name is Rajesh Vedanthan.
I'm a cardiologist by clinical training
and the Director of the
Section for Global Health
at the NYU Grossman school of
medicine in New York City, USA.
Most of my research has been
in the area of cardiovascular
implementation research.
How to deliver cardiovascular care
in low resource settings.
primarily with partners from
Moi University in Western Kenya
with the AMPATH partnership.
So I have a few slides to share
just to sort of go over a few
very basic ideas and
lessons that I've learned
in the context of my
trials or tribulations
with grants writing.
But as I did mention,
my anticipation is that
many of you have also
already been very successful
and maybe we can use this opportunity
to share best practices
or some lessons and thoughts
from all of us together.
As Puleng mentioned mentioned
I'm very happy to entertain questions
and so feel free to raise
them in the chat box
or the KI Storm platform
and Puleng will be able to
relay them to us.
So this is, as I said, my
thoughts are on Grant Writing,
No corporate disclosures.
These are also the National
Institutes of Health USA,
as well as the American
Heart Association Grants
that have informed some of the lessons
that I'll be describing today.
So the five lessons that I've learned.
One is really about allocating enough time
and so the, obviously here, this case,
the RFAs have already been
released a couple of weeks ago.
With due dates at the end
of November, early December.
So that gives us especially
about four months to work with.
Which is actually a decent amount of time,
but really the ball has
already started rolling.
And so it's so important to sort
of be very time efficient,
to be very good about planning
in terms of time allocation.
Second lesson is what I
like to call, write, review,
revise, and rewrite.
I'll go over that in more detail
but the idea is that this process
involves having to rewrite
so many different versions,
get feedback from collaborators,
core investigators,
other readers, et cetera.
And just going through
this iterative process
of over and over and over
re-writing and revising.
A third, lesson I've
learned over the years
has been this idea of getting a coach.
Who may not necessarily even
be within your field.
May not necessarily be strictly
relevant for this particular
set of RFAs or this
particular grant application
but is able to provide you
with sort of much broader guidance
and is able to sort of really be critical
of some of the things that you've written
or are thinking about.
In a way that's obviously respectful,
but that you'll be able to take into account
as you continue to put together your,
this grant application and
the future ones as well.
Lesson number four
is having multiple readers and reviewers.
and in particular from fields
that are outside of the field of study
and outside of the content
area of your expertise.
And the content area of
the grants application.
I'll go over that in more detail.
And number five probably
after should be number one
is don't be afraid of failure.
The percentage of successful grants
is extremely low
that's across all individuals,
that to be honest with you, even from
within an individual.
I've been invited today,
quote unquote, as a "successful grantee"
or having been successful
in Grant Writing before
but to be honest with you,
my hit rate is extremely low also.
I've put in
probably twenty grants
and gotten three or four.
So, I've been successful for a few,
but I've been unsuccessful for many,
and I think that's the
reality for many of us.
It's all of us that I think very important
to not be afraid of failure in
the context of this endeavor.
So let me get just very
quickly get started.
I think most of the number one,
as I said was really about time planning.
Really allowing sufficient time
and this is about being able to sort of
think through ideas carefully.
The actual writing itself
takes a lot of time.
The scheduling meetings
with collaborators,
and co-investigators also takes time.
Even just coming up with
a time slot that works
for people that are potentially
different time zones
and different parts of the
world can be very challenging.
Even reading through the RFA
or the program announcements
and really getting
familiar with the details
kind of takes time.
These are things that are
extremely densely packed.
As we know, today's session
is the first session
of 10 different two hour
long sessions happening
over the next two weeks.
All of that obviously takes up
a tremendous amount of time.
Plus the videos that they're
encouraging us to look at
and what not.
So, the idea of really
sort of planning out time
to be able to absorb all of
the detailed instructions.
To think about how you want
to present your science.
How to put the science down
and then actually -
There are tremendous
number of other documents
other than the science,
which is important.
So create a timeline for
yourself create a checklist.
Which is very important
and go over that checklist over and over.
Let me give you a couple of examples
of this checklist.
This is a checklist I used in the context
of one of my previous grants.
Which was actually a
career development award.
This is actually,
only half of the checklist.
So you can see here,
this includes reading
the program at Announcement.
What's called the SF424, which is the NIH
set of rules and regulations
in general for Grant Writing
and the many of the
instructions about formatting,
About content, about what
needs to be included,
what cannot be included are all in there.
So reading that very important.
Bio sketches not only for yourself,
but for all of your
co-investigators and collaborators.
Thinking about the specific Aims,
oops something happened
there, the specific Aims.
The research strategy.
In this case, I had a career
goals and development plan.
But you're going to
have letters of support.
You're going to have,
institutional letters,
resources and facilities,
human subjects section, et cetera.
So there will be many,
different line items.
Let me give you another
example, of a more recent one.
Here we had listed, for example,
the actual specific RFA
at the top, the Institute
and the second line, the due date.
Their institutional due
dates which are actually
prior to the
official due date to the
National Institutes of Health
are very important to think about your own
internal institutional deadlines
and then again,
the different actual documents
all listed in line item form
Who they're assigned to,
What is the status?
What is the current action item status?
What are the details required.
This type of checklist we put
together at the very beginning
of each of our grants
and literally every
week we're going through
and making sure the person assigned is
the appropriate person.
What is it that I personally asked to do?
What is it that other people have to do?
What's going consider final and done?
What do we need to continue working on?
So very important.
I think, obviously all of these by the end
should all be final or complete,
but some sort of organizational
system like this,
I think is very important
for everyone to have.
Lesson number two,
as I mentioned with this idea
of, write, review, revise and re-write.
Here, I just have a screenshot
of my folder on my computer
of just the specific aims
for my career development award.
So one of the grants that I was
successful at few years ago.
You can see here that I went through
the chain of the month
of December to March.
So four months
I went through probably
about 50 different versions
of the Specific Aims
and literally just kept on writing,
reviewing, revising, re-writing.
You can see that
by the time I got to my
final PDF form up here,
I'd gone through about
50 different versions
of the specific aims.
This is going to be true
for nearly every single grant application.
So this idea that it cannot just come out
at once magically,
but requires a tremendous
amount of literature work.
I think is very important.
Get a coach.
Here I'd like to just highlight that
on the far left here is my coach.
Marty is his name.
Marty is actually a basic scientist.
He doesn't work in
implementation research.
Doesn't work in Kenya
where I've been working
for the past decade
but he was very insightful
in terms of thinking
about career development
and was very instrumental
in helping me think
through my career development award.
Then subsequent independent
investigator R01 awards,
or U01 awards, 
that I've put together, I
had him read almost
every single one of them.
He goes through and literally
red lines everything.
He just tells me hey, Rajesh
You're thinking about this
and completely the wrong way,
or, Hey, Rajesh you're
not being clear at all
about how this should be presented
or how this should be thought about.
He gives his very, very honest feedback,
helps guide me.
I think its very important to think about.
Something about this coach person,
Somebody you can trust,
Someone who you're
able to take negative
constructive criticism and feedback from,
but someone who has obviously your best
interests at heart
and who you know, that that is true about.
So that it's easy for you
to sort of take in some of
that constructive criticism,
because it can be challenging.
I think very important
for you to find someone
you can trust who could help
sort of guide you through.
Again, not just one
specific grant application,
but probably several
over the course of your
professional career.
I think very important similarly
is to think about having,
in addition to your professional
network of co-investigators
and collaborators reading
and commenting and providing
suggestions on your grant application,
is to think about
having a variety of
non health disciplines.
Folks from a variety of
non-health disciplines,
actually take a look at your application.
So my wife works for finance and banking.
I've had friends who work
in business consulting.
I've had friends who are historians 
or a children's book editor
Folks who are educators or teachers.
Read through my grant applications and
make sure that what I'm trying to purvey
actually makes sense.
Many times folks
on the review panel
may not necessarily be
a hundred percent cognizant
of exactly the content that
you're trying to describe
or the setting or the context
that you're going to be working in.
It's very important to be able
to say for someone who's not
totally familiar with your area of work.
Hey, am I making sense?
I think it's very importants
to have that commentary and
feedback come back to you
before it gets sent to
the review committee.
Because again, these people generally
will have your best interest at heart,
and it's better to have an internal review
in a way quote unquote,
before sending it out
for external review.
Finally, this idea of don't fear failure,
as I mentioned,
and I showed it at the
beginning of the presentation,
obviously I've had several
federally funded grants
that have been fortunate enough
to be able to be awarded.
But to be honest with you, I've
applied for so many more.
For every success there's been actually
several different failures.
You can see here that
in the 2019 at the National
Heart, Lung, Blood Institute.
Which is the primary Institute
that I apply to grants to.
The percentile cutoffs
for a successfully funded grant
is extremely competitive 16th percentile.
I mean, that basically
means you need to have
a near perfect application
and it's amazing
and also luck in terms of who is reviewing
your application and that
they actually understand
and gel with, with what
you're trying to propose.
It's very difficult to
meet that threshold.
Again, in this type of work,
we all have to develop thick skin
sort of soldier on and say, you know what,
even if I wasn't
successful the first time,
I believe in what I'm trying to do.
I believe in the science,
I believe in what I'm
trying to put forward
and I'm going to continue
with those efforts
and you will ultimately become successful.
So I just wish to formerly acknowledge
several of my collaborators
and core investigators
on several of the different projects
that I've been working with
and thank you.
I don't know if Shivani
has joined like I hand over
to her this time.
- So I'm Shavani Patel.
I'm an Assistant Professor
in the Hubert Department of Global Health
and in the Department of
Epidemiology at Emory University.
I'm also Adjunct Faculty
at the Public Health Foundation of India.
I focus mostly on cardio
metabolic diseases
and formally trained as an epidemiologist.
So my role on a lot of these projects is
to design the study,
provide guidance on statistical analysis
and data interpretation,
and then, participate in the science
in the ways that all our
clinical investigators
and more data driven investigators do.
So with that bit of background,
what I wanted to talk about today
is sort of everything that happens before
we get to the stage that Rajesh
has just walked us through.
So what happens before
we have a grant in
process, a grant in play.
So the anatomy of a global
research partnership that
is ready for funding success.
I would say that there are
three major building blocks,
so it takes good people,
good ideas and sufficient resources.
Just to, talk a minute
about, the good people.
So the good people of course
good is a very general term.
What I mean by that is
that the right people.
The right fit for the question,
the right fit for you.
Building a global research partnership
is a lot of hard work.
If you can just imagine if Rajesh had 40
versions of his Specific
Aims for just one project.
The number of emails that must've
been generated in that
process of generating those,
those aims documents.
For each one of those emails there is
someone on the other side
who needs to respond.
Someone on the other side
that needs to be engaged, et cetera.
I imagine that many of you are
attending the session because
you're still somewhat
early in your careers
with either respect to
the Global Research Partnership aspect
and or the funding aspect.
So I just want to really
emphasize the importance
of building those social
connections with your partners,
because without that,
it's really, really hard
to get anything done.
I'm thinking about the different kinds
of skill sets you need.
For example, again Rajesh alluded to
the importance of having
sort of different kinds
of people read your grant
but even before you get
to that stage of review.
Having people on the team that are skilled
with respect to the administrative part.
So these are people who need
to be very well organized,
very well coordinated.
There was a question in the chat session
on developing data tables
for NIH grants that
require trainee information
and that kind of thing.
You probably don't want to
have a clinical investigator
develop data tables.
You need to find a strong
administrative anchor
for that kind of work.
Someone who's super well organized.
I can share with you that
we've gone through a variety of systems.
One system that you
could try in your setting
for whoever asked that question
is maybe a Google Form.
A Google Form can help one organize
all of the questions
that need to be answered
and then it also helps
on the receiving end all of
the data to be organized.
So then you can go ahead and
quickly produce those tables.
In the absence of that 
it's is just a lot of work.
Even with the Google form,
it's just a lot of work.
I always tell colleagues
who are new to the
especially NIH grant process
that maybe 50% of your
time goes in science.
Another 50% goes in all of
the administrative components.
So I apologize if Rajesh
already covered some of this,
I joined a little bit late,
but I just want to emphasize
the importance of having
not just good scientists on board,
but also people who can
help with things like
administrative coordination of finance
is a really important part.
So as you can imagine, wherever you sit,
I imagine you are used to going through
a lot of formalities
when it comes to anything,
dealing with money.
So it should be no surprise
that the U.S. Federal
Government is the same way.
They have very high
expectations for reporting,
for formats, et cetera.
So having someone on the broader team
that can do that,
and one model that we've
seen that really works
is trying to pair the right person
with the say, US counterpart.
So for example, in our India based work,
our finance people are in touch
with our India colleagues'
institutional finance folks.
Our administrative
coordinators are put in touch
with the administrative
coordinator on the India side.
There's a lot of mutual learning that happens
through that process.
I just can't emphasize enough
how important all of these
things that are not the science
of become to the team building
process and team success.
The statistical components,
because this is a data science initiative,
I don't think I need to
convince you on the importance
of having a appropriate statistical
and data management expertise,
but of course, you need to do that.
Sometimes that's something that is lacking
at institutions that are
known for clinical excellence,
and then the science.
I don't need to get into that.
You know, you're going to have a lot
of different kinds of
institutional players
and getting to know one another's
institutional settings
is really important.
So I think building that
partnership is also about
understanding the constraints
and enabling factors on both sides.
Just the way that global
health works, So often.
We can't just delegate and
have very discrete bins.
That okay, this is your problem
Or I solely can take
responsibility for Y problem.
That's not usually how it works.
We oftentimes have to get involved
with our processes and procedures
and help one another outright.
So just it's really helpful to understand
what kinds of institutions are at play.
There were, also some
questions on the chat I think
about translation, or at least I took it.
There was a question on the last mile,
and I don't know if that was
a specific term that was used,
or if you're talking about
sort of the general concept.
So in the general concept,
if we're talking about
say translation work.
Having non scientific partners,
that could be helpful for
the program implementation
are also critical
when we're thinking
about things like that.
They're going to be different
kinds of personalities
and different kinds of
hierarchies to deal with.
I'm sure are very familiar with your own
institutions, your own disciplines.
Many people find the American
system to be more flat
in terms of the hierarchical
system, but not always.
So, I think you have to
understand how other teams work,
but also understand your own constraints
and building that mentorship
team as Rajesh mentioned.
Is not only important
for a specific grant,
but it's also critical
for you as a scientist,
building a portfolio of research.
I would say, it's
building a mentorship team
and an advising team.
So it's really important to find people
at all different levels.
It's invaluable to have a
very senior investigator
who can open doors.
Oftentimes those people can
also help with regulatory issues
and concerns in country.
Provide really high
level scientific inputs
but those folks may not
know what it's like to be
an investigator who's just starting out.
So you want those super senior people.
You also want some mid tier
people who are maybe just
four or five years ahead of you,
who've kind of are where you
want to be in some years.
Then it's also really important to have
a network of colleagues
that are your peers.
That having these sorts of inputs
and mentors and advisors
at all different stages
will really help you
round out your own vision
and help you kind of improve
not just on the science, but
also on the process side.
Honest communication is critical
to any partnership global or otherwise
But I think that because of the barriers,
the geography, the time zones.
There can be cultural barriers
that honest communication
might even take more work
in global partnerships.
sort of sidestepping a problem today
is probably going to
not suit anyone
because that problem
will come back tomorrow.
So being honest, being
timely in your communication
is I think is a really foundational aspect
of building your research partnership
and finding the right team.
Some of the barriers I
mentioned like time zones.
They can also work to your favor.
So I'm sure Rajesh has had a
lot of experience than I have
where I will be working during
my daytime on a proposal,
and I pass that science
onto my colleagues in India
who then work on it during their daytime
while I sleep, right.
So then you're able to actually work
literally 24 hours a day
on a proposal during crunch time.
So I think that some of
these barriers can also be,
you know, transformed into strengths.
Another example is just all
of the cultural nuances,
you know, a lot of literature
from the business side
and the management side suggests
that diversity and thinking is really
what drives new ideas,
new innovation, right?
And so that's, one of the big motivations
for this kind of global science.
let some of these
differences work for you.
Trust is a critical component
of these partnerships.
And I think it's, maybe too
much to ask for friendship
from every partnership,
but I really encourage you to try
and find ways of fostering that friendship
among your partners,
because that's just going
to make the partnership
a lot more sustainable.
Related to that is it's
reciprocal engagement.
So finding the
people who are interested
in what you're interested in.
Who can contribute to your
areas, but also, you know,
you'll probably find the most success when
you're in a position to contribute back.
So that's a bit of what I
mean by reciprocal engagement.
What I've shown on the right
hand side are just like
a snapshot of several
studies that my team,
my broader team has done in India
around cardio metabolic disease,
interventions and implementation science.
Around cardio metabolic
disease interventions.
I haven't been a part
of a very close part at least
of most of these studies, but yet,
because I was working in
this team environment.
When we got together for the next step,
I was brought into the fold and I think
that's another thing that you can be
looking out at, you know,
different stages of your career that
Where the teams working on.
The things that you find interesting.
Where you want to see your
career going and early on,
that can be a great place for you,
to try and make some inroads.
Good ideas, of course,
they need to have local relevance,
but the other critical factor
is scientific contribution.
You'll hear a lot about this, I'm sure
from the NIH folks as well.
That whatever you do
it, can't just be replicating
a study for the first
time in your setting.
We're ultimately interested or rather NIH
and other funding bodies
are generally interested
in funding research.
that's going to make a broader
scientific contribution.
So figuring out
that sweet spot between
what is locally relevant?,
What can make a broader
scientific contribution?,
What has potential for translation?,
Potential for real impact?,
So it's not just, a cool
nerdy scientific question,
but it can also change lives
because we are working in health.
Which is a field that's
inherently applied.
Finally, I'll say,
where do you have a strategic advantage?
By strategic advantage, I'm
talking about things like say,
It might be a really unique
exposure distribution
that is not possible to
study in a place like
the United States,
or it might be just the ability to recruit
large numbers of people
quickly and efficiently
from existing population registries
for a particular study in
a way that can not happen
or be replicated in other settings.
So really looking for
those win, win, win situations.
Where your interests are served,
but you're also making a contribution
that's going to be valued globally.
Then as Rajesh pointed out so nicely.
It's also thinking about.
How all of this fits into
your career trajectory?
So what are, and also the
trajectory of the team?
So what are the areas
that have opportunities
for growth and expansion
for you personally
and also for your broader team?
What I've shown here on
the right side is just
an example of a cohort
that I work with in India.
Focused on cardio metabolic diseases.
What we've done is, you know.
The local relevance bit was the fact that
there at that time had been no such
sort of India based Framingham that had
repeated metabolic data
collected year after year on participants.
So despite having a really
high burden of diabetes
and early cardiovascular disease
in India and in Pakistan and
other South Asian countries.
We really didn't know too
much about what was driving
that risk or what was driving
progression in that risk.
So developing this, cohort
was of local relevance,
but it also became a springboard
for scientific contributions related
to unpacking what was
going on in that area.
I think that's why we've
been a bit successful there.
And then sufficient resources.
So all of this takes a lot of financing.
You all are here because
you know this, right.
Global research is a small business
and it's a necessary component
of the current research environment.
I think Rajesh has beautifully covered.
What it takes to win a grant?
So I'm not going to repeat that here.
And I was going to go through a case study
from one of our team projects,
but I think I'm going to just pause here
and see if there are questions.
Because I don't think we have,
I think we have less than 10 minutes left.
So I'm going to end my remarks right here
and open it up for questions
from the chat room and, others.
- [Puleng] It'd be great
to have a look at the chat,
to have a couple of questions
and perhaps to respond to
some of those questions
such that it helps everybody else.
- [Rajesh] Can I jump in for a minute?
Is that okay, Shivani?,
There was a question asked
about a quote unquote
"common mistakes that are made
that we could try and avoid."
From my perspective, I
think quite challenging,
but I think one of the,
sort of common mistakes
I've made in the past
has been this idea of
not being clear enough
in the actual grant proposal itself.
I may feel like the idea
is very clear in my head,
but if I were not able to take that idea
and make it very clear on paper,
that has sometime been a critical mistake.
That's why I think again,
having a bunch of different people
from different perspectives
read your writing
to be able to say,
Oh yeah, you're purveying
this idea clearly
I think its very important.
The second one is this idea
of being over ambitious.
I think many of us have
the tendency to really say,
I want to solve all problems
but I think the key is to
really sort of be focused and be concise
and be realistic about what's
possible at a time frame.
Then the third thing I was going to say,
I didn't have a chance to type for them.
Am going to just mention it verbally loud.
Is this idea that
all of us to know that nothing
is going to be perfect,
but it's much better
for us as a grant writer
for me as a grant writer,
to be able to be
clear about the fact that I recognize
that there are limitations,
or there are potentially
alternative approaches
I can make that explicit
in the grant application.
Because if a reviewer says.
Hey, why don't you think of X, Y, or Z?
They will give you a much
lower score than if they say.
Oh, wow, you recognize that
you could have done X, Y, or Z.
This is a potential limitation
of your current approach.
There'll be, I think more appreciative
than if they sort of say
Why didn't you mention that
a potential limitation?
So those are sort of
the three ideas I have.
I don't know if Shivani do
you have anything else to add.
- No, I think you've hit it.
I would say that, you know,
I would just say maybe
flipping two considerations.
So first thinking about
whether your scope is
too ambitious or not.
So first the concept itself
has to be a very well-defined.
It has to be feasible,
actionable with your resources,
with your skillset. You know,
You have to have the alignment
and all those things.
Then of course the second part
is making sure that you clearly convey it.
And I think Rajesh has already provided
excellent suggestions for how
using external feedback from people
who are not related to the grant.
Like that is going to
be an essential tool.
A part of that is also
preparing early enough.
That you actually have
the time for revisions.
We have a tendency of,
I think this is part
of our overall ambition
to work in new things
until the last minute,
but it's always going to pay
off to finish earlier,
maybe do less, but be more clear about it.
Those are just my additional thoughts.
- Then there was a question about
optimal level of complexity.
Is it better to have a
singular focus or aim
or to have multiple aspects.
Again in my head.
The key is really to
have a sort of alignment,
a coherent and consistency
on the proposal.
So I think it's possible to have
different components
or different foresight,
obviously different aim,
but there needs to be
sort of a coherent story
in a way to sort of bring it all together.
That's the key in terms of that question.
Those are my thoughts there.
Shivani, anything you wish to say?
- I think that grant writing
is a highly structured process.
So the other thing is, you know,
studying past grants
that have been successful
for that particular mechanism.
So one of the things I've
learned working with,
my primary global
collaborators are all in India.
So when I study locally submitted grants,
they are not necessarily
as structured, as formulaic.
Meaning there's a little bit more leeway
with what appears where,
and an NIH grant for
example, it is very fixed.
Every reader and reviewer
is expecting certain content
to be in certain sections.
So I think that, you know,
the alignment also needs to happen there.
Again the best way to learn
is by studying past submissions and,
and having those kinds of discussions.
Cause it'll feel like
a very opaque system.
I think getting that experience will,
and those examples would really
help you out in your first time at it.
- Shivani actually related to that point.
There was a question about.
Is there a place to be able to access
previously successful grant application?
- That's a great question.
So I think I know that
especially for career development awards,
they're really good examples online
that are published.
I think also for bio sketches,
I guess we haven't hit on that,
but that's sort of, again,
one of those components
where we really have
to explain to our colleagues that.
We cannot take your Curriculum
Vitae in the form that it is,
but the NIH requires a very specific,
Very, very specific format for the CVs.
You can find those examples online,
but I think the other
way of going about it
is reaching out to colleagues
or even you can, you
can cold email people.
Who are in your field that you respect.
One way you can understand
what research is out there
is through NIH Reporter.
Maybe you've had experience with that.
That will give you a public listing
of what grants are funded
by the Institute you're seeking to target.
You'll also be able to understand
who has received that funding?
What their publications are, et cetera?
So I encourage you to,
you know, reach out.
Especially people in Global Health,
it attracts a certain kind of spirit
a collaborative spirit.
So you'll find that a lot of
people are willing to share
and maybe not, and everyone might not be,
don't take that personally
because sometimes there's also
sort of intellectual inputs.
So for me, for example,
I don't write any of
these grants by myself.
It's always this massive team effort.
I need to have all of my team members
agree before I share,
but do definitely reach out to others,
and maybe Rajesh you
know about a repository.
I'm not sure.
- Yeah. I was going to say.
Especially for this initiative
and this set of RFAs.
It feels like such a new endeavor.
That I am planning with
a couple of colleagues
in a different countries of Africa
to think about responding
to this set of RFAs.
We are also confronted
by a similar challenge,
like what is it going to
take to be successful?
So I think maybe what we can do
Shivani Is we can reach
out to the administration
and see if they may have
samples or, you know,
maybe a little bit more
explicit guidance because
even for me this is such a new thing.
That I feel like it would be useful
to get a sense of what might
needed for me to be successful
in this specific context.
- That's a great idea.
- Great, I'm mental of time
and I want to thank you for
doing such a thorough job.
A lot of thank you messages on the chat
to show that you have
really done a great job.
Thank you so much.
You've been wonderful hosts.
Thank you for sharing your information.
Thanks for the excellent talk.
As some of the participants are saying,
and everyone, thank you
for your participation,
your engagement, your
presence.(up beat music)
