0. COBRE Grant Writing Workshop
Writing Successful NIH Mentored Career Development Awards (K and F Series), Mentorship Plan and Role of a Mentor
Lynn Snyder-Mackler

1. Training and Career Timetable
Stage of Research
Training / Career
Awards
Pre-Bac
Pre-Bac Institutional Training Grant (T34)
GRADUATE/
MEDICAL
STUDENT
Predoctoral Institutional Training Grant (T32)
Predoctoral Individual NRSA (F31)
Predoctoral Individual MD/PhD NRSA (F30)
Postdoctoral Institutional Training Grant (T32)
Postdoctoral Individual NRSA (F32)
POST
DOCTORAL
NIH Pathway to Independence (PI) Award (K99/R00)
Mentored Research Scientist Development Award (K01)
Mentored Clinical Scientist Development Award (K08)
Mentored Patient-Oriented RCDA (K23)
Mentored Quantitative RCDA (K25)
EARLY
Small Grant (R03)
Research Project Grant (R01)
Independent Scientist Award (K02)
CAREER
MIDDLE
Midcareer Investigator Award in
Patient-Oriented Research (K24)
Exploratory/Develop-ment Grant (R21)
SENIOR
Senior Scientist Award (K05)

2. Mentored K Awards Independent Investigator College Graduate School
Postdoctoral
Pathway to Independence (PI) Award (K99/R00)
Mentored Quantitative
Research Career Development
Award (K25)
Mentored Research Scientist
Development Award (K01)
Career Transition Award (K22)
Mentored Clinical Scientist
Development Award (K08)
Mentored Patient-Oriented Research Development Award (K23)

3. Mentored Awards
Support mechanisms that provide mentored research experiences to gain additional expertise in an area that will significantly enhance research capabilities or expertise in a new research area.

4. F32 Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Awards (NRSA) for Individual Postdoctoral Fellows
Requirements: U.S. citizenship or permanent resident status, doctorate awarded
Duration: Up to 3 years
Commitment: Full-time research fellowship
Provisions: ~$37K-$52K stipend, ~$8K institutional allowance, 60% up to $16K tuition
Research Career Awards (K)

5. Mentored K Awards K01: Mentored Research Scientist Development Award
K08: Mentored Clinical Scientist Development Award
K22: Research Career Award for Transition to Independence
K23: Mentored Patient-Oriented Research Development Award
K25: Mentored Quantitative Research Development Award
K99/R00: NIH Pathway to Independence (PI) Award
K12: Institutional Mentored Research Scientist Development Program

6. K01 Mentored Research Scientist Development Award
Purpose: For individuals who wish to enhance their capacity for independent research.
Requirements: U.S. citizenship or permanent resident status, doctorate awarded
Duration: 3-5 years
Commitment: 75% effort
Provisions: Salary up to $75K, fringe benefits, other research expenses up to $20K

7. K08 Mentored Clinical Scientist Research Career Development Award
Purpose: To support clinicians who need an intensive period of mentored research experience.
Requirements: U.S. citizenship or permanent resident status, clinical doctorate awarded
Duration: 3-5 years
Commitment: 75% effort (50% effort for physician surgeons)
Provisions: Salary up to $75K/$50K, fringe benefits, other research expenses up to $20K

8. Timeline for K (F) Applications
Earliest Award
Date:
December
April
July
Scientific
Review:
Jun/July
Oct/Nov
Feb/Mar
Council
Review:
October
January
May
Receipt/Due
Date:
Feb 12 (April 8)
Jun 12 (August 8)
Oct 12 (December 8 )

9. F and K sections and page limits
Section of Application
Page Limits * (if different from FOA, FOA supersedes)
Introduction to Resubmission or Revision Application (when applicable) 1
Specific Aims
Research Strategy 6
Respective Contributions
Selection of Sponsor and Institution
Responsible Conduct of Research
Applications for Concurrent Support (when applicable)
Goals for Fellowship Training and Career
Activities Planned Under  This Award
Doctoral Dissertation and Other Research Experience 2
Sponsor(s) and Co-Sponsor(s)
Biographical Sketch 4
Section of Application
Page Limits * (if different from FOA, FOA supersedes)
Introduction to Resubmission or Revision Application (when applicable) 1
Specific Aims
First three items of Candidate Information (Candidate's Background, Career Goals and Objectives, and Career Development/Training Activities During Award Period and Research Strategy
12 pages  (for all sections combined)
Training in the Responsible Conduct of Research
Mentoring Plan (Include only when required by the specific FOA, e.g., K24 and K05) 6
Statements by Mentor, Co-Mentors, Consultants, Contributors
Description of Institutional Environment
Institutional Commitment to Candidate’s Research Career Development
Biographical Sketch 4

10. Prepare the Application: read the instructions!!
start early, seek internal reviewers
Candidate (grades, GREs, publications, pedigree)
US citizen or permanent resident
Doctoral degree (many ok)
Sponsor and Training Environment
Research Proposal
Up to 3 yrs
Training Potential
Vertebrate Animals, Human Subjects
You may have to resubmit…

11. Applications, awards, and success rates
Data and chart description for this slide can be located at 11

12. Postdoctoral trainees are funded by many Institutes

13. Develop a Strategy
Assess your career situation and needs. Find out the opportunities for collaborating with a known laboratory and experienced mentor(s) and collaborators.
Asses the field and the competition; see which other projects in your field are being funded by NIH. Search the NIH database: Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT).
Evaluate yourself: What are your strengths and weaknesses? Can you capitalize on your expertise and fill in any gaps with collaborators or consultants?
Find out what resources and support your organization has and what additional support you will need.

14. Develop a Strategy
Is there an added value to your receiving a K award? Why not pursue research training through other mechanisms?
Give yourself plenty of time to write the application, probably three (to six) months.
Know your organization's key contacts and internal procedures for electronic application.
Begin the application by writing a one-sentence hypothesis for the proposed research project.
Call an Institute/Center (I/C) Program Officer for an opinion of your ideas. See if your ideas match any of the I/C's high-priority areas, reflected in I/C’s initiatives and concepts.

15. Stay Informed Read NIH Guide notices.
Read the NIH Institute/Center Funding Opportunity Announcements.
Sign up for NIH's Electronic Application Listserv to Receive News and Updates.
See NIH's Electronic Submission Website.
As you plan your grant, watch for important policy and process changes.
Be wary of online information – always check when a page was last updated.

16. Start Early to Apply Electronically
The general rule of thumb for a K award is to start at least 3 months prior to the application due date.
Notify your referees early on and give them plenty of time to submit letters of reference.
At least a month before you want to apply, you'll need to get an NIH Commons account.
You will also need to know who is your organization's Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR). Your AOR is typically someone in your business office.
Only the AOR can submit your application to Grants.gov. Keep in mind that your organization is the “applicant.” You are the K candidate.
For info, see:

17. Before You Start Writing
Coordinate the application with your mentor’s schedule. Remember that a K application is a collaboration between you and your mentor.
As you write the research project, always keep in mind the impact on your career development plans and progression.
Make sure your planning and feedback are adequate by putting together your own review committee.
After you've settled on a project, draft a short description of your specific aims and discuss these with the committee.
Be sure to have the committee review the application after you're finished writing.

18. Develop a Solid Hypothesis
The research component of a K application should be driven by strong hypotheses rather than advances in technology.
The hypothesis is the foundation, or the conceptual underpinning on which the entire project rests.
Generally applications should ask questions that prove or disprove a hypothesis rather than use a method to search for a problem or simply collect information.
However, sometimes applied research is also important to discover basic biology or develop or use a new technology.
You should develop a focused hypothesis that increases understanding of an important biologic process and is based on previous research.

19. Develop a Solid Hypothesis
A few Tips:
Make sure your idea is not too broad. Your hypothesis must be provable during your 3 to 5 year award with the level of resources you are requesting.
Your topic should fit NIH's public health mission. Tie your science to curing, treating, or preventing disease.
Show reviewers how your project fits in your field. Make this explicit.
Remember, methods are the means for performing your experiments. Your experimental results will prove or disprove your hypothesis.
If you have more than one hypothesis, choose the better one.

20. Plan Your Application
Make sure your hypothesis will generate aims and methods you can accomplish within the 3-5 years time and with the resources available.
After you have chosen your hypothesis, outline your specific aims:
List your aims and then all the experiments you will do to support each aim.
Keep in mind that your experiments support your aims, and your aims support your hypothesis.
Use graphics to plan experiments.
Chart experiments with decision trees showing alternative pathways should you get negative results.

21. Request an Appropriate Budget
The Career (K) line budget is driven by NIH Institute and Center policies. As an applicant, you are restricted to what you can ask for.
Be aware that the NIH Institutes and Centers have varying salary and research cost scales!
A typical mentored K award to a new investigator provides partial salary and only modest research costs.
Ideally, your mentor(s) should be well-funded (NIH funding is preferred), and funding from the K is supplemental to his/her research funds.
Most independent K awards do not provide research costs. It is expected that you will have peer-reviewed research funding.

22. Request an Appropriate Budget
F-32
Stipends:
Kirschstein-NRSA awards provide stipends No departure from the published Kirschstein-NRSA stipend schedule may be negotiated between the institution and the fellow.
For fellows sponsored by domestic non-federal institutions, the stipend will be paid through the sponsoring institution.
Tuition and Fees:
NIH will contribute to the combined cost of tuition and fees at the rate in place at the time of award. For the most recent tuition/fees levels, see the following website:
Institutional Allowance:
Fellows sponsored by nonfederal or nonprofit institutions (domestic or foreign) will receive an institutional allowance to help defray fellowship expenses such as health insurance, research supplies, equipment, books, and travel to scientific meetings.

23. Don't Propose Too Much
Sharpen the focus of your application. Beginning applicants, particularly at an early career stage, often overshoot their mark by proposing too much. Avoid an “over-ambitious” project or one that looks a lot like an R01 grant!
Your hypothesis should be provable and aims doable with the resources you are requesting.
Make sure the scale of your hypothesis and aims fits your request of time and resources.
Reviewers will quickly pick up on how well matched your research and career development objectives are.

24. A Few Tips as You Write Write to Your Audience: Be Persuasive:
Organize your application so the reviewers can readily grasp and explain what you are proposing, and most importantly, why you should get a K award.
Be Persuasive:
Tell reviewers why testing your hypothesis is worth NIH's money, why you are the person to do it, and how your mentor(s) and institution can give you the support you'll need to get it done.
Balance the Technical and Non-technical:
Keep the abstract, significance, and specific aims non-technical, and get technical and detailed only in the methods section.

25. A Few Tips as You Write Make Life Easy for Reviewers:
Write clearly and concisely
Guide the reviewers with graphics as much as possible
Label all materials clearly
Edit and proof
Know These Review Problems and Solutions:
Write a compelling argument for why your career will be enhanced by receiving a K award
Write to the non-expert in the field

26. Write a Compelling Application
Candidate Qualifications, Career Goals, Training Plans
Statements by the Mentor, co-Mentors, Collaborators, and Consultants
Institution Environment and Commitment to the Candidate
Specific Aims
Research Strategy

27. Writing a competitive mentored K award grant application
Main sections of the grant application
Candidate (Sections 2 – 4)*
Instruction in the Responsible Conduct of Research (Section 5: limited to 1 page)
Statements by Mentors, Co-Mentors, and Collaborators (Section 7; limited to 6 pages)
Description of Institutional Environment (Section 8; limited to 1 page)
Institutional Commitment to Candidate’s Research Career Development (Section 9: limited to 1 page)
Specific Aims (Section 10: limited to 1 page)
Research Strategy (Section 11)*
*Sections 2 – 4 plus Section 11 are limited to 12 pages

28. Candidate’s Qualifications
Biographical Sketch:
Personal Statement: Your research experience and other qualifications for this K award.
Research Support: Your/colleagues accomplishments attesting to qualifications of the research team. Don’t confuse this with “Other Support.”
Candidate’s Background:
Coordinate with information in the Biographical Sketch, e.g., research and/or clinical training experience that has prepared you for the K.

29. Candidate’s Career Goals
Career Goals and Objectives:
Tell the reviewers about your scientific history, and how the K award fits into you research career development plans.
If you have changed research direction, discuss reasons for the change, and be sure to justify how it will help you to develop your research career.
You should always provide a career development timeline, including plans to apply for subsequent grant support.

30. Candidate’s Career Plans
Career Development/Training During Award:
Make sure to fully explain any new or enhanced research skills you will gain as a result of the K.
Stress activities that will enhance your research career, e.g., courses, techniques.
Describe any additional, non-research activities in which you expect to participate. Explain how the activity is related to your research and career development plans.

31. Responsible Conduct of Research
Training in Responsible Conduct of Research:
Document any prior participation in RCR training and/or propose plans to receive additional instruction.
Discuss the five components outlined in the NIH Policy: Format, Subject Matter, Faculty Participation, Duration, and Frequency.
Is the plan appropriate for your career stage, and will it enhance your understanding of ethical issues related to research?

32. Mentor(s), Collaborators, Consultants
Statements by Mentor(s), Consultant(s):
Each mentor must explain how he/she will contribute to the development of the candidate's research career.
Discuss the research And Also other activities, e.g., seminars, scientific meetings, training in RCR, publications and presentations.
Document the sources and amounts of anticipated support for the candidate’s research project.

33. Statements by Mentors, Co-Mentors, and Collaborators
Assemble a complementary team
Choose a primary mentor who is a senior investigator with a track-record of NIH funding
Your primary mentor should be at your home institution.
Include co-mentors who will complement the primary mentor’s strengths.
Avoid including co-mentors from institutions outside the region.
If you do include someone from outside the region, call them a scientific or technical advisor rather than a co-mentor.

34. Statements by Mentors, Co-Mentors, and Collaborators (Cont’d)
Each member of your “team” must play a role in your training or research plan.
Establish a relatively small (3-5) mentoring committee.
This section is limited to 6 pages.
Each member of your team must submit a signed letter.
The primary mentor’s letter should be at least 2 pages, leaving only 4 pages for all other members; hence, the total number of mentors/advisors on your team should not exceed 5.

35. Statements by Mentors, Co-Mentors, and Collaborators
Evaluation criteria for primary mentor:
Appropriateness of mentor’s research qualifications in the area of this application.
Quality and extent of mentor’s role in providing guidance and advice to candidate.
Previous experience in fostering the development of more junior researchers.
History of productivity and support.
Adequacy of support for the research project.

36. Letters of Collaboration
The letter from the primary mentor is key. It should cover the following areas:
His or her qualifications in the research area proposed by the candidate.
Previous experience as a research supervisor.
The nature and extent of supervision that will occur during the award period.
Include an evaluation component that describes how your mentors will assess your progress (e.g., quarterly meetings).
Include specific milestones during the K award (e.g., completion of coursework, submission of manuscripts).
What resources, if any, they will make available to you in support of your training and/or research.

37. Letters of Collaboration
Any of the following issues could also be addressed, which are the criteria by which the candidate will be evaluated:
Potential for conducting research
Evidence of originality
Adequacy of scientific background
Quality of research endeavors or publications to date
Commitment to patient-oriented research
Need for further research experience and training

38. Primary mentor’s letter
The primary mentor’s letter can also “re-frame” any potential weaknesses in the application.
Examples:
Productivity of candidate (e.g., few publications).
Feasibility of conducting research plan with resources of K award.
Limited mentoring experience of primary mentor.
Limited resources of primary mentor (e.g., no current R01 funding.
Co-mentor(s) not at UD.
Scientific overlap with primary mentor.

39. Letters of Collaboration
Letters from co-mentors, scientific advisors, and others can be much shorter.
Be sure to include description of the role of the co-mentor/scientific advisor.
Make sure that letters are consistent with text in grant application (re: frequency of meetings, etc.).

40. Letters of Recommendation
3 - 5 letters are required.
They should be from senior investigators who have competed successfully for NIH funding and have been involved in the training of junior investigators.
Can be from any period in your career (e.g., graduate school, medical (professional) school, residency).
Cannot be from your primary mentor or co-mentors.

41. Letters of Recommendation
Letters should address the candidate’s potential for a research career.
Potential for conducting research
Evidence of originality
Adequacy of scientific background
Quality of research endeavors or publications to date
Commitment to patient-oriented research
Need for further research experience and training

42. Mentor(s), Collaborators, Consultants
Statements by Mentor(s), Consultant(s):
Provide details on the candidate's anticipated teaching load, clinical responsibilities, etc.
It is critical to discuss plans for transitioning the candidate to the independent investigator stage by the end of the K award period.
Mentor(s) must provide details for any previous experience as a mentor, types (e.g., graduate students, Postdocs), numbers, and career outcomes.

43. Institution’s Research Environment
Description of Institutional Environment:
The sponsoring institution must document a strong, well-established research program related to the candidate's areas of interest.
The statement should include the names of the mentor(s) and other relevant faculty.
The statement should provide details of facilities and resources available for the candidate.
Any opportunities for intellectual interactions, e.g., journal clubs, seminars, and presentations?

44. Institution’s Commitment
Institutional Commitment to the Candidate:
The institution must document its commitment to the candidate’s career development independent of the K award!
The institution must agree to provide adequate time and support to the candidate for the period of K.
Provide documentation for the institution's commitment to the development and advancement of the candidate during the period of the K award.

45. Institution’s Commitment
Institutional Commitment to the Candidate:
The institution must provide the candidate with appropriate office and laboratory space, equipment, and other resources and facilities (e.g., access to clinical and/or other research populations) to carry out the proposed research.
The institution must provide appropriate time and support for any proposed mentor(s) and/or other staff consistent with the career development plan.

46. Institution’s Commitment
Institutional Commitment to the Candidate:
The institution must document its commitment to the candidate’s career development independent of the K award!
The institution must agree to provide adequate time and support to the candidate for the period of K.
Provide documentation for the institution's commitment to the development and advancement of the candidate during the period of the K award.

47. Description of Institutional Environment
This section is limited to 1 page.
Evaluation criteria:
Adequacy of research facilities and the availability of appropriate educational opportunities.
Quality and relevance of the environment for scientific and professional development of the candidate.

48. Description of Institutional Environment
Describe the research facilities and educational opportunities of the sponsoring institution that are related to the candidate’s career development training and research plans.
Include relevance of each component to your career development plan.
Describe resources outside UD, as needed.

49. Institutional Commitment to Candidate’s Research Career Development
This section is limited to 1 page.
Evaluation criteria
Applicant institution’s commitment to the scientific development of the candidate and assurances that the institution intends the candidate to be “an integral part of its research program.”
Applicant institution’s commitment to protect at least 75% of the candidate’s effort for proposed career development activities.

50. Institutional Commitment to Candidate’s Research Career Development (Cont’d)
These assurances are stated in a letter from your department chair or division chief (see Example 4).
Note: For fellows, this letter must state that you will be promoted from your current position to a “higher” position (ideally, to a full-time faculty position) during the K award period.

51. Career Award Review Criteria
Overall Impact: This score reflects the reviewers assessment of the likelihood for the candidate to become/remain an independent investigator. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to have a major impact.
Scored Review Criteria: Determination of scientific, technical, and career merit. Each gets a separate score:
Candidate
Career Development Plan/Career Goals & Objectives
Research Plan
Mentor(s), Consultants(s), Collaborator(s).
Environment and Institutional Commitment to the Candidate

52. Career Award Review Criteria
Candidate:
Quality of research, academic and/or clinical record
Potential to develop as an independent and productive researcher
Commitment to a research career
Quality of the letters of reference
Career Development Plan/Career Goals & Objectives:
Likelihood that plan will contribute substantially to the scientific development of candidate – Added Value
Content, scope, phasing, and duration of the plan in the context of prior experience and stated career objectives

53. Career Award Review Criteria
Research Plan:
Scientific and technical merit of the research question, design and methodology
Relevance of the proposed research to the candidate‘s career objectives
Appropriateness of the research plan to the stage of research development and as a vehicle for developing the research skills described in the career development plan

54. Career Award Review Criteria
Mentor(s), Consultants(s), Collaborator(s):
Qualifications and statement by Mentor and collaborators/Consultants
Environment and Institutional Commitment to the Candidate:
Commitment of institution to ensure that the candidate's effort will be devoted to research (Minimum 75%)
Adequacy of research facilities and training opportunities, including capable faculty
Assurance that institution intends for the candidate to be an integral part of its research program

55. Career Award Review Criteria
Additional Review Criteria:
Protection of Human Subjects from Research Risk
Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children in Research
Care and Use of Vertebrate Animals in Research
Biohazards
Resubmission Applications
Renewal Applications (as applicable)
Additional Review Considerations:
Training in the Responsible Conduct of Research
Select Agents
Resource Sharing Plans
Budget and Period of Support

56. Expectations of a Mentor
Stephen B. Trippel et al

57. Definitions Greek History:
Mentor was a close friend and counselor for Odysseus. When Odysseus left for the Trojan War, he placed Mentor in charge of his son and his palace.
NIH:
“A mentor is a person who has achieved career success and counsels and guides another for the purpose of helping him or her achieve like success. Research supervisors should always be mentors; they have the responsibility to discuss with and advise a trainee on aspects of his or her work and professional development.”

58. Picking a Mentor  Picking a mentor requires you to
 Selection is based on a variety of
attributes: 
Expertise
Record of mentorship
Personal rapport
Commitment to your development
 Picking a mentor requires you to
know yourself and your research
environment
 May have more than one mentor for
different facets of your career
 No “one size fits all” mentality

59. Roles of Mentor  Infrastructure Lab management advice Collaboration
 Finding a good mentor may be as
important as skillful grantsmanship 
Infrastructure
Lab management advice
Collaboration
Honest evaluation
Advocacy
 University
 Scientific Community

60. What About Infrastructure
Basic research is a complicated enterprise 
Core facilities/equipment
Methodologies
Administrative support
Start-up Funds

61. The Transition to Lab Management
 Lots of training, but … you need help!
 How to become a leader
 Managing technicians
 Mentoring students/fellows
 Navigating human resources
 Evaluations
 Conflicts

62. Your Best/Worst Collaborator  1 Risk: Exploitation 
 The best mentor is in your field - Better yet if
specific interests overlap 
Access to reagents/data/expertise
Familiarity with allies/competition
Pulse of the study section
Co-investigator status
 More grant writing!!
 1 Risk: Exploitation

63. The Person that Embodies These Characteristics:
 Has a relationship with you that is both
personal and professional
 Views his/her success as linked to your
success
 Is empathetic yet pragmatic

64. Honest Evaluation: Friend, Critic or Both?  Regular evaluations
 Individual programs
 Papers
 Grants
 Unfunded research
 Mentoring activity
 Promotions/tenure

65. Advocacy  On The Road  Your mentor should be your advocate  At Home
Academic departments/students
Departmental and university committees
Protected research time
Promotions/tenure
 On The Road
 Meet and Greet
 Access to the “Inner Circle”
 Journal reviewer
 Grant reviewer

66. The Impact of Outstanding Mentorship
 Immediate productivity
 Access to lab personnel
 Involvement in mature programs
 Co-investigatorship
 A window into the world of grant writing
 Open dialog about your own developing
program
 Use of funds
 People management
 Overall research direction

67. Immediate Productivity
 Main objective: get your own program
rolling
Also:
 During the start-up phase
 Getting early publications
 Learn the bureaucratic ropes early
 Research Affairs office
 IACUC, IRB
 Pursuit of intramural pilot money

68. Co-investigatorship  Main objective: get your own grant funded Also:
 Becoming a Co-I has perks
 Early evidence of support
 Forging effective collaborations
 Involvement in areas outside your focus
 Critical to have multiple directions
 Bring new perspective to your own program
 Learn grant writing first hand

69. Open Dialog About Your Program  Who can help the most right away?
 Advice on the use of start-up funds 
Preserve for the future
Equipment vs. supplies vs. personnel
Small grants make a big difference
Getting the best bang for the $
 Who can help the most right away?
 How to manage staff successfully
 Research direction
 Morphing hypotheses into proposals
 Roadmap to promotion

70. Despite All The Mentoring …
 There are still no guarantees
 Set limits on time spent away from your main goal
 Always be in the process of paper and proposal
writing
 Never fear critiques
NOT
 Friends
 Study section
 Always be responsive, not argumentative
 Don’t focus solely on the NIH for funding
 Marshall your ‘big idea’ with smaller, sure-fire
projects

71. Develop a Plan for Long Term Productivity & Funding
 Create a strategic vision for research that
includes:
 Creation of a research focus
 Stepwise plan to publish results and obtain
commensurate funding
 Overall career development
 Effectively manage research time vis-à-
vis other activities: clinical, educational
and administrative

72. Nurture confidence and competence Teach by example Offer sound counsel
Summary
Mentor’s Role 
Motivate
Empower
Nurture confidence and competence
Teach by example
Offer sound counsel
Raise the performance bar
Shine in reflected light