May 30, 2008. University of Ontario Institute of Technology

Rui Wang, MD, PhD, FAHA

Vice President (Research), Lakehead University

1. CIHR: overview

2. CIHR’s funding programs

3. Grant application procedure

4. How to prepare a successful grant application?

5. Grant review procedure

6. What if your grant application is rejected ?

“To excel, according to internationally accepted

standards of scientific excellence, in the creation of new

knowledge and its translation into improved health for

Canadians, more effective health services and products

and a strengthened Canadian health care system…” (Bill

C-13, April 13, 2000).

1. CIHR: overview

Government of Canada’s health research funding agency

Supporting the work of up to 11,000 researchers and trainees across Canada

Launched on June 7, 2000 to replace the Medical Research Council of Canada

Allocating 94 cents of every dollar directly to fund Canadian health researchers

Establish a new structure for funding research based upon 13 virtual institutes, and a multidisciplinary approach.

Blueprint 2: CIHR’s Strategic Plan

2008/09 – 2013/14

Strategic Directions

Best Ideas, Brightest Minds: Strengthen and sustain excellence across the spectrum of health research;

Canadian Health and Health System Challenges: Focus on Canadian health and health system challenges through solution-driven research initiatives;

Health and Socio-Economic Benefits: Advance the use of research to support a healthy and productive society and a strengthened health care system.

CIHR Funding by Region

1999-2000 2005-2006

Prairies$48 Million$97 Million

$25 Million$82 Million

British Columbia

Ontario $114 Million$269 Million

Québec $88 Million$191 Million

Atlantic Canada

$9 Million$21 Million

Includes CRC’s and NCE’s.

• 70% of research funding is investigator-driven while 30% is reserved for strategic initiatives

• Investigator-Initiated (Open Competition)University-based researchers develop proposals and submit applicationsSuccessful applications based solely on peer-reviewIncludes operating grants, salary awards, training awards, etcRegular competition cycle (September & March)

• Strategic InitiativesTargeted to address major health challengesDeveloped by CIHR central or CIHR Institutes Successful applications also based solely on peer-reviewIrregular competition time

2. CIHR Funding Programs

Changes of CIHR funding mechanism

• No equipment grant

• Still two competitions per year

• Allocation within the committee - removal of the common pool

3. Grant application procedure

Ready, Set, Go

How to choose a “suitable” grant review committee?

• Follow instructions exactly

• Obey page limitation – too long vs. too short

• Watch font type, font size, line space, paper size

• Define abbreviations and acronyms

and avoid them if possible

Grantsmanship

4. How to prepare a successful grant application?

• A punch line competition

• Cannot be changed after registration

• Used for selection of committee and reviewers

Title of the Proposal

CIHR Research ModuleCIHR Research Module

• Write it first or last ?

• Importance- Guiding yourself and the review committee- Appealing to the rest of review committee

Summary

• Shrink the 11-page proposal to a 1-page summary

• Basic components: - Question- Hypotheses- Objectives- Approaches- Significance

Specify the funding period of last CIHR grant

Summarize the most important discoveries documented with publications (peer-reviewed papers, abstracts, invited presentations, patents and disclosures)

Describe your research excellence, recognition, and leadership role due to the progress of this previous CIHR supported research

State the importance for CIHR to continue its support to your project.

Progress Report

Renewal Application

• Opportunity to showcase your credibility

• Additional space to present your preliminary data

Progress Report

New Application:

• Literature Review

• Preliminary data

• Hypothesis

• Objectives

• Study design

• Methodology

• Limitation, Alternatives, Significance

• References

• Attachments

IS this the right structure?

Research Proposal

Literature Review

Research Proposal

– comprehensive with suitable lengthWhat is the unknown and why that should be studied?Current knowledgeYour contribution

- completed, both sides of the story. Support one side but explain why not the other sideExplain why the proposed study can solve the controversy.

- updated literature review – check the last minute publications

• Hypothesis rationalized

• Technically doable

• Don’t say “data not shown”

• Attached figures or tables

• How much is too much?

Research Proposal

Preliminary Data

Research Proposal

Hypothesis

- well formulated (long-term vs. short-term)- testable- novel and original- not forgotten later in the proposal

Objectives- What can be accomplished with what will be requested- Direct the following Research Design- All Objectives should have intrinsic linkage and

sequentially arranged

• Keep in mind your hypothesis and objectives• Arrange different studies sequentially with final integration• Design carefully the comparison and control• Provide expectation to each study• Interpret the expected outcomes• Progress with a time table• Over ambitious vs. too cautious

Research Proposal

Research design

For established methods, referred to previous peer-reviewed publications from your laboratory.

For the methods that have not been published, give detailed explanation and preliminary data

For new methods, provide relevant literature and collaboration letters for known scientists.

Support letters – who is this guy?

Methodology

Research Proposal

Research Proposal

• Limitation, Alternatives, SignificanceRespect the intelligence of reviewers

• ReferencesComplete citation, no page limitation

• Attachmentsfigures and tables but not to exhaust the reviewers

CIHR CV ModuleCIHR CV Module

• If you do not tell, no one will.

• Using your life time to prepare a CV module

• Quantity vs. quality

• Impact factor vs. citations

CIHR Budget ModuleCIHR Budget Module

Budget will not affect the scientific merit of the proposal

Budget justification – how much?how long?

why?

Overlap – Honest, details, scientific and budgetary overlap

Ready for submission?Ready for submission?

Peer review by your colleagues- be serious and critical

Read – Rest - Revisit

Read – Rest – Revisit“You lose objectivity when

you are too close and too intensely involved in the project and under a deadline.”

5. Grant review procedure

– Chair– Scientific Officer– Members

CIHR Scientific Review Committee

For each application:

1st reviewer

2nd reviewer

Reader

2 or 3 external reviewer

Conflict of interest

Imagine that you’ve been working on your reviews for the past 6 weeks and having to let your own work slide

You’re now in a cheap Ottawa hotel, jet-lagged, and worried about who is doing your work back at the U, your own chances for funding at renewal, and depressed about the number of good people you are going to be a part of turning down…..

These are the members of your review panel

• 1st and 2nd reviewers announce their scores• 1st reviewer summarizes the evaluation• 2nd reviewer provides further explanation• Comment from the Reader• 1st reviewer summarizes the comments of external reviewers• Committee discussion• Summary - Scientific Officer• Consensus score• Members vote within +/- 0.5 of the consensus score• SO provides a synopsis of the discussion

• Budget discussion

Review Procedure

• Essential components of an excellent research proposal

Hypothesis, objectives, research design, methodology etc.

• Novelty and originality

• Feasibility

• Significance

Review criteria for a grant application

Proposal

The Applicant(s)

– Productivity and funding history, appropriate to stage of career

– Experience and recognition

– Training record and environment

Review criteria for a grant application

4.5 – 4.9 Outstanding4.0 – 4.4 Excellent3.5 - 4.0 Very Good3.0 – 3.4 Solid/Significant2.5 – 2.9 Needs Revision2.0 – 2.4 Needs Major Revision1.0 – 1.9 Seriously Flawed0 Not Acceptable

Not Fundable

The Rating Scale

“Triage”Before September, 2006 competition, an application is ‘triaged’ (not

discussed at the committee meeting) if both internal reviewers rate the application 2.9 or below. This method results in a relatively low level of applications not being discussed (approx. 10%).

1. Before the committee meeting, reviewers assess the fundability of the applications they reviewed and use ResearchNet to indicate ~50% of applications as being the most competitive.

2. At the meeting, if an application is flagged as having a low funding probability (not considered to be in top 50% of applications by either reviewer), it does not have to be discussed as long as:

a. all committee members are in agreement, andb. the average of the initial ratings is <3.50.

Triage vs. assessment of fundability

3. If either of the two conditions is not met, the application must be discussed (although the discussion can be brief), and committee members vote.

4. If both conditions are met, the application is not discussed, no budget isrecommended, and reviewers do not vote but instead enter a ‘T’ on theirratings sheet. The final rating is calculated as the mean of the internalreviewers’ initial ratings.