1 / 18

NIH F Fellowship Awards Review

NIH F Fellowship Awards Review. Alan L. Goldin, M.D./Ph.D. Professor and Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs. Review Criteria. Overall Impact/Merit Fellowship Applicant Sponsors, Collaborators, and Consultants Research Training Plan Training Potential

joselwilliams
Télécharger la présentation

NIH F Fellowship Awards Review

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NIH F Fellowship Awards Review Alan L. Goldin, M.D./Ph.D. Professor and Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs

  2. Review Criteria • Overall Impact/Merit • Fellowship Applicant • Sponsors, Collaborators, and Consultants • Research Training Plan • Training Potential • Institutional Environment & Commitment to Training

  3. Additional Review Items • Protection for Human Subjects • Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children • Vertebrate Animals • Biohazards • Resubmission • Training in the Responsible Conduct of Research

  4. Overall Impact/Merit • Reviewer’s assessment that the fellowship will enhance the candidate’s potential for a productive, independent research career • These are training (not research) awards • Potential for a productive career • Need for the proposed training • Degree to which the plans satisfy those needs

  5. Fellowship Applicant • Are the applicant’s academic record and research experience of high quality? • Does the applicant have the potential and commitment to become an important contributor as a physician-scientist?

  6. Sponsors and Collaborators • Are the sponsor’s research qualifications appropriate? • Successful competition for research support • Track record of mentoring • Is there evidence of a match between the interest of the applicant and the sponsor’s expertise? • Is the sponsor committed to mentoring?

  7. Sponsors and Collaborators • Are the qualifications of any collaborator and/or consultants appropriate and do they add to the training potential? • It’s critical that the sponsor’s section is customized for the applicant • Generic training plans score very poorly • Training should include all aspects of career development (not just techniques)

  8. Research Training Plan • Is the research plan of high scientific quality • Does it relate to the applicant’s training plan • Is the plan consistent with the applicant’s stage of development • Will it provide individualize and supervised training for an independent career?

  9. Training Potential • Does the proposed training to develop the applicant’s productive research career? • Does the training plan provide the requisite individualized and supervised experience? • It’s helpful to include sources of training beyond the sponsor (e.g. MSTP and Graduate Resource Center activities)

  10. Institutional Environment • Is the institutional environment of high quality? • Is there an appropriate institutional commitment to fostering the applicant’s training? • Are the research facilities and resources adequate and appropriate?

  11. Protection for Human Subjects • Reviewers need to evaluate this aspect if it involves human subjects and is not exempt • Address all 5 criteria: • Risk to subjects • Adequacy of protection • Potential benefits • Importance of the knowledge to be gained • Data and safety monitoring

  12. Protection for Human Subjects • If the research is exempt, reviewers should evaluate: • Justification for the exemption • Human subject involvement and characteristics • Sources of material

  13. Vertebrate Animals • Reviewer should address each of the 5 points: • Use of animals, species, strains, and number • Justification for the use of animals and especially the species and numbers • Adequacy of veterinary care • Procedures to limit discomfort, pain & injury • Methods of euthanasia

  14. Biohazards • Are the materials or procedures potentially hazardous to research personnel and/or the environment?

  15. Resubmission • Proposals can be resubmitted one additional time if not funded. • The one page introduction is critical because it establishes whether the applicant and sponsor have been responsive, or are just being defensive and argumentative (which antagonizes reviewers and scores poorly)

  16. Training in the Responsible Conduct of Research • Reviewers must address all 5 points: • Format • Subject Matter • Faculty Participation • Duration • Frequency of Instruction • I will provide a template for this section

  17. Criteria After the Scoring • Select Agents • Address it, even if none are being used • Resource Sharing Plan • Address it, even if there are no resources • Budget and Period of Support • The budget is fixed, but the reviewers address the need for the requested duration of training

  18. Final Consideration • These are training awards, not research grants • High quality research is necessary, but not sufficient • All aspects of the proposal should be directed towards the development of the applicant’s career

More Related