1 / 12

NH&MRC PROJECT GRANTS

RESEARCH GRANTS FORUM 23 RD November 2005 . NH&MRC PROJECT GRANTS. Speaker: Associate Professor Janet Keast. NH&MRC Project Grants. Procedural changes Deciding whether to apply or not Features of competitive applications How to respond to panel feedback. Procedural changes.

lael
Télécharger la présentation

NH&MRC PROJECT GRANTS

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. RESEARCH GRANTS FORUM 23RD November 2005 NH&MRC PROJECT GRANTS Speaker: Associate Professor Janet Keast

  2. NH&MRC Project Grants • Procedural changes • Deciding whether to apply or not • Features of competitive applications • How to respond to panel feedback

  3. Procedural changes • “Intent to Apply”: only to construct panels • Increased number of panels • Similar style of research plan as 2005 • 3 spokespersons per grant, but all panel members score • No rejoinders but (eventually) iterative grant application process and two rounds/year

  4. Deciding whether to apply or not • Novel, interesting idea on important area • Supported by convincing pilot data, other indicators of project feasibility • Well-designed research plan • Quality track record (relative to opportunity) • Do you need more time to establish techniques, pilot data, collaborations, publications?

  5. 2. Deciding whether to apply or not (cont’d) • Discuss whether or not to apply with experienced colleagues - do this before drafting detailed application • Allow time to get feedbackon detailed research plan • Consider timing of any additional competing applications

  6. Features of competitive applications • Significance and innovation: why your specific questions are important and interesting (= likely impact) • Quality of research: demonstrate excellent design and why you are capable of completing the work • Track record: quality, relevant to application, outcomes of relevant collaborations

  7. Features of competitive applications(cont’d) • Balance between background, preliminary data and research plan • Demonstrated feasibility • Interesting, clear, focused story - avoid large slabs of text • Simple hypotheses - convince reader that either a positive or negative result will be important

  8. Features of competitive applications(cont’d) • Get the reader’s attention early - don’t waste the early paragraphs on platitudes • Predict possible pitfalls: have fallback position • Do not have everything dependent on Aim 1 • Estimate realistic achievements within grant period

  9. Features of competitive applications(cont’d) • CIs and AIs: clear role of each • Over- and under-commitments • Clarify any potential overlaps between projects • Stick to guidelines (don’t push the envelope) • CI publications: • published or “in press” only for appropriate years • journal quality, senior authorship, citations

  10. Features of competitive applications(cont’d) • Budget • Realistic justified personnel numbers, seniority (unnamed PSP4/5?) • Project-specific equipment • Make some effort justifying DRCs

  11. New Investigators • Assessed and scored with other grants using identical procedures • Consider feasibility of project, environment • Project distinct from recent mentor’s work • Track record must be excellent (relative to opportunity) - importance of senior authorship • Prepare to accept criticism and to respond positively in a re-submission

  12. 4. How to respond to panel feedback • Ask experienced colleagues for opinion • Be brutal: cull experiments that were clearly not supported • Genuinely re-assess track record (quality of publications, position in author list) • Delay re-application if necessary

More Related