May 30, 2008. University of Ontario Institute of Technology

1. The myth and truth about CIHR grant application Rui Wang, MD, PhD, FAHA Vice President (Research), Lakehead University May 30, 2008. University of Ontario Institute of Technology

2. CIHR: overview • CIHR’s funding programs • Grant application procedure • How to prepare a successful grant application? • Grant review procedure • What if your grant application is rejected ?

3. 1. CIHR: overview “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).

4. 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.

7. Blueprint 2: CIHR’s Strategic Plan 2008/09 – 2013/14

8. 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.

10. CIHR Funding by Region 1999-2000 2005-2006 British Columbia $25 Million $88 Million Québec $82 Million $191 Million Atlantic Canada $9 Million $21 Million $48 Million Prairies $97 Million $114 Million Ontario $269 Million Includes CRC’s and NCE’s.

11. 2. CIHR Funding Programs • 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 applications • Successful applications based solely on peer-review • Includes operating grants, salary awards, training awards, etc • Regular competition cycle (September & March) • Strategic Initiatives • Targeted to address major health challenges • Developed by CIHR central or CIHR Institutes • Successful applications also based solely on peer-review • Irregular competition time

16. Changes of CIHR funding mechanism • No equipment grant • Still two competitions per year • Allocation within the committee • - removal of the common pool

17. 3. Grant application procedure Ready, Set, Go

19. How to choose a “suitable” grant review committee?

20. 4. How to prepare a successful grant application? Grantsmanship • 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

21. CIHR Research Module Title of the Proposal • A punch line competition • Cannot be changed after registration • Used for selection of committee and reviewers

22. Summary • Write it first or last ? • Importance - Guiding yourself and the review committee - Appealing to the rest of review committee • Shrink the 11-page proposal to a 1-page summary • Basic components: - Question - Hypotheses - Objectives - Approaches - Significance

23. Progress Report Renewal Application 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.

24. Progress Report New Application: • Opportunity to showcase your credibility • Additional space to present your preliminary data

25. Research Proposal • Literature Review • Preliminary data • Hypothesis • Objectives • Study design • Methodology • Limitation, Alternatives, Significance • References • Attachments IS this the right structure?

26. Research Proposal Literature Review • – comprehensive with suitable length • What is the unknown and why that should be studied? • Current knowledge • Your contribution • completed, both sides of the story. • Support one side but explain why not the other side • Explain why the proposed study can solve the controversy. • updated literature review – check the last minute publications

27. Research Proposal Preliminary Data • Hypothesis rationalized • Technically doable • Don’t say “data not shown” • Attached figures or tables • How much is too much?

28. 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

29. Research Proposal Research design • 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

30. Research Proposal Methodology • 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?

31. Research Proposal • Limitation, Alternatives, Significance • Respect the intelligence of reviewers • References • Complete citation, no page limitation • Attachments • figures and tables but not to exhaust the reviewers

32. CIHR 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

33. CIHR 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

34. Ready for submission? Peer review by your colleagues - be serious and critical Read – Rest – Revisit “You lose objectivity when you are too close and too intensely involved in the project and under a deadline.” Read – Rest - Revisit

36. 5. Grant review procedure CIHR Scientific Review Committee • Chair • Scientific Officer • Members For each application: 1st reviewer 2nd reviewer Reader 2 or 3 external reviewer Conflict of interest

37. 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

38. Review Procedure • 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

39. Review criteria for a grant application Proposal Essential components of an excellent research proposal Hypothesis, objectives, research design, methodology etc. Novelty and originality Feasibility Significance

40. Review criteria for a grant application The Applicant(s) • Productivity and funding history, appropriate to stage of career • Experience and recognition • Training record and environment

41. The Rating Scale 4.5 – 4.9 Outstanding 4.0 – 4.4 Excellent 3.5 - 4.0 Very Good 3.0 – 3.4 Solid/Significant 2.5 – 2.9 Needs Revision 2.0 – 2.4 Needs Major Revision 1.0 – 1.9 Seriously Flawed 0 Not Acceptable Not Fundable

43. Triage vs. assessment of fundability “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, and b. the average of the initial ratings is <3.50.

44. 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 is recommended, and reviewers do not vote but instead enter a ‘T’ on their ratings sheet. The final rating is calculated as the mean of the internal reviewers’ initial ratings.