Health Research Science Board 2001 Breast Cancer Research & Education Competition

1. Health Research Science Board2001 Breast Cancer Research & Education Competition PROPOSAL DEADLINE - June 29, 2001 Information Meetings: NYC Rochester April 16 April 18

2. Background • Legislation - 1996; amended 1997 • Public Health Law (Article 24, Title 1-B) • Health Research Science Board • State Finance Law (Article 6,  99-yy) • Breast Cancer Research & Education Fund • Other enabling legislation...

3. Board Membership • 11 doctoral-level scientists or clinicians • 5 ex officio members • Health, En Con, Cornell Inst. for Comp. Env. Tox., BC survivor, P/TC survivor

4. Board Mandates • Administer Breast Cancer Research & Education Fund • Sponsor breast cancer grant competition • Other breast, prostate and testicular cancer activities • Pesticide-related activities

5. Breast Cancer Research & Education Fund • Fund exclusively supports grant contracts • Revenue Sources • State tax “check-off” (personal & corporate) • proceeds from “Drive for the Cure” plates • State match (effective 2000) • direct donations

6. Grant Competition • “Solicit, receive, and review applications ... for research or educational programs which focus on • causes, prevention, screening, treatment and cure of breast cancer … • basic, behavioral, clinical, demographic, environmental, epidemiologic and psychosocial research.”

7. Topics/Proposals of Interest • Any investigation pertaining to the causes, prevention, screening, treatment and cure of breast cancer • Under-represented in 1998 competition • basic biology • environmental issues • bio-psychosocial issues • above will not receive special consideration

8. Long Range Goals of Supported Activities • Aid in future research or education efforts (e.g., future funding) • Impact breast cancer policy to improve the health of New Yorkers • Enhance the continuum of breast cancer care - from prevention to treatment

9. Eligibility • NYS applicant organizations • academic/medical institutions • state or local gov’t agencies • public, private or community-based organizations • or any other entity capable of monitoring funds and of providing necessary oversight

10. Funding Mechanisms • EMPIRE Grants • EMPowerment through Innovative Research & Education, e.g., pilot grants • Postdoctoral Fellowships • Up to $50,000 /yr. for up to 2 yrs. • At least $2 million available for support

11. EMPIRE Grants • Intent • provide initial support for preliminary testing of • novel or high-risk hypotheses • innovative breast cancer outreach activities • education or outreach activities should lead to • improved decision-making for consumers • to determine what activities work for whom, when and at what cost

12. EMPIRE Grants cont’d • Principal investigator/project director • no degree requirements • PI may also submit fellowship application(s) but only one award will be made.

13. EMPIRE GrantsFiscal Issues • Up to $50,000 total costs per year • IDC  10 % total costs • 11.1% direct costs • Duration: 12 months  24 months

14. EMPIRE GrantsFiscal Issues- cont’d • Allowable Costs • partial salary support; percent effort • Technical support, Postdoc, PI • supplies, materials, etc. • Required • annual travel to NYC • Not allowed • tuition

15. Postdoctoral Fellowships • Intent • Support the continued training of investigators with exceptional potential to make significant contributions to the battle against breast cancer

16. Postdoctoral Fellowships • No citizenship restrictions • Fellow must have doctorate by start of award • No more than 2 yrs. prior experience in sponsor’s lab by start date • Multiple sponsors okay • one sponsor of record

17. Postdoctoral FellowshipsFiscal Issues • Up to $50,000 total costs • 12 month OR 24 month awards • 100 % effort • Stipend - at least • Yr. 1: $35,000 plus fringe • Yr. 2: $37,000 plus fringe • IDC  8 % total costs (8.7% DC) • Annual travel to NYC

18. EMPIRE Review Criteria • Scientific/Technical Merit • Significance to breast cancer

19. EMPIRE Review CriteriaScientific/Technical Merit • Approach • the best way to proceed • Applicants’ qualifications • is project team capable of conducting work • is all necessary expertise available • Environment • are facilities/resources etc available to complete work • Budget justification

20. EMPIRE Review CriteriaSignificance • Issue or area important? • Future outcomes • Funding? • Practice ? • Dissemination ?

21. Fellowship Review Criteria • Candidate • Sponsor & training environment • Training potential • Scientific merit of proposal

22. Proposal Evaluation • First phase - merit review • face-to-face meeting • Non-NYS scientific/technical experts • breast cancer survivors • all reviewers vote (baring conflict of interest) • Second phase- programmatic review • HRSB • balance and funds available

23. Merit Review Purpose • To provide an objective and fair evaluation of proposals presented for review • To identify the most meritorious proposals for the Board’s consideration • Scientific excellence is the Board’s guiding principle

24. Merit Review Process Prior to meeting • confidentiality/non-disclosure agreements • proposals & materials mailed • Each proposal assigned to at least 2 expert reviewers and 1 lay reviewer. • reviewers score & write evaluations of proposals assigned, usually read most/all others • Friday before mtg. - streamlining list to staff

25. Merit Review Process Start of Meeting • panel chair (HRSB member) reviews meeting protocol and conflict of interest list • panelists review proposals identified for possible streamlining • unanimous decision required for each proposal to be streamlined • proposals not scored will receive written reviews

26. Merit Review Process Meeting Core - Proposal Review • Chair introduces proposal for review • primary reviewer • proposal synopsis • assessment of strengths/weaknesses (criteria) • preliminary score (1 5) • administrative issues (human subjects etc) • secondary and lay reviewers comment • assessment - confirm or refute primary • preliminary score (1 5) • administrative issues (human subjects etc)

27. Merit Review Process Proposal Review- cont’d • Chair opens discussion of proposal • Chair moderates discussion and works toward panel consensus • Chair calls for recommended changes to budget or work plan • all reviewers score anonymously (1 5) • next proposal...

28. Merit Review Process Meeting Close • Staff compile and average scores • Proposals are ranked • Rankings presented to panel to confirm order and obtain input on break-point

29. Merit Review  Programmatic Review • Scores and reviewers’ comments (budget/workplan modifications) summarized and provided to Board for their deliberations at their Board meeting (executive session) • Board makes recommendations to Commissioner of Health

30. Proposal Development or How to Get Funded

31. The Proposal is a Marketing Tool • Clear and compelling presentation of an important idea • Justifies the request for money • Convinces the Board that expected benefits justify investment of funds

32. The Proposal Should... • Define a problem and convey its significance • Propose solutions and select the “best” • Document that the resources and necessary expertise are available to solve the problem • Describe the expected benefits of solving the problem

33. Define the Problem • What is the problem, hypothesis, gap in knowledge, etc.; is it clearly focussed? • is your understanding complete • project plan • background/preliminary data • specific aims • timeline

34. Convey its Significance • Why is it important to “solve” this problem? • Does the sponsor care about this problem? • project plan • significance • abstract & lay summary

35. Propose Solutions and Select/Justify the “Best” • How do you propose to solve the problem? • Why is your approach the best one to take? • What alternatives do you suggest in the event of barriers/challenges? • research design & methods • timeline • budget

36. Document that BOTH the scientific/technical expertise and resources are available • The applicant/applicant team is uniquely qualified to solve the problem • biosketches, collaborator letters, budget • All resources essential for project completion are available and accessible • facilities/resources page(s) • institutional matching

37. What are the expected outcomes • With “new knowledge” resulting from project completion, what can be done that couldn’t be accomplished before? • What is significant about solving the problem, how will it advance the field? • project plan - significance • abstract & lay summary

38. Suggestions and Comments • Read instructions carefully; provide what is asked in the format requested • Avoid jargon and “specialized” language • proposals are read by persons whose expertise may be different than yours … • Strive to be clear and concise • Short proposals are tough to write

39. Contact Information www.wadsworth.org/new/rfp/hrsb/hrsbrfp.htm • Trish Lowney • lowney@wadsworth.org • Beverly Boucher • bmb02@health.state.ny.us 518 474-8543 518-486-2798 (FAX)

40. Advocate Reviewers • Patient perspective • Objectivity • Good communication skills • Broad-based knowledge • Geographic diversity • Balance of experienced and new reviewers