1 / 10

Experiences with the AREA Program

Experiences with the AREA Program. Eli V. Hestermann. Experience and THANKS!. Successful R-15 funding starting in 2005 Recent (Feb. 25) proposal under new guidelines Four stints reviewing MBRS SCORE proposals. NCI’s Division of Cell Biology New Investigator Workshop Judy Grisell

lacey-blackburn
Download Presentation

Experiences with the AREA Program

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. Experiences with the AREA Program Eli V. Hestermann

  2. Experience and THANKS! • Successful R-15 funding starting in 2005 • Recent (Feb. 25) proposal under new guidelines • Four stints reviewing MBRS SCORE proposals • NCI’s Division of Cell Biology New Investigator Workshop • Judy Grisell • Jeff Petty • Vicky Turgeon • Wade Powell, Kenyon College

  3. How to Succeed Your research proposal must accomplish two goals: Demonstrate that this project needs to be done Show that you are qualified to do it Failure to do either one of these can lead to a poor score and no funding

  4. Review Criteria Project needs to be done You can get it done Approach Can you put together a viable and doable research plan? Investigator Does your past experience and productivity give confidence that you can get this done? Environment Do you have the needed resources available at your institution? • Significance • Does this shed light on mechanisms of and/or lead to new treatments for a public health problem? • Innovation • Is there some aspect of what you’re proposing that gets the reviewer excited?

  5. Additional Criteria Relevance to the goal of providing meaningful research and training experiences for students, especially undergraduates This will not make the proposal However, it does set up some difficult contradictions that you must handle

  6. What the instructions don’t tell you • You need preliminary data • Good preliminary data greatly increase a reviewer’s confidence in both your goals. • It doesn’t have to be publication-quality yet. • You probably need letter(s) of support • Especially true if you are venturing into new areas where you have little experience • Can make up for deficiencies in the investigator and environment areas

  7. More stuff not in the instructions • Reviewers can’t read • “Does it pass the 2 A.M. test?” • Reviewers speak in code • “Ambitious” = “Never get it all done” • “Enthusiasm” = “How much I like the proposal” • “Concern” = “Serious doubt”

  8. Additional Information Papers in press since the submission New preliminary data that support your application Possibly a new publication from someone else that highlights the significance Don’t scramble just to have something

  9. So you need to resubmit • Again, reviewers can’t read • Do the best you can to reconcile conflicting reviews • Answer the “concerns” point-by-point • Change the font on reworked portions of the proposal • Remember that it’s likely at least one of the former reviewers will be back

  10. Good luck!

More Related