Getting started Massimo 945 am 1015 am Grant writing hints and tips Maria 1015 am 1045 am A reviewers perspective Massimo 1045 am 1100am Break 1100am 1145am ID: 603826
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "9:30 a.m. – 9:45 a.m." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
9:30 a.m. – 9:45 a.m.
Getting started
Massimo
9:45 a.m. – 10:15 a.m.
Grant writing hints and tips
Maria
10:15 a.m. – 10.45 a.m.
A reviewer’s perspective
Massimo
10:45 a.m. – 11:00a.m.
Break
11:00a.m. – 11:45a.m.
Personal experiences:
Ben
, Emma, Mandy, Sam
11:45 a.m. – 12.30 p.m.
DiscussionSlide2
CVR
Postdoc Prize
Purpose
:
To
offer the CVR
postdoc
community the opportunity to secure a small grant
to support
the pursuit of an independent project, and to gain experience of preparing and defending a grant proposal.
Timeline:
13
th
May
MRC
funding presentation from Dr
Ghada
Zoubiane
(MRC Head
Office
)
6
th
August
‘Grants Workshop’
8
th
September
Submissions
due
October
Shortlisted
applicants present to the assessment panel and
awards announced
November
Feedback
to all applicants
Budget:
Project
budget should be in the region of £3kSlide3
CVR
Postdoc Prize
Assessment
criteria:
Innovative project that takes current work to a decisive point, or explores a
new avenue
arising from an ongoing project;
Potential
to enhance the applicant’s personal career development by developing their vision, awareness and expert skills;
The
project has the full support and approval of the applicant’s supervisor.
Assessment
panel:
Scientific Advisory sub-group: Massimo
Palmarini
, John
McLauchlan
, Jim Neil, Roman
Biek
, Richard Elliott, Alain KohlSlide4
Grantsmanship
Hints & Tips
Maria McPhillipsSlide5
Grantsmanship
The
art of acquiring peer-reviewed research funding
Great
grantsmanship
can’t elevate unexceptional science, but poor
grantsmanship can make an exciting project unfundableThere is no magic formula, grant writing is a learned skillBut there are some general ‘do’s and don'ts’ that are worth keeping in mindWriting a good grant takes (lots of
) timeSlide6
The building blocks of a successful application
Person
- An excellent CV + publication record
for your career stage
Place
-
A vibrant environment with excellent
facilities and respected
sponsors/mentors
Project
-
An achievable, high quality project
addressing an important research question
P
P
P
PreparationSlide7
Laying the groundwork
Familiarise yourself
(
now
) with
the eligibility criteria and deadlines of the funders you’re interested in
Aim to be at your most competitive at the time of application – get current work published/acceptedTalk to others who have been through the process, both as applicants and reviewersUnderstand the remit and priorities of each funder - you’ll need to align your research plan accordinglyGenerate preliminary dataInitiate partnerships with collaboratorsWrite your ‘one pager’ outlineGet involved in grant reviewing if possibleSlide8
Getting started with an application
Give yourself plenty of time
Read all instructions very carefully and follow them to the letter – font type and size, margins, word count, page limits etc
Read successful and unsuccessful applications
Think about the sections first read by a reviewer e.g. title and abstract – this should be a stand alone, succinct and accurate description of the proposal - but it should be the last section you complete.
Academic impact and economic and societal impactSlide9
Person
A strong background, solid training and extensive knowledge of the research topic
Demonstratable
potential as a career scientist – publications...
Show how this fellowship is important to advance your career. What are your future plans? How does this fellowship help?
Clear ‘ownership’ of the proposal, taken the lead in its development, carving a research nicheSlide10
Project
What is the question? Why is it important?
Novel, interesting, timely
High scientific merit – hypothesis driven
Mix of risk and safe bets
Ambitious – but feasible, within the timeframe & budgetSlide11
Research Plan
Hold the reviewers by the hand – don’t make them have to work
too hard
Think about the look and flow of the document – use headings, sub-sections, figures etc
Communicate with all members of the review panel
Explain your ‘Plan B’ – don’t base everything
on the success of Aim 1Include a realistic timetable – who will do what, when (& where)Reference accuratelyProof read and spell checkSlide12
Questions to ask yourself
Steps to take
Key elements of each step
What is the problem and why should it be studied?
Selection, analysis and statement of the research question
Identify the problems
Prioritising the problems
Analysis of the issues
Justification for studies
What information is already available?
Literature review
Published literature
Databases
Prelim data
Why do you want to carry out the research and what do you hope to achieve?
Formulation of research objectives
General aims
Specific objectives
Hypotheses to be tested
What additional data do you need to meet your research objectives? How are you going to collect this information?
Research methodology or study design
Type of study
Variables
Data collection technique
Sampling
Plan for data collection
Data processing and analysis
Ethical issues
Preliminary data or pilot study
Safety issues
Additional training,
if required
CollaboratorsSlide13
Questions to ask yourself
Steps to take
Key elements of each step
What is the problem and why should it be studied?
Selection, analysis and statement of the research question
Identify the problems
Prioritising the problems
Analysis of the issues
Justification for studies
What information is already available?
Literature review
Published literature
Databases
Prelim data
Why do you want to carry out the research and what do you hope to achieve?
Formulation of research objectives
General aims
Specific objectives
Hypotheses to be tested
What additional data do you need to meet your research objectives? How are you going to collect this information?
Research methodology or study design
Type of study
Variables
Data collection technique
Sampling
Plan for data collection
Data processing and analysis
Ethical issues
Preliminary data or pilot study
Safety issues
Additional training,
if required
CollaboratorsSlide14
Questions to ask yourself
Steps to take
Key elements of each step
What is the problem and why should it be studied?
Selection, analysis and statement of the research question
Identify the problems
Prioritising the problems
Analysis of the issues
Justification for studies
What information is already available?
Literature review
Published literature
Databases
Prelim data
Why do you want to carry out the research and what do you hope to achieve?
Formulation of research objectives
General aims
Specific objectives
Hypotheses to be tested
What additional data do you need to meet your research objectives? How are you going to collect this information?
Research methodology or study design
Type of study
Variables
Data collection technique
Sampling
Plan for data collection
Data processing and analysis
Ethical issues
Preliminary data or pilot study
Safety issues
Additional training,
if required
CollaboratorsSlide15
Questions to ask yourself
Steps to take
Key elements of each step
What is the problem and why should it be studied?
Selection, analysis and statement of the research question
Identify the problems
Prioritising the problems
Analysis of the issues
Justification for studies
What information is already available?
Literature review
Published literature
Databases
Prelim data
Why do you want to carry out the research and what do you hope to achieve?
Formulation of research aims and objectives
General aims
Specific objectives
Hypotheses to be tested
What data do you need to generate to answer your research questions? How are you going to collect this information?
Research methodology
Type of studies
Variables
Data collection techniques
Sampling – power calculations
Plan for data collection
Data processing and analysis
Preliminary data or pilot study
Collaborators
Additional training,
if required
Ethical issues
Safety issuesSlide16
What do you want to do?
Why do you want to do it ?
Why is it important?
How are you going to do it?
What is the expected outcome?Slide17
Structuring your Research Plan
Hypothesis
Aims of the project
Background and importance
Work leading up to the project, including prelim data
Experimental design and methods
Summing up statement – helps to refocus the distracted reviewerTimetableSlide18
Budget
Work within eligible/ineligible costs for each funder/scheme
Realistic for the work proposed – offer value for money
Fully justifiedSlide19
Preparing an application
University
requirements:
Work with Maria to plan your budget – you’ll need to complete a
Costing
Request Form
so that a Project Application Form
(PAF) can be preparedA PAF must be prepared for all applications Once finalised, a PAF is signed by the applicant,
Massimo and MVLS Applications cannot be submitted until the signed PAF is returned to R&EFor all electronic applications, R&E have responsibility for final submissionSlide20
Place
Which host laboratory?
Supervision, expertise, facilities
Additional skills, new ideas, fresh challenges
Training acquired – generic, specific
Other training elsewhere?
If not moving, why?Mentorship – monitoring progress, assessmentRecord of supervisor/mentorSlide21
Preparation
Give yourself plenty of time –
everything
will take longer than you expect
The input of others will be hugely important and you need to give them sufficient time to do this properly
Box filling electronic applications and uploading required documents is rarely hitch free
The university’s costing and PAF processing can get backed up around major deadlinesSlide22
Lifecycle of an application
Full Applications
Short-listed for interview
Relevant Interview Committee
Awarded
Rejected
External referees
Relevant Funding Committee
with referees’ reports
Rejected
4-6
months
2-3
monthsSlide23
Take advantage of the opportunity to suggest suitable reviewers.
You can also ask for potential reviewers to be restricted
How are reviewers selected?Slide24
Why review a grant?Slide25
What are reviewers asked to do?
Is the research question hypothesis-driven and clearly stated?
Is research in this area needed?
Are there potential benefits for human/animal health?
Will this work significantly advance the field
Importance
Potential impactSlide26
What are reviewers asked to do?
Importance
Potential impact
Research environment
Feasibility
Track record
Can this project realistically be completed in the time available?
Is preliminary data included?
Is there a plan B?
Does this work fit with the applicant’s track record?
Has the applicant been productive with previous funding?
Are they competitive for their career stage?
Is the right place to do this work?Slide27
What are reviewers asked to do?
Importance
Potential impact
Value for money
Research environment
Feasibility
Track record
Data management
& sharing
Ethical considerations
Does the project offer ‘value-for-money’ relative to the potential outcomes?
Are the requested resources fully justified?
Is the work ethically acceptable?
Is animal usage justified?Slide28
Impact
Scientific (academic) impact
: how much value could the application add to the knowledge base in the area; is it addressing a key gap or question; is it high risk with the potential for high payback
?
Economic and societal impact:
how does this application fit into the wider societal context? Is likely to have scope to impact on treatment practices; or the wider policy context; or lead to novel technologies or improve the quality of life or economic competitiveness in the UK
?Slide29
Peer
review:
Comments you don’t want to receive
...it involves techniques with which the applicant appears to have no prior experience and for which no preliminary data are proposed
.
.
..
the work described in this application is over-ambitious, it could not be achieved in the life time of the
investigator.The poor writing, referencing and proof reading of this application significantly detract from its overall quality
.
I
had only one problem with this application, I had no idea what they were trying to do...”Slide30
Preparing for an interview
Practise, practise, practise
Know
your proposal thoroughly
Keep up with pertinent literature
Speak
to people who have been through this beforeKnow what to expect on the day
Bring your proposal with youSlide31
What next?
If your application is not
successful - d
on’t
give up…
Get as much feedback as you can – referees’ comments and interview
performance
Speak to your contact at the funding agencyIs there an opportunity to resubmit? Does the application have to be completely different?
Keep trying…Slide32
Intermediate
career:
3 to 6/7 years
postdoc
BBSRC
: David Phillips fellowship
CRUK: Career development fellowship
ERC: Starter Grants
Marie Curie FellowshipsMRC: Career development awardLeukaemia & Lymphoma Research: Junior fellowship
Royal
Society: Dorothy
Hodgkin fellowship
Royal Society of Edinburgh: Biomedical personal research fellowship
Wellcome
Trust: Sir Henry Dale FellowshipSlide33
Senior
career:
More than 6 or 7 years
postdoc
BBSRC
: David Phillips fellowship
ERC:
Consolidator Grants Marie Curie Fellowships
MRC: Senior non-clinical fellowshipWellcome Trust: Senior fellowshipSlide34
Career Re-entry
A
number of schemes are offered to specifically encourage woman (usually…)
back
to research after a career break of at least 2 years:
British Heart Foundation: Career re-entry fellowship
Daphne Jackson Trust: Daphne Jackson fellowship
Wellcome
Trust: Career re-entry fellowshipSlide35
Want to be a PI? What are the odds?
http://
sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2014_06_02/caredit.a1400136
http://www.pipredictor.com
/
http://
www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2814%2900477-1