Nh mrc project grants
Download
1 / 12

NHMRC PROJECT GRANTS - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 87 Views
  • Uploaded on

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.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'NHMRC PROJECT GRANTS' - lael


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Nh mrc project grants

RESEARCH GRANTS FORUM 23RD November 2005

NH&MRC PROJECT GRANTS

Speaker:

Associate Professor Janet Keast


Nh mrc project grants1
NH&MRC Project Grants

  • Procedural changes

  • Deciding whether to apply or not

  • Features of competitive applications

  • How to respond to panel feedback


Procedural changes
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


Deciding whether to apply or not
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?


2 deciding whether to apply or not cont d
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


Features of competitive applications
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


Features of competitive applications cont d
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


Features of competitive applications cont d1
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


Features of competitive applications cont d2
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


Features of competitive applications cont d3
Features of competitive applications(cont’d)

  • Budget

  • Realistic justified personnel numbers, seniority (unnamed PSP4/5?)

  • Project-specific equipment

  • Make some effort justifying DRCs


New investigators
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


4 how to respond to panel feedback
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


ad