1. Come scrivere un grant AIRC Pier-Luigi Lollini Commissione Consultiva Strategica AIRC e Comitato AIRC Emilia Romagna www.lollini.it

2. 2016 Calls for proposals Type of grantFunding limit (€/year) DeadlineStartDuration (years) Investigator Grant (IG) No limitMarch 10, 2016Jan 2, 20173 My First AIRC Grant (MFAG) 75.000 (no PI salary) March 2, 2016 (presubmission) June 15, 2016 (proposal) Jan 2, 20173 Start-Up150.000 (incl. PI salary, if strictly necessary) March 2, 2016 (presubmission) May 4, 2016 (proposal) Jan 2, 20173+2

3. Eligibility criteria 2016 Type of grantPI age limit (years) International experience required PI must work in Italy (% of his/her time) Track record (last 5 years) Investigator Grant (IG) NoneNo≥ 50%Last* author of primary research papers (first author for clinicians) Active ¶ impact factor ≥ 30 Strong track record My First AIRC Grant (MFAG) ≤ 40Preferential≥ 70%At least 2 primary research paper as last* or corresponding* author (first author for clinicians) Start-Up≤ 35 (flexible) Yes≥ 70%At least 1 primary research paper as first *or last* author *Equal contribution also OK (e.g. co-first, co-last or-corresponding author, as appropriate) ¶ Active impact factor = impact factor as first/last/corresponding author

4. 4 Lisa Vozza (AIRC chief scientific officer) Degree in Biological sciences Research Fellow at New York University, USA (1994-95) Editorial coordinator for the European editions of Scientific American (1996-2003) Joined AIRC in 2004 Edits and writes popular science books in parallel to her work at AIRC AIRC Peer Review Office (APRO) Laura Galbiati Degree in Biological sciences PhD and Post Doctoral fellow at SISSA/ICGEB, Trieste (1999-2005) Research fellow at the University of Sussex, UK (2005 -2007) Business developer at Nature Publishing Group and free-lance editor (IT, FR, ES) (2007-2010) Joined AIRC in 2010 Alessandra Mazzoni Degree in Biological sciences Research fellow at the National Cancer Institute, Milan (1993-1997) Research fellow at the National Institutes of Health, USA (1997-2008) Intern at the NIH Center for Scientific Review, USA (2008) Joined AIRC at the end of 2008 Ilaria Guerini Degree in Biotechnologies PhD and Post Doctoral fellow at the University of Milan-Bicocca (2005-2009) Post Doctoral fellow at the Gurdon Institute in Cambridge, UK (2009-2012) Free-lance scientific writer for Springer Healthcare Italy (2012) Joined AIRC at the beginning of 2013

5. 5 Three reviewers per grant application Each application is evaluated in an independent manner by three different reviewers with specific expertise in the research area of the application. Reviewers assignments are made in compliance with conflict of interest rules. Investigator Grants: 2 international reviewers and 1 member of the AIRC CTS MFAG: 3 international reviewers Start-Up: 3 international reviewers

6. 6 Reviewer assignments are made in compliance with conflict of interest rules to ensure a review free from inappropriate influence. The following circumstances represent conflicts of interest: 1.The reviewer works in the same institution of the applicant 2.There are ties of kinship between the reviewer and the applicant 3.The reviewer and the applicant are collaborating on a research project (or have been in the past five years) 4.There are personal or scientific conflicts between the reviewer and the applicant Reviewers in conflict with an applicant for any of the reasons listed above are excluded from the review of that application. AIRC rules on conflict of interests

7. 7 International reviewers 2015: where do they work? For the evaluation of applications AIRC relies on the expertise well-established international investigators working abroad. Our panel comprises approx. 600 reviewers from all over the world. In 2015 485 reviewers were involved in the review process. USA UK Germany France Spain Canada Netherlands Other (Switzerland, Israel, Australia…)

8. Comitato Tecnico- Scientifico (CTS) AIRC

9. 9 First step: 480 applications assigned to approx. 400 foreign reviewers and 28 members of the CTS Rejected (161) Approved (64) “Gray zone” (255) Second step: 28 members of the CTS in study section meeting Gray zone: rejected (133) Gray zone: approved (122) APPROVED, TOTAL: 186REJECTED, TOTAL: 294 Peer review IG 2015

10. PROPOSAL –Significance and relevance to cancer –Innovation –Approach and feasibility (including environment) INVESTIGATOR –Track record and international standing in cancer research OVERALL BUDGET Review criteria (IG)

11. 11 The title must be sharp and effective What is the question? What is the scientific problem related to cancer? “Control of direct and immune-mediated antitumor activities of IRF-8 by epigenetic drugs in colorectal cancer” “Dissecting p63 functions in skin cancer initiation and progression” “Plasma microRNA profiling as first line screening test for lung cancer detection: a prospective study” “Post-translational modification of proteins” “Terminal differentiation opposes transformation, functional bases” “Proteins as anticancer targets” Application’s title ?

12. 12 Abstract Keep it short. Get it focused and balanced: do not give too much of introduction in the background, go straight to the point describing the hypothesis, the impact on cancer, the aims, experimental design, expected results. Aims Duis et mauris nulla, eget pharetra nisl. Nulla sapien leo, mattis vitae fringilla sed, convallis eget felis. Experimental design Nulla porttitor mattis rutrum. Background Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Aenean egestas, libero nec mollis adipiscing, eros ante congue nisi, vitae lobortis tellus augue sed sem. Nulla lacus enim, tincidunt dignissim laoreet quis, semper ac arcu. In sed eros a nunc mattis aliquet. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Duis lorem neque, lacinia in sagittis quis, pharetra sed tellus. Nunc non mi ante, commodo suscipit est. Aenean nibh leo, placerat at semper ac, sagittis quis risus. Duis et mauris nulla, eget pharetra nisl. Nulla sapien leo, mattis vitae fringilla sed, convallis eget felis. Pellentesque sed magna suscipit dui hendrerit feugiat ac at sem. Nam facilisis tempus neque sit amet malesuada. Donec sagittis, ligula eu suscipit viverra, nulla libero interdum diam, vitae adipiscing magna urna id elit. Pellentesque posuere eros tristique justo iaculis ornare. Cras aliquet consequat leo vitae congue. Proin ante sem, viverra ut tempus in, rutrum vitae ligula. Pellentesque felis turpis, pharetra id tincidunt at, fringilla nec dui. Suspendisse potenti. Integer quis pharetra dui. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Quisque eu massa vitae mauris faucibus ultrices ac id nunc. Quisque eget tempus arcu. Morbi pulvinar luctus magna eget volutpat. Pellentesque cursus porta dictum. Nulla porttitor mattis rutrum. Suspendisse nisi est, porta vel fermentum at, aliquam interdum erat. Nam pulvinar aliquam congue. Ut id arcu arcu. Etiam turpis massa, porta accumsan malesuada ac, euismod luctus turpis. Aenean fermentum nisi id dui auctor elementum. In blandit luctus nunc a aliquam. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Aenean egestas, libero nec mollis adipiscing, eros ante congue nisi, vitae lobortis tellus augue sed sem. Nulla lacus enim, tincidunt dignissim laoreet quis, semper ac arcu. In sed eros a nunc mattis aliquet. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Duis lorem neque, lacinia in sagittis quis, pharetra sed tellus. Nunc non mi ante, commodo suscipit est. Aenean nibh leo, placerat at semper ac, sagittis quis risus. Duis et mauris nulla, eget pharetra nisl. Nulla sapien leo, mattis vitae fringilla sed, convallis eget felis. Pellentesque sed magna suscipit dui hendrerit feugiat ac at sem. Nam facilisis tempus neque sit amet malesuada. Donec sagittis, ligula eu suscipit viverra, nulla libero interdum diam, vitae adipiscing magna urna id elit. Nunc non mi ante, commodo suscipit est. Aenean nibh leo, placerat at semper ac, sagittis quis risus. Duis et mauris nulla, eget pharetra nisl. Nulla sapien leo, mattis vitae fringilla sed, convallis eget felis. Pellentesque sed magna suscipit dui hendrerit feugiat ac at sem. Nam facilisis tempus neque sit amet malesuada. Pellentesque sed magna suscipit dui hendrerit feugiat ac at sem. Nam facilisis tempus neque sit amet malesuada. Donec sagittis, ligula eu suscipit viverra, nulla libero interdum diam, vitae adipiscing magna urna id elit. Nunc non mi ante, commodo suscipit est. Aenean nibh leo, placerat at semper ac, sagittis quis risus. Duis et mauris Pellentesque sed magna suscipit dui hendrerit feugiat ac at sem. Nam facilisis tempus neque sit amet malesuada. Donec sagittis, ligula eu suscipit viverra, nulla libero interdum Hypothesis Praesent imperdiet facilisis hendrerit. Aliquam erat volutpat. Nullam bibendum dui at magna ultricies nec accumsan odio accumsan. Duis id rutrum nisl. Curabitur pharetra commodo consectetur. NO background hypothesis aims experimental design Background Donec luctus viverra ante, non auctor urna pharetra quis. Suspendisse vulputate venenatis tellus, a fermentum diam cursus ut. Morbi quis nisl lorem, ac gravida nisi. Maecenas elementum erat posuere purus fringilla tempor. Aenean imperdiet mollis mauris condimentum molestie. Mauris condimentum, metus aliquet porta ornare, arcu lectus sollicitudin dui, a consectetur odio leo eu nulla. Phasellus tempus sapien in mi pharetra lacinia. Experimental design Suspendisse et tellus sit amet arcu sodales elementum convallis ac diam. Duis volutpat mattis auctor. Vivamus felis nisl, hendrerit vel mattis congue, suscipit sit amet enim. Nulla lorem ligula, ullamcorper id lacinia ornare, faucibus quis mi. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Donec id suscipit justo. Duis cursus lorem congue orci eleifend dictum. Pellentesque quis diam vitae tellus euismod adipiscing. Donec placerat orci a odio aliquam ultrices ac a nisl. Duis vel mauris odio. Aenean eu leo elit. Vivamus felis nisl, hendrerit vel mattis congue, suscipit sit amet enim. Aims Suspendisse viverra commodo lorem sed bibendum. Mauris adipiscing turpis et elit placerat sit amet imperdiet tortor interdum. Donec vitae metus nisl, ut tincidunt ipsum. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Cras sit amet sapien sed augue consequat eleifend. Sed quis mollis metus. Nullam tortor arcu, posuere vitae sodales vitae, elementum eu justo. In in nibh leo, non vulputate lacus. Morbi eleifend pellentesque justo, a tempus enim interdum vitae. Donec et orci massa. Fusce ac nisi at ligula mollis vulputate. Nulla a dui id diam malesuada pulvinar ut sed erat. Curabitur neque libero, rutrum ut facilisis id, aliquet in massa. Nullam non sem augue, at ultrices magna. Donec nisl leo, suscipit ac mattis vel, luctus ut est. Phasellus eu eros ac dui lacinia volutpat. Suspendisse nibh nisi, vulputate non faucibus vitae, imperdiet sed nulla. Etiam tellus lorem, aliquam sed feugiat quis, congue id odio.. Hypothesis Ut aliquet rhoncus ultricies. Mauris eu sagittis risus. Etiam blandit arcu eget neque laoreet porttitor. Mauris convallis, nulla non commodo semper, turpis erat pulvinar orci, non fringilla erat diam vitae turpis. Etiam consequat nulla sed elit consequat eget fermentum velit faucibus. Integer ut lectus interdum justo porta ultricies sit amet id sem. Fusce erat odio, pulvinar eget facilisis vel, euismod non tellus. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Pellentesque ut tellus sed sapien interdum consectetur. Aenean faucibus tincidunt magna, ac euismod ante placerat ut. Curabitur aliquet sodales dui vel vehicula. Vivamus hendrerit neque venenatis ligula facilisis ornare. Vestibulum euismod consectetur output Suspendisse et tellus sit amet arcu sodales elementum convallis ac diam. Duis volutpat mat. YES Expected results Nulla porttitor mattis rutrum. ultricies nec accumsan odio accumsan. Duis id rutrum nisl. Curabitur pharetra commodo consectetur. Expected results Suspendisse et tellus sit amet arcu sodales elementum convallis ac diam. Duis volutpat mattis auctor. Vivamus felis nisl, hendrerit vel mattis congue, suscipit sit amet enim. Nulla lorem ligula, ullamcorper id lacinia ornare, faucibus quis mi. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Donec id suscipit justo. Duis cursus lorem congue orci eleifend dictum. Pellentesque ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Donec id suscipit justo. Duis cursus lorem congue orci eleifend dictum. Pellentesque expected results Impact on cancer Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Impact on cancer Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. impact on cancer

13. 13 Keywords Keywords assigned to both proposals and reviewers’ expertise help make a tentative match between each application and a trio of referees. In order to get the match that is the most appropriate and fitting, it is very important to choose the keyowords accurately.

14. 14 Proposal main body Write a compelling story “A collection of tasks not related to each other is not a project.” “It is not terribly well-written and sometime it looks like a collage of somewhat unrelated workpackages with no logically stated and organized aims” “The grant read a bit like as if the applicant did a PubMed search on exosomes and the tumor microenvirnment and then proposed to perform every experiment he read about.”

15. 15 Proposal main body Feasibility: support hypothesis with preliminary data “While the initial idea is excellent, the proposal is poorly prepared and does not contain any preliminary data to support the feasibility of the proposed approach.” “The PI provided the preliminary results requested by the reviewers of the original application; these data seem promising enough.” Feasibility: make sure your numbers are statistically significant “The experimental plan is seriously flawed. Some of the studies are too small to achieve statistically powered results.” See also, David L. Vaux, “Know when your numbers are significant”, Nature, Dec. 31 2012 p. 181Know when your numbers are significant Feasibility: show you are experienced in the proposed research field “It is not clear that the investigator has the experience to do the work”. “This investigator's past track record and the specific proposal failed to generate any trust.”

16. 16 Proposal main body Avoid fishing expeditions (unless supported by preliminary data) “This is mainly a ‘fishing’ expedition. On the one hand, it is possible for fishermen to catch fish. On the other hand, one would like some indication that fish are really present in these waters.” “Overall, the study seems like a major fishing expedition and the two proposed tasks are very loosely associated.”

17. 17 Proposal main body Caveat and pitfalls: make sure you have a «plan B» “If the first experiment fails (i.e. the hypothesis was wrong and you disprove it), they have nothing to do”. “In the previous application, a weak side of the project was found to be the lack of alternative approaches to those proposed as first choices. Now, the newer application has filled this gap, either by showing preliminary results that confirmed the working hypothesis and/or the technical approach, or by presenting alternative approaches.”

18. 18 Proposal main body Revision: reply to all reviewers’ criticisms “The applicant's chief response to the prior critique seems to be «give me the money and I'll show you». This was a very disappointing revision in nearly every respect.” “The project shows some advancement and some changes with respect to last year, however the framework is fundamentally the same.” “Following comments on the previous application, it is appreciated that actions have been taken to substantially modify some of the approaches” “I want to congratulate the applicant for addressing the issues that were raised by the referees”

19. 19 Personnel involved in the Research Personnel involved must have an appropriate expertise. Provide a CV of personnel members (1 page in English each) to describe their expertise/experience. Too many «To Be Defined» (TBD) in the personnel section are strongly discouraged.

20. 20 Publications Emphasis is on prior track record: first/last author publications are considered part of the feasibility of the project. A complete and accurate information about authorship is necessary to provide correct bibliometric parameters for the evaluation of an applicant’s CV. Applicants will be asked to underwrite a document to certify the information provided is correct.

21. Budget Reviewers will know whether the budget is inflated and can recommend budget cuts, which AIRC WILL undertake. “Each and every component of the budget is inflated given the relatively straightforward nature of much of the programme. I recommend a 40% reduction in the total budget requested.” The financial request should be in line with the number of people involved in the project. “This budget is overestimated for the few people that will be actively working on the research plan.”

22. 22 Summing up… Why would AIRC want to fund this project? Tell us directly. Preliminary data are very important. Show the key figures. Keep the application simple and have one (or more) clear hypotheses to test. Present clear but concise descriptions of experiments to be performed (you don’t need lots of experimental details). Do not cram too much text onto the form (spaces and diagrams help). If statistics are relevant (i.e. number of sample, patients etc.), please get them right! What is the fallback position? Make sure to have contingency plans. Why is the PI suitable to conduct the research? Ask for an amount of money that is consistent with the proposed experiments. Get several people to read it: an expert to tell you any missing points, a generalist to tell you if they understand it. Don’t leave it too late to do a proper job.

23. 23 Publications on scientific journals (AIRC scientific officers) Final report analysis in case of previous fundings (reviewers) Site visits for 5-year grant programs, e.g. Start-Up, 5 per mille (reviewers) Attendance at scientific meetings, retreats, etc. (AIRC scientific officers) Monitoring the productivity of AIRC researchers

24. 24 Contact us: airc.direzione-scientifica@airc.it AIRC Calls for proposals can be found at: https://www.direzionescientifica.airc.it/ This presentation is meant to provide a series of tips and suggestions for writing an AIRC grant application. Please refer to the AIRC “Calls for proposals 2016” for a complete list of eligibility requirements and rules.