1. Speaker: Associate Professor Janet Keast RESEARCH GRANTS FORUM 23 RD November 2005 NH&MRC PROJECT GRANTS

2. NH&MRC Project Grants 1.Procedural changes 2.Deciding whether to apply or not 3.Features of competitive applications 4.How to respond to panel feedback

3. 1.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

4. 2.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?

5. 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 feedback on detailed research plan Consider timing of any additional competing applications

6. 3.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

7. 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 3.Features of competitive applications (cont’d)

8. 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

9. 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 3.Features of competitive applications (cont’d)

10. Budget Realistic justified personnel numbers, seniority (unnamed PSP4/5?) Project-specific equipment Make some effort justifying DRCs

11. 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

12. 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