grants facilitation -ucd som office of research grant research and navigation team jeffrey elias phd...

Grants Facilitation -UCD SOM Office of Research

Grant

Research

and

Navigation

Team

Jeffrey Elias PhD - Erica Chedin PhD - Betty Guo PhD

http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/medresearch/grant_facilitation.html



Grants FacilitationUC Davis SOM Office of Research

Jeffrey Elias, PhD – Erica Chedin, PhD – Betty Guo, PhDhttp://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/medresearch/grant_facilitation.html

GrantResearch

andNavigation

Team

K-AWARDS

An approach to understanding and writing a K-Award (award of independence)

• K-award review criteria are good criteria for yearly personal progress evaluation at all stages of career – helps gain personal perspective on degree of independence and progress.

• The scientific review group will address and consider each of the following criteria in assigning the application’s overall score, weighting them as appropriate for each application.

• Candidate• Career Development Plan• Research Plan• Training in the Responsible Conduct of Research• Mentor, Co-Mentor(s), Consultant(s), and Collaborator(s)• Environment and Institutional Commitment to the Candidate


• A K-Award is an award of commitment 1) commit self to direction of research and training for near-future career development. 2) mentors’ commit to your direction and independence. 3) home institution commits/invests resources to your direction and independence – to include time (exception is the K-99/R00 where you might change institutions for the R00).


• A K-Award is an award of commitment 4 ) funding institute commits to supporting your

training program based on expectations of return on investment: a) field of research is a future growth area b) awardee will complete training c) future grants will be written for funding within that institute – publications will

follow.

An approach to understanding and writing a K-Award (award of independence).

• A K-Award is an award of investment. Review criteria focus on: 1) candidate as product - starting with raw materials (previous history) for development; 2) training program as viable product- development process; 3) mentors as process/ product development managers


• A K-Award is an award of investment Review criteria focus on:

4) institution as processing plant; 5) final product of training and research development is competitive in the market place; 6) is candidate ready for independence via another mechanism (doesn’t need training).


• Special commitment 1) candidate commits self to temporal dimensions and restrictions of NIH grant review. a) roughly nine months between first

submission and potential funding. b) can’t submit a duplicate research

project during K-review period.


• Commitment and investment components are implicit in study section review criteria.

• The scientific review group will address and consider each of the following criteria in assigning the application’s overall score, weighting them as appropriate for each application.

• Candidate• Career Development Plan• Research Plan• Training in the Responsible Conduct of Research• Mentor, Co-Mentor(s), Consultant(s), and Collaborator(s)• Environment and Institutional Commitment to the Candidate

Mentored K Awards for MDs

Mechanism Award Eligibility Purpose

K08 Mentored Clinical Scientist Development

MD, MD/PhD or equivalent Career in basic or translational (lab) research

K22 Research Career Award for Transition to Independence

PhD, MD, MD/PhD or equiv. + ≤5 yrs postdoc (may vary by institute)

Transition to independence

K23 Mentored Patient-Oriented Research Development

MD, MD/PhD or equiv. + clinical + specialty/sub-specialty training

Career in POR (direct interaction)

K99/R00 Pathway to Independence

PhD, MD, MD/PhD or equiv. + postdoc (≤5 yrs); Faculty offer for R00

Transition to independence

Planning Your K

• K99/R00 has no citizenship or permanent residence status requirement

• Six years of total K funding (K12 + mentored K)– Check with institute – policies vary

• K awards allow acceptance of R funding in last two years of award

• Talk to Program Officer

Candidate Information

• Three components:– Where you’ve been (Background)– Where you’re going (Goals & Objectives)– How you’re going to get there (Career Development Plan)

• Make clear what skills you already have, what you need to learn and why

• Describe your career path and research goals• Distinguish yourself from the competition (avoid

generic statements)

The Reviewer Should Understand

• Your long-term career goals• What type of researcher you aim to become• Why this training is critical• How this award will contribute to your career

success

The Research Project

• Leads to independence– Diverges sufficiently from mentor’s field– Creates your own niche

• Scientific merit• Appropriate skills to be gained• Lays foundation for an R01– Generates preliminary data– Opens new avenues for questioning

The Career Development Plan

• Equal in importance to Research Plan• Fits with proposed research• Provide high level of detail– Names of courses, descriptions– Include workshops, meetings, journal clubs– Frequency of meeting with mentors– How mentors will monitor your progress

Mentors

• Active in research field• Funded• Mentored previously• Co-mentors to cover areas in which primary

mentor lacks expertise

grants facilitation -ucd som office of research grant research and navigation team jeffrey elias phd...

Documents