for Rising Stars Technology: A Bridge to Recovery Hints and Tips for preparing your successful CV grants for 2015

Transcription

1 State Workshop of and the Networking Heart 2014 event for Rising Stars Technology: A Bridge to Recovery Hints and Tips for preparing your successful CV grants for 2015 The NSW Cardiovascular Research Network The NSW Cardiovascular Research Network Supported by

2 Welcome Kristina Cabala Director NSW CVRN Supported by

3 Opening Address Dr Sally Inglis Senior Research Fellow Cardiovascular Research Network Life Science Research Fellow Supported by

4 Hints and tips for preparing your successful CV grants for 2015 Dr Sally Inglis Senior Research Fellow Cardiovascular Research Network Life Science Research Fellow Centre for Cardiovascular and Chronic Care Faculty of Health University of Technology, Sydney UTS CRICOS PROVIDER CODE: 00099F health.uts.edu.au/cccc UTS:HEALTH

5 NHMRC Project Grants applications submitted & reviewed 553 applications funded Funded rate of 14.9% $419,982,953 total funding health.uts.edu.au/cccc

6 Broad Research area for project grants Basic Science 16.5% (50.4% of total funding) Clinical Medicine and Science 13.3% (33.7% of total funding) Health Services 8.2% (2.2% of total funding) Public Health 14.6% (13.7% of total funding) health.uts.edu.au

7 New investigator project grants New Investigators 39 funded (out of 242) success rate of 16.1% Age of new Investigators years, mean 36 years Success rates as % of all New Investigator applications Basic Science 12.4% (3.5% of all funded project grants) Clinical Medicine and Science 3.3% (0.9% of all funded project grants) health.uts.edu.au Health Services 0%

8 Project grants from NSW 1055 applications 146 funded 13.8% success rate 27.7% of all funding Relative to Vic: 16.4% success rate (38.2% of all funding) QLD: 17.8% success rate (18.0% of all funding) health.uts.edu.au

9 Cardiovascular disease (NHPA) 549 applications 73 funded 13.3% success rate 25.8% of all funding 2 nd ranked NHPA according to funded rate health.uts.edu.au

10 career Development fellowships 431 applications, 58 funded 13.5% success rate Basic Science 13.3% (54.0% total funding) Clinical Medicine and Science 13.8% (23.4% of total funding) Health Services Research 0% (0% of total funding) [21 applications] Public Health 17.3% (22.6% of total funding) NSW 7.1% success rate (17.3% of total funding) [lowest funded rate other than TAS where only 4 applications were submitted] Cardiovascular: 13.6% success rate (29.5% of total funding) [ranked 4 th of 9 NHPA] health.uts.edu.au

11 Early career fellowships 558 applications, 125 funded 22.4% success rate Basic Science 22.1% (46.1% total funding) Clinical Medicine and Science 24.0% (28.4% of total funding) Health Services Research 21.6% (6.7% of total funding) Public Health 18.8% (21.2% of total funding) NSW 19.2% success rate (27.1% of total funding) [lowest other than TAS where only 2 applications were submitted] Cardiovascular: 20.3% success rate (24.3% of total funding) [ranked 4 th of 9 NHPA] health.uts.edu.au

12 The Biomedical Research perspective Prof Gemma Figtree Sydney Medical School; Staff Specialist, Cardiology Royal North Shore Hospital Supported by

13 Hints and Tips for preparing successful grants: Biomedical perspective Dr Gemma Figtree Professor, Sydney Medical School Interventional Cardiologist, Royal North Shore Hospital

14 Clinician Scientists Importance and definition of Clinician-scientists: (modified from Tong et al.) Clinician-scientists provide direct patient care and conduct research as principal investigators. They formulate research hypotheses based on existing data and their experience in treating patients. They then test their hypotheses by means of basic, translational, or clinical research, culminating sometimes in intellectual property development. Responsibilities of these individuals include overseeing research, publishing results, and writing grants to obtain external funding. Clinician-scientists are often expected to provide didactic lectures to medical students and to serve as the teaching attending for medical students and residents on hospital services. By participating in both clinical and research domains, physician-scientists provide a critical bridge to translate clinical observations into the realm of scientific discovery and to return newfound knowledge to direct patient care. JACC 2014, 63(21),

15 D/PhD Your career

16 PhD- Research Clinical

17 Why do we need grants? money for research time, and project need grants to get grants!

18 Grant opportunities Local support- university and hospital Myriad of philanthropic foundations Heart Foundation: - CVRN - National Round NHMRC Fellowships: - ECR/post-doc - CDF/Future Leader Fellowships - SRF - Practitioner Fellowship

19 Practitioner Fellowship?

20 How does fellowship funding help establish academic career? Leverage off fellowship funding (only a small proportion of total package) Establish clinical academic position or fractitional appointments with University and Hospital

21 Hints on success in Fellowship application Your vision Your impact in the national and international arena The Project - more a program illustrating your combined efforts, including building in the relevance to your clinical work Evidence of your support structures- both people and infrastructure

22 Boxes you need to tick Publications- original data, with you first! Contribution to field: Collaborations- and interaction with others nationally and internationally Leadership within your group Supervision Referees- formally and informally!- TRUST Grants!- particularly CIA on NHMRC and HF Project! In the case of project grants- NHMRC- the TEAM Need a mentor to help with all of this..and grants office

23 The Team Not just token Track record of discovery and publication Contribution to pilot data Real involvement in project- including budget, techniques, timeline If international- visits to help establish techniques here- bringing knowledge and skills

24 General advice Enjoy your work Attend small meetings, and aim to have meaningful discussions with experts relevant to your work..eg targetted question, sharing data, building trust, and interest! Collaborate with local, national and international people, bringing in new techniques and ideas/applications Involve yourself in the University/Faculty as much as possible, and use the Fellowship funds to fund FTE at University. Puts you on the radar there. Keep trying

25 Resilience!

26 Preparing a Clinical Project grant and applying for Fellowships Dr Julie Redfern Head, Cardiovascular Health Services & Public Health Program Cardiovascular Division Associate Professor in Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney Supported by

27 University of Sydney Preparing a clinical project grant and applying for fellowships A/Professor Julie Redfern Head Public Health and Health Services Program The George Institute for Global Health Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney 27

28

29 Which Organisation: Which Scheme NHMRC Heart Foundation Genetic factors

30 NHMRC Project Grants Different schemes eg, project grants (can try New Investigator), partnership grants, development grants etc Selection Criteria 1. Science and feasibility = 50% 2. Significance and innovation = 25% 3. Track record = 25% Budget - needs to be detailed and highly justified

31 Understand the review process Submit online (eg, NHMRC) or PDF and (eg, NHF) Usually a combination of external peer review and panel discussion NHMRC provide an opportunity for rebuttal Panel discussions include management of conflicts of interest Panels include a large variety of people

32 Top tips for writing a proposal START EARLY! It s lots of effort, get feedback Creative and Innovative Ambitious yet feasible Positioning Different to your current/previous work Presentation: polished, language confident and accessible Know your audience Be objective

33 NHMRC Criteria: Science (50%) Outstanding: well-defined objectives, highly coherent, strongly developed, near flawless design, highly feasible Excellent: well-defined objectives, highly coherent, strongly developed, well designed, highly feasible Very good: very clear scientific approach, logical, raises a few minor concerns with respect to study design, is feasible Good: clear objectives, several concerns regarding the study design, generally feasible

34 NHMRC: Significance and Innovation (25%) Outstanding: highly significant advance in knowledge, will translate into fundamental outcomes, very likely be the subject of invited plenary presentations Excellent: significant advance in knowledge, likely to translate into fundamental outcomes, likely be the subject of invited plenary presentations Very good: will advance knowledge, may translate into fundamental outcomes, could be subject of invited plenary presentations

35 NHMRC: Track record (25%) Publications number, quality, relevance, how recent, role of CI Presentations number, quality, relevance, how recent, role of CI, invited, abstract (poster, oral) Research funding success funding body, amount, relevance Committees/translation relevance, level, role

36 Research Proposal Overview/summary Background build a story, highlight pilot work Objectives/aims clear and measurable Study design - VITAL Recruitment and participants who, how, feasibility Define groups, clearly explain intervention

37 Budget Combination of personnel and direct research costs Personnel need to be budgeted using PSPs provided by NHMRC Personnel need to be skills needed to complete the task Be realistic but do not exaggerate Justify justify justify.

38

39 + Fellowships

40 Tips: Scholarships/Fellowships Postdoc is different to Career Development CV is essential Use headings in track record summaries Make proposal clear Ensure feasibility Optimise science

41 Application Proposal Clear and well set out Appropriate time-frames for feasibility Think about research funding for delivering proposal Executive Summary Take seriously Summarise well Track record Identify achievements, be objective

42 Research Proposal Use effective headings and subheadings Use white space Include diagrams, flow charts and tables if possible to help break up text Tell a story - VITAL 1 study or program of work Make appropriate for duration of award Avoid abbreviations and jargon Make a convincing argument and case

43 Important aspects of track record Scholarships/fellowships/awards Outputs Manuscripts Presentations (abstract and invited) Letters, book chapters, reports Grants Your role, funding body, year/s, how many $ Peer review contributions Leadership Committees

44 Practical considerations Time for writing, review, review and review Practice interviews Make sure RGMS is tidy and clear Have multiple reviews with feedback from people with varied backgrounds and review experience

45 University of Sydney Preparing a clinical project grant and applying for fellowships A/Professor Julie Redfern Head Public Health and Health Services Program The George Institute for Global Health Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney 45

46 An overview from a granting body's perspective Dr Frank Anastasopoulos Research Program Manager Heart Foundation, Supported by

47 Heart Foundation Research Program Making a real impact on CVD This presentation has been developed solely for the purpose of providing information on the Heart Foundation Research Program. No part of it may be circulated, quoted, or reproduced for distribution outside the Heart Foundation Research Program without prior written approval from the Research Program National Heart Foundation of Australia

48 Heart Foundation s For all Hearts Strategy For all Hearts Heart Foundation 5-year strategy for : 1. Healthy hearts: Help create environments that give Australians healthy options and provide information and support to promote heart health 2. Heart care: Help all Australians to have access to quality healthcare and to ensure risk factors are well managed and cardiovascular disease is well treated 3. Health equity: Address disparities in heart health so all Australians can live longer, healthier lives 4. Evidence based prevention and treatment: Help generate and translate research evidence, to help all Australians have better heart health $510 million invested in research since 1959

49 What we do Heart Disease cause progression detection diagnosis treatment management prevention We fund cardiovascular research across the spectrum of disease and across all research areas

50 What we do We focus on early to mid career researches For all new awards funded in 2014, 79% of funding committed to support early to mid career researchers from all research areas $ In 2015, this figure is 81%

51 HF Research Program Research Award Portfolio People Support Project Support Scholarships Australian Indigenous Scholarship Health Professional Scholarship Fellowships Postdoctoral Fellowship Future Leader Fellowship (Level 1) Future Leader Fellowship (Level 2) Vanguard Grant Partnership Engagement Grant HF Focus Grant Collaboration & Exchange Award Innovation Award

52 Postdoctoral Fellowship Duration: 2 years (min. 0.8 FTE with no extension of time) Funding amount: $75,000 pro rata per annum For: early career researchers within 3 years post PhD at time of application Awarded in 2013: 13 (17% success rate) 2014 applications: first round offers: 13 Est success rate: 16% Key points: Successful candidates eligible for Paul Korner Innovation Award consideration (3*$20,000 in 2014). Successful candidate will be eligible for Collaboration & Exchange Awards

53 Future Leader Fellowship Duration: 4 years (min. 0.6 FTE with no extension of time) Funding amount: Level 1: $90,000 pro rata + $40,000 project funding per annum Level 2: $110,000 pro rata + $50,000 project funding per annum For: early/mid career researchers within 10 years post PhD at time of application Awarded in 2013: 13 (17% success rate) 2014 applications: first round offers: 16 Est success rate: 19%

54 What factor predispose an application to success? Example: Postdoctoral Fellowship

55 Heart Foundation Peer Review Transparent and independent peer review system in which a Postdoctoral Fellowship Committee is responsible for assessing all applications The Committee is made up of nine to twelve eminent cardiovascular researchers with broad research experience in areas including biomedical, clinical, public health and health services research Postdoctoral Fellowship Assessment Criteria: relevance to cardiovascular health track record quality and feasibility of the proposed project. Scoring System: ABC ranking (A=2, B=1, C=0) with 1/3 rd of app. in each category Comment on co-funding: Applicants who have applied for similar awards to other agencies and been successful with both applications, may be offered the opportunity to receive a co-funded award Committee members: See for a list of researchers who contributed to a Heart Foundation Committee in 2013

56 Postdoctoral Fellowship Peer Review Application submitted Applications reviewed for adherence to funding rules COI declarations made Stage 1: Preliminary Review Each committee member assess every application based on the one page executive summary Relevance to CVH Y/N Track Record / Research environment / Quality and Feasibility of proposed project (all with equal weight) ABC Ranked Scoresheet provided to the Committee Committee meet and select top 30 applications to proceed to full review Stage 2: Full Review Each application assessed in full by five committee members Track Record ABC (70% weighting) Quality and Feasibility of proposed project ABC (30% weighting) Ranked Scoresheet provided to the Committee Committee meet and make final funding recommendations All assessments should be made relative to opportunity. Committee members are advised that relative to opportunity should include a consideration of time post completion of PhD, career interruptions and disruptions and area of research

57 Helpful(ish) Observations Committee members are asked to assess all applications, including those outside their area of expertise Agreement between Committee members is very high at either end of the spectrum Track Record / Research environment / Quality and Feasibility 1 Page Summary Research Category Rank Total A B C Public Health = Clinical = Biomedical = Public Health = Biomedical Clinical

58 Helpful(ish) Observations There is no substitute for quality You can t make up for lack of quality with good grant writing, but you can disguise quality with bad grant writing Know and write to your audience Award Type - Read the instructions to applicants Know your assessment process Know your committee structure

59 Helpful(ish) Observations You can t fool a peer review committee. Honesty is best Don t claim to be on a committee you are not on or to have organized a scientific meeting for which you did nothing Don t upgrade the journal your publication is in (Nature Immunology in not Nature, and does not have the same impact factor as Nature [25 v 42]) Don t upgrade your investigator status in grants (AI is not a CI). Don t try to be sneaky. Your not good at it.

60 Helpful(ish) Observations Application quality matters don t copy and paste from your ECF application What does a the Postdoctoral Fellowship Committee consider when assessing track record? Publication history (number and quality ) Contributions to training (e.g. supervision) Contributions to the scientific community Funding history (number and quality ) Independence and upward trajectory

61 Helpful(ish) Observations What does a successful Postdoctoral Fellowship application look like? Extremely variable. 0 5* years post PhD (usually <1 year) 5 30 Publications. Usually more than half as 1 st author Multiple presentations. Occasionally invited Usually have awards of some sort Sometime supervise PhD students, always support/mentor/supervise undergraduate students Always contributed to the scientific community is some way Some record of previous funding success. Sometimes competitive funding Usually don t have their own funding for project described in application *career interruption

62 Helpful(ish) Observations What does a successful Future Leader Fellowship application look like? Extremely variable. Table B - Characteristics of typical successful candidates Level 1 Level 2 may have been a biomedical, clinical, public may have been a biomedical, clinical or public health or health services researcher health researcher were from three to seven years post PhD were from seven to 10 years post PhD supervised or co-supervised between one supervised between one and five PhD students, and five PhD students mostly as sole supervisor involved in peer review for the NHMRC, Heart involved in peer review for the NHMRC, Heart Foundation or similar. Foundation or similar. involved in Peer Review of journal articles involved in peer review of journal articles and on CI on one to six grants, CIA on at least one of journal editorial boards these (and up to five). CI on three to eight grants, CIA on at least one and Likely to be involved with professional often more of these. associations Likely to be involved with professional approximately two to ten publications a year associations over the last 5 year approximately five to ten publications a year over the last 5 year

63 Further information? Website: Research Bulletin To register, please Your RAO Heart Foundation Research Program Phone: (03)

64 Q & A Forum Supported by

65 State Workshop of and the Networking Heart 2014 event for Rising Stars Technology: A Bridge to Recovery Hints and Tips for preparing your successful CV grants for 2015 The NSW Cardiovascular Research Network The NSW Cardiovascular Research Network Supported by