Transcript NDM Research Facilitation

Finding Funding in Medical
Research
Dr Liesl Osman
NDM Research Facilitation
http://www.ndm.ox.ac.uk/page/research-facilitation
NDM Research Facilitation
Dr Catherine Moyes
Dr Liesl Osman
Ms Claudia Alen Amaro
Today’s talk

Understanding the funding framework

The review process in funding decisions – what you
need to know

Computer search tools for identifying funding sponsors

Fellowships and the career window

What makes a high quality application

Important funders for NDM researchers












MRC
BBSRC
Wellcome Trust
Royal Society
Gates Foundation
Research Councils
Foundations
Cancer Research UK (CRUK)
Diabetes UK
British Heart Foundation
Arthritis Research Council
UK Department of Health (NIHR, HTA)
EC/European Research Council
NIH (USA)
Charities
Government bodies
Funding – things to think about,
questions to ask
Funder priorities- have you
shown how your project fits?
Project grants
Have you got a realistic time line
which clearly describes goals?
Have you shown the possible
pitfalls and explained how you
would deal with them
Fellowships
Not just good science – have
you got a real career strategy?
Planning!




Expect several months from when you think of making
an application to actually putting it in.
Then, more time to review and decision
Then, more time to when the award is activated
At least 12 months all told. If you miss an application
deadline this may delay you by 6 months to a year
Complexity of application deadlines













Wellcome Trust: 4 panels per year
MRC: project grants - 3 panels per yr (Jan, May, September)
: fellowships – once a year, Jan/Feb
BBSRC: project grants - 4 panels per year (Jan, April, July, October)
: fellowships – once a year
NIHR/HTA: Efficacy of treatments: can put suggestions in, specific calls any
time
EU/ERC: Independent Investigator Grant - July
NIH (USA); Any time
CRUK - 4 panels per year (Jan, April, July, October)
: fellowships – once a year (May)
Diabetes UK - 2 panels per yr ( June december0
B H F – project grants - 6 panels per yr, fellowships 4 panels per yr
A R C – project grants – 3 panels per yr, fellowships 1 panels per yr
The review process
APPLICATION COMES IN TO FUNDER.
 First round - In house removes apps which don’t fit criteria.
 Second round – Proposal sent out to external reviewers
 Third round – short listed proposals go to panel. Panel members (2
or 3) are assigned to act as presenter of the proposal.
PANEL MEETING (may last 1-2 days)
 About 10 minutes per proposal, presented by assigned member
 Panel members discuss and vote: give another score.
 Proposals ranked – funding cut off then decided dependent on
funds.
 Proposals above the cut off are funded
How reviewers make their ratings
Importance
· Is
research in this area needed?
· Is there a good medical or scientific rationale for pursuing the questions or gaps in knowledge that are being
addressed? Is success likely to lead to significant new understanding?
· Does the proposal realistically set out the ultimate potential benefits with respect to improving human health?
· To what extent will it contribute, directly or indirectly, to relieving the burden of disease?
· How important it is to do the work now?
· Is there similar or complementary research underway elsewhere? Are the proposals competitive?
Scientific potential
· How
innovative are the proposals?
· Are the experimental plans realistic, given the aims of the research and the resources?
· Are the methods and study designs competitive with the best in the field?
· Have major scientific, technical or organisational challenges been identified, and will they be tackled well?
· In the case of grants for pilot or proof of principle work, how will the workbe developed and how feasible are the
subsequent proposals
Environment and people
· Has
the individual or group established a high quality track record in the field?
· Are the applicants uniquely placed to deliver the work?
· Where the proposal embarks on work in a field new to the applicants, or is a first funding proposal, is there a firm
foundation to take the work forward?
· How well does the work fit with other relevant research pursued by the applicants?
· Has the host Research Organisation demonstrated a commitment to supporting the work?
(MRC Guide for reviewers 2009)
Imagine you are a panel member!



You will be reviewing dozens of applications
You will be mostly influenced by the reviewers’
judgements
But what will encourage you to give a little bit higher
score for an application?
Application tips

Do your homework. Be prepared – it takes time to draw
up a good application (i.e. 6 months).

There is a crucial window of opportunity for early and
mid career fellowships – they all have restrictions on
time since doctorate awarded, don’t miss your chance.
• Early career – 3 to 6 years
• Mid career - 3 to 8 years

If your career plans include going for a fellowship you
MUST start thinking about this at 4-5 years post doc
Wellcome Trust Career Path
Diagram
Post doc, eligibility usually three years +.
Must have own publishing record with some first author papers
Not many of these for basic scientists early post doc – more chance if you are a clinician
Tools for finding funding

Researchresearch.com
+ Flexible, international
- Not user friendly, complex, needs training

RDInfo
+ Easy to use
- Limited flexibility
Final digression

Funding myths “It’s not worth applying to the MRC/British Heart
Foundation/Royal Society because

They don’t like funding Oxford

They are cutting back in funding

etc etc”

Reality: Average award rate for Oxford is comparable with other high quality
research institutions – 25-30%.
What makes a high quality
application?

You answer the requirements specified in the application form and
guide. READ THE INSTRUCTIONS

You don’t assume that the panel knows the details of your research
area. You do assume that they are highly experienced researchers
who can spot waffle at 100 paces.

You don’t attempt to glide over obvious criticisms – you
acknowledge these and answer them.

Think of your proposal as a story – make it interesting for the reader