Transcript Grand Explorations: Round 10 University of Michigan Foundation Relations, Office of University Development Information S.

Grand Explorations:
Round 10
University of Michigan
Foundation Relations, Office of University Development
Information
S
Looking for creative ideas that can
potentially transform global health
S Competition is run every 6 months
S Topics can change every round
S Fit the goals and disease priorities of the Grand Challenges in
Global Health.
S Where new thinking is needed to overcome today’s roadblocks
S Can be phased
S Must envision impact on Gates priorities and strategies
S Note: Global Health ≠ USA. Needs to be explicit
Round 10 (Fall 2012) Topics:
S New Approaches in Model Systems, Diagnostics, and
Drugs for Specific Neglected Tropical Disease
S Aid is Working. Tell the world
S New Approaches for the Interrogation of Anti-malarial
Compounds
S Labor Saving Innovations for Women Smallholder
Farmers
Proposal format
2 pages
(11 point type). 2
Sections
S
Section I. What is your idea?
S Indicate in one or two sentences in bold the essence of your idea.
S Why is your idea an unconventional or creative approach to the problem
outlined in the topic?
S Describe the scientific basis for your idea and why you expect it to
succeed.
S
Section II. How will you test it?
S Describe your experimental plan, including any new technologies or tools
to be developed.
S How will the work you describe be performed within the budget
(USD$100,000) and time period (18 months) allocated for the initial
Phase I award?
S What essential data will you generate during your Phase I award?
S If your experiments in Phase I are successful, what are the next steps?
Why you should give it a shot
S Blind review is interesting - great for junior faculty, and
faculty who want to try an idea they wouldn’t discuss in
“polite” company
S Fast turn-around, 4-5 months to decision
S Short proposal, two pages
S $100,000 (with ability to submit for $1M follow on)
The Review Process
Where
you want
to be
You are 1
in 3,000 +
received
Get your
proposal
noticed
The Review Process
S Gates receives approximately 3,000 applications each round
and funds 80-100. Of those funded 50% had submitted
before (idea is refined).
S Each reviewer reads approximately 300 proposals.
S Reviewers read through each proposal at most 10 minutes
– you have to capture their attention early on to get on their
short list.
S It only takes one of those six readers championing your
proposal to achieve funding.
Reviewer instructions
S Topic Responsiveness –
S Does the proposal address the problems described in the topic?
(types of research and topics not to be funded are listed in each
topic description)
S Innovative Approach –
S Does the idea offer an unconventional or creative approach to
the problem outlined in the topic?
S Does it demonstrate application of a new or pioneering
approach?
S Does the proposal describe how the project varies from
current approaches, offers new premises or hypotheses to test,
and
S Does it provide a rational basis for expecting success?
Writing your proposal
All proposals must
•
•
•
have a testable hypothesis,
include an associated plan for how the idea would be tested
or validated, and
yield interpretable and unambiguous data in Phase I, in
order to be considered for Phase II funding.
Successful proposals are
•
•
•
"off the beaten track"
daring in premise
clearly differentiated from approaches currently being
developed or employed.
Writing your Proposal
Technologies or approaches should
•
enhance uptake, acceptability and/or provide for
sustained use (e.g. culture, affordability, illiteracy)
•
enable or provide for low-cost solutions (scalable)
•
promote effective delivery and administration of
new solutions and
•
ensure or enhance safety.
The “Dos”
DO Summarize your idea in 2 sentences at the top. You
have to capture the reviewers’ interest quickly.
DO Read through the category descriptions thoroughly.
DO State succinctly and clearly: What is innovative?
How this is different? How is this a game changer?
What is your deliverable?
DO Respond directly to the Exploration topic of
interest.
DO Use a title that grabs attention.
DO Try again. Many have won on their second shot.
The “Don’ts”
Don’t propose the next iterative step.
Don’t use domain-specific terminology.
Don’t spend space writing how great your
lab is (identifying information isn’t allowed).
Don’t ramble. Be strategic and direct.
Don’t propose an idea they specifically list as
“off topic”
What we’ve seen work – 5 tips
1. Stressing practicality and adoptability
S Demonstrating an understanding of the situation in
which the product/discovery/method will be
employed:
“low-cost”
“culturally-appropriate”
What we’ve seen work – 5 tips
2. Very clearly differentiating work from
current directions in the field
S “The work here turns this conventional view on its head by
proposing that specific interactions with specific ….”
S “Instead of detecting the spectrum of molecular vibrations, … we
extend our expertise to focus on…, a novel technique that has not
been investigated before …”
S “Existing initiatives have not been sufficient to revolutionize
vaccine development …”
S “Most existing antivirals…” “Current approaches…”
“Conventional diagnosis of malaria…”
What we’ve seen work – 5 tips
3. Bold statements about project aims
S “To truly realize revolutionary advances in vaccines that protect
developing world populations…”
S “My unconventional idea of training international leaders in
infectious disease… could prove a wise investment in the scientific
enterprise by building capacity in human capital, and by
complementing conventional approaches to global health
challenges”
What we’ve seen work – 5 tips
4. Scientific language without letting the
reader get lost in the details
S “We propose a mutable DNA vaccine that will trigger immune
responses directed against antigenic variants”
S “two proteins can be combined to produce a Tat-RevM10 fusion
protein that will be taken up by cells and activate HIV expression,
but not produce infectious virus.”
What we’ve seen work – 5 tips
5. Why this PI/team (you) is the right one to
do this work
S
“A major advantage of this study proposal is the expertise of the IB
study team with respect to vaccine development and financing issues”
S “the PI is an expert in medical device design for resource-limited
settings”
S “This multidisciplinary effort combines the experience of two
investigators providing expertise in both the immunology of HIV
during latency and the development of new anti-HIV treatments.”
Can I be successful?
Absolutely!!
Michigan has received an average of one award each round – better than most
Erdogan Gulari in Chemical Engineering “Antimicrobial peptides against Mycobacteria”
in the topic area “Apply Synthetic Biology to Global Health Challenges”
Craig Harris in Environmental Health Science “Models of Embryonic Histiotrophic Nutrition
in Organogenesis” in topic area “Explore Nutrition for Healthy Growth of Infants and
Children”
Steve King in Microbiology and Immunology “Turning HIV proteins to cure infection” in
topic area “Design New Approaches to Cure HIV”
Kathy Sienko in Mechanical Engineering, "Circumcision Tool For Traditional
Ceremonies In Africa" in topic area "Create New Ways to Protect Against Infectious
Disease”
Wei Lu in Mechanical Engineering, “Spectrum-Based Low-Cost Diagnostics” in topic
area “Low Cost Diagnostics”.
Alice Telesnitsky in Microbiology and Immunology, “A Lexicon of HIV-RNA
Interactions” in topic area "Create Drugs and Delivery Systems to Limit Drug
Resistance”
Matthew Davis in Pediatrics-Ambulatory Care Program, “Innovation Bridge: Linking
Biotech Breakthroughs to Emerging Vaccine Manufacturers” in topic area “Protect
Against Infectious Disease”.
Marilia Cascalho in General Surgery, “A Mutable Vaccine for HIV” in topic area “Prevent
or Cure HIV Infection”