FUNDING OPPORTUNITY
ANNOUNCEMENT
The Scott & White
Research Grants Program
March, 2012
1
The Scott & White Research Grants Program
The Research Grants Program (RGP) is an intramural funding mechanism that supports scientific
research at Scott & White. The program is specifically designed to: 1) fund pilot research projects, 2)
foster research training experience for TAMU medical students, S&W residents, fellows, and other
healthcare professionals, and 3) enhance the academic environment with innovative and interdisciplinary
research.
The program is focusing emphasis upon and support to translational research, projects aimed at
moving basic research findings into clinical applications for reducing incidence, morbidity, or mortality.
For further discussion on the translational research, please see the section entitled ‘Translational
Research’ on next page.
Award Categories
Research Advancement Award (up to $50,000):
The purpose of this award is to facilitate new research initiatives and collaborations by funding pilot
projects with a potential for extramural funding and publication of scientific data. Scott & White
Healthcare System staff and Texas A&M College of Medicine faculty, when in collaboration with a
S&W staff member or trainee, are eligible for this award.
Research Vision Award (up to $80,000):
The purpose of this award is to promote multi-disciplinary collaboration and involvement of multiple
trainees. This project should have the potential to generate extramural funding by development into
center grants, program projects or training grants. Eligibility for this award is the same as for the
Research Advancement Award, with additional review criteria.
Note: A Principal investigator (PI) may not have more than one funded grant in each category, at
any time.
March, 2012
2
Translational Research
The RGP requires investigators to categorize their application into one of the following areas of
translational research. Translational Research is divided in two phases:
Phase I: Phase I research involves “transfer of new understandings of disease mechanisms gained in the
laboratory into the development of new methods for diagnosis, therapy, and prevention and their first
testing in humans”.1 This requires expertise in basic sciences such as molecular and cell biology, and
genetics. Phase I is further divided into two parts, Type 1 (T1) and Type 2 (T2). T1 research moves a
basic discovery into a candidate health application. T2 research assesses the value of T1 application for
health practice leading to the development of evidence-based guidelines.
Phase II: Phase II research is “the translation of results from clinical studies into everyday clinical
practice and health decision making”.1 Phase II research is performed in community and healthcare
settings where population based interventions and practice based research bring the results of phase I
results to public. This requires expertise in disseminating and evaluating interventions in the real world
settings. Phase II is further divided into two parts, Type 3 (T3) and Type 4 (T4). T3 moves evidencebased guidelines into health practice, through delivery, dissemination, and diffusion research. T4
research involves "moving scientific knowledge into the public sector, evaluate the "real world" health
outcomes of a T1 application in practice and thereby changing people’s everyday lives”.
Figure: Translational Research: From Basic Discovery to Population Health3
References:
1. Woolf, S.H. (2008). The Meaning of Translational Research and Why It Matters.
JAMA, 299(2), 211-213.
2. Kon, A.A. (2008). The Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Consortium and the
Translational Research Model. The American Journal of Bioethics, 8(3), 58-60.
3. What is Translational Research?
www.utsouthwestern.edu/utsw/cda/dept440996/.../489751.html
March, 2012
3
Scott & White Research Grants Program
Overview of Funding Opportunities
Award
Research Advancement Award
Research Vision Award
Amount
up to $50,000
up to $80,000
Eligibility
●Scott & White staff.
●Texas A&M College of Medicine faculty members when in
collaboration with a Scott & White member or trainee
Limit one active RGP award per category per Principal Investigator
Three cycles each fiscal year.
Award Cycles
Submission Deadlines:
September 14, 2011
January 13, 2012
May 14, 2012
Letter of Intent
(LOI)
Applicants MUST submit a Letter of Intent, no later than 30 days
prior to submission deadline, to Jessica Rostockyj, RGP Grants
Coordinator, at [email protected]. A sample format for the
letter is provided at end of this document.
Format for Research
Plan
Grant applications must be single spaced with 0.5 inch margins. Use
Arial text and a font size of 11 or larger.
(Details on Pg 9)
Figures, charts, and tables may be smaller in font size and should be
embedded within the text, in black ink, and readily legible. These
DO count toward page limit.
Appendices (limit 5) may be included but may not be used as a
means to circumvent research page limits. There are no font or page
limitations on appendices.
Assistance with proposal development is available through the Office of Scientific Investigator
Development (Sandhya Sanghi, PhD, MPH, 771-4831). Dr. Sanghi provides input regarding
proposal content, and also provides pre-submission comments for draft proposals.
Research Plan
Guidelines
1) Abstract (200 words or less, not included in page limit)
2) Specific Aims (one page limit)
3) Research Strategy (limit six page for advancement and ten pages
for vision awards):
March, 2012
o
Significance
o
Innovation
o
Approach
4
To be included with Research Plan, but does not count toward
page limit:
Literature Cited
Human Subjects Research (if applicable)
Resources (list those currently available for the applicant’s use in
the proposed project)
Resubmission
Key Items to be
Addressed in the
Research Plan
Provide an Introduction (limited to single page) that addresses the
previous peer review critique
How is the project innovative?
How will the project advance the PI’s/co-PI’s research career(s)?
How will this project lead to new research projects or contribute
to the development of an existing research program?
Delineate specific role of trainees.
For Vision awards only:
How will this project move beyond a successful Vision Award to
a large scale competitive extramural grant application (e.g.
Program Project or Center Grant)? These must be apparent and
reasonable goals of the project.
Indicate meaningful collaborations across multiple departments
and/or institutions (e.g. co-PI’s are encouraged).
Key Principles of the
Grants Mechanism
Priority will be given to innovative projects that include junior
faculty and S&W trainees.
Projects should have the potential to produce novel discoveries which
can be developed into new programs and/or proposals for extramural
funding.
Interdisciplinary investigative teams are encouraged, including
collaborations outside of Scott & White.
Data collection must be completed within two years from time of
funding. An additional 6 months can be requested for analysis and
manuscript development.
Proposed budgets must be well justified. Timelines must include
milestones that mark progress towards project aims. Project
completion must be feasible within the proposed timeline.
Protected time commensurate with participating clinicians’ percent
effort must be approved by the appropriate Department Chairs.
In addition, those applying for the Research Vision Award should:
Include collaborative efforts among faculty from different
institutions, departments, or research institutes.
March, 2012
5
Provide significant training experiences for multiple S&W trainees.
Provide evidence that project findings will have the potential to
contribute to the development of center grants, program projects, or
training grants.
Provide evidence that the project has the potential to bring
recognition for S&W research excellence.
Application
Requirements
(Details on Pg 8)
Documentation to be sent to RGP Coordinator:
Research Plan
Detailed Budget and Budget Justification for all years of the
project
NIH biographical sketches for Key Study Personnel (PI, Co -PIs,
Sub-Investigators, Consultants, and Collaborators)
Appendices (limit 5)
Letters of support from the PI’s, Co-PI’s, Consultants’ and
Collaborators.
For clinical participants, a letter of support from their Department
Chairs, including stated approval of protected time commensurate
with the participant’s percent effort.
Additional supporting documentation.
Compilation for submission:
Assemble the following documents in the order given below and email as a single file titled
“Research Plan”:
1. Abstract (maximum 200 words)
2. Introduction (resubmission only)
3. Specific Aims (one page limit)
4. Research Strategy (follow page limit)
5. Human Subjects (if applicable)
6. Literature Cited
7. Resources
Email the budget and budget justification as a single file.
Email NIH biosketches as separate files, titled using the appropriate investigator’s name.
Email letters of support and other supporting documents as appendices (limit 5).
Review Process
(Details on Pg 14)
Standard NIH review criteria will be applied and applicants will
receive a Scientific Merit Priority Score based on:
1. Significance of the topic/ contribution to the field
2. Investigator/ Mentor’s qualifications
March, 2012
6
3. Innovation/novel concepts or ideas
4. Approach (e.g. aims, design, methodology)
5. Environment (evidence of necessary support)
In addition to the standard NIH review criteria, applications will be
reviewed according to the project’s alignment with the purpose and
priorities of the Scott & White Research Grants Program. See page
15 for criteria specific to Research Advancement and Research
Vision Awards.
In general, this will include:
Potential for interdisciplinary and inter-institutional
collaboration.
Novel discovery with the potential for extramural funding.
Potential for career or institutional advancement.
Involvement of junior faculty or S&W trainees.
Feasibility of completion based on time commitment of the PI
and available resources.
Budget justification and timeline.
Applications are evaluated on scientific and technical merit by two
internal reviewers and a reader. One external reviewer (outside the
S&W/TAMU systems) can be assigned at the discretion of the RGP
Chair.
March, 2012
7
Application Guidelines
Applicants MUST submit a Letter of Intent no later than 30 days prior to submission deadline
(see page 19 for template and instructions). Contact Jessica Rostockyj, Grants Coordinator, at 7714842 or [email protected] to ask questions or obtain program assistance.
Electronic Submission
Electronic submission is mandatory for all awards. Required documents must be emailed to the RGP
Coordinator by the due date for submission to the Scott & White Research Grants Program for funding
consideration. Incomplete applications will be administratively withdrawn.
RGP applicants must adhere to the following pre-submission process (list of contacts appears at the
end of this document):
Biostatistics Consultation. Investigators must consult with a S&W biostatistician to discuss the
experimental design to be employed. This consultation will determine the study’s sample size
requirements and the statistical test to be used in the eventual analysis of the study data. Contact Holly
Hall ([email protected]) to schedule an appointment with either Dr. Juhee Song or Dr. Chanhee Jo.
Research Feasibility Analysis (human subject research only). For human subject research (prospective
and retrospective), feasibility analysis is required following consultation with Biostatistics to assess
patient populations for the project plan. Adequate patient populations can determine the success or
failure of a clinical research project. No project involving human subject research will receive approval
from the RGP unless feasibility is performed prior to submission.
Budget and Budget Justification Consultation. An “NIH style” budget is expected for all applications.
The budget justification should list all key personnel (KSP) contributing to the project, starting with the
principal investigator. Include names, position, percent effort and specific role on the project. Indirect
cost will not be paid (see page 18 for allowable expenses). All budgets and budget justifications must be
generated via consultation with the Research Finance office before proposal submission.
NOTE: Feasibility analysis and budgets for human subject studies are initiated by RGP
Coordinator Jessica Rostockyj, who will schedule a meeting with appropriate staff following
investigator consultation with Biostatistics.
Consultation during Proposal Development. Investigators are welcome to discuss their project before or
during project development with Research Proposal Development Specialist Dr. Sandhya Sanghi (7714831) or [email protected].
March, 2012
8
All applications to the RGP must include the following:
Abstract. Provide a written abstract of no more than 200 words that briefly synopsizes the proposed
project. It will be used in the assignment of applications for review. The Abstract does not count toward
the Research Plan page limit. Include the following information:
A statement of specific aims
Methods or techniques to be used, including the proposed research model (animal/human/tissue
culture, etc.)
End points or objectives to be achieved
Introduction. The Introduction is a required component for resubmissions. Each application is
permitted only one resubmission.
The Introduction must include responses to the issues and criticisms raised by the reviewers.
Applicants may submit a resubmission application, but such application must include an
Introduction addressing the previous peer review critique
The Introduction must also summarize any substantial additions, deletions or changes to the
application.
Substantial scientific changes must be marked in the text of the application by bracketing,
indenting, or change of typography. Do not underline or shade the changes.
The Introduction should be placed before the specific page section.
The Introduction is limited to 1 page. The Introduction does not count toward the Research
Strategy page limit.
Proposed Research Plan. The Research Plan has two components.
1. Specific Aims (limited to one page)
2. Research Strategy: Maximum page limit for the research strategy is based on the type of research
award:
Research Advancement Award - maximum of 6 pages
Research Vision Award - maximum of 10 pages
Format requirements for the research plan (including resubmission modifications, if applicable) are:
• 0.5” margins
• Single spaced
• Arial font style, 11 point or larger*
*Figures, charts, tables, and figure legends may be smaller in size but must be clear and legible. They
should be embedded within the text and do count toward page limit.
Applications exceeding the specified page limits and/or not adhering to format requirements may be
administratively withdrawn.
Appendices may be sent as separate documents (limit of 5) but may not be used as a means to
circumvent research page limits. There are no font or page limitations on appendices.
March, 2012
9
Typically, the research plan should include the following components:
Specific Aims. The Specific Aims section is limited to 1 page and is the most important section of the
research plan. This section should provide a succinct overview of the project and contain a brief
background, justification for additional studies, statement of hypothesis, experimental approach,
significance, and a summary sentence. Include a clear, concise list of the aims of the proposed work and
its relationship to long term goals (e.g. to test a stated hypothesis, create a novel design, solve a specific
problem, challenge an existing paradigm or clinical practice, address a critical barrier to progress in the
field, or develop a new technology). Summarize the expected outcome(s), including the impact that
results of the proposed research will exert on the research field(s) involved.
Research Strategy (follow page limits). Organize the Research Strategy in the order specified below,
using the instructions provided. Begin each section with the appropriate section heading – Significance,
Innovation, Approach. Cite published experimental details in the Research Strategy section and provide
the full reference in the Literature Cited section.
(a) Significance
Explain the importance of the problem or critical barrier to progress in the field that the proposed
project addresses.
Explain how the proposed project will improve scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or
clinical practice in one or more broad fields.
Describe how the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative
interventions that drive this field will be changed if the proposed aims are achieved.
(b) Innovation
Explain how the application challenges and seeks to shift current research or clinical practice
paradigms.
Describe any novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation or
interventions to be developed or used, and any advantage over existing methodologies,
instrumentation, or interventions.
Explain any refinements, improvements, or new applications of theoretical concepts, approaches
or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions.
(c) Approach
Describe the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses to be used to accomplish the specific
aims of the project. Include how the data will be collected, analyzed, and interpreted as well as
any resource sharing plans as appropriate.
Discuss potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success anticipated to
achieve the aims.
If the project is in the early stages of development, describe any strategy to establish feasibility,
and address the management of any high risk aspects of the proposed work.
Point out any procedures, situations, or materials that may be hazardous to personnel and
precautions to be exercised.
Note: If a project has multiple Specific Aims, then the proposal may address Significance,
Innovation and Approach for each Specific Aim individually, or it may address Significance,
Innovation and Approach for all of the Specific Aims collectively.
March, 2012
10
As applicable, also include the preliminary studies as part of the Research Strategy, keeping within the
three sections listed above (Significance, Innovation, and Approach). Discuss the PI’s preliminary
studies, data, and or experience pertinent to the application. Preliminary data can be an essential part of a
research grant application and helps to establish the likelihood of success of the proposed project.
Human Subjects Research. If the proposed research project involves human subjects, the population
sampled shall be inclusive of the general population; of relevance to the scientific question posed; and
without restriction in regard to gender, race, age, and socioeconomic status. Proposals that intentionally
restrict the population sampled must include a compelling scientific rationale for such research design.
The Human Subjects portion of the Research Plan must provide the following information for all
projects involving human subjects (not included in Research Plan page limit):
1. Risk to Human subjects
a. Human subjects involvement and characteristics
Describe the proposed involvement of human subjects in the work outlined in the Research
Design and Methods section.
Describe the characteristics of the subject population including their anticipated number, age
range, and health status.
Identify the criteria for inclusion/exclusion of any subpopulation.
Explain the rationale for involvement of special classes of subjects, such as fetuses, neonates,
pregnant women, children, prisoners, institutionalized individuals, or others who may be
considered vulnerable populations.
List any collaborating sites where human subjects research will be performed, and describe the
role of those sites and collaborating investigators in performing the proposed research.
b. Sources of materials
Describe the research material obtained from living individuals in the form of specimens,
records, or data.
Describe any data that will be collected from human subjects for the project(s) described in the
application.
Indicate who will have access to individually identifiable private information about human
subjects.
Provide information about how the specimens, records, or data are collected and whether
material or data will be collected specifically for the proposed research project.
c. Potential risks
Describe the potential risks to subjects (physical, psychological, financial, legal, or other) and
assess their likelihood and seriousness to the subjects.
Where appropriate, describe alternative treatments and procedures, including the risks and
potential benefits of the alternative treatments and procedures to participants in the proposed
research.
2. Adequacy of Protection Against Risks
a. Recruitment and informed consent
Describe plans for the recruitment of subjects (where appropriate) and the process for obtaining
informed consent. If the proposed studies will include children, describe the process for meeting
requirements for parental permission and child assent.
Include a description of the circumstances under which consent will be sought and obtained, who
will seek it, the nature of the information to be provided to prospective subjects, and the method
March, 2012
11
of documenting consent. If a waiver of some or all of the elements of informed consent will be
sought, provide justification for the waiver.
b. Protections against risk
Describe planned procedures for protecting against or minimizing potential risks including risks
to the privacy of individuals or confidentiality of data, and assess their likely effectiveness.
3. Potential Benefits of the Proposed Research to Human Subjects and Others
Discuss the potential benefits of the research to research participants and others.
Discuss why the risks to subjects are reasonable in relation to the anticipated benefits to research
participants and others.
4. Importance of the Knowledge to be Gained
Discuss the importance of the knowledge to be gained as a result of the proposed research.
Discuss why the risks to subjects are reasonable in relation to the importance of the knowledge
that reasonably may be expected to result.
NIH Biosketches for PI and Key Study Personnel. Provide biosketches for the PI and key study
personnel in current NIH format. Key study personnel are defined as individuals who contribute in a
substantive way to the scientific development or execution of the project, whether or not salaries are
requested. The “Research Support” portion of the biosketch must include a list of research study
titles with dollar amounts and sources of current, pending, & expired funding for the prior three
years. You may contact Jessica Rostockyj at 254-771-4842 or [email protected] for assistance
with conversion of your CV to NIH format biosketch.
Literature Cited or References. This section is not included in the Research Plan page limit. Include
complete details of all references, including article authors and titles. List sources numerically, either in
order of citation in the text or alphabetically.
Resources. Provide a list of resources such as space, personnel, equipment, and core facilities available
to the investigator to successfully perform the proposed study. This section is not included in page limit.
Compilation for Submission.
Assemble the following documents in the order given below and email as a single file titled “Research
Plan”:
1) Abstract (maximum 200 words)
2) Introduction (resubmissions only)
3) Specific Aims (one page limit)
4) Research Strategy (follow page limit)
5) Human Subjects (if applicable)
6) Literature Cited
7) Resources
Email the budget and budget justification as a single file.
Email NIH biosketches as separate files, each titled using the appropriate investigator’s name.
Email appendices (limit 5 including letters of support and other supporting documents) as separate
files.
March, 2012
12
Peer Review Process
The goal of the RGP committee is to fund scientifically meritorious applications that are relevant to
healthcare. Peer review is the cornerstone of this program and occurs in two stages.
During the first stage, applications are evaluated on scientific merit by at least two internal reviewers
and a reader. One external reviewer (outside the S&W/TAMU systems) may be assigned at the
discretion of the RGP Chair. Reviewers are expected to:
1) Write a critique of the application,
2) Assign an overall impact score, and
3) Make an oral presentation of their written critique to the full RGP committee.
The reader's responsibility is to provide their perspective on the grant idea and whether they could see it
possibly advancing the scientific field or reaching the clinic in the future. Readers do not need to focus
on techniques or methodology, etc., just the grantsmanship and ideas.
Beginning in FY 2012, the RGP has formed two peer review groups (i.e., study sections). Applications
categorized as T1 and T2 are reviewed by the Phase I Translational Review Group consisting
primarily of basic scientists and secondarily of clinical scientists, with specific expertise in T1 or T2
research. Applications categorized as T3 and T4 are reviewed by the Phase II Translational Review
Group consisting primarily of clinical and outcomes research scientists and secondarily by basic
scientists, with specific expertise in T3 and T4 research. The readers for Phase I projects are primarily
clinicians and for Phase II study, largely bench researchers.
Each reviewer’s overall impact priority score is determined by consideration of the five review criteria
defined by NIH review guidelines. Additional criteria are used in reviewing the applications to make
sure that the project aligns with the priorities and purposes of RGP (see below). Priority scores range
from 1.0 (highest priority) to 9.0 (lowest priority). At the committee meeting, all eligible members
(those without conflict of interest) provide additional critiques and assign a priority score to the grant
application under review. The final priority score is an average of the scores given by the committee
member, multiplied by 10.
The second stage of peer review determines which applications are funded. After peer review and
scoring by the review group, applications are reviewed for funding by a committee composed of the
chair of the RGP, the chairs of each review group and a representative of each review group. The
funding process is highly competitive and is based on availability of funds from Institutional Research
Funds (IRF), application priority scores, and additional criteria such as alignment of the research with
the Scott & White Mission and Vision.
All applicants will receive notification of their overall impact priority scores along with a written
critique. Applications that are not funded are allowed one resubmission.
Criteria for Reviewers:
RGP’s five core review criteria are the same as those applied in competition for NIH funding. These
criteria will be scored individually on the 9-point scale described above.
Significance: Does this study address an important topic or critical barrier to progress in the
field? How will achievement of the project’s aims advance scientific knowledge or clinical
practice? What effect will this study have on the concepts, methods, and technologies that drive
this field?
Investigators: Are the PI, co-PI, collaborators, and other researchers well suited to carry out this
March, 2012
13
work? Do new investigators have appropriate experience and training? Do established
investigators demonstrate an ongoing record of accomplishments that has advanced their field?
For a collaborative, multi-PI project, does the investigative team have complementary and
integrated expertise?
Innovations: Does the project employ novel concepts, approaches, or methods? Are its aims
original and innovative? Does it challenge existing paradigms or develop new methodologies or
technologies?
Approach: Are the conceptual framework, design, methods, and analyses adequately developed,
well integrated, and appropriate to the aims of the project? The assessment of preliminary data
should be put into perspective such that bold new ideas and risk-taking on the part of beginning
investigators are encouraged rather than stymied. Does the applicant acknowledge potential
problem areas and consider alternative tactics?
Environment: Are available resources adequate in terms of institutional support, equipment and
other physical resources? Will the working environment contribute to the probability of success?
What are the unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative
arrangements? Is there evidence of institutional support as demonstrated in the department
head’s letter?
Additional review considerations for all award levels
The following additional items are relevant in determining the scientific merit of an application but are
not assigned specific scores; they should, however, be considered when assigning the overall priority
score:
For a project involving clinical research, are there any plans for protection of human subjects
from research risks? Are study population inclusion /exclusion criteria justified in terms of the
scientific goals and research strategy proposed?
For animal research, has the applicant addressed animal welfare and biohazard issues?
Has a plan for data sharing been addressed?
Has a plan for sharing of model organisms and resources been addressed?
Is the budget appropriate for the proposed work?
Feasibility of completion based on PI time commitment and available resources
Budget justification and feasibility of timeline
Additional review criteria for Research Advancement Award
The RGP review committee will consider the following additional criteria when assigning overall
impact score for Research Advancement Award applications:
Potential for interdisciplinary and inter-institutional collaboration
Potential for extramural funding
Potential for advancement of the PI’s research career
Involvement of junior faculty and trainees, with detailed explanation of specific roles
Additional review criteria for Research Vision Award
The following criteria will also be considered when scoring Research Vision Award applications:
Demonstrates inter-institutional and interdisciplinary collaborative efforts
Potential for the project to grow into a significant proposal for external funding, such as a center
grant, program project, or training grant
Involvement of multiple S&W trainees, with detailed explanation of specific roles.
Likelihood of the research bringing recognition for S&W research excellence
March, 2012
14
Scoring of the Application: Scoring will be based on a 9-point rating scale (1 = exceptional; 9 =
poor). Only integers will be used in the scoring. Each scientific review criteria delineated above will
receive an individual score. A final priority score will reflect the overall impact the project is likely
to have on the research field involved. Final priority scores are not an average or summation of
individual scores; instead, judgment is used in weighing the relative importance of the criteria. An
application need not be strong in all categories to have major scientific merit. For example, a researcher
may propose to carry out important work that by its nature is not innovative but is essential for the field
advancement. Unacceptable designations in the areas of protection of human subjects from research risk;
inclusion/exclusion of gender, minorities, or children, vertebrate animal welfare and biohazards should
be reflected in overall priority scores. The applications strong in RGP Alignment but weak in Scientific
Merit will not be considered, as sound science remains the pillar of this grant mechanism.
The Written Critique: Written critiques are expected to consider all aspects of the application.
Reviewers must provide a brief summary of the project.
Evaluative statements about the strengths and weaknesses based on review criteria are core to the
written critique. Ideally, reviews put the strengths and weaknesses of the application in perspective
by indicating their relative magnitude.
Summarize study’s major strengths and weaknesses at the end of the evaluation.
Critiques are best written in concise and bulleted form.
Focus on minor technical details, tutorial comments, or efforts to redesign the investigator's
experiments should be avoided.
A hypothesis-driven approach is not absolutely required if the research is sound and will advance
the field.
Discussion of the Application: The Chair of the review committee will guide the scientific discussion.
The assigned reviewers are expected to clearly summarize their reviews, briefly describing the
project’s overall goals and emphasizing its major strengths and weaknesses for the benefit of
committee members who are less familiar with the proposal.
Secondary reviewer should avoid repeating detailed descriptions of strengths and weaknesses
already provided. Rather, he/she should identify major issues with which he/she disagrees and raise
additional issues that he/she feels should influence the score of the application.
RGP committee members have access to research applications and are expected to familiarize
themselves with each application prior to review meetings.
RGP committee members are expected to listen carefully to each presentation and be prepared to
defend or change their point of view based on the scientific arguments.
All members of the RGP committee are encouraged to keep an open mind, but not to yield merely
to reach consensus. Committee members should not hesitate to express their views, but should
avoid statements that might be considered offensive.
Consensus is not a necessity; the committee Chair will determine when further discussion is not
likely to resolve scientific differences of opinion.
After discussion, RGP members will assign priority scores to the application.
Reviewers are encouraged to modify their written critique so that the written summary statement
reflects the overall evaluation of the application.
Resubmitted Applications: Critiques should include an evaluation of the changes made in response to
the last review. Investigator’s response to previous criticisms, however, is only one component in the
overall evaluation of the resubmitted application. Reviewers can also raise new criticisms and/or
disagree with previous comments on strengths and weaknesses of the proposal.
March, 2012
15
Conflict of Interest
The RGP chair and staff will identify conflicts of interest involving investigators and reviewers. The
following are considered potential conflicts:
Investigators with whom the reviewer/RGP committee member has a financial and/or
professional relationship.
The funding decision on any application would benefit the reviewer directly.
The reviewer feels there may be a perception of conflict.
Critiques may be obtained from individuals outside the standing membership of RGP committee at the
discretion of the RGP Chair.
Confidentiality
Applications are considered confidential, and respect for the privacy of investigator ideas is to be
maintained. Misappropriation of intellectual property, including the unauthorized use of ideas or
unique methods obtained from a privileged communication such as a grant or manuscript review, is
considered plagiarism and falls under the definition of scientific misconduct. Likewise, peer review is
enhanced by the confidentiality provided to reviewers and RGP committee members. The RGP
committee roster is available on request to the RGP Chair and staff. Investigators are encouraged to
discuss written critiques and their priority score with the RGP Chair.
Committee Members Responsibilities
Review applications and write critiques in a timely and constructive manner.
Attend committee meetings on a regular basis.
The RGP Chair may remove a committee member who is:
Absent from two consecutive committee meetings, unless the absences are unavoidable because of
scheduling conflicts.
Unable to review applications and write reviews in a timely and constructive manner.
Investigator Responsibilities (Post Award)
Release of funds must occur within 90 days of funding approval.
RGP progress reports are required annually and are due 60 days prior to the grant anniversary date.
Critical review of the progress report will determine continuing project support. Reports must
follow RGP progress report guidelines. IACUC, IBC, and/or IRB ongoing review submissions will
not be accepted in lieu of the RGP report.
Initial and ongoing financial support must be linked to the project aims/timelines established in the
application.
Projects must be completed within two years of initial funding. Research Advancement and Vision
Award investigators may request an additional 6 months for data analysis and manuscript
preparation.
RGP final reports are due within 90 days of project completion or study closure, whichever occurs
first. The final report must include a list of manuscripts, presentations and grant proposals resulting
from funding. Reports must follow RGP final report guidelines.
Data generated through grant support should be archived and made available to other Scott & White
investigators.
Each publication, press release, or other document that cites results from RGP-supported research
must include an acknowledgment of RGP support and disclaimer such as “The project described was
supported by the Scott and White Research Grants Program (RGP).”
March, 2012
16
BUDGET GUIDELINES
The following budget guidelines apply to ALL Scott & White Research Grants Program Awards:
Allowable expenses include:
1. Research supplies and animal maintenance
2. Salary for Clinical Research Coordinators, and stipends for graduate students and postdoctoral
assistants if their role is to promote and sustain the project
3. Equipment costing less than $5,000 (equipment costing over $5,000 requires cost-sharing with
the Department)
4. Investigator’s salary consistent with the percent effort justified by the proposed research
5. Patient stipends
6. Technical assistance
7. Publication costs, including reprints
8. Special fees (pathology, photography, etc.)
The following expenditures are NOT permitted:
1. Secretarial/administrative personnel
2. Tuition
3. Travel to scientific meetings
4. Honoraria and travel expenses for visiting lecturers
5. Per diem charges for hospital beds
6. Construction and building maintenance
7. Major alterations
8. Purchasing and binding of periodicals and books
9. Office and laboratory furniture
10. Office equipment and supplies
11. Rental of office and laboratory space
12. Recruiting and relocation expenses
13. Scientific society dues and membership fees
Indirect costs are not applicable to these awards.
March, 2012
17
Letter of Intent
Advancement and Vision Award applicants MUST submit a Letter of Intent, no later than 30 days
prior to submission deadline, to Jessica Rostockyj, Research Grants Coordinator, at
[email protected] . A sample format for the letter is provided below:
Date
Jessica Rostockyj
Research Grants Coordinator,
Research Grants Program
Scott & White Healthcare
2401 South 31st Street
Temple, TX 76508
RE: Intent to submit application
Ms. Rostockyj:
This letter is to inform you that I plan to submit a <insert Research Advancement Award or Research
Vision Award> application for the <insert deadline date> deadline of the S&W Research Grants
Program.
The tentative title of the proposed study is <insert title>. This is a <insert human, animal, or bench>
study. The study involves <insert a short description of the project>.
I understand that I will be contacted by a member of the RGP staff who will assist me with the
application process. This will include a review with feedback of the application’s proposed budget.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
<PI Signature>
<PI Name
<PI Title>
March, 2012
18
Technical Support
Scott & White Research Grants Program
Jessica Rostockyj
Research Grants Coordinator
771-4842 or [email protected]
Office of Scientific Investigator Development
Sandhya Sanghi, PhD, MPH
Research Proposal Development Specialist
771-4831 or [email protected]
Biostatistics (Contact Holly Hall @ 771-4820 or Hhall @swmail.sw.org for appointments)
Juhee Song, PhD
Senior Biostatistician
771-4853 or [email protected]
Chanhee Jo, PhD
Biostatistician
771-4854 or [email protected]
Research Feasibility
Teresa Ponder
Feasibility Analyst
771-4864 or [email protected]
Research Finance
Jared Brock
Financial Analyst
215-9053 or [email protected]
Clinical Research Coordination
Lydia Clipper, RN
724-8193 or [email protected]
Publications
Glen Cryer
Manager
771-4807 or [email protected]
March, 2012
19