Health Research Science Board 2001 Breast Cancer Research

1
Health Research Science Board 2001 Breast Cancer
Research Education Competition

• PROPOSAL DEADLINE - June 29, 2001
• Information Meetings
• NYC Rochester
• April 16 April 18

2
Background

• Legislation - 1996 amended 1997
• Public Health Law (Article 24, Title 1-B)
• Health Research Science Board
• State Finance Law (Article 6, ? 99-yy)
• Breast Cancer Research Education Fund
• Other enabling legislation...

3
Board Membership

• 11 doctoral-level scientists or clinicians
• 5 ex officio members
• Health, En Con, Cornell Inst. for Comp. Env.
  Tox., BC survivor, P/TC survivor

4
Board Mandates

• Administer Breast Cancer Research Education
  Fund
• Sponsor breast cancer grant competition
• Other breast, prostate and testicular cancer
  activities
• Pesticide-related activities

5
Breast Cancer Research Education Fund

• Fund exclusively supports grant contracts
• Revenue Sources
• State tax check-off (personal corporate)
• proceeds from Drive for the Cure plates
• State match (effective 2000)
• direct donations

6
Grant Competition

• Solicit, receive, and review applications ...
  for research or educational programs which focus
  on
• causes, prevention, screening, treatment and cure
  of breast cancer
• basic, behavioral, clinical, demographic,
  environmental, epidemiologic and psychosocial
  research.

7
Topics/Proposals of Interest

• Any investigation pertaining to the causes,
  prevention, screening, treatment and cure of
  breast cancer
• Under-represented in 1998 competition
• basic biology
• environmental issues
• bio-psychosocial issues
• above will not receive special consideration

8
Long Range Goals of Supported Activities

• Aid in future research or education efforts
  (e.g., future funding)
• Impact breast cancer policy to improve the health
  of New Yorkers
• Enhance the continuum of breast cancer care -
  from prevention to treatment

9
Eligibility

• NYS applicant organizations
• academic/medical institutions
• state or local govt agencies
• public, private or community-based organizations
• or any other entity capable of monitoring funds
  and of providing necessary oversight

10
Funding Mechanisms

• EMPIRE Grants
• EMPowerment through Innovative Research
  Education, e.g., pilot grants
• Postdoctoral Fellowships
• Up to 50,000 /yr. for up to 2 yrs.
• At least 2 million available for support

11
EMPIRE Grants

• Intent
• provide initial support for preliminary testing
  of
• novel or high-risk hypotheses
• innovative breast cancer outreach activities
• education or outreach activities should lead to
• improved decision-making for consumers
• to determine what activities work for whom, when
  and at what cost

12
EMPIRE Grants contd

• Principal investigator/project director
• no degree requirements
• PI may also submit fellowship application(s) but
  only one award will be made.

13
EMPIRE Grants Fiscal Issues

• Up to 50,000 total costs per year
• IDC ? 10 total costs
• 11.1 direct costs
• Duration 12 months ? 24 months

14
EMPIRE Grants Fiscal Issues - contd

• Allowable Costs
• partial salary support percent effort
• Technical support, Postdoc, PI
• supplies, materials, etc.
• Required
• annual travel to NYC
• Not allowed
• tuition

15
Postdoctoral Fellowships

• Intent
• Support the continued training of investigators
  with exceptional potential to make significant
  contributions to the battle against breast cancer

16
Postdoctoral Fellowships

• No citizenship restrictions
• Fellow must have doctorate by start of award
• No more than 2 yrs. prior experience in sponsors
  lab by start date
• Multiple sponsors okay
• one sponsor of record

17
Postdoctoral Fellowships Fiscal Issues

• Up to 50,000 total costs
• 12 month OR 24 month awards
• 100 effort
• Stipend - at least
• Yr. 1 35,000 plus fringe
• Yr. 2 37,000 plus fringe
• IDC ? 8 total costs (8.7 DC)
• Annual travel to NYC

18
EMPIRE Review Criteria

• Scientific/Technical Merit
• Significance to breast cancer

19
EMPIRE Review Criteria Scientific/Technical
Merit

• Approach
• the best way to proceed
• Applicants qualifications
• is project team capable of conducting work
• is all necessary expertise available
• Environment
• are facilities/resources etc available to
  complete work
• Budget justification

20
EMPIRE Review Criteria Significance

• Issue or area important?
• Future outcomes
• Funding?
• Practice ?
• Dissemination ?

21
Fellowship Review Criteria

• Candidate
• Sponsor training environment
• Training potential
• Scientific merit of proposal

22
Proposal Evaluation

• First phase - merit review
• face-to-face meeting
• Non-NYS scientific/technical experts
• breast cancer survivors
• all reviewers vote (baring conflict of interest)
• Second phase - programmatic review
• HRSB
• balance and funds available

23
Merit Review Purpose

• To provide an objective and fair evaluation of
  proposals presented for review
• To identify the most meritorious proposals for
  the Boards consideration
• Scientific excellence is the Boards guiding
  principle

24
Merit Review Process Prior to meeting

• confidentiality/non-disclosure agreements
• proposals materials mailed
• Each proposal assigned to at least 2 expert
  reviewers and 1 lay reviewer.
• reviewers score write evaluations of proposals
  assigned, usually read most/all others
• Friday before mtg. - streamlining list to staff

25
Merit Review Process Start of Meeting

• panel chair (HRSB member) reviews meeting
  protocol and conflict of interest list
• panelists review proposals identified for
  possible streamlining
• unanimous decision required for each proposal to
  be streamlined
• proposals not scored will receive written reviews

26
Merit Review Process Meeting Core - Proposal
Review

• Chair introduces proposal for review
• primary reviewer
• proposal synopsis
• assessment of strengths/weaknesses (criteria)
• preliminary score (1 ? 5)
• administrative issues (human subjects etc)
• secondary and lay reviewers comment
• assessment - confirm or refute primary
• preliminary score (1 ? 5)
• administrative issues (human subjects etc)

27
Merit Review Process Proposal Review -
contd

• Chair opens discussion of proposal
• Chair moderates discussion and works toward panel
  consensus
• Chair calls for recommended changes to budget or
  work plan
• all reviewers score anonymously (1 ? 5)
• next proposal...

28
Merit Review Process Meeting Close

• Staff compile and average scores
• Proposals are ranked
• Rankings presented to panel to confirm order and
  obtain input on break-point

29
Merit Review ? Programmatic Review

• Scores and reviewers comments (budget/workplan
  modifications) summarized and provided to Board
  for their deliberations at their Board meeting
  (executive session)
• Board makes recommendations to Commissioner of
  Health

30
Proposal Development

• or
• How to Get Funded

31
The Proposal is a Marketing Tool

• Clear and compelling presentation of an important
  idea
• Justifies the request for money
• Convinces the Board that expected benefits
  justify investment of funds

32
The Proposal Should...

• Define a problem and convey its significance
• Propose solutions and select the best
• Document that the resources and necessary
  expertise are available to solve the problem
• Describe the expected benefits of solving the
  problem

33
Define the Problem

• What is the problem, hypothesis, gap in
  knowledge, etc. is it clearly focussed?
• is your understanding complete
• project plan
• background/preliminary data
• specific aims
• timeline

34
Convey its Significance

• Why is it important to solve this problem?
• Does the sponsor care about this problem?
• project plan
• significance
• abstract lay summary

35
Propose Solutions and Select/Justify the Best

• How do you propose to solve the problem?
• Why is your approach the best one to take?
• What alternatives do you suggest in the event of
  barriers/challenges?
• research design methods
• timeline
• budget

36
Document that BOTH the scientific/technical
expertise and resources are available

• The applicant/applicant team is uniquely
  qualified to solve the problem
• biosketches, collaborator letters, budget
• All resources essential for project completion
  are available and accessible
• facilities/resources page(s)
• institutional matching

37
What are the expected outcomes

• With new knowledge resulting from project
  completion, what can be done that couldnt be
  accomplished before?
• What is significant about solving the problem,
  how will it advance the field?
• project plan - significance
• abstract lay summary

38
Suggestions and Comments

• Read instructions carefully provide what is
  asked in the format requested
• Avoid jargon and specialized language
• proposals are read by persons whose expertise may
  be different than yours
• Strive to be clear and concise
• Short proposals are tough to write

39
Contact Information

• www.wadsworth.org/new/rfp/hrsb/hrsbrfp.htm
• Trish Lowney
• lowney_at_wadsworth.org
• Beverly Boucher
• bmb02_at_health.state.ny.us
• 518 474-8543
• 518-486-2798 (FAX)

40
Advocate Reviewers

• Patient perspective
• Objectivity
• Good communication skills
• Broad-based knowledge
• Geographic diversity
• Balance of experienced and new reviewers