Fellowship Writing

Luc Teyton, M.D., Ph.D.

Department of Immunology and Microbial Science

lteyton@scripps.edu

Overall Considerations

•Be prepared, no last minute itch

•Two months head start

•Get the administrative part out of the way first

•Read the instructions

•You are not doing it for the money but money isat stake and 3 parties are involved:

TSRIYour supervisorYou

The Administrative Trail

•The Foundation/Organization

•Supervisor

•Chairman’s Office

•TSRI Administration

The Foundation/Organization

•Are you eligible?

•Read all the instructions

•Any question? Call

Your Supervisor

Before you start anything, you need to sit down anddiscuss:

•The opportunity/the chances of…•The financial aspects

Fellowship itselfBenefits (who is paying what)Laboratory work

TSRI Administration

•Animal protocol (4-6 weeks)

•Human subjects (2 to 8 weeks)

•Standard review process (RACO)

RACO

All actions (including, but not limited to applications, requests for support, grants, contracts, awards, research, fellowships, competing and non-competing, etc.) taken by TSRI Faculty and their staff that mayresult in resources coming to, flowing through, or associated with, TSRIare subject to compliance review. These actions go through the RACO review process regardless of whether or not: 1. The applicant is currently at TSRI, 2. A budget is required, 3. Institutional signature is required, 4. The funding source is domestic or foreign, 5. The fundingis research or training, 6. the funds flow to or through TSRI, or7. Any other variations to the above.

Why?

•TSRI is the Recipient andAdministrator of your fellowship

As such they bear the liability associatedto your research and they will guaranteecompliance with animal research andhuman subject guidelines.They will also verify the financial aspectsof the application

What is needed for RACO?

•Everything but the Science

•Title and abstract only

Recommendations

•Do the administration ASAP

•Talk to your AA

•Do not take offence if part or all of the application comes backfor modifications

Review process

Criteria for Review

1. Candidate2. Research environment3. Potential for training4. Scientific merit

The Candidate

•Potential to become productive independent scientist•Previous research•Past productivity – quality over quantity•Evidence of commitment to career in research•Personal statement•Reference letters

Sponsor and Training Environment

•Research expertise•Prior experience as mentor•Funding for project•Laboratory environment•Plan for mentorship•Has he reviewed the application?

Research Proposal

•Scientific merit•Training potential•Contributions of candidate and sponsor•2-3 specific aims•Realistic, with a realistic timetable

-can strengthen by omission!!•Preliminary data helpful - critical if have already been in the lab

Training Potential

•Preparation for an independent career•Must augment conceptual and/or experimental skills

“Key aspect of review”

Scoring and Selection1.0 Very rare, the goal1.2 Outstanding, see 1 or 2 per round1.4 Outstanding, 1.6 Excellent, no major weaknesses1.8 Excellent, minor weaknesses that detract2.0 Very good, some significant flaws2.2 Very good, some significant flaws2.4 Better than average, resubmit2.6 Needs significant improvement2.8 Needs significant improvement3.0 “Average”>3 Below average, don’t want to see it again

10 Common mistakes1- non eligible

3- flawed concept

2- overambitious

4- technical impossibilities

5- poor writing

6- presentation/flow

7- junior fellow/senior fellowship

8- senior fellow/junior fellowship

9- timing - publications

10- why the hell did they apply? Any combination of 1-9