R4 7/98 - HMRI · Web viewResearchers studying brain cancer and its treatment are invited to submit an application for funding through the Mark Hughes Foundation. This foundation

HUNTER MEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE &

MARK HUGHES FOUNDATIONMARK HUGHES FOUNDATION PROJECT GRANT

APPLICATION FORM

Closing Date: 8.30am Tuesday 9th August 2016

Researchers studying brain cancer and its treatment are invited to submit an application for funding through the Mark Hughes Foundation. This foundation will be selecting projects on merit that align with the core objectives to promote research that decreases mortality rates and incidence of brain cancer in Australia.

This document will be reviewed by a scientific panel of leading scientists and cancer experts formed by the Mark Hughes Foundation to provide research advice. The score sheet that will be used is included at the end of this document for your reference only, so you can shape your full application around the criteria used to assess your project.

The level of detail is restricted to the word limit specified in each relevant section.

Submission requirements:

1 x Electronic Copy: A PDF version of the completed Application (with signature) sent via email to: [email protected]

Please note – if sending printed and scanned version an electronic version (such as in Microsoft Word) is required in order to copy information for the marketing purposes should you be successful.

A HARD COPY IS NOT REQUIRED

Contact Details: Elianne Renaud Phone: 4042 0569

Email: [email protected]

Application text and formatting specifications:

1. All applications and related documentation must be submitted in 11pt Arial font.2. All applications must be submitted with single line spacing.3. Applications are to be completed in black text. Coloured text may be used for images,

graphs and logos.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

4. PDF versions must be of a good quality and able to be read clearly by assessors. 5. If sending a scanned PDF version please also submit a Microsoft Word version that

information can be copied from. 6. Please adhere to word limits indicated in each section.

General:

1. All applications must be submitted to your HMRI Program Leader or equivalent SNOG representative for review and approval prior to submission.

2. Applications that are incomplete and/or do not meet the eligibility criteria will not be considered.

3. Applicants cannot apply for more than the maximum available funding.

1. ELIGIBILITY AND CONDITIONS FOR THE MARK HUGHES FOUNDATION PROJECT GRANT1.1. Recipients of the Grants shall be:

i. A current HMRI or SNOG affiliated researcher; ORii. An applicant referred by the MHF Scientific Committee

1.2. All applications must be approved by the applicant’s HMRI Program Leader or SNOG equivalent.

1.3. The application must be submitted by the candidate, who must outline the intended use of funds and the benefits their project will make to brain cancer research.

1.4. Consideration will be given to applicants with co-funding from other sources (department, supervisor or institution)

1.5. Forfeiture of Grants

Funding not spent in the timeframe indicated will revert to the granting body HMRI: unspent funding will be re-allocated in future grants rounds.

Failure to meet the conditions of funding may limit your eligibility for funding in future years.

1.6. Acknowledgement of HMRI and the Mark Hughes Foundation

Acknowledging the support of HMRI reinforces to the community the importance of supporting research and the outcomes that can be achieved. Furthermore, it encourages continued support of research in the Hunter.

Recipients must acknowledge the funding body (HMRI) for the life of the grant. This acknowledgement includes, but is not limited to, media releases, promotional materials such as brochures and newsletters, publications and articles submitted to journals, presentations at conferences, speeches, attendance at meetings and community/supporter’s events. Recipients may be requested to participate in selected public speaking and/or public appearances and media interviews for 12 months, to be coordinated through HMRI.

Acknowledgements should include the below-specified wording as per quotations:

“This grant was funded by the Mark Hughes Foundation through the Hunter Medical Research Institute (HMRI).”

2. AVAILABLE FUNDING

2016 APPLICATION FOR HMRI MARK HUGHES FOUNDATION PROJECT GRANT FUNDING PAGE 2 OF 14

2.1. This funding is offered as seed funding with value of any grants expected to be $25,000-$100,000.

3. PRIMARY SELECTION CRITERIA Grant applications will be primarily assessed on:

2.1. Scientific Quality Soundness of the methodology (Scientifically rigorous hypothesis, the ability of the

experimental approach to answer the question within the time frame of the project, appropriateness of techniques and experimental design including sample size)

Adequacy of the resources (includes track record of CIs relative to opportunity, availability of appropriately trained personnel, facilities and time to undertake the project)

Appropriateness of budget (ability to undertake the project within the available budget)

2.2. Significance and/or Innovation Importance/significance of the project (if successful, will this project have a significant impact

on patient care, disease prevention, understanding biological processes, social policy, economic benefits?)

Novelty of the approach (imaginative/creative use of resources, new hypothesis, availability of unique data set or patient resource, unusual combination of skills)

Likelihood that the research will lead to a significant outcome within the grant period Likelihood the outcomes will leverage external funding

Significant outcome is defined as refereed publication(s), pilot data for an external grant / fellowship application, and/or change in health care policy/practice, and/or evidence of economic benefits. The project must be capable of yielding sufficient results within the grant period to lead to one or more significant outcomes, though it is recognised that the outcomes themselves might not be achieved within the grant period.

2.3. Track record of the investigator(s) (Relevant to opportunity)

Research of excellence in medical research into brain cancer.

Track record is considered in relation to opportunity – with regard to factors such as career disruptions, administrative and clinical/teaching load, and typical performance (including publications) for the field in question.

4. SECONDARY ASSESSMENT CRITERIAGrants that rate equally on the above criteria may be further differentiated based on whether the project:

Is cross institutional between HMRI and SNOG and develops/furthers the collaboration between these institutes.

Is interdisciplinary and / or involves Chief Investigators from different research programs Has two or more of the criteria for significant outcomes (primary assessment criteria) Is focused on translational clinical research. Seeks to advance the research career of an early or mid-career researcher. Early/Mid-Career

researcher must be the CI#1 on the application and have less than 10 years since completion of PhD.

5. ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATIONS 0 Ineligible – applicant does not meet eligibility criteria

1 Good – top 25-50% of applicants


2 Very Good – top 10-25% of applicants

3 Excellent – top 5-10% of applicants

4 Outstanding – top 5% of applicants

6. ADJUDICATION6.1. A selection committee shall be responsible for the award of the grant/s. The selection

committee shall comprise of:i. The Executive Director of HMRI, or nominee; ii. All members of the Mark Hughes Scientific Committee.


MARK HUGHES FOUNDATION PROJECT GRANT

APPLICATION FORM

1. Project Title, Contact InformationProject Title (approx. 20 words)If project is successful, this title will be used publicly

CI 1. CI 2.a) Title, initials and surname:

b) Name and address of Institution where currently employed:

c) Contact DetailsDepartment/School:Telephone Number:Email:

d) Appointment held:

e) Academic Qualifications:

f) Average working days per month to be devoted to project (maximum 21):

This project

All others

This project

All others

h) CI proportion of split as a %: % %

i) HMRI or SNOG Research Program CI belongs to:j) Specific Role that CI plays in project:

k) If you are an Early Career Researcher, specify year PhD awarded and attach evidence:

NB: Add extra CIs as required by copying and pasting table

IMPORTANT NOTE - Please attach short Track Record for each CI consisting of:1. A one page statement of justification of track record with a selection of their 5 best Publications.

Include impact factors and citation rates for each Publication.2. A list of current research grants and current applications for funding, from all sources (additional to

one page statement of track record).3. CI track record can include a statement on “relative to opportunity” if necessary.

Is this a new or ongoing project? Provide details

of any related projects that are currently funded.Amount of total funding requested from HMRI

Funding limit for this round is given above please adjust accordingly.

2. CollaborationPlease list key project collaborators (external)/associate investigators and their institutional affiliation.

3. Project Objectives, Description and Outcomes 3.1 Project Description – Summary (500 words max)Short summary of the project in lay terms including description of the problem, how you intend to address the problem and the aims of the project.

3.2 Specific Project Details (1200 words max)Scientific description of the project – Aims, method, durations. Please include a list of key references as an Appendix to your application.

3.3 Anticipated Outcomes (300 words max)What direct benefits will the project yield if it is successful? Who will benefit (e.g. patients, medical professionals, others)? Would there be wider benefits in addition to the direct benefits? Describe project potential or pathways for translation and areas of likely impact.

4. Project Resources & Funding Required

Indicative Budget Priority(Essential/Necessary)

Amount Requested$ (whole dollars only)

Personnel (include salary on-costs):

Equipment:

Maintenance:

Travel:Other (include any institutional overheads or user-pays charges):TOTALS:

5. Budget JustificationProvide brief justification for each of the budget items requested.

6. Support for this ProjectHave you applied for support for this project from?


ARC NHMRC

CMN UoN

HNEH Charitable Trusts Other

Details:

7. Commencement, Completion and Location Details7.1 Has this project started?

If Yes, what was the start date? What is the end date?

If No, when will it start?

7.2 How long will this project take?

7.3 Progress Report - If this application is for a project that has already commenced, please attach a brief (no more than one (1) A4 page) report on progress and outcomes to date.


Yes No Yes No

Yes No Yes No

Yes No Yes No

Yes No

8. Declaration and Signatures8.1 Applicant’s DeclarationI certify that all the details in this application are correct and I agree to be a CI on this application.

(Electronic signatures are acceptable as email submission must CC all CIs).

Signature of all Chief Investigators

Signature CI#1 Date

Name (please print)

Signature CI#2 Date

*Add extra CIs as required by copying and pasting section

8.2 Certification by HMRI or SNOG Program LeaderI certify that this project has been reviewed by our HMRI Program and is deemed scientifically valid and of sufficiently high standard to be considered for a HMRI Grant.

Signature Date

HMRI /SNOG Program Leader HMRI/SNOG Program(Please print)

8.3 Certification by University of Newcastle Head of School, HNEH/CMN Manager or SNOG Equivalent.I certify that the project can be accommodated within the general facilities in my School/Hospital and that sufficient working and office space is available for any proposed additional staff. I am prepared to have the project carried out in my School/Hospital under the circumstances set out by the applicant.

I have noted the amount of time which the investigators will be devoting to the project and certify that it is compatible with other existing workloads.

I agree to adhere to current University of Newcastle / NSW Health policies regarding the recovery of any debit balance relating to this grant.


Signature Date

UoN Head of School Position heldHNEH AHS Manager (please print)SNOG Equivalent


INCLUDE THIS PAGE AS THE LAST PAGE OF YOUR APPLICATION

CHECKLIST

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION FORM

Please attach all additional papers to the back of this application

Yes No N/A

CHIEF INVESTIGATOR SHORT TRACK RECORDS

Included for each CI (Section 1)

EARLY CAREER RESEARCHERS

Evidence attached specifying year PhD awarded (Section 1)

PROJECT OBJECTIVES, DESCRIPTION AND OUTCOMES

Each subsection within word limit (Section Error: Reference source not found)

FOR EXISTING PROJECTS ONLY

Progress report attached (Section 7)

CERTIFICATION

All required signatures complete (Section 7.1)

OFFICE USE ONLY

HMRI OFFICE CHECKLIST

Yes No

Project Objectives, Description and Outcomes within word limits

Supporting documents attached

Application signed by CI#1, Program Leader and Head of School or HNELHD/CMN Department Manager

END OF APPLICATION


FOR INFORMATION ONLY

Hunter Medical Research Institute2016 GRANTS ROUND – PROJECT GRANT ASSESSMENT FORM

Chief Investigator #1 Career Stage:

Grant Name: App #

Assessor Name: Assessor Signature:

ASSESSMENT OF APPLICATIONS

Based on NHMRC criteria and 1-7 grading system (please see over page).

Criterion 1 Scientific Quality (50%)

Description – This includes the clarity of the hypothesis or research objectives, the strengths and weaknesses of the study design and feasibility.

☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ 6 ☐ 7

Comments:

Criterion 2 Significance and/or Innovation (25%)

Description – This includes the potential to increase knowledge about human health, disease diagnoses, or biology of agents that affect human health, or the application of new ideas, procedures, technologies, programs or health policy settings to important topics that will impact on human health.

☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ 6 ☐ 7

Comments:

Criterion 3 Track Record – relative to opportunity (25%)

Description – Track record is considered in relation to opportunity – with regard to factors such as career disruptions, administrative and clinical/teaching load, and typical performance (including publications) for the field in question.

☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ 6 ☐ 7

Comments:

FEEDBACK COMMENTS FOR APPLICANT:

GRADING SYSTEM

Worthy of Funding (7-4)

7. Outstanding by International Standards

Scientific Quality – The proposal:

Has objectives that are well-defined, highly coherent and strongly developed; is a near flawless design; is without question highly feasible.

Significance of the Expected Outcomes and/or Innovation of the concept – The planned research:

Addresses an issue of utmost importance to human health; will translate into fundamental outcomes in the science and/or practice of clinical medicine or public health or fundamental changes in health policy; will likely be the subject of invited plenary presentations at international meetings, often with relevance across several fields; is highly innovative and introduces advances in concept; will almost certainly result in highly influential publications.

Track Record – relative to opportunity – Relative to opportunity, the applicant team:

In the main, comprises the most outstanding researchers in the country for their peers/cohort; is highly recognized for their contribution to their field of research; members have very strong records of other research-related achievements; members have strong international reputations or are well on the way to developing them; members hold leadership positions in highly regarded scientific or professional societies; has a track record that is highly relevant to the proposed research.

6. Excellent

Scientific Quality – The proposal: Is clear in its intent and logical; is excellent in design; is apparently highly feasible.


Addresses an issue of major importance to human health; could be the subject of invited plenary presentations at international and national meetings; is innovative with respect to the question being addressed and the approach to it; is very likely to result in highly influential publications.


Has a record of achievement that places them in the top 10% of peers/cohort; members are recognized for their strong contributions to their fields of research; members have good and growing international reputations; members have clear positions of leadership, or are emerging leaders in their field; members hold leadership positions in well regarded scientific or professional societies; members have track records that are very relevant to the proposed research.

5. Very Good


Has clear objectives; raises only minor concerns regarding study design; will likely be successfully achieved.


Addresses an issue of considerable importance to human health; could be the subject of invited plenary presentations at national specialty meetings; may contain at least one innovative idea; may result in several influential publications.



Has a record of achievement, that places them well above average for their peers/cohort; members are well recognized for their contributions to their fields of research; members have growing national reputations and their research appears frequently at national meetings; members have track records in fields relevant to the proposed research.

4. Good


Is sound in terms of its objectives; contains several areas of concern in the experimental design; raises some concerns about successful completion.


Addresses an issue of some importance to human health; may have some novel aspects, while others underpin or extend existing knowledge; may result in some strong or influential publications.


Members have solid records of achievement; members have made contributions to their fields of research; contains one or more CI’s with an existing or emerging national reputation, albeit in a niche area; members have track records that are consistent with the proposed research.

Not Worthy of Funding (3-1)

3. Marginal


Is satisfactory in terms of its objectives, but may not be successful with all of them; has a number of areas of significant concern; contains several study design problems or flaws.


Addresses an issue of some concern to human health; has relatively little novelty; is not particularly innovative.


Members have published a number of works in a field relevant to this application in the last five years, but many have been less productive than might reasonably be expected; is deficient in some areas of expertise that will be required to successfully complete the proposed research; members have limited track records in the field of the proposed research.

2. Unsatisfactory


Provides a program of research which will at best, only incrementally advances current knowledge; contains a research plan which does not seem to be feasible in several areas.


Addresses an issue of only marginal concern to human health; only follows behind previously well documented and studied concepts or previously well used approaches.



Has not published more than a few works in relevant other fields of research; is heavily underpowered in terms of relevant expertise required to successfully complete the research program; members have track records which do not relate well to the proposed research.

1. Poor


Will not advance current knowledge in the field; raises major concerns about the plan; contains a study design which is inadequate in a number of areas.


Does not address an issue of concern to human health; is not innovative or significant.


Is not productive to any significant extent in relevant fields; does not have the expertise or capacity to successfully complete more than a small fraction of the program of research; members do not have relevant track records in the field of the proposed research.

END OF DOCUMENT


Documents

R4 7/98 - HMRI · Web viewResearchers studying brain cancer and its treatment are invited to submit an application for funding through the Mark Hughes Foundation. This foundation