1
Collaborative Health Research Projects(CHRP)
March 2011
By Eileen Jessop,Portfolio Manager - Research Partnerships Programs
2
Agenda
1. General Information2. CHRP Program
3. Prepare a winning proposal
3
Federal S&T StructurePARLIAMENTPARLIAMENT
Prime Minister
Prime Minister
CABINET CABINET Minister of IndustryMinister of Industry
Science, Technology and Innovation
Council
Science, Technology and Innovation
Council
Research Performed in Labs
•National Research Council (NRC) •Science-Based Department and Agencies e.g., Environment Canada, Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), Health Canada
Research Performed in Labs
•National Research Council (NRC) •Science-Based Department and Agencies e.g., Environment Canada, Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), Health Canada
Research Funding•National Research Council’s Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP)•Canada Revenue Agency’s Scientific Research and Experimental Development(SR&ED) tax credits
Research Funding•National Research Council’s Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP)•Canada Revenue Agency’s Scientific Research and Experimental Development(SR&ED) tax credits
Research Funding
Granting Agencies: Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), Social Sciences & Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR)
Foundations: Canada Foundation For Innovation (CFI), Genome Canada,
Post-secondary research inuniversities, colleges and
teaching hospitals
Post-secondary research inuniversities, colleges and
teaching hospitals
IndustryIndustry
Industry CanadaIndustry Canada
Minister of State (S&T)Minister of State (S&T)
4
NSERC Budget 2010-2011($1.080 billion)
Administration($54M- 5%)
People ($302.4M- 28%)
Innovation ($324M- 30%)
Discovery ($399.6M- 37%)
5
2010-2011 RPP Budget($255.9M)
Technology Transfer / Commercialization
Programs (14.3%)
Industry-Driven Programs (40.7%)
Strategic PartnershipsPrograms (45.0%)*
*includes Strategic Project Grants, Partnership Workshops Program, Strategic Networks, Collaborative Health Research Projects
6
RPP ToolboxStrategic Partnerships(targets national
priorities) • Strategic Projects• Strategic Networks• Partnerships Workshop • Collaborative Health
Research Projects
Industry-Driven(Industry participation)• Collaborative R&D• Industrial Research Chairs• Chairs in Design Engineering• Interaction• Engage
Technology Transfer/Commercialization• Idea to Innovation• College and Community Innovation
• Innovation Enhancement Grants• Applied Research and Development
Grants• Technology Access Centres• Applied Research Tools and
Instrument Grants
Regional Offices• Bring perspectives and intelligence from across the country• Forge linkages at local level• Exercise more influence
7
Agenda
1. General Information2. CHRP Program
3. Prepare a winning proposal
8
CHRPObjectives
In the context of improved health for Canadians, the objectives of the CHRP Program are to:
• Translate research results to knowledge/technology users and other stakeholders;
• Encourage the NSERC and CIHR research communities to collaborate and integrate their expertise;
• Advance interdisciplinary research that lead to knowledge and technologies that are useful for improving the health of Canadians; and
• Train highly qualified personnel in collaborative and interdisciplinary research relevant to health.
9
Collaborative Health Research Projects (CHRP)
• Supports interdisciplinary research• Requires teams of natural scientists or engineers with health researchers
• Supports interdisciplinary training • Requires an appropriate knowledge translation plan
• NSERC and CIHR will fund direct costs of a 3-year project (students, post-docs, consumables, equipment)
• There must be significant involvement from a knowledge/technology user BUT a cash contribution is not required (new*)
10
Collaborative Health Research Projects
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1999 2000 2001 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011Year
Par
tici
pat
ion
NOIsFull applications
Funded
11
Changes to the CHRP Program
Changes to the CHRP Program for the 2012 Competition (NOIs due May 1, 2011)
The following program enhancements will come into effect:1. Additional program funding, for a base funding
of $20.4 million over three years from NSERC and CIHR
2. Applicants will be required to include a knowledge/technology user organization (non-academic partner such as industry, hospitals, health charities, etc.) in their proposal
3. Ongoing research projects will be eligible for funding
4. Priority Announcements or Special Calls for Proposals for research conducted in identified target priority areas for Canada may offer additional funding opportunities
12
Over the three years from 2012-2015, there will be $25.275 million available in combined funding from NSERC and CIHR. Of this, $17.4 million ($5.8 million per year) is expected to be available for the open competition pool. Funds will also be available for projects in the following target areas:
• $ 900,000 is available to fund applications relevant to the Institute of Genetics in the area of Invention - Tools, Techniques and Devices
• $ 450,000 is available to fund applications relevant to ongoing and upcoming Institute of Infection and Immunity strategic initiatives in the areas of transplantation, antibiotic resistance and alternatives to antimicrobials, inflammation, microbiome, and auto-immunity
• $ 300,000 is available to fund applications relevant to the area of Epigenetics, Environment and Health Research through the Institute of Neuroscience, Mental Health and Addiction
• $ 225,000 is available to fund applications relevant to the Institute Nutrition, Metabolism and Diabetes in the area of Sodium Reduction in the Food Supply and Health.
For the 2012 Competition (NOIs due May 1)
13
Medical Devices (Diagnostic Imaging) with NRC• $ 6 million over three years is available from NSERC
and CIHR to fund applications relevant to the development and commercialization of specific Medical Diagnostic Imaging Technologies. In addition, the National Research Council (NRC) will contribute $3,000,000 in resources to support R&D conducted at the NRC Research Institutes.
• Magnetic Resonance; • Photonics; • or either of the above in combination with other
technologies; e.g. MR-Positron Emission Tomography, or Photonic-Ultrasound.
• have industry participation in developing the proposal, serving as a potential receptor for the commercialization of the technology within 3 years
• be large-scale (on the order of $1million per year).
For the 2012 Competition (NOIs due May 1)
14
Agenda
1. General Information2. CHRP Program
3. Prepare a winning proposala) Administrative points
b) Evaluation process
15
Timelines
1. Notification of Intent to Apply (F182) due May 1, 2011
2. Peer review of F182 during May/June
3. Invitations sent in early July4. Full applications due October 1,
20115. Full applications sent to external
reviewers in November/December6. Committee evaluation in January
20127. Final decision on funding in March8. Results sent in April 2012
16
• Must hold, or have a firm offer of, an eligible academic appointment at an eligible Canadian university, for:
• Adjunct Professors are not eligible as Applicants
• Co-applicants must be eligible by CIHR guidelines
• College Faculty can be co-applicants (see NSERC Website for list of eligible colleges)
Eligibility of Applicants and Co-applicants
17
Co-Applicant vs. CollaboratorEligible to hold NSERC
funds and is an essential member of the team.
Not eligible to hold NSERC funds and should be contributing to intellectual direction of the project.
Must be qualified to undertake research independently but bring their own funds to the project.
Can be members of the research team (i.e. government scientists, company staff members, research scientists from other countries).
18
Knowledge/Technology User Organizations
A supporting organization must :
• Have a demonstrated interest in the project (letters of support, in-kind contributions)
• Be involved in all stages of the research (help to develop the proposal, interact with researchers and students, provide input to the project)
• Validate the results of the research
• Provide guidance concerning exploitation of results
19
Letter of Support- Key Points
• Only required for full applications
• Support for and agreement with the proposal
• Reasons for being involved in the proposed collaboration
• Anticipated benefits from project outcomes
• Effort required to exploit results
• Anticipated interaction of personnel with the University
• Contribution to the project
20
The Evaluation
21
Evaluation Process - NOIs
• NOIs are sent to two reviewers, normally experienced panel members
• Each reviewer recommends NOI be invited, and gives a letter grade
• NOIs highly rated by both are invited, aiming for a total of 120 invitations
• Final number of invitations decided by committee chairs and program staff
22
Evaluation Process – Full Applications
• Sent to external reviewers in November – goal of 3 reviews per application
• Committee meeting in January to determine final ranking
• Final decisions based on available funds in March
• Projects are evaluated against four criteria
• Each criterion is of equal weight
• Successful projects are strong in all 4 criteria
23
Criterion #1 – Knowledge Translation
Knowledge translation and knowledge user engagement – The impact and potential for the translation of the research results into improved health for Canadians, more effective health services, and economic development must be demonstrated. This includes the knowledge translation plan, the demonstrated level of knowledge/technology user engagement in the project, the anticipated impact of the proposed research on the health of Canadians, the importance of the proposed health issue, and the significance to the health care sector.
24
Criterion #2 – Project
Quality of the research project – This includes the novel aspects and originality of the project, clarity and scope of objectives, methodology (including experimental design) and feasibility.
25
Criterion #3 – The TeamAppropriateness of the team and management, including the team’s leadership and the integration of team members – This includes the knowledge, expertise and experience of researchers; quality of, or potential for, contributions of the team members; complementarity and interdisciplinarity between the natural sciences or engineering and health sciences, and synergy of the team members’ expertise; appropriateness of the management of the project; co-ordination and integration of activities; contribution and time commitment of participants; and clarity of the roles and responsibilities.
26
Criterion #4 – TrainingContributions to the training of highly qualified personnel in interdisciplinary research and to providing trainees with an understanding of the impact of the collaborative research on human health – This includes the quality and extent of past and proposed contributions to collaborative training in the health context within the proposed project (e.g., opportunity for trainees to spend time in different laboratories or settings), and the training environment.
27
The project must:
• Have well-defined objectives, scope and duration (1-3 years)
• Support exciting interdisciplinary research
• Have an appropriate plan for knowledge translation
• Have one or more knowledge/technology user organizations actively involved in all stages of the project and can apply the results
− In-kind contributions are required, but cash is not
28
In conclusion
29
Tips
1. Start early!
2. Read carefully the program literature and the instructions. (see HFSP link in this year’s FAQ)
3. Use the program criteria as headings
4. Pay full attention to all aspects of the application, not just the research proposal (i.e. budget justification, in-kind contributions, relationship to other support).
5. Make sure the partner is going to benefit actively from the research.
6. Have a colleague critique the penultimate draft
30
Signs of a Good Proposal
• All sections are clear and well described: − Clear summary, proposal easy to read− Roles well defined (students, applicants …)− Interdisciplinary nature of the project clearly
demonstrated− Guidelines followed and requirements addressed
• Strong partner(s): − Involvement from the start (writing of application) − Clear expectations − Good communication− On-going interaction
Recommended
