Are you working on, or considering developing, a program project grant with multiple PI’s and a hefty amount of funding? I want to remind you that we have a peer review committee to help you get the project developed and funded.
As many of you know we’ve put considerable effort into initiatives to support faculty research funding activities, with CTSI’s project development teams (PDTs) and subsequently the Peer Review and Mentoring Committees focused on getting grant resubmissions funded.
But our team to help with the larger proposals — the Multi-PI/Program Project Planning PDT — is seeking more proposals to review.
So this is your reminder about the P4PDT: This committee, chaired by Tom Callaghan, associate dean of VA research, was set up to help with multi-PI, multi-project grants with annual direct budgets of $500,000 or more.
The team can provide assistance with protocol development, cultivating collaborations and networking, project management, funds for mock site visits and dollars for pilot projects.
Applications don’t require a pilot funding request, but any such requests should be no more than $100,000 to be used over 24 to 36 months before the application is submitted for external funding.
How does this process work? Consider a recent proposal on bone healing from Todd McKinley and Melissa Kacena seeking $10 million over five years from the Department of Defense. The Defense Department accepted their letter of intent and an application was due Nov. 14, 2014.
Starting in mid-August Todd and Melissa worked with the P4 team, refining the application, streamlining some projects and getting recommendations for internal and external advisors with the aid of $25,000 from the committee. The P4 committee provided an extra $11,600 in October for additional experimental procedures that were included in the application.
The result? A highly competitive proposal that is scheduled to by reviewed by the DOD this month.
“Experience working with CTSI PDT team was very positive. They gave some harsh criticism and solid direction that helped us refocus our application into a stronger product,” says Melissa, recommending the process.
“Why not obtain peer-review from colleagues before submission to help identify holes you can fill in and make your application that much stronger.”
I certainly agree. To get more information, contact Tom Callaghan at email@example.com.