Best Idea Grants (BIG) in Hyperphagia Research

With funding provided by the One SMALL Step Fundraising Initiative

Timeline
Release of Request for Applications:    February 4, 2013
Application Deadline:                          March 29, 2013
Funding Decisions:                              May 31, 2013
Earliest start date:                               July 1, 2013

Overview of Grant Process.

Funding Mechanism: One SMALL Step (OSS) is a collaborative, international fundraising initiative to support the goals of the Prader-Willi Syndrome Research Plan (http://www.fpwr.org/sites/default/files/imagefield_default_images/PWSResearchPlan_rev2011.pdf ). The PWS Research Plan was developed jointly by the Foundation Prader-Willi Research (FPWR) and the Prader-Willi Syndrome Association, USA [PWSA(USA)], and is based on the recommendations of the international Prader-Willi Syndrome Research Strategy Workshop (http://fpwr.org/prader-willi-syndrome-researchategy-workshop  ). Funds raised through OSS have been collected by FPWR and all proceeds are designated to support the PWS research plan, which includes this Request for Applications.

This Request for Applications is named the “Best Idea Grants (BIG)”, as the goal is to fund the best ideas in the field of hyperphagia research, such as those generated at the recent 2nd International Hyperphagia Conference.

Eligibility: Institutions of Higher Education; Nonprofit organizations, For-profit companies

Receipt of Grants: Institutionally approved grants applications received will undergo initial evaluation to ensure that technical requirements have been met, and that the application is responsive to the RFA.

Review of Grants: Three scientist and one advocate reviewer will evaluate each grant. Applications will be evaluated according to the Scientific and Advocate review criteria (attached). After prioritization of grants based on the reviews, the One Small Step Research Advisory Board, drawn from the scientific advisory boards of PWSA(USA) and FPWR, will makd final funding recommendations based on review criteria/scoring and programmatic considerations.

Negotiation of Grant Agreement: Terms of the Grant Agreement will be negotiated by FPWR and the recipient institution.


SCIENTIFIC REVIEWER GUIDELINES: Best Idea Grants in Hyperphagia Research

The scientific reviewers will provide a written review evaluating the scientific merit of the proposed research using the criteria listed below. They will also evaluate the appropriateness of the budget, and review animal and human subject use as needed. Reviewers are expected to maintain strict confidentiality regarding the applications.

Scientific Peer Review - Evaluation Criteria

Please use the following questions as a guide in evaluating the application. These comments will be shared with the applicant.

SIGNIFICANCE: How will the successful completion of the proposed studies advance the understanding and/or the treatment of hyperphagia? What will be the effect of these studies on the concepts, methods, tools and/or interventions in the field of Prader-Willi syndrome (PWS) related research?

RELEVANCE: Do the proposed studies directly address the objectives described in the RFA?

INNOVATION: Are the aims of the study innovative and original? Do the proposed studies use novel concepts, approaches, methods or interventions? Does the project challenge existing paradigms, develop new methodologies, or explore new or understudied areas?

RESEARCH STRATEGY: Will the proposed studies appropriately address the experimental problem? Is sound scientific reasoning apparent? Are the experimental design, methods, and data analysis logical, well developed and integrated? Is there supportive preliminary data, when necessary? (note: preliminary data are not required) Are potential problems anticipated and alternatives proposed? Are the proposed studies feasible?

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/RESEARCH TEAM: Is the principal investigator appropriately trained to carry out the proposed research? As appropriate, has the PI included investigators or collaborators with expertise needed to maximize research efficiency and successfully execute the study? Are the necessary collaborative arrangements in place?

OVERALL EVALUATION: Briefly summarize the major strengths and weaknesses of the application in terms of the review criteria, emphasizing those areas you feel are most relevant for the application.

Give an overall score based on the following scoring system:

1= exceptional; 2=outstanding; 3=excellent; 4=very good; 5=good;
6=satisfactory; 7=fair; 8=marginal; 9= poor

Additional comments: As appropriate, please comment on these other aspects of the application:

Are animal studies justified and appropriately reviewed by the contracting institution?

Are human subject studies justified? What are the risks, and have the human subjects been adequately protected? Have such studies been appropriately reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board, or is a review pending?

Is the budget appropriate for the proposed studies? Is the study duration appropriate? Is there any potential overlap with existing funded projects?

ADVOCATE REVIEWER GUIDELINES: Best Idea Grants in Hyperphagia Research

Advocate reviewers will be selected based on prior experience in advocacy and general knowledge of PWS. They will evaluate the relevance of the proposal to the concerns of the PWS community. Reviewers are expected to maintain strict confidentiality regarding the applications.

Advocate review- Evaluation criteria

Below are some questions to keep in your mind as you review the proposal and evaluate each of the review criteria. Try to use evaluative statements about strengths and weaknesses of the application.
For the purposes of Advocate Reviewing, please assume that the science is sound, and refrain from critiquing the scientific aspects of the proposal. The scientific reviewers are responsible for evaluating the feasibility, experimental design and technical aspects of the proposal.

SIGNIFICANCE: How will the successful completion of the proposed studies advance our understanding of hyperphagia in PWS and/or lead to the goal of developing effective therapies to treat PWS? What will be the effect of this study on the PWS community?

RELEVANCE: Do the proposed studies directly address the objectives described in the RFA?

INNOVATION: Do the proposed studies address a problem not previously addressed or insufficiently addressed in PWS research? Are the aims of the study innovative and original? Do the proposed studies use novel concepts, approaches or methods? Will completion of the studies open up a new area of investigation, develop a new therapy, or provide novel insight?

RESEARCH PLAN: Will successful completion of the proposed specific aims of the project adequately address the research problem as stated by the investigator? Is a clear plan presented to complete the specific aims? Are the research objectives important to the PWS community?

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR / RESEARCH TEAM: Does the PI show a commitment to PWS research, or will the PI bring new expertise into PWS research? Is the PI qualified to do the research and/or has the PI assembled a research team capable of completing the proposed studies?

OVERALL EVALUATION: Briefly summarize the major strengths and weaknesses of the application in terms of the review criteria, emphasizing those areas you feel are most relevant for this particular application. Note that the weight of the different criterion may differ between applications – some studies may not be highly innovative, but are nevertheless critically important; other studies may be high risk, but are highly innovative with the potential for a significant advancement.

Give an overall score based on the following scoring system:

1= exceptional; 2=outstanding; 3=excellent; 4=very good; 5=good;
6=satisfactory; 7=fair; 8=marginal; 9= poor

Additional comments: As appropriate, please comment on these other aspects of the application:

Are animal studies justified?

If the study involves patients, are the human subject studies justified? What are the risks, and have the human subjects been adequately protected? Is the study likely to be well received by the patient community? Have such studies been appropriately reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board, or is a review pending?

Are there any concerns about the budget?

 

 

 

Edited: 02/05/2013