South African Medical Research Council Self-initiated Research Grants Guidelines

Transcription

1 South African Medical Research Council Self-initiated Research Grants Guidelines General Introduction This category of research support by the MRC caters for health research applications that propose novel studies initiated by a researcher at a recognized research institution. Due to high levels of competition and limited funds available, the quality of the research proposal submitted in this category subsequently determines success in funding application. Therefore, established researchers with high quality proposals are most likely to be successful in this category. Definition of a Research Institution A legally constituted institution or organization wherein research is one of the primary purposes for its existence, including the training of postgraduate students. The broad thrust of the organisation s research, basic or applied, should be towards the advancement of knowledge. Eligibility of Applicants Applicants for research support in this category should be either permanently employed at a recognized research institution or be in a long term contract (at least for the duration of the project). Applying individuals should be South African citizens or permanent residents. Postgraduate students, full or part-time, are not eligible to apply. Applicants should have completed a research degree (PhD or equivalent) which demonstrates their research capability. Only one research proposal will be considered for funding per individual applicant and once granted, only one such grant may be held by an individual until the project has been completed. Research grants applications that are proposing work on behalf of commercial entities will not be considered. Nature of Supported Research Fields of research: All research in the natural or social sciences conducted for the ultimate benefit of human health is eligible for support. The research should ideally be geared towards generating high quality new knowledge, new medical products, improved or enhanced medical/health practice, effective health promotion strategies or improved health policy and/or functioning of the national health systems. Research Alignment: The MRC has adopted a new MRC Strategic Plan ( ) which organizes the MRC s research into 6 programs: Health Promotion and Disease Prevention

2 Women, Maternal and Child Health HIV, AIDS & Tuberculosis and other Infectious Diseases Health Systems Strengthening Public Health Innovations Biomedical Research Research proposed for support should therefore be ideally aligned with one or more of these programmes. Applicants should motivate how the proposed research aligns with the indicated research programmes. Research Priority Areas: The SIR grants applications are categorized under the following research priority areas: African Traditional Medicine and Drug Discovery Brain and Behaviour Cancer Cardiovascular disease and metabolic disorders Environment and Health Genomics and Proteomics Health Systems and Policy HIV and Aids Infectious disease Malaria Maternal, Infant and Child Health Nutrition Tuberculosis Application Process, Review and Assessment of Proposals Application process: The MRC will issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) annually inviting researchers to apply for funding in the Self-Initiated Research Category. A prospective applicant may submit their application once they have considered the above requirements and assessed whether their research proposal is suitable for MRC support. The application should be submitted via the SIR Grants online system. Late applications will NOT be accepted. The research support applications should be: Signed off by the applicant on the SIR Grants online system Approved or validated online by an authorized person in the research administration office of the institution Reach the MRC by midnight on the 15 th of June each year Review process: Once the proposal has been received by the MRC it will be processed by the Research Administration and Management Division (RAMD). They will:

3 Monitor the progress of application processes by individuals and/or institutions on the online submission system Provide technical support to applicants in the navigation of the application process and interact with the applicants where relevant and/or when required in the process of their application or intention to apply Receive, and do preliminary checking of, applications for appropriateness as per conditions and requirements of the research support category. Sign-off qualifying applications for the peer review process. Assign 3 reviewers per application Monitor the return of review reports and take appropriate action where required Assess returned review reports for completeness and acceptability. Prepare and distribute documentation for the Grants Committee upon completion of peer review process Peer Review Criteria and Scoring of Proposals: Peer reviewers are asked to review a proposal according to a set criteria as well as specific questions under each criterion. In submitting a research proposal for funding, researchers should therefore make every effort to ensure that the proposals address these aspects comprehensively. The criteria and questions are outlined below. Criterion Overall Merit Research Design and Methods Significance of Proposed Research What the reviewer is asked to comment on What field, health issue or policy, medical care or treatment is addressed by the application? What is the relative importance of the scientific issue (s) raised? How and to what degree will the application generate advancements in science or evidence-based clinical practices? Is the research likely to succeed with respect to the qualifications of the research team, the design of the research, the general feasibility of the techniques employed and the environment including the availability of equipment and infrastructure? Is the design and experimental plan sound, feasible, and relevant to the questions being asked? Is the approach proposed appropriate and likely to accomplish the goals of the project? Are potential problems recognized and addressed with alternative approaches? If the project involves clinical research, are the plans for 1) protection of human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion of minorities and members of both sexes/genders, as well as the inclusion of children, justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed? How important is the science to improve scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice in one or more broad fields? Will the research advance basic biomedical concepts, unmet needs in human health, improve or enhance the health care system of South Africa, or contribute to health care policy or towards the development of important new products such as medicines, devices, or therapies? Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions. To what extent will the results of the project contribute to health advancements or to solving barriers to progress in the field?

4 Investigator (s) Ethical considerations Is the training and research experience of the project leader and collaborators appropriate for the project? Is there sufficient expertise and level of accomplishments within the research team to generate confidence in success? Is the project leader capable of leading the team to conduct the research efficiently and effectively? Will human subjects be utilized in the project? If so, will they be appropriately protected from potential research risk? Is there a plan for inclusion of multiple races and ethnicities, members of both sexes/genders, and/or children? Is the inclusion/exclusion of each of these groups appropriate in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy? Will vertebrate animals be utilized in the project? If so, will they be appropriately and ethically treated? Upon consideration of the above criteria and specific questions, peer reviewers will score the quality of the proposal and make recommendations on fundability. The proposals are scored according to a set of quality descriptions which go along with a numerical score. These are described in the table below. Proposal quality description Exceptionally high quality research that is pushing the boundaries in its field internationally while addressing highly significant scientific/health questions or challenges. Research of excellent quality at the forefront in its field internationally and likely to result in high impact outcomes for science, medical practice, and the health system or health policy. Research of very good quality that is at the forefront nationally (and possibly internationally), addresses an important health research question and is likely to result in tangible outcomes for science, medical practice, the health system or health policy. Research of average to good quality and is likely to have a modest impact in addressing an important health research question. Poor quality research with major flaws in its conceptual frameworks, research methods and design and unlikely to be successful OR research which is technically flawless, but of minimal significance, innovation, or interest could fit in this score band. Quality score (choose one score within band) 1-4 Reviewer score (mark with X or specify score if within a band)

5 Assessment of Proposals by the MRC Grants Committee: All reviewed proposals are assembled and referred to the MRC Grants Committee for assessment. The role of the MRC Grants Committee is to assess the overall quality of the proposals based on their expert opinion and the peer review reports. Each proposal is assessed by at least one committee member with broad knowledge and expertise in the particular research field or research area of the proposal. The Grants Committee members assess the proposals using a set of criteria and questions that focus on the local environment. This is described in the table below. Assessment criterion Scientific merit of proposal Significance of research for health in South Africa Alignment with MRC Research Strategy framework Institutional research environment Ethical considerations Research capacity development Questions to be considered Based on your own reading of the proposal and the comments of the peer reviewers (on scientific merit, significance of the proposal, design and methods, as well as ethical considerations), please indicate your overall assessment of the quality of the proposed research. How important are the research questions being asked in the proposal, in the context of South African national health challenges? To what extent does the proposed research hold potential to advance health relevant knowledge and/or contribute to improvements in either health or health outcomes? Please comment on how well the proposed research aligns with the three research organizing spheres of the MRC. In addition, to what extent does the proposed research address the indicated research priority areas of the MRC as per the MRC Strategic Plan ( )? Based on the description of the institutional environment given by the applicant, the resources available to them, the research team assembled around them, and indicated collaborations or partnerships; what is the likelihood that the proposed research will be carried out successfully? Where relevant, outline any ethical issues and/or implications that arise from the proposed research and comment on whether these have been adequately addressed in the proposal. Based on the information contained in the proposal, comment on the potential for the proposed project to build research capacity in terms of (i) development of junior staff members, (ii) training of postgraduate research students, (iii) training of project staff and/or community members in research techniques or the development of capacity in the SADC region or the rest of Africa.

6 The Grants Committee members will score and categorize the applications as shown below. Recommendation Score range Highly fundable, worth prioritizing 8-10 A Fundable on condition that funds are available 6-7 B Not fundable 1-5 C Rating* Overall Timeline for Processing Proposals for Funding Since 2006, only one funding cycle is conducted per year. The annual timeline is indicated below. Steps or actions Call/Request for proposals Timeline March Closing date for applications 15 th June Peer review process July-September Grants Committee meetings 31 st October Communication of outcomes to the research community Acceptance of SIR grants conditions by the awardees Payment of grants to institutions Dec-January End February April onwards Application Checklist (Incomplete applications will not be considered) Completed SIR Grant Online application Completed and signed SIR Grant Approval Form Applicant s Curriculum Vitae maximum length of 5 pages that includes a Biographical sketch (professional work experience, qualifications, research activities) and publications in the last 3 years in active research Ethics Clearance Certificate or a letter indicating that the proposal has been submitted to the institution s Ethics Committee. Where ethics approval is not required, submit a letter from the Institutional Research Office stating why it is not required. Completed SIR Grant Reviewer Nomination Form Completed SIR Grant Budget Form