1 presented by peggy shults, lytmos group inc. may 18, 2008 brac meeting bankhead-coley cancer...

1

Presented by Peggy Shults, Lytmos Group Inc.May 18, 2008 BRAC Meeting

Bankhead-Coley Cancer Research Program2008 – 2009

Grant Funding

22008 – 2009 Competition

Observations and Statistics

2006 - 2008 Registered vs. Submitted Applications

58

43

57

84

47

57

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2006 2007 2008

Registered Submitted

3



Ineligible applications: Federal Proposal Submitted not multi-year (1)

Previously a PI on a National Grant of $100k or more (1)

2008 Registered/Submitted vs Accepted by Mechanism

34

40

7

3

25

2 2

25

2 1

2827

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Bridge NIR SPORE CRP

2008 Registered 2008 Submitted 2008 Accepted

4



2007 Application by Mechanism

Bridge

NIR

SPORE

CRPSEP

2008 Application by Mechanism

Bridge

NIR

SEP CRPSPORE

5



2008 Research Classification by Mechanism

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Bridge NIR SPORE CRP

Epidemiology (2)

Bioinformatics (2)

Other (4)

Medical Devices (4)

Pharmaceuticals (5)

Clinical Research (5)

Translational (12)

Basic Science (33)

6



Applications by Institution

1

11

17

2

3

3

3

4

12

13

17

6

2

4

3

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Mayo Clinic Jacksonville

Florida International University

MD Anderson Cancer Center

University of Central Florida

Florida State University

Florida Atlantic University

University of Miami

University of South Florida/H. Lee Moffitt

University of Florida

2007 2008

7


Peer Review Process

Review reports will be released after BRAC Meeting

Grantees will be asked to respond to peer review comments

MechanismNo. of

reviewers

Bridge 3

NIR 3

CRP 4

SPORE 5

Standard Proposal Score is the average of reviewer scores.

For proposals with std deviation > 1.0 in first round, two more reviewers were assigned, and Standard Proposal Score was recalculated using the average score after excluding the high and low.


Peer Review Information

NIR Grants• 3 reviewers assessed

– Scientific and Technical Merit of Project– Significant, Approach and Feasibility of Work Plan– Qualification of PI, Mentor and Supporting Team– Resources and Environment– Institutional Support – Cancer Relatedness– Comments/concerns about overlap, budget or

subjects– Disparate Group

• Three scores averaged

CRP Grants• 4 reviewers assessed

– Scientific and Technical Merit of Project– Work plan: Approach, Feasibility, Relationship to

other research, Disparate and Underserved, Patient and Provider participation

– PI, Supporting Team and Investigative Team Org Structure

– Resources and Environment– Institutional Support – Cancer Relatedness– Comments/concerns about overlap, budget or

subjects– Disparate Group

• Four scores averaged

SPORE Grants • 5 reviewers assessed

– Significance, Interdisciplinary Collaboration and Feasibility of Project

– Work plan: Organization activities, Contribution of Core Facilities and Services, Scientific Merit of Translation Projects, Technical Merit of Translation Projects, Translational Project Approach, Pilot Research Project Planning, Career Development Activities

– PD, Investigator commitment, Supporting Team Qualifications– Resources and Environment– Institutional Support – Comments/concerns about overlap, budget or subjects– Disparate Group

• Five scores averaged

Bridge Grants• Scientific & Technical Merit Scores/Percentages accepted from

Federal Agency Submission• 3 reviewers assessed

– Cancer Relatedness– Feasibility– Institutional Support– Disparate Group

9

Scoring Worksheet


1st Yr Funds Required Notes: D - Not FT Faculty yet K - Application had second review

All Grant Mechanisms

BRIDGE SPORE CRP NIRAll Grant

Mechanisms

-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0%

SPORE Standard RankingSPORE Applicant

No.

Std Proposal

Score

Std Dev Std Proposal

Score

Range of one Std Dev

Disparate Group

Cancer Relatedness

Intentionally Blank

1st Year Funds Requested

Total Funds Requested

Funding Decision (y)

Total Funds committed

1st Year Funds committed

Notes

1 2001 1.86 0.63 1.23 to 2.49 2.0 NA NA 499,500$ 999,000$ n -$ -$

2 2002 1.88 0.37 1.51 to 2.25 1.0 NA NA 375,000$ 1,000,000$ n -$ -$

CRP Standard RankingCRP Applicant

No.

Std Proposal

Score


Score


Disparate Group

Cancer Relatedness

Reviewer Class






Notes

1 2004 3.08 0.62 2.46 to 3.69 1.75 1.0 D 100,000$ 100,000$ n -$ -$

NIR Standard Ranking NIR Applicant No.Std

Proposal Score


Score


Disparate Group

Cancer Relatedness

Reviewer Class






Notes

1 2005 1.43 0.25 1.18 to 1.68 1.3 D,T 125,000$ 375,000$ n -$ -$

2 2006 1.60 0.10 1.5 to 1.7 3.7 2.0 T 125,000$ 375,000$ n -$ -$ K

3 2007 1.60 0.26 1.34 to 1.86 3.5 1.3 T 115,433$ 346,298$ n -$ -$

4 2008 1.63 0.32 1.31 to 1.95 2.0 T 125,000$ 375,000$ n -$ -$

5 2009 1.67 0.61 1.06 to 2.28 NA 1.0 T 124,386$ 359,286$ n -$ -$

6 2010 1.70 0.26 1.44 to 1.96 2.0 P,T 125,000$ 375,000$ n -$ -$

7 2011 1.87 0.06 1.81 to 1.92 2.3 T,D,P 125,000$ 375,000$ n -$ -$

8 2012 1.90 0.10 1.8 to 2 1.7 D 125,000$ 375,000$ n -$ -$

9 2013 1.90 0.36 1.54 to 2.26 2.3 1.3 P 125,000$ 375,000$ n -$ -$

10 2014 2.00 0.50 1.5 to 2.5 2.0 1.4 T 125,000$ 375,000$ n -$ -$ K

11 2015 2.07 0.12 1.95 to 2.18 1.0 1.0 D 125,000$ 375,000$ n -$ -$

12 2016 2.07 0.76 1.3 to 2.83 1.0 T 125,000$ 375,000$ n -$ -$ K

13 2017 2.10 0.44 1.66 to 2.54 2.0 T 125,000$ 375,000$ n -$ -$

14 2018 2.10 0.36 1.74 to 2.46 1.8 T 125,000$ 375,000$ n -$ -$ K

15 2019 2.17 0.15 2.01 to 2.32 1.0 T 125,000$ 375,000$ n -$ -$

16 2020 2.23 0.38 1.85 to 2.61 2.0 P 125,000$ 375,000$ n -$ -$

17 2021 2.37 0.55 1.82 to 2.92 1.3 T 124,015$ 372,045$ n -$ -$

18 2022 2.47 0.46 2 to 2.93 1.4 T 98,220$ 299,070$ n -$ -$ K

19 2023 2.53 0.29 2.24 to 2.82 1.3 T,C 125,000$ 375,000$ n -$ -$

20 2024 2.57 0.55 2.02 to 3.12 1.4 T,D 125,000$ 375,000$ n -$ -$ K

21 2025 2.90 0.66 2.24 to 3.56 1.3 P,T 125,000$ 375,000$ n -$ -$

Total Amount of Funding Required Across the board

reduction %

10

How Competition Results are Presented in theScoring Workbook

SPORE• Arranged in order of the calculated scientific merit score and then standard deviation

CRP• Arranged in order of the calculated scientific merit score and then standard deviation

NIR• Arranged in order of the calculated scientific merit score and then standard deviation• Cancer Relatedness represents the average rating of all participating reviewers, with 1.0 being best and 5.0 worst• Reviewer classification is consensus of Prevention (P), Diagnosis (D), Treatment (T), and Cure (C)• Eligibility Issues are identified in the Notes column with a alphabetic character that relates to the legend

Bridge• Organized by federal grant mechanism sections• Each section is in order of federal scientific merit score or rating• Secondly, the 01s (First time Federal Application Submission) are listed followed by A1 (1st Resubmission) and A2 (final resubmission).• Eligibility Issues are identified in the Notes column with a alphabetic character that relates to the legend

All• Total amount of funding required is calculated at the top of the worksheet

1 presented by peggy shults, lytmos group inc. may 18, 2008 brac meeting bankhead-coley cancer...

Documents