S

Grand Explorations:Round 10

University of MichiganFoundation Relations, Office of University Development

Information

Looking for creative ideas that can potentially transform global health

Competition is run every 6 months

Topics can change every round Fit the goals and disease priorities of the Grand

Challenges in Global Health. Where new thinking is needed to overcome today’s

roadblocks Can be phased

Must envision impact on Gates priorities and strategies

Note: Global Health ≠ USA. Needs to be explicit

Round 10 (Fall 2012) Topics:

New Approaches in Model Systems, Diagnostics, and Drugs for Specific Neglected Tropical Disease

Aid is Working. Tell the world

New Approaches for the Interrogation of Anti-malarial Compounds

Labor Saving Innovations for Women Smallholder Farmers

Proposal format

2 pages (11 point type). 2 Sections

Section I. What is your idea? Indicate in one or two sentences in bold the essence of your idea. Why is your idea an unconventional or creative approach to the

problem outlined in the topic? Describe the scientific basis for your idea and why you expect it to

succeed.

Section II. How will you test it? Describe your experimental plan, including any new technologies or

tools to be developed. How will the work you describe be performed within the budget

(USD$100,000) and time period (18 months) allocated for the initial Phase I award?

What essential data will you generate during your Phase I award? If your experiments in Phase I are successful, what are the next steps?

Why you should give it a shot

Blind review is interesting - great for junior faculty, and faculty who want to try an idea they wouldn’t discuss in “polite” company

Fast turn-around, 4-5 months to decision

Short proposal, two pages

$100,000 (with ability to submit for $1M follow on)

The Review Process

You are 1 in 3,000

+ received

Get your proposal noticed

Where you

want to be

The Review Process

Gates receives approximately 3,000 applications each round and funds 80-100. Of those funded 50% had submitted before (idea is refined).

Each reviewer reads approximately 300 proposals.

Reviewers read through each proposal at most 10 minutes – you have to capture their attention early on to get on their short list.

It only takes one of those six readers championing your proposal to achieve funding.

Reviewer instructions

Topic Responsiveness – Does the proposal address the problems described in the

topic? (types of research and topics not to be funded are listed in each topic description)

Innovative Approach – Does the idea offer an unconventional or creative

approach to the problem outlined in the topic? Does it demonstrate application of a new or pioneering

approach? Does the proposal describe how the project varies

from current approaches, offers new premises or hypotheses to test, and

Does it provide a rational basis for expecting success?

Writing your proposal

All proposals must • have a testable hypothesis, • include an associated plan for how the idea would be

tested or validated, and • yield interpretable and unambiguous data in

Phase I, in order to be considered for Phase II funding.

Successful proposals are• "off the beaten track" • daring in premise• clearly differentiated from approaches currently

being developed or employed.  

Writing your Proposal

Technologies or approaches should• enhance uptake, acceptability and/or provide

for sustained use (e.g. culture, affordability, illiteracy)

• enable or provide for low-cost solutions (scalable)

• promote effective delivery and administration of new solutions and

• ensure or enhance safety. 

The “Dos”DO Summarize your idea in 2 sentences at the top. You have to capture the reviewers’ interest quickly.

DO Read through the category descriptions thoroughly.

DO State succinctly and clearly: What is innovative? How this is different? How is this a game changer? What is your deliverable?

DO Respond directly to the Exploration topic of interest.

DO Use a title that grabs attention.

DO Try again. Many have won on their second shot.

The “Don’ts”

Don’t propose the next iterative step.Don’t use domain-specific terminology.Don’t spend space writing how great your lab is (identifying information isn’t allowed).Don’t ramble. Be strategic and direct. Don’t propose an idea they specifically list as “off topic”

What we’ve seen work – 5 tips

1. Stressing practicality and adoptability

Demonstrating an understanding of the situation in which the product/discovery/method will be employed:

“low-cost”“culturally-appropriate”

What we’ve seen work – 5 tips

2. Very clearly differentiating work from current directions in the field

“The work here turns this conventional view on its head by proposing that specific interactions with specific ….”

“Instead of detecting the spectrum of molecular vibrations, … we extend our expertise to focus on…, a novel technique that has not been investigated before …”

“Existing initiatives have not been sufficient to revolutionize vaccine development …”

“Most existing antivirals…” “Current approaches…” “Conventional diagnosis of malaria…”

What we’ve seen work – 5 tips

3. Bold statements about project aims “To truly realize revolutionary advances in vaccines that protect

developing world populations…”

“My unconventional idea of training international leaders in infectious disease… could prove a wise investment in the scientific enterprise by building capacity in human capital, and by complementing conventional approaches to global health challenges”

What we’ve seen work – 5 tips

4. Scientific language without letting the reader get lost in the details

“We propose a mutable DNA vaccine that will trigger immune responses directed against antigenic variants”

“two proteins can be combined to produce a Tat-RevM10 fusion protein that will be taken up by cells and activate HIV expression, but not produce infectious virus.”

What we’ve seen work – 5 tips

5. Why this PI/team (you) is the right one to do this work

“A major advantage of this study proposal is the expertise of the IB study team with respect to vaccine development and financing issues”

“the PI is an expert in medical device design for resource-limited settings”

“This multidisciplinary effort combines the experience of two investigators providing expertise in both the immunology of HIV during latency and the development of new anti-HIV treatments.”

Can I be successful?

Absolutely!! Michigan has received an average of one award each round – better than most

Erdogan Gulari in Chemical Engineering “Antimicrobial peptides against Mycobacteria” in the topic area “Apply Synthetic Biology to Global Health Challenges”

Craig Harris in Environmental Health Science “Models of Embryonic Histiotrophic Nutrition in Organogenesis” in topic area “Explore Nutrition for Healthy Growth of Infants and Children”

Steve King in Microbiology and Immunology “Turning HIV proteins to cure infection” in topic area “Design New Approaches to Cure HIV”

Kathy Sienko in Mechanical Engineering, "Circumcision Tool For Traditional Ceremonies In Africa" in topic area "Create New Ways to Protect Against Infectious Disease”

Wei Lu in Mechanical Engineering, “Spectrum-Based Low-Cost Diagnostics” in topic area “Low Cost Diagnostics”.

Alice Telesnitsky in Microbiology and Immunology, “A Lexicon of HIV-RNA Interactions” in topic area "Create Drugs and Delivery Systems to Limit Drug Resistance”

Matthew Davis in Pediatrics-Ambulatory Care Program, “Innovation Bridge: Linking Biotech Breakthroughs to Emerging Vaccine Manufacturers” in topic area “Protect Against Infectious Disease”.

Marilia Cascalho in General Surgery, “A Mutable Vaccine for HIV” in topic area “Prevent or Cure HIV Infection”