SFI PI Programme July 2008. Agenda Introduction & Context in UCD Eligibility Research Programme...

SFI PI Programme

July 2008

Agenda

• Introduction & Context in UCD• Eligibility• Research Programme• Value to Ireland• Project Team• Finance• Infrastructure & Facilities• Programme Support Resources

– Who’s available to help with what

• AMS Submission Management• Key Dates

Key Statistics for SFI Awards

• PI Programme 2007– 12 Proposals in 2007 (Calendar Year)– 6 Awards in 2007 (Calendar Year). €9.7 M– 2 Awards in 2008 (Year to date). €1.2 M

• €115 M (approx) in current active grants (all categories) awarded by SFI to UCD

Eligibility

• Ineligible – PI – Co-PI (of PI, SRC or CSET awards)– PIYRA– SFI Research Professor Award

…. If current award finishes over 18 months after the September deadline

– Applicants for RFP

Research Programme

Overview of Programme ‘THE BIG IDEA’

Workpackage 1:• Objectives

• Method• Who’s involved: PIs & Industry

• Milestones & Outputs

Workpackage 2:• Objectives

• Method• Who’s involved: PIs & Industry

• Milestones & Outputs

Etc….

• Re-state programme overview• Milestones Outputs into Gantt Chart

Value to Ireland

• SSTI (Strategy for Science, Technology & Innovation) http://www.sciencecouncil.ie/reports/acsti060618/060618_asc_ssti_report_webopt.pdf

• Expert Group on Future Skills Needs (http://www.skillsireland.ie/ )– Skills gaps in ICT, Pharma and Medical Devices

• IDA website for key industry reports– Secure the future of MNCs and move activities from

manufacturing to R&D– Develop indigenous industry

Project Team

• CVs of PIs and CoPIs– Indicate role on the project team– Highlight ‘H’ index or other key indicator as

appropriate to discipline– Pull out the 3-5 most important publications in

each CV

• Standardise the format of CVs

Graduate Team Members

• Refer to the SSTI norms for optimum research team membership when developing your staffing plan (in the SET area the standard ratios are 1PI:1RA/ Tech:3 Postdocs:5 PhDs

• Ensure the ratio of PIs:PhD students in particular is reasonable

• Graduate education (as outlined in SSTI) is a critical component of any new funding proposal. Your proposal should clearly indicate how it will contribute to graduate education

Finance

• Don’t be over-optimistic – grants rarely start or finish on time, so ramp up your finances in year 1

• Base the financials on underlying people, equipment and space – easier to justify & model by reference to milestones

• Make reasonable assumptions – detail these and provide for inflation!

• Be aware of lead-times – procurement limits; staff-hiring etc

• Read the new budget guidelines from SFI

Highlights of SFI New Budget Policy

• PIs and Collaborator's salary are not eligible costs, as per guidelines

• Post-doc researcher etc – SFI have provided a Salary schedule dated July 2008. Includes annual increases of 3%.

• Except for very large awards, Technician & Admin support salaries will not usually be funded. Where applicable, the institutional salary guidelines should be applied.

• Stipends are at a flat rate of €80,000 over four years

• SFI – “annual increases to fees are eligible where these increases have been formally set by the research body (appropriate supporting documentation should be provided). In the event that future rates are unavailable or unknown, as in your case after 2010, SFI will fund an annual increase of 3% on fees”

• Small equipment valued at less than €2,000 should be included in the materials & consumables section.

• For an item in excess of €50,000, SFI require the quote number and cost must be included in the budget justification.

• All equipment purchases must be carried out in accordance with UCD procurement regulations, (see details at www.ucd.ie/procure). SFI may request documentation for audit purposes.

Highlights of SFI New Budget Policy

Facilities

What are the specific requirements for– Desk/ Write-up Space– Lab Space– Equipment– Visitors (industry partners or other

collaborators)

• Have these been agreed with Head of School/ Institute Director?

Think through research project and methodology with care

Review Criteria:Quality, significance, novelty & relevance of research

Reviewer Comments:

“ The proposal does not test a specific hypothesis but rather takes an exploratory approach . . .”

“ The goals appear diffuse & the proposal is unfocused . . ”

“ There are no plans for validation…..”

“The fieldwork plan is rather unfocused & lacks a clearly defined strategy ….”

“ It is difficult to judge the quality of the scientific work that will arise from this project due to the lack of specifics and the absence of proposals for a methodology…”

“ The applicant has provided sufficient background, preliminary data & detail of the analyses to be carried out…”

What is state-of-the-art?

Reviewer Comments:

“ Is the applicant aware of developments in the field ?… [S/he] has failed to cite some of the key papers of recent years and this reviewer wonders about the competitiveness of this submission …”

“ Although the applicant has identified an interesting area of research, the scientific questions to be addressed are obscured by the apparent unawareness of the applicant about the area of the proposed inquiry..”

“ The project fails to present the original and novel points of the proposed research… the literature cited is mostly old….”

“ The proposed work is original and a natural progression from recent work in the field to which the applicant has made major contributions..”


Reviewer Comments:

“ The proposal is not well written & suffers from misspellings; in short it seems more like a rough draft..”

“ Figures would have helped this reviewer in understanding the complex molecular interactions discussed & proposed..”

“ The proposal as written is dense & jargon-filled..”

“ Only 12 lines of the proposal are dedicated to the approach..”

“ The proposal is rambling, uses vague language at key points, and proposes the use of many outdated approaches..”

“The questions, hypotheses and methods are clearly articulated..”

Craft the proposal carefully


Be realistic!

Reviewer Comments:

“ The approach is both doable and timely … experiments are well-described..”

“ The rationale for a ‘literature search’ is not justified & is inappropriate with the time-scale of the project … get the student in the lab!”

“ The Gantt chart was useful at mapping both students to the project aims..”

“ The simulation component of the proposal is a considerably larger undertaking than the applicant has suggested..”


Review Criteria: Research record of the applicant

Track record appropriate to proposal

Reviewer Comments:

“ Well established investigator, who is well suited to perform the proposed studies…”

“ Applicant has an established track record in the field, has appropriate collaborations in place and has conducted pilot studies so that the probability of results of significant impact arising from the work is high…”

“ Applicant has a very modest publication and citation record. None of these are on …….., no first-authored papers are listed, and his most current publications are in areas well away from the proposed study..”

Track record as an independent PI is career-stage appropriate

Reviewer Comments:

“ The applicant has Prof. [X] as a collaborator who is a former post doctoral supervisor. It is anticipated that results from this work will be published with the new PI as senior corresponding author ..”

“…relatively junior… but promising young investigator in a good position to undertake the research..”

“Applicant is in the early stages of her career but has a very strong and relevant track record and is well placed to undertake the work..”


Track record of collaborators is significant

Reviewer Comments:

“ Dr. [X] has brought onboard excellent collaborators to see the research through and extract the most information from it..”

“ A clinical/pharmaceutical collaboration would also significantly strengthen the proposal..”


Recent publications/productivity and relevance are important

Reviewer Comments:

“ There is significant enthusiasm . . . a more junior applicant with a good track record, including a number of recent and pending papers in the area..”

“ Applicant does not have a first or corresponding author publication since 2002 relevant to the research area …”

“ Applicant has an impressive record of achievement with a large number of high quality papers that have been cited a significant number of times as the standard in the field..”


PI Programme Support

Timeline

2. Proposal Development

· Budget Development· Budget Sign-off and approval

EOI Deadline – 8th Aug

Budget Preparation – use templates

Programme DeadlinesFull Proposal Deadline

– 4th Sept

UCD Internal Deadlines:· Budget Approval Deadline· Infrastructure Approval from Head of School/ Institute Director· Proposal Deadline

22nd Aug

22nd Aug

1st Sept

LS: Ber Gallagher/ Rob GreeneEMPS: Caroline Treacey

Budget Sign-off

· Identify Infrastructure Requirements and submit to Head of Unit

· Letter of Support from Unit

· Letters of Support from Partner Institutions / Industry Partners

PI

PI/ Head of Unit

Letter of Support from Unit to UCD Research for VP Research Sign-off

July August Sept1. Programme Deadlines

· Research Programme. Check ethical approval

· Value to Ireland· CVs

PI

1st Aug

Support Available

Proposal Area Support Contacts Ext/ Email

AMS Submission Management

OFRSS [email protected]

FAQ / Helpdesk UCD Research Services [email protected]

Value to Ireland UCD Research Services [email protected]

Current or pending support UCD Research Services [email protected]

Infrastructure Letter from Head of School or Institute Director / College Principal

CVs of PI, co-PIs UCD Research Services

- Researcher Profiles on UCD web

[email protected]

Finance & Budget EMPS: Caroline Treacey

LS: Rob Greene & Ber Gallagher

Research Programme – Ethical Approval

Research Ethics Office – Jan Stokes [email protected]

Overall proposal review EMPS: Caroline Treacey & OFRSS

LS: OFRSS

SFI Training on AMS - Webinar

Title: AMS Applicant TrainingInvitation to online AMS Training to grant applicants. This is a single

training session to be run by the SFI IT department. The objective of this training is to ensure grant applicants are fully informed and trained in the use of the Offline Assistant and the grant application submission process.

Date: Wednesday, July 30, 2008Time: 9:30 AM - 11:30 AM BST

System RequirementsPC-based attendeesRequired: Windows® 2000, XP Home, XP Pro, 2003 Server, VistaMacintosh®-based attendeesRequired: Mac OS® X 10.3.9 (Panther®) or newer

Space is limited.Reserve your Webinar seat now at:https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/437647072

In order to use the conference service properly, it is also necessary to dial in to the voice conference service. Check your Webinar confirmation email for details of the conference call service.

Note: You will be joining the conference call in a listen-only mode. To communicate with the presenter please use the Question and Answer feature.

Eligible Salaries & Associated Costs

Salary Scales

SFI PI Programme July 2008. Agenda Introduction & Context in UCD Eligibility Research Programme...

Documents

Transcript of SFI PI Programme July 2008. Agenda Introduction & Context in UCD Eligibility Research Programme...