initial_briefing_internal_presentationv3 by wangnianwu


									SFI PI Programme

    July 2008

•   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

• Ineligible
  – PI
  – Co-PI (of PI, SRC or CSET awards)
  – 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:                       Workpackage 2:
          • Objectives                         • Objectives
            • Method                             • Method
• Who’s involved: PIs & Industry     • Who’s involved: PIs & Industry
    • Milestones & Outputs               • Milestones & Outputs

                           • Re-state programme overview
                        • Milestones Outputs into Gantt Chart
                  Value to Ireland

• SSTI (Strategy for Science, Technology &
• Expert Group on Future Skills Needs
  ( )
   – 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

• 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”
     Highlights of SFI New Budget Policy

• 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

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

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

• Have these been agreed with Head of
  School/ Institute Director?
Review Criteria:
Quality, significance, novelty & relevance of research

      Think through research project and methodology with care

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

    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..”
Review Criteria:
Quality, significance, novelty & relevance of research

     Craft the proposal carefully

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

    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..”
Review Criteria:            Research record of the applicant

    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..”
Review Criteria:           Research record of the applicant

    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
Review Criteria:           Research record of the applicant

    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
                       1. Programme Deadlines                                 July                           August                           Sept

                                   Programme Deadlines
                                                                                              EOI Deadline                        Full Proposal Deadline
                                                                                               – 8th Aug                                 – 4th Sept

UCD Internal Deadlines:
                                                                                                                                22nd Aug
· Budget Approval Deadline
· Infrastructure Approval from Head of School/ Institute Director                                                               22nd Aug
· Proposal Deadline
                                                                                               1st Aug                                        1st Sept

                       2. Proposal Development

                                                     LS: Ber Gallagher/ Rob
·   Budget Development                               Greene                          Budget Preparation –
·   Budget Sign-off and approval                     EMPS: Caroline                     use templates
                                                                                                                    Budget Sign-off

·   Identify Infrastructure Requirements and
    submit to Head of Unit                              PI/ Head of Unit
·   Letter of Support from Unit                                                Letter of Support from Unit to UCD
                                                                               Research for VP Research Sign-off

·   Letters of Support from Partner Institutions /
    Industry Partners

·   Research Programme. Check ethical
·   Value to Ireland
·   CVs
                              Support Available
Proposal Area                    Support Contacts                          Ext/ Email
    AMS Submission               OFRSS
    FAQ / Helpdesk               UCD Research Services           

    Value to Ireland             UCD Research Services           

    Current or pending support   UCD Research Services           

    Infrastructure               Letter from Head of School or Institute
                                 Director / College Principal
    CVs of PI, co-PIs            UCD Research Services           
                                 - Researcher Profiles on UCD web
    Finance & Budget             EMPS: Caroline Treacey
                                 LS: Rob Greene & Ber Gallagher
    Research Programme –         Research Ethics Office – Jan Stokes

    Ethical Approval
    Overall proposal review      EMPS: Caroline Treacey & OFRSS
                                 LS: OFRSS
             SFI Training on AMS - Webinar
Title:   AMS Applicant Training
         Invitation 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, 2008
Time:    9:30 AM - 11:30 AM BST

         System Requirements
         PC-based attendees
         Required: Windows® 2000, XP Home, XP Pro, 2003 Server, VistaMacintosh®-based attendees
         Required: Mac OS® X 10.3.9 (Panther®) or newer

         Space is limited.
         Reserve your Webinar seat now at:

         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

To top