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..”
Review Criteria:Quality, significance, novelty & relevance of research
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
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:Quality, significance, novelty & relevance of research
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..”
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 proposal..”
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..”
Review Criteria: Research record of the applicant
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
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