Start-Up

How to cope with an AIRC grant application
Lessons from peer reviewing
This presentation is meant as a series of suggestions for writing of an AIRC application.
To apply, please read the AIRC “Call for proposals 2016”, where the entire eligibility
requirements and rules are listed.
AIRC Peer Review Office
Milan, February 2016
1. Some information about AIRC:
history and mission
2. How do we fund research?
A brief tour of our funding streams
3. Submitting a grant application to AIRC:
tips for applicants
1
Some information about AIRC
AIRC was founded in 1965 at the National Cancer Institute in Milan.
Since then, AIRC has become the major Italian charity with:
• More than 1.500.000 donor members
• about 5000 researchers supported all over Italy
Our mission
• Funding research carried out at scientific institutions for the cure
and research on cancer, university laboratories and hospitals in Italy.
• Completing the education of young researchers in Italy and abroad
by offering fellowship awards for further study.
• Informing the public and raising awareness of progress
in cancer research.
2
Some information about AIRC
Provides support for junior and senior scientists
Fellowships
In Italy
Fellowships
abroad
Grants for
junior
scientists
Grants for
senior
scientists
multi-unit
Grants
The selection of applications to be funded is based on merit
Publication
of the
Call
Applications
submission
Selection by
Peer
review
Ranking
Funding
3
Types of AIRC grants 2016
Type of grant
Investigator
Grant (IG)
Funding limit
(€/year)
-
Duration
(years)
3
Age limit PI
(years)
Track record
(last 5 years)
-
1 last primary res.
paper (no reviews)
1 first for MD
Active IF ≥ 30
-
Preferential
Yes
My First AIRC
Grant (MFAG)
€ 75.000
3
≤ 40
2 corresp./last
primary res. papers
(no reviews)
2 first for MD
Start-Up
€ 150.000
3+2
≤ 35
(flexible)
1 first primary res.
paper (no reviews)
Exp. abroad
4
Types of AIRC fellowships 2016
Type of fellowship
AIRC/FIRC – Italy
AIRC/FIRC – Abroad
Funding
(€/year)
€ 25.000
€ 30.000
Average
€ 41.000/year
(amount based
on destination)
Duration
(years)
Eligibility
1-2-3
≤ 6 years
from degree
(laurea)
1-2
≤ 6 years
from degree
(laurea)
5
Results of our 2015 peer review process – research grants
600
500
Number of applications peer reviewed
400
Number of grants awarded
300
200
100
0
IG
MFAG
Start Up
TRIDEO
6
Results of our 2015 peer review process - fellowships
300
250
Number of applications peer reviewed
200
Number of fellowships awarded
150
100
50
0
Italy (AIRC/FIRC)
Abroad (FIRC)
iCARE (AIRC/EU)
7
Success rates for Investigator Grants 2015
Success rate
all candidates
Success rate candidates
never funded before
by AIRC
Success rate
candidates previously
funded by AIRC
8,8% (*)
38,7%
22,7%
52,7%
56,3%
13,9 % (**)
(*) never applied before, funded in 2015 at first attempt
(**) applied previously, funded in 2015 for the first time
All the IG proposals go through the same evaluation process.
Statistically, first time applicants have a lower success rate than more experienced PIs
8
IG applications in peer review in the last 5years are increasing
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
100
90
500
80
70
400
60
300
50
40
200
30
Approval rate %
Number of applications in peer review
2010
600
20
100
10
0
0
2011
2011
2012
2012
2013
2013
2014
2014
2015
2015
Peer reviewed
Funded
Approval rate %
Our peer review
The peer review ensures a fair, independent, and expert assessment
of the scientific merit of each application submitted to AIRC.
10
More than 600 reviewers
AIRC relies on the expertise well-established international investigators working
abroad for the evaluation of applications.
Internationally recognized Italian scientists are also involved in the evaluation process,
as members of the “Comitato Tecnico Scientifico” (CTS) and the “Comitato Scientifico
Borse” (CSB).
11
Three reviewers per grant application
Each application is evaluated in an independent manner by three different reviewers
with specific expertise in the research area of the application. Reviewers assignments
are made in compliance with conflict of interest rules.
Investigator Grants: 2 international reviewers and 1 member of the AIRC CTS
MFAG: 3 international reviewers
Start-Up: 3 international reviewers
12
Three reviewers per fellowship application
Each application is evaluated in an independent manner by three different reviewers
with specific expertise in the research area of the application. Reviewers assignments
are made in compliance with conflict of interest rules.
Fellowships (Italy): 3 members of the AIRC CSB
Fellowships (abroad): 2 members of the AIRC CSB and 1 international reviewer
13
International reviewers 2015: where do they work?
For the evaluation of applications AIRC relies on the expertise well-established
international investigators working abroad.
Our panel comprises approx. 600 reviewers from all over the world.
In 2015 485 reviewers were involved in the review process.
USA
UK
Germany
France
Spain
Canada
Netherlands
Other (Switzerland,
Israel, Australia…)
15%
3%
4%
48%
4%
5%
8%
13%
14
Our review criteria
• significance and impact on cancer
• innovation
• approach, feasibility and environment
• expertise and track record of the applicant
• adequacy of the budget requested
• experience in mentoring and training (fellowships)
15
Our review criteria
•
Is the PI seriously committed to cancer research? (all grants)
•
Is the proponent showing enough maturity to act as an independent group leader? (Start-Up,
MFAG)
•
Is he/she coming from a truly exceptional post-doc abroad? (Start-Up)
•
Is there innovation and potential for competition at the international level? (all grants)
•
Is the project feasible? (all grants)
•
Has the applicant the expertise and the track record needed to perform the proposed work?
(all grants)
•
How is the environment and the standing of the host Institution
at the International level? (all grants)
•
Is the requested budget appropriate? (all grants)
•
Has the supervisor experience in mentoring and training (fellowships)?
16
AIRC rules on conflict of interests
Reviewer assignments are made in compliance with conflict of interest rules to ensure a review
free from inappropriate influence.
The following circumstances represent conflicts of interest:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The reviewer works in the same institution of the applicant
There are ties of kinship between the reviewer and the applicant
The reviewer and the applicant are collaborating on a research project
(or have been in the past five years)
There are personal or scientific conflicts between the reviewer
and the applicant
Reviewers in conflict with an applicant for any of the reasons listed above are excluded from
the review of that application.
17
In case of discrepancy
In case of discrepancy among the scores and comments from the reviewers,
the application and the divergent reviews are evaluated by a fourth referee
who acts as an editor.
18
Ranking
At the end of the review process, applications are ranked based on their scientific
merit. The final ranking and the financial availability of AIRC will determine the
recommendation for funding, to be endorsed by the AIRC Board of Directors.
19
Peer review IG 2015
First step: 480 applications assigned to approx. 400 foreign reviewers and 28 members of the CTS
Rejected
(161)
Approved
(64)
“Gray zone”
(255)
Second step: 28 members of the CTS in study section meeting
Gray zone:
rejected (133)
REJECTED, TOTAL: 294
Gray zone:
approved (122)
APPROVED, TOTAL: 186
20
Timeline (grants)
November:
Board of Directors
meeting and
notification of results
January 2nd 2017:
Start of grant
October:
Study section
Meeting (IG, MFAG)
September:
evaluation of
final report
of previous funding (IG)
August:
Analysis of reviews,
initial ranking
February:
Call for proposals
March:
Deadline for applications
April:
Reviewers assignment
June:
Deadline for review
21
Monitoring the productivity of AIRC researchers
• Publications on scientific journals (AIRC scientific officers)
• Final report analysis in case of previous fundings (reviewers)
• Site visits for 5-year grant programs, e.g. Start-Up, 5 per mille (reviewers)
• Attendance at scientific meetings, retreats, etc. (AIRC scientific officers)
22
How to prepare a grant application to AIRC
Lessons from peer reviewing
This presentation is meant to provide a series of tips and suggestions for writing
an AIRC grant application.
Please refer to the AIRC “Calls for proposals 2016” for a complete list of
eligibility requirements and rules.
23
Eligibility criteria: Hosting Institution
The Hosting Institution must:
• be located in Italy;
• have the mission to develop biomedical research and to disseminate its results;
• provide proper working spaces, laboratories, equipment, qualified personnel
and resources to allow the project execution.
Any change occurring in the relationship between applicant and the Hosting
Institution (e.g. termination, retirement, leave of absence, sabbatical etc.) or in the
Hosting Institution legal entity or organization (e.g. changes in Institution name,
merging, legal representative turn-over, changes in addresses) must be promptly
notified to AIRC.
24
Eligibility criteria: Double affiliation
• AIRC reserves the right to reject proposals from PIs who, even if jointly affiliated
to an Italian and a foreign institution, do not meet criteria for continuous
presence in the Italian institution for at least 50% of their time (70% for MFAG
and Start-Up), regardless of the “Effort on project” indicated in the application.
• AIRC will enquire with the deans of both the foreign and Italian institutions to
make sure this requirement is met.
25
Eligibility criteria: Resubmission
• AIRC allows only one resubmission for applications that were not funded.
• Revised applications must include a rebuttal to reviewers.
• Applicants who fail to receive funding after two submissions (i.e. the original
and the revised application) may submit a new application only if its research
plan is fundamentally different in content and scope from the two that were
previously considered not fundable.
• An application submitted for the third time (by the same or other applicants)
will not be sent out for review and will automatically be rejected.
26
The application form: what it looks like
27
The application form: personal information
NEW: Applicants are invited to include their ORCID code in the application form.
ORCID is a persistent digital identifier that
distinguishes a researcher from every
other researcher. It has been developed by
a non-profit organization supported by a
global community of organizational
members, including research
organizations, publishers, funders,
professional associations, and other
stakeholders in the research ecosystem.
In order to obtain and ORCID code, please register on https://orcid.org/register
28
Application’s title
The title must be sharp and effective
• What is the question?
• What is the scientific problem related to cancer?
“Control of direct and immune-mediated antitumor activities of IRF-8 by epigenetic drugs in
colorectal cancer”
“Dissecting p63 functions in skin cancer initiation and progression”
“Plasma microRNA profiling as first line screening test for lung cancer detection: a prospective
study”
?
“Post-translational modification of proteins”
“Terminal differentiation opposes transformation, functional bases”
“Proteins as anticancer targets”
29
Abstract
You should answer the
following questions:
• What is your key aim?
• What is the impact on
cancer?
• Why is your question
important and how
you will answer?
• What advance will be
made?
30
Abstract
Keep it short. Get it focused and balanced: do not give too much of introduction in the
background, go straight to the point describing the hypothesis, the impact on cancer, the aims,
experimental design, expected results.
NO
YES
Background Donec luctus viverra ante, non auctor urna pharetra quis. Suspendisse vulputate
venenatis tellus, a fermentum diam cursus ut. Morbi quis nisl lorem, ac gravida nisi. Maecenas
elementum erat posuere purus fringilla tempor. Aenean imperdiet mollis mauris condimentum
molestie. Mauris condimentum, metus aliquet porta ornare, arcu lectus sollicitudin dui, a
consectetur odio leo eu nulla. Phasellus tempus sapien in mi pharetra lacinia.
Background Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Aenean egestas, libero nec mollis
adipiscing, eros ante congue nisi, vitae lobortis tellus augue sed sem. Nulla lacus enim, tincidunt dignissim
laoreet quis, semper ac arcu. In sed eros a nunc mattis aliquet. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent
per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Duis lorem neque, lacinia in sagittis quis, pharetra sed tellus.
Nunc non mi ante, commodo suscipit est. Aenean nibh leo, placerat at semper ac, sagittis quis risus. Duis et
mauris nulla, eget pharetra nisl. Nulla sapien leo, mattis vitae fringilla sed, convallis eget felis. Pellentesque
sed magna suscipit dui hendrerit feugiat ac at sem. Nam facilisis tempus neque sit amet malesuada. Donec
sagittis, ligula eu suscipit viverra, nulla libero interdum diam, vitae adipiscing magna urna id elit.
Pellentesque posuere eros tristique justo iaculis ornare. Cras aliquet consequat leo vitae congue. Proin ante
sem, viverra ut tempus in, rutrum vitae ligula. Pellentesque felis turpis, pharetra id tincidunt at, fringilla nec
dui. Suspendisse potenti. Integer quis pharetra dui. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.
Quisque eu massa vitae mauris faucibus ultrices ac id nunc. Quisque eget tempus arcu. Morbi pulvinar luctus
magna eget volutpat. Pellentesque cursus porta dictum. Nulla porttitor mattis rutrum.
Suspendisse nisi est, porta vel fermentum at, aliquam interdum erat. Nam pulvinar aliquam congue. Ut id arcu
arcu. Etiam turpis massa, porta accumsan malesuada ac, euismod luctus turpis. Aenean fermentum nisi id dui
auctor elementum. In blandit luctus nunc a aliquam. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.
Aenean egestas, libero nec mollis adipiscing, eros ante congue nisi, vitae lobortis tellus augue sed sem. Nulla
lacus enim, tincidunt dignissim laoreet quis, semper ac arcu. In sed eros a nunc mattis aliquet. Class aptent
taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Duis lorem neque, lacinia in
sagittis quis, pharetra sed tellus. Nunc non mi ante, commodo suscipit est. Aenean nibh leo, placerat at
semper ac, sagittis quis risus. Duis et mauris nulla, eget pharetra nisl. Nulla sapien leo, mattis vitae fringilla
sed, convallis eget felis. Pellentesque sed magna suscipit dui hendrerit feugiat ac at sem. Nam facilisis tempus
neque sit amet malesuada. Donec sagittis, ligula eu suscipit viverra, nulla libero interdum diam, vitae
adipiscing magna urna id elit. Nunc non mi ante, commodo suscipit est. Aenean nibh leo, placerat at semper
ac, sagittis quis risus. Duis et mauris nulla, eget pharetra nisl. Nulla sapien leo, mattis vitae fringilla sed,
convallis eget felis. Pellentesque sed magna suscipit dui hendrerit feugiat ac at sem. Nam facilisis tempus
neque sit amet malesuada. Pellentesque sed magna suscipit dui hendrerit feugiat ac at sem. Nam facilisis
tempus neque sit amet malesuada. Donec sagittis, ligula eu suscipit viverra, nulla libero interdum diam, vitae
adipiscing magna urna id elit. Nunc non mi ante, commodo suscipit est. Aenean nibh leo, placerat at semper
ac, sagittis quis risus. Duis et mauris Pellentesque sed magna suscipit dui hendrerit feugiat ac at sem. Nam
facilisis tempus neque sit amet malesuada. Donec sagittis, ligula eu suscipit viverra, nulla libero interdum
Hypothesis Ut aliquet rhoncus ultricies. Mauris eu sagittis risus. Etiam blandit arcu eget neque
laoreet porttitor. Mauris convallis, nulla non commodo semper, turpis erat pulvinar orci, non
fringilla erat diam vitae turpis. Etiam consequat nulla sed elit consequat eget fermentum velit
faucibus. Integer ut lectus interdum justo porta ultricies sit amet id sem. Fusce erat odio, pulvinar
eget facilisis vel, euismod non tellus. Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia
nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Pellentesque ut tellus sed sapien interdum consectetur. Aenean
faucibus tincidunt magna, ac euismod ante placerat ut. Curabitur aliquet sodales dui vel vehicula.
Vivamus hendrerit neque venenatis ligula facilisis ornare. Vestibulum euismod consectetur output
Suspendisse et tellus sit amet arcu sodales elementum convallis ac diam. Duis volutpat mat.
Aims Suspendisse viverra commodo lorem sed bibendum. Mauris adipiscing turpis et elit placerat
sit amet imperdiet tortor interdum. Donec vitae metus nisl, ut tincidunt ipsum. Pellentesque
habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Cras sit amet
sapien sed augue consequat eleifend. Sed quis mollis metus. Nullam tortor arcu, posuere vitae
sodales vitae, elementum eu justo. In in nibh leo, non vulputate lacus. Morbi eleifend pellentesque
justo, a tempus enim interdum vitae. Donec et orci massa. Fusce ac nisi at ligula mollis vulputate.
Nulla a dui id diam malesuada pulvinar ut sed erat. Curabitur neque libero, rutrum ut facilisis id,
aliquet in massa. Nullam non sem augue, at ultrices magna. Donec nisl leo, suscipit ac mattis vel,
luctus ut est. Phasellus eu eros ac dui lacinia volutpat. Suspendisse nibh nisi, vulputate non
faucibus vitae, imperdiet sed nulla. Etiam tellus lorem, aliquam sed feugiat quis, congue id odio..
Experimental design Suspendisse et tellus sit amet arcu sodales elementum convallis ac diam.
Duis volutpat mattis auctor. Vivamus felis nisl, hendrerit vel mattis congue, suscipit sit amet enim.
Nulla lorem ligula, ullamcorper id lacinia ornare, faucibus quis mi. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in
faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Donec id suscipit justo. Duis cursus lorem
congue orci eleifend dictum. Pellentesque quis diam vitae tellus euismod adipiscing. Donec
placerat orci a odio aliquam ultrices ac a nisl. Duis vel mauris odio. Aenean eu leo elit. Vivamus
felis nisl, hendrerit vel mattis congue, suscipit sit amet enim.
Hypothesis Praesent imperdiet facilisis hendrerit. Aliquam erat volutpat. Nullam bibendum dui at magna
ultricies nec accumsan odio accumsan. Duis id rutrum nisl. Curabitur pharetra commodo consectetur.
Aims Duis et mauris nulla, eget pharetra nisl. Nulla sapien leo, mattis vitae fringilla sed, convallis eget felis.
Experimental design Nulla porttitor mattis rutrum.
Expected results Nulla porttitor mattis rutrum. ultricies nec accumsan odio accumsan. Duis id rutrum nisl.
Curabitur pharetra commodo consectetur.
Impact on cancer Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.
expected results
Expected results Suspendisse et tellus sit amet arcu sodales elementum convallis ac diam. Duis
volutpat mattis auctor. Vivamus felis nisl, hendrerit vel mattis congue, suscipit sit amet enim. Nulla
lorem ligula, ullamcorper id lacinia ornare, faucibus quis mi. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in
faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Donec id suscipit justo. Duis cursus lorem
congue orci eleifend dictum. Pellentesque ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Donec id suscipit justo.
Duis cursus lorem congue orci eleifend dictum. Pellentesque
Impact on cancer Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor
incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation
ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
31
Keywords
• Keywords assigned to both proposals and reviewers’ expertise help make
a tentative match between each application and a trio of referees.
• In order to get the match that is the most appropriate and fitting, it is
very important to choose the keyowords accurately.
32
Keywords
Do not choose a set of keywords that are:
• too vague (e.g. genetics + animal model + genomics)
• too similar with each other (e.g. DNA damage + DNA repair)
Try to choose a set that combines the key features of your research plan
Examples:
• dendritic cells + NF-kB family + colorectal cancer + animal model
• Cell cycle checkpoint G1/S + DNA repair + Genomic/Genetic instability + Translesion
synthesis + yeast
33
Proposal main body
Focus and keep it simple
“The PI does not realize that sometimes less is more.”
“The usage of many acronyms does not help - e.g. inhibitors are sometime called PPI or
sometime DI etc.”
“Clear hypotheses are lacking and the PI has simply proposed «to do everything».”
“The present proposal seems to be «a little of everything on very many topics».”
“Unfortunately the proposal has many words, but little substance.”
34
Proposal main body
Define a clear - cancer relevant - hypothesis
“Change the name of the protein that will be studied and the link to cancer disappears. I feel it
is more a methodological project rather than cancer-oriented one.”
“There is a lack of clear goals/aims/impact when it comes to cancer research except for some
rather general statements.”
“Overall, the project is diffuse. Since no clear questions are put, no clear answers can follow.”
“After reading the aims page, I still had no initial idea what this proposal entailed.”
“The applicant might easily get lost in guesswork.”
35
Proposal main body
Avoid fishing expeditions
(unless supported by preliminary data)
“This is mainly a ‘fishing’ expedition. On the one hand, it is possible for fishermen to catch
fish. On the other hand, one would like some indication that fish are really present in these
waters.”
“Overall, the study seems like a major fishing expedition and the
two proposed tasks are very loosely associated.”
36
Proposal main body
Write a compelling story
“A collection of tasks not related to each other is not a project.”
“It is not terribly well-written and sometime it looks like a collage of somewhat unrelated
workpackages with no logically stated and organized aims”
“The grant read a bit like as if the applicant did a PubMed search on exosomes and the tumor
microenvirnment and then proposed to perform every experiment he read about.”
37
Proposal main body
Feasibility: support hypothesis with preliminary data
“While the initial idea is excellent, the proposal is poorly prepared and does not contain any
preliminary data to support the feasibility of the proposed approach.”
“The PI provided the preliminary results requested by the reviewers of the original application;
these data seem promising enough.”
Feasibility: make sure your numbers are statistically significant
“The experimental plan is seriously flawed. Some of the studies are too small to achieve
statistically powered results.”
See also, David L. Vaux, “Know when your numbers are significant”, Nature, Dec. 31 2012 p. 181
Feasibility: show you are experienced in the proposed research field
“It is not clear that the investigator has the experience to do the work”.
“This investigator's past track record and the specific proposal failed to generate any trust.”
38
Proposal main body
Caveat and pitfalls: make sure you have a «plan B»
“If the first experiment fails (i.e. the hypothesis was wrong and you disprove it), they have
nothing to do”.
“In the previous application, a weak side of the project was found to be the lack of alternative
approaches to those proposed as first choices. Now, the newer application has filled this gap,
either by showing preliminary results that confirmed the working hypothesis and/or the
technical approach, or by presenting alternative approaches.”
39
Proposal main body
Revision: reply to all reviewers’ criticisms
“The applicant's chief response to the prior critique seems to be «give me the money and I'll
show you». This was a very disappointing revision in nearly every respect.”
“The project shows some advancement and some changes with respect to last year,
however the framework is fundamentally the same.”
“Following comments on the previous application, it is appreciated that actions have been
taken to substantially modify some of the approaches”
“I want to congratulate the applicant for addressing the issues that were raised by the
referees”
40
Personnel involved in the Research
•
•
•
Personnel involved must have an appropriate expertise.
Provide a CV of personnel members (1 page in English each) to describe their expertise/experience.
Too many «To Be Defined» (TBD) in the personnel section are strongly discouraged.
41
Budget
Ask for what you really need to carry out the proposed research plan
(no reverse engineering).
“The statement that he is setting the number of patient based on budgetary
issues is neither valid nor acceptable. Statistical relevance and not budgets is
what drives good science.”
“A lot of funding dedicated to small bench instrumentation,
which does not look so small at this point…”
Budget
Reviewers will know whether the budget is inflated and can recommend budget
cuts, which AIRC WILL undertake.
“Each and every component of the budget is inflated given the relatively
straightforward nature of much of the programme. I recommend a 40% reduction
in the total budget requested.”
The financial request should be in line with the number of people involved in
the project.
“This budget is overestimated for the few people that will be actively working on
the research plan.”
Publications
•
Emphasis is on prior track
record: first/last author
publications are considered part
of the feasibility of the project.
•
A complete and accurate
information about authorship is
necessary to provide correct
bibliometric parameters for the
evaluation of an applicant’s CV.
•
Applicants will be asked to
underwrite a document to
certify the information provided
is correct.
44
Summing up…
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Why would AIRC want to fund this project? Tell us directly.
Preliminary data are very important. Show the key figures.
Keep the application simple and have one (or more) clear hypotheses to
test.
Present clear but concise descriptions of experiments to be performed (you
don’t need lots of experimental details).
Do not cram too much text onto the form (spaces and diagrams help).
If statistics are relevant (i.e. number of sample, patients etc.), please get
them right!
What is the fallback position? Make sure to have contingency plans.
Why is the PI suitable to conduct the research?
Ask for an amount of money that is consistent with the proposed
experiments.
Get several people to read it: an expert to tell you any missing points, a
generalist to tell you if they understand it.
Don’t leave it too late to do a proper job.
45
Contact us:
[email protected]
AIRC Calls for proposals can be found at:
https://www.direzionescientifica.airc.it/
This presentation is meant to provide a series of tips and suggestions
for writing an AIRC grant application.
Please refer to the AIRC “Calls for proposals 2016” for a complete list
of eligibility requirements and rules.
46
AIRC Peer Review Office (APRO)
Lisa Vozza (AIRC chief scientific officer)
•
•
•
•
•
Degree in Biological sciences
Research Fellow at New York University, USA (1994-95)
Editorial coordinator for the European editions of Scientific American (1996-2003)
Joined AIRC in 2004
Edits and writes popular science books in parallel to her work at AIRC
Alessandra Mazzoni
•
•
•
•
•
Degree in Biological sciences
Research fellow at the National Cancer Institute, Milan (1993-1997)
Research fellow at the National Institutes of Health, USA (1997-2008)
Intern at the NIH Center for Scientific Review, USA (2008)
Joined AIRC at the end of 2008
Laura Galbiati
•
•
•
•
•
Degree in Biological sciences
PhD and Post Doctoral fellow at SISSA/ICGEB, Trieste (1999-2005)
Research fellow at the University of Sussex , UK (2005 -2007)
Business developer at Nature Publishing Group and free-lance editor (IT, FR, ES) (2007-2010)
Joined AIRC in 2010
Ilaria Guerini
•
•
•
•
•
Degree in Biotechnologies
PhD and Post Doctoral fellow at the University of Milan-Bicocca (2005-2009)
Post Doctoral fellow at the Gurdon Institute in Cambridge, UK (2009-2012)
Free-lance scientific writer for Springer Healthcare Italy (2012)
Joined AIRC at the beginning of 2013
47