Frequently Asked Questions
The same questions arise repeatedly, and applicants inadvertently fail to anticipate routine issues in grant preparation and the review process. There is no substitute for carefully reading over our instructions for each award type and the detailed instructions for preparing the application forms. Try to understand the criteria used by our peer review committees and advisory Council to evaluate your application. Have a colleague or friend read through your materials to get feedback on the overall, coherent presentation of your ideas and rationale for the research being proposed. Take the time to connect your research topic to the individual (patient) needs and the social/community impact of breast cancer.
Look though the following list of Qs and As and utilize the information to improve your chances of success. Don’t hesitate to contact the CBCRP staff by e-mail or phone to discuss your application questions.
•
Basic science topics, including: Biology of the Breast Cell (including
tumor biology); Detection, Prognosis and Treatment: contact Larry
Fitzgerald,
Ph.D.510 987-0712
•
Population and social sciences, including: Community Impact; Health Policy
and Health Services; Etiology and Prevention; Sociocultural, Behavioral,
and Psychological Issues; Disparities research: contact Walter
Price, Dr.P.H. 510 987-9886
•
Community Research Collaboration (CRC) applications: contact Walter
Price, Dr.P.H. 510 987-9886 or Natalie
Collins at 510 987-0646
Q. What are some key changes in the CBCRP application process for this
year?
A. Some of the forms are revised, so don’t upload forms from previous
years. Even though the submission is on-line through proposalCENTRAL,
you must send us a complete “paper copy” of your application,
including the appendix, along with one additional copy (i.e., 2 complete
copies of the application). Be sure original signatures are present on
the “paper copy” version. Otherwise there are no big surprises
in the application process for 2007.
Q. Will CBCRP extent the submission deadline?
A. To be fair to all applicants we cannot extend these deadlines. We
have adjusted the deadline time to be 3 PM (EST) which is Noon (Pacific
time). Thus, applicants have time to contact proposalCENTRAL’s
customer service, which is open until 5 PM (EST), to resolve any technical
difficulties.
Q. Do I need to submit a “letter of intent” (LOI)?
A. LOIs are not required for IDEA (both regular and “junior investigator”),
postdoc fellowships, and dissertation awards. All other award types (CRCs,
the Translational Research Award, and IDEA-competitive renewal) require
an LOI. Be sure to contact us, if you have any questions!
Q. What are the main problems you see in the on-line submission process
through proposalCENTRAL?
A. Many applicants wait until the very last minute to complete their
document uploads and submit. About 20% of our applications are submitted
in the last 2-hrs prior to the deadline, many in the last few minutes!
Very large PDF files require time to upload due to inclusion of photos
and complex graphics. Be sure to “validate” your application
during the preparation process to determine any missing items, so these
can be addressed in a timely fashion.
Q. If I make a mistake in my proposalCENTRAL uploads and want to submit
a replacement document, will CBCRP permit me to complete this?
A. Until you validate and submit your application, you can delete and
replace any PDF uploads to your application without any special permission
from proposalCENTRAL or CBCRP. If you have already submitted (i.e., hit
the “submit” button and received a confirmation e-mail from
proposalCENTRAL) prior to the deadline, then you can “un-submit” yourself
in order to replace your uploaded documents. Be sure to submit again!
After the deadline, you should immediately contact us and describe your
problem. It is possible that we may extend your deadline to allow you
to un-submit and replace a missing item. Alternatively, you could be
required to e-mail the replacement PDF file to us, and we will arrange
to have it replaced by proposalCENTRAL. Once the review process has begun,
we cannot allow edits to your application. Publications or other additional
data/information will not be allowed to be added to the application after
the submission deadline.
Q. I already have (or previously received) a CBCRP award. May I apply
for additional funding?
A. In general, a PI can receive additional CBCRP funding for new projects
every year. It’s always best to contact us and discuss your situation
prior to submitting an application. However, consider the following points:
For IDEA: If you have received and IDEA grant, then you can apply for
an IDEA- renewal within 2-yrs of you original award. If you apply for
a new IDEA, then the application must not overlap with your current or
past IDEA in terms of specific aims. Thus, you need to design a distinctly
new project. If you are continuing in the same research topic, then the
new application should show substantial conceptual development. With
our revised format for the IDEA funding mechanism, it is our intent to
fund brand-new research projects as an IDEA, and then support the most
successful projects with a "competitive renewal." In general,
if you have received previous funding for a specific line of research,
then we feel that it should have moved beyond the IDEA stage.
Postdocs can only receive one fellowship award from CBCRP, but if they
advance past postdoctoral level they could be eligible for an IDEA grant.
Call us to discuss this possibility before applying.
Dissertation Award recipients apply for a Postdoctoral
Fellowship, and the project does not necessarily need to be totally
different from the
previous grant.
Q. I'm not sure what type of project would qualify for an IDEA grant?
A. Ask yourself these questions. Do you have a new line of research without
much preliminary data that has the potential to make a breakthrough,
if successful? Are you employing a novel approach to an existing research
question? Are you challenging an accepted paradigm? Can you place your
project, if successful, on a "critical path" to translation
and practical use? If you can answer "yes" to some or all
of these questions, then you have a good starting point for an IDEA
application.
We are not interested in IDEA projects that: (1) propose incremental
advances for the underlying topic, (2) duplicate the aims of completed
or funded research to the PI derived from non-breast cancer studies
without incorporating detailed breast cancer-specific justification,
(3) overlap
in topic and aims with current grant support to the applicant, or (4)
represent portions of existing grants or are derived from cut-down
larger, R01-type projects. Take a look at CBCRP-funded IDEA grants
to get a sense
of the types of projects we have funded in your research topic.
Q. What are you asking us to include for the "critical path" on
the “Critical Path and Additional Criteria” application
form?
A. First, read carefully through the form instructions and look through
the examples provided. Are you more a "bench to bedside" (basic
science/clinical) or more a "bench to trench" (community/population/policy/sociocultural)
researcher? Then, consider where your project, if successful, would lead
on a path to translation and practical application. Look back at your
research topic from the perspectives of the social impact of the disease
and the patient's needs. Consider the human issues (e.g., population
disparities, the underserved, individuals at high risk, survivors facing
disease recurrence, drugs that work for only a fraction of patients,
detection methods that miss a substantial fraction of breast cancers)
and trace a path back to your research project. Identify barriers that
would prevent your research topic from advancing, and explain to the
reviewers how you propose to tackle them with a new, innovative approach.
Thus, provide a translational link (temporal sequence of steps) between
your project and research topic that addresses specific patient and social
needs relevant to breast cancer.
Q. My project does not deal with advocacy or the human issues
of breast cancer. How do I discuss advocacy involvement and awareness
of their
concerns on “Additional Criteria” application form and
the abstracts?
A. The CBCRP was founded in 1993 though the efforts of California breast
cancer advocates, so this issue of connecting advocacy to research
is important to us. Did you know that advocates participate in the
peer
review for all of our grant applications? Did you know that one-third
of the membership of our advisory Council, who make funding recommendations,
are advocates? Now that you know this, you should take the time to
look at the advocacy/activist Web sites we list in the “Lay Abstract” instructions.
You must have some creative thoughts on how your research might someday
lead to a better treatment, make diagnosis more accurate, decrease
the uncertainty of living with breast cancer, or give the physician/patient
more options. It is better to address relevance to human issues thoughtfully,
and not just mark it as "n/a" on the application forms. Our
reviewers, especially advocates, feel that an "n/a" answer
indicates that the PI does not care about the human issues associated
with breast cancer. Try to avoid merely quoting breast cancer incidence
and mortality statistics as a rationale of your project. Study the
disease in depth, talk to advocates and other researchers, and develop
a more
detailed theme for the relevance of your project. Read through the
instructions for the “Additional Criteria” form. The CBCRP's
position is that all researchers would benefit from an awareness of
advocacy
concerns, and it is reasonable for even basic scientists to involve
advocates in
their research projects.
Q. Explain the "tenure limit" for
postdoctoral fellows that affects their ability to receive a CBCRP
fellowship award?
A. We are place a five-year limit on the total time a researcher can
be a postdoc and still receive CBCRP funding. This means to get a full
three-year fellowship award you would need to have been employed as
a postdoc for under two years as of 7/1/07. Thus, the total duration
of
CBCRP funding + previous postdoctoral training cannot exceed five years.
We do encourage postdoctoral applications with one- or two-year durations,
if this "tenure policy" prevents a researcher for applying
for the maximum period of support. Time spent in clinical training (M.D.)
does not apply to the postdoctoral tenure limit. If you are several years
past your Ph.D., it is important to let the Program and reviewers know
how you have been employed or spent time during this period. Do this
on the “Program Responsiveness” and “Career Plan” application
forms.
Q. Is it a problem that my research topic overlaps two CBCRP Priority
Issues? How do I deal with this issue when submitting the application?
A. Having two Priority Issues represented in your application is not
a problem. You do need to select the one (1) that best matches your
research project and check the appropriate box on the “Program Responsiveness” form,
and also in that proposalCENTRAL “abstracts page” at the
bottom. If a second Priority Issue applies to your project, then discuss
the reasons on the “Program Responsiveness” form. Look
through our previously funded grants by priority issue on our Web site
under
Research Portfolio and compare them with your proposed project.
Q. Can a postdoc or dissertation application and an IDEA application
from the mentor have the same topic and specific aims?
A. We adopted a more specific policy on this issue and we are now discouraging
overlapping projects from mentors and the trainees in their lab. Note
these key points from our application instructions: (1) " It is
strongly recommended that postdocs submit unique projects distinct from
their mentor’s other funding, because it shows a direction towards
greater independence.", and (2) “All Cycle 13 submitted applications
must be distinct projects with unique specific aims. If concurrent Cycle
13 applications are submitted from the same research group on a similar
topic, then the differences must be clarified using the “Distinction
from Other Funding” template. The peer review committee and Program
will decide whether any overlap between applications is acceptable." If
you have further questions on this issue, then contact the Program
staff.
Q. May I apply for an IDEA “junior investigator” award
if I am still employed as a postdoc?
A. No, you must have advanced in your career path (i.e., job title)
past the postdoctoral level by the time the application is due on January
10, 2007.
Q. I'm a new faculty member and I can't decide whether I qualify
for the "junior investigator" category of IDEA.
A. You need to have been an independent investigator (i.e., having separate
space and a faculty-level appointment) for less than three years as of
July 1, 2007 to qualify for the "junior investigator" category
of IDEA.
Q. I'm finishing a postdoctoral fellowship and will continue
to work in my former mentor's lab. Do I qualify for the "junior investigator" category
of IDEA?
A. If your employment status is beyond postdoctoral fellow as of January
10, 2007 + if your institution considers you to be qualified to submit
grant applications as a "principal investigator" + if you are
ready to manage your own research project, then the answer is: yes. You
also need to propose a new, innovative research project that is distinct
from your mentor's exiting research and grant funding. Be sure to address
these issues when filling out application form “Program Responsiveness”,
and include your supervisor's name on the Appendix Cover List and upload
his/her other support pages in the appendix.
Q. Do you require applicants to be US citizens or have permanent resident
status?
A. No. Unlike the NIH we do not have these restrictions.
Q. I'm working in basic science, but can't decide whether my
project fits under the “Biology of the Breast Cell” or “Etiology” priority
areas.
A. Almost all basic science, tumor and cell biology applications should
be submitted under Biology of the Breast Cell. Even though we list
many basic science-oriented projects from 1995-2000 under Etiology
on our
Web site, we have refined the definitions of our Priority Issues and
are currently placing basic science almost exclusively under Biology
of the Breast Cell. The Etiology priority issue is appropriate for
projects that focus more on the role of environmental (e.g., chemicals
and external
factors) and lifestyle (e.g., parity, exercise, obesity) factors that
lead to developing or increasing risk for breast cancer.
Q. Is it a problem, if I submit two separate applications?
A. An investigator may submit more than one application, but each application
must have unique specific aims. Our new policy on awarding new grants
is: a PI is limited to one IDEA grant, one IDEA competitive renewal
grant, one Translational Research Award, and one co-PI award as part
of a CRC
grant.
Q. Can more than one graduate student (Dissertation award) or postdoctoral
fellow apply from the same lab or research unit?
A. Yes. We place no restrictions on the number of applications or potential
grants from a single research group.
Q. I'm planning to work with a colleague on my application topic. Do
I list this person as a Key Personnel, collaborator/consultant, or
in some other way? How would I handle the budget and any indirect costs
associated with collaboration?
A. Point 1- If the colleague will be working as a key player in the
project, is in the same institution as you, is critical for completing
a specific
aim, and is more "day-to-day" in the project—then they
are Listed as a Key Personnel on this form. You also need to upload their
biosketch. They do not necessarily need to devote any specific %FTE to
the grant, but if they do—then this support should be justified
on the “Budget Justification” form. It is your option of
whether they should be paid from the grant for this FTE. A letter of
collaboration in the Appendix is also recommended.
Point 2-
If your colleague is at another institution + they have a Key Personnel
role + they are paid as part of the budget for personnel
costs,
supplies, travel, etc.— then their yearly budget totals (direct
+ indirect) are shown in the “Budget Summary” under “Consultant/Contract
Costs.” In the Appendix provide a yearly breakdown of Personnel,
Supplies, Travel, and other costs associated with the subcontract. If
the institution submitting the application is a UC campus, then the subcontracted
institution, if non-UC, can be paid Indirect Costs. Note: we will allow
UC institutions to exceed the direct budget cap for the award type to
account for any indirect costs associated with any non-UC subcontract.
The non-UC subcontracted institution needs to include a “Budget
Summary” in the appendix. Use this form to show the indirect
costs associated with the sub-contracted institution. A letter of collaboration
in the Appendix is recommended for subcontracts.
Point 3-
If your collaborator merely supplies standard technical-type support, such
as antibodies, gene constructs, a cell line, or a database
access—then they should provide a letter of collaboration in
the Appendix, but they do not need to be listed as a Key Personnel.
Q. Is it a problem if I submit an application using either Human or
Vertebrate Subjects without having the institution approval documents
in place?
A. You only need these approvals finalized once an offer of funding
is made. However, if these approvals are not submitted with the application,
then be sure to address the items listed in the instruction for “Human
Subjects” and “Vertebrate Animals” forms.
Q. When making the application “hard copies” that
I send to CBCRP, do I need to include original photos and other better
quality
graphics?
A. This is no longer necessary, since the reviewers will have access
to photographs and other graphics that you submit as PDF documents.
It’s
OK to send us plain Xeroxed pages.
Q. What's best to include in the appendix to support my research?
A. Keep it short by limiting the appendix to no more than 30-pages.
The “Research
Plan” needs to be self-contained and understandable without referring
to the appendix. Use the appendix mainly for key supplemental information,
a limited number of reprints of your publications, and the appropriate
letters of collaboration. We specify a maximum size of twenty pages
for the appendix. Most appendices submitted with applications are too
extensive
and, thus, do not serve to support the application. If the review committee
feels that there are problems in the Research Plan, then the appendix
will not solve the problem. Remember: we will not allow you to send
us supplemental information after the application submission deadline.
Q. What are some application problems that are commonly revealed in
the CBCRP peer review process?
A. For career development applications we see problems of: (i) too
many aims,(ii) not enough mentor input to better organize the research
plan,(iii)
too many spelling errors and sloppy editing, (iv) insufficient career
goals directed at breast cancer, and (v) a training plan not focused
on breast cancer. The PI (student or postdoc applicant) must write
the text for the abstracts, career plan, additional criteria, and research
plan. The mentor should give guidance by prioritizing aims, matching
the amount of work to the project duration, tailoring the project goals
to the applicant's skill level and training plan, correcting any defects
in English usage, and designing a training plan (“Mentor Profile
and Training Plan” form) focused on breast cancer. Remember that
the “Career Plan” form is critical for both the scientific
and programmatic reviews, so spend some time working on it!
For IDEAs,
the applications often are either too closely associated with past or present
projects by the PI or lack a central,
testable
hypothesis.
Although we do not require applications to be "hypothesis-driven",
reviewers often use the "fishing expedition" term when describing
data gathering or correlative project. Be specific on explaining why
the research is innovative and identify the "high risk/high" reward
elements. We ask our reviewers to look for "cut down" R-01s,
and obvious cut-and-paste text obtained from prior applications.
General advice: include
a project summary or timeline at the end of the Research Plan, explain
both the expected results and possible pitfalls
in the research, and be sure all of the needed expertise for the project
is accounted for in the biosketches of the Key Personnel, personnel
descriptions
in Budget Justification, background on the project, publications, or
in letters from collaborators. Finally, we recommend identifying either
the central hypothesis of the research or the key question being addressed
both in the abstracts and first part of the Research Plan. Finally,
applicants often neglect to discuss how the expected results will be
interpreted
or statistically analyzed. What will you know at the end of the proposed
project that you didn’t know at the start?
Q. What are some problems applicants encounter in the programmatic
review?
A. Sadly, many applicants do not take the time to study the process
and understand what information is being asked from them when completing
the application forms used for the programmatic review. First, applicants
should read through the description of our funding process and the
programmatic
review criteria in the instructions for their specific award type.
Familiarize yourself with the programmatic criteria and the application
forms that
address them. Some weaknesses we commonly see are: (i) lack of a lay
language and a good presentation of the project in the “Lay Abstract”,
(ii) no compelling statement why the application addresses the CBCRP
priority issue or award type in the “Program Responsiveness” form,
(iii) no thoughtful statements of how the project would address the issues
of underserved populations, address advocacy concerns, or involve advocates
(“Additional Criteria” and abstract forms), and (iv) how
the project would add to the CBCRP portfolio (discuss on the “Distinction
from Other Funding” form) For dissertation award and postdoc applicants,
the “Career Plan” and “Mentor Profile and Training
Plan” should show a focus on breast cancer and explain why the
proposed project will advance the career of the PI. The “Critical
Path” for IDEA applications should be well thought out, provide
good detail, and appeal to both scientific reviewers and our advisory
Council members in the less “expertise-driven” programmatic
review.
Q. My previous application was not funded. Should I prepare
a “resubmission” (revision)
or submit the 2007 application as "new"?
A. First, we only allow resubmissions for unfunded Dissertation, Postdoctoral
Fellowship, and IDEA applications from the previous grant cycle. Next,
if the 2007/Cycle 13 application is submitted as "revised",
then the reviewers will be provided the previous application's evaluation
summary document. So, you must: (i) address the main points of previous
reviewers’ concerns, (ii) strengthen the problems that were associated
with average scientific merit score scoring, and (iii) do some additional,
developmental work on the project. If you can address all three of these
points, then a revision is recommended. In contrast, if: (i) the previous
evaluation critique was very negative, (ii) the scores low (below 6 average
merit or below 5 in any of the components), and (iii) you decide to make
changes to the specific aims—then a “new” submission
is in order. Review committee members have excellent memories! So, if
you submitted a previous application that was “not funded”,
then you are advised to discuss this issue even when submitting the 2007
application as "new." In addition, reviewers will look at our
CBCRP web site, and the grant listings/abstracts from other agencies
(e.g., NIH, DOD-BCRP, and Komen) to see what you might have been funded
for previously. If you appear to have worked for some time in the same
topic as your proposed CBCRP application, then this might affect your "innovation" and "impact" scores.
It is always best for you to fully explain to the reviewers the distinctions
between the present application and your previous funding and publications
in the “Research Plan” and “Distinction from Other
Funding” forms.
Q. What final pieces of advice to you have to offer?
A. Read through our application instructions carefully. Pay special
attention to the content of the Lay and Scientific abstracts. Don't
be afraid to
think outside the box. Have a colleague proofread your application
prior to submission. Study and address the scoring criteria for your
award
type. Pay special attention to the programmatic review criteria.
Be sure to submit the application by the deadline! If you have additional
questions,
then don't hesitate to contact us.
