Animal and Veterinary Innovation Centers (U18)

Scores listed: 100 points (the notice's total wasn't found; check it).

Narrative limit: 30 pages (check the notice for what counts toward it).

1. Significance (25 points, about 7.5 pages)
   What reviewers look for (notice p. 10): Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? Is the prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project rigorous? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field? What tangible impact will be made to animal/human/environmental health or regulatory science? Will this project result in new therapies being made available or other significant advances? Does this application address not only a specific short-term project, but demonstrate sufficient long-term significance to be established as an Innovation Center?
   [[NEEDS: your answer to this criterion, with facts and numbers from your organization]]

2. Investigator(s) (15 points, about 4.5 pages)
   What reviewers look for (notice p. 11): (s) (15 points) Are the PD(s)/PI(s), collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or those in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance, and organizational structure appropriate for the project?
   [[NEEDS: your answer to this criterion, with facts and numbers from your organization]]

3. Innovation (20 points, about 6 pages)
   What reviewers look for (notice p. 11): Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed? Is the work reflective of new technologies or innovations and their impact on public health and regulatory science?
   [[NEEDS: your answer to this criterion, with facts and numbers from your organization]]

4. Approach (25 points, about 7.5 pages)
   What reviewers look for (notice p. 11): Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Have the investigators included plans to address weaknesses in the rigor of prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project? Have the investigators presented strategies to ensure a robust and unbiased approach, as appropriate for the work proposed? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed? Have the investigators presented adequate plans to address relevant biological variables for studies in vertebrate animals? Is there IACUC oversight of research involving vertebrate animals? Are there existing or planned collaborations that will help drive the project…
   [[NEEDS: your answer to this criterion, with facts and numbers from your organization]]

5. Environment (15 points, about 4.5 pages)
   What reviewers look for (notice p. 11): Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment, and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements? Is there ongoing research in this area at the institution that increases the likelihood of success? Does the institution have the proper support to justify long-term presence as an Innovation Center? Additional Review Criteria As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will evaluate the following additional items while determining scientific and technical merit, and in providing an overall impact score, but will not give separate scores for these items. Vertebrate Animals The committee will evaluate the involvement…
   [[NEEDS: your answer to this criterion, with facts and numbers from your organization]]