1. How to land an amfAR grant
Rowena Johnston PhD

2. Who is amfAR?
Since 1985, $480M in research support to > 3,300 science teams

3. Two categories of amfAR research funding
Early career (postdocs) – Mathilde Krim fellowship
Faculty-level: all other amfAR grants

4. Mathilde Krim Fellowship – A path to independence
Ideal candidate:
has 2 remaining years of “postdoc” training
planning to get an independent research position
has a career strategy
This person will change the face of HIV research
Phase II Krimmies are eligible for the C2C related grants which are as follows

5. Mathilde Krim fellowship
What it is
Phase 1
$150k for 2 years
Phase 2
$50k for 1 year
a mechanism to promote career transition from training → independence
a means to supplement the mentor’s research funding
Phase II Krimmies are eligible for the C2C related grants which are as follows

6. Mathilde Krim fellowship
How to get one
Reviewers are looking at the whole package:
Research plan
Candidate
Mentor
Environment
Career statement
Phase II Krimmies are eligible for the C2C related grants which are as follows

7. Mathilde Krim fellowship
How to get one
Phase 1
Differentiate your research from mentor’s
Publications: quality > quantity
Explain red flags: lack of publications, short duration postdocs
Phase 2
Be productive during phase 1
Get an independent research position
Find your own niche
Phase II Krimmies are eligible for the C2C related grants which are as follows

8. If you are faculty level, RFP-driven:
Innovation - $200k, 2 y “seeding an idea”
Impact – $2M, 4y “growing an idea”
Investment - $1.5M, 4y “cross-pollinating”
Post-docs are eligible!
Check with your institution

9. Reviewers are looking for:

10. Reviewers want to tell applicants:
If you put in the wrong details
e.g. you’re using the wrong enzyme, reviewers will notice.
“We read these grants carefully.”

11. Reviewers want to tell applicants:
Tell a whole story, start to finish.
“We can tell if you cut and pasted.”

12. Reviewers want to tell applicants:
Reviewers will know if your lab is already funded to do the work.
“We know if there is overlap.”

13. Reviewers want to tell applicants:
If two applications are similar in content and quality, but one looks like they are trying to hide something, the honest applicant will be favored.
“You are in competition with other applicants.”

14. Reviewers want to tell applicants:
Reviewers want to see that you can do what you say you will do.
Do you work outside the United States? Put in more preliminary data than what you’re used to.
“Include preliminary data.”

15. Reviewers want to tell applicants:
“Propose a realistic timeline.”
Don’t put 10 years worth of experiments in a two-year grant.
Don’t put 6 weeks worth of experiments in a two-year grant.

16. Reviewers want to tell applicants:
If there is not time in the grant, don’t try to squeeze it in.
Instead, say “This is what I plan to do after this grant is finished.”
“Tell us your future plans.”

17. Reviewers want to tell applicants:
If your plan is high risk, say that explicitly.
E.g. if whole grant depends on aim 1, acknowledge that you know this, and talk about alternate plans.
“Be honest.”

18. Reviewers want to tell applicants:
If everybody else in the field is using a tool that doesn’t address the question correctly, you should propose using the right tool.
“Answer your question the right way.”

19. Reviewers want to tell applicants:
Many of the reviewers had first funding with amfAR, including our Chair.
“We understand where you’re coming from.”

20. Peer review  Program review
RESPONSIVE TO THE RFP?
NECESSARY cure related research?
IMPORTANT ADVANCES in the field?
CLINICALLY RELEVANT?
Repetitive in the field?

21. Sign up for amfAR RFP alerts! www.amfAR.org

23. Reviewers are looking for:
“We read these grants carefully.” If you put in the wrong details e.g. you’re using the wrong enzyme, we’ll notice.
“We can tell if you cut and pasted.” Tell a whole story.
“We know if there’s overlap.” If your lab is already funded to do this, reviewers will know
“You’re in competition with other people.” Be better (more honest etc) than the others.
“Put in enough preliminary data”. If you’re not American, this is an American-style application. We want to know you can do what you say you’ll do.
“Propose a realistic timeline.”
“Tell us your future plans”. Rather than squeeze everything into this grant, say explicitly what the next steps would be (shows reviewers you’ve thought about it)
“Be honest.” if it’s high risk, say that explicitly. If aim 1 is to design an Ab, and the rest hinges on that, talk about alternate plans in case aim 1 doesn’t work out.
“Answer your question the right way.” Just because everyone else is using humanized mice doesn’t mean you have to. If humanized mice are not the right animal model for your question, propose something else.
“We understand where you’re coming from.” Many of the people on the review committee started with amfAR. Incl chair.

24. Conference tips Email conference organizers about being a rapporteur
Prepare for conferences to find out about The Buzz.
Poster sessions are great networking events. Work the poster!
Ask senior scientists, “What was the most exciting talk you’ve heard so far?”
Can’t attend a conference? Follow its hashtag to stay in the know
Expand your scientific horizons! Of scientists that log on to Twitter
50% - to follow scientific discussions
40% - to learn about new papers
Presenting a poster? Ask, “What’s your opinion on this tricky/interesting/unexpected experiment in my poster?”
Looking at a poster? Ask, “ I really like what you did here. It relates to this thing I saw at the conference. Did you see blah blah?” This is where being prepared comes in.