1. Michael Gradisar – School of Psychology
PROJECT GRANTS Round
NHMRC APPLICATIONS
Michael Gradisar – School of Psychology

2. Background Assistant Chair, Panel 3E, Microbiology & Virology
I don’t know much about bugs and fungi (but I learned a lot)
There were two Microbiology & Virology panels
After ‘Not For Further Consideration’ (NFFC), our panel assessed 71 Project Grant applications across 5 days.
Panel consisted of Chair, A/Chair, Secretary, and ~11 panel members (some repeat Panel members). Some ‘rising stars’ (post-docs) but mostly ‘top notch’ experts
On occasion, ECRs and RAOs would sit in and observe.

3. Reviewing applications
Basic details announced by Chair, including if ECR, career disruptions, CoIs, and up-to-date scores of each category by each Spokesperson (both spokespeople are often close in their scores).
Spokesperson 1 provides a ‘several-minute summary’ of your application, often going through each category, and outlining pros and cons.
Spokesperson 2 provides a ‘few-minute summary’ of the Assessors’ comments and pros and cons of your rebuttal.
Your review is then open to comments to the panel for a few-to-several minutes.
When panel ready to score, members asked if anyone will score 2 or more points away from Spokesperson 1.

4. Reviewing applications (continued)
When all panel member scores are entered, the Secretary announces the overall score.
If score is over 5, then this triggers a ‘budget discussion’ (usually takes a couple-to-a-few minutes)
If the application is by an ECR, then an overall score of 4.5 triggered a budget discussion
Approximately 1 in every 2 applications had a budget discussion.

5. Scientific Quality Need pilot data!
Common application had 3 aims/studies, and the first two had good/convincing pilot data
Shows a ‘line of research’, and that you need funding to prove the rest of your proposed research.
Make aims clear, valid, and interesting
Aim for a lucid, well-written background
Use models to support your aims and hypotheses.
An excellent scientific quality section can lift an application into the funding zone (eg, ECR + expert application scored v.well because of outstanding scientific quality score).

6. Significance and Innovation
Aim for ‘sideways crazy’
That is, aim for a ‘large leap forward’ as opposed to an ‘incremental step’.
For Panel 3E, good/novel mouse models or techniques were evidence for innovation.
At the end of reviewing all applications, the panel is asked to nominate one application that was extremely novel. Even if this application did not receive an overall high score, it could be considered for funding.

7. Track Record 7s were extremely rare.
Even if a person had a track record that looked like they did not have weekends, they still got a 6.
Panel members rated track record by the prestige of the journals published in – for Microbiology & Virology, the top journals mentioned were Nature, Science, PLOS Pathogens, Cell and PNAS. Multiple publications in top journals attracted a 5 or 6 score.
Need plenty of first-named and senior authorships.
Track record relative to opportunity is taken into account. Read rules around career disruption vs interruption.
Can mention number of hours spent teaching (but not a career disruption/interruption).

8. Budgets
Panel members are researchers and understand how the research is to be conducted and how much things cost
If you ‘pad out’ your budget, it will be cut.
Aim for modest Direct Research Costs (DRCs)
Your research costs, and project duration should be well justified (eg, a whole year of funding can be wiped out if the panel believe a 4-year project can be done in 3 years).
The panel receive ongoing indicators of how much the budget is being cut – and the panel members care about whether the research can be performed.
The Chair will finalise the budget discussion by asking for any reservations to any items, and the overall budget.

9. General Points
Prepare your track record, years ahead of your application
Have good pilot data (the better the pilot data, the more ‘confidence’ the panel have in the project)
Keep referring back to the Category Descriptors (the panel members will)
The panel members can Google your research and the research of others within the 30-min review of your application (ie, has this project been done before)
Avoid fishing expeditions
Panel members primarily responsible for applications (ie, Spokesperson 1 or 2) will read your application 4 to 6 times, including the night before it is to be reviewed by the panel.

10. General Points (continued)
The Rebuttal is very important.
Quality of the rebuttal can change initial scores (in either direction)
Do not:
ignore the Assessor comments,
focus more on the Spokesperson’s comments,
debate comments if valid arguments are raised,
Adequately answering the Assessor comments can retain your initial scores – even raise them.
There can be a preference for addressing Assessor comments in order
Don’t waste time thanking Assessors.
Do not leave whitespace.