1. WCHRI Innovation Grants Application information session 2018
February 2, 2018

2. WCHRI Innovation Grant Program
Up to $50,000 in operating funds over 24 month
Projects must align with WCHRI strategic roadmap and meet WCHRI relevance criteria
Since 2013, WCHRI has funded 30-35% of Innovation applications

3. Eligibility must be WCHRI academic member
must hold a faculty appointment at the U of A (academic or clinical), where the PI is eligible to apply and hold funding according to UAPPOL
may submit one application per cycle
successful applicants are not eligible to apply the following year

4. New this year
WCHRI has moved!! Please submit applications to ECHA 5-083
presentation of information for WCHRI grants competitions has changed.
biomedical panel has been split into 2 committees

5. Application types Applied Health Chair: Dr. Geoff Ball
Art placed here
Applied Health
Chair: Dr. Geoff Ball
aligns with health systems services, clinical, or social, cultural, environmental & population health themes.
corresponds to CIHR Themes 2,3, and 4

6. Application types Biomedical Chairs: Dr. Alan Underhill
Art placed here
Biomedical
Chairs:
Dr. Alan Underhill
Dr. Catherine Field
corresponds to CIHR Theme 1

7. Committee composition
Committees are broadly composed
Do not expect an expert reviewer exactly in your field of research
Avoid jargon/ specific scientific language

8. Committee Review Criteria & Ratings
Committee Consensus Rating Scale
Committee Impression of Application Scientific Merit given Application Cohort
Rating Scale
Outstanding
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Needs Revision

9. Committee Review Criteria
Application Evaluation Criteria
Evaluation Criteria for Reviewers
Percentage contribution to total reviewer score
Quality of Proposal
75%
Quality of Applicant
15%
Impact/KT
10%
The review criteria is available at:

10. Application Relevance
Applications must be:
directly related to women and/or children’s health and health outcomes
aligned to WCHRI vision, mission and strategic roadmap
meets WCHRI relevance criteria
Project relevance & vision, mission and strategic roadmap
High relevance to WCHRI
Moderate relevance to WCHRI
Low relevance to WCHRI

11. Application Relevance
Research question directly relevant to women and/or children’s health.
Research question specifically targets improving outcomes for women and/or children.
Animal models must be clearly justified and provide specific details that include rationale.
Methodology must demonstrate benefit, impact, and/or potential for improved health outcomes.
Refer to

12. Moderate scientific merit
Application Alignment
Eligibility to hold WCHRI funds is based on:
Relevance to WCHRI
Scientific merit
Moderate relevance
High scientific merit
Eligible
High relevance
Low relevance and/or
Low scientific merit
Not Eligible
Moderate scientific merit

13. Preparing your application
Read the application and guidelines
Plan timelines – leave sufficient time to get signatures
Ensure you and a colleague proofread the entire application

14. Co-investigators and collaborators
Co-Investigator contributes to the proposed research activities. A maximum of five co-investigators are allowed.
Collaborator is an individual whose role in the proposed activities is to provide a specific service or resource (e.g., access to equipment, provision of specific reagents, training in a specialized technique, statistical analysis, access to a patient population, etc.).

15. Team composition
Each team member should have a specific role and bring expertise that is unique to them to drive the section of the work they are committed to completing.
Team members may not benefit financially from the grant.

16. Letters of Collaboration
should clearly detail each collaborator’s role or contribution
must be signed by collaborator
(date and letterhead)
NO additional letters of support should be included.

17. Previous WCHRI funding
Include information on outputs from previous funding.
Reviewers expect to see successful project completion resulting in:
publications, presentations and other K/T outcomes/ outputs
leveraging of funding to received additional grants

18. Lay summary
A lay summary is a brief non-scientific summary of your research - written in simple terms for non-experts (grade 8 level).
Why it’s important
Raises awareness and encourages interest
Promotes your research activities to our foundations and the public
Fulfills grant requirements

19. Work Plan Think about feasibility and how the work process will flow
Detail:
timelines for recruitment, data collection etc.
be realistic!
be sure to include outputs (presentations, publications, etc.)

20. Project development Consider…
what are your hypotheses/research questions?
why is your research/project important? Significant? Novel?
potential / immediate / future application(s)?
do you plan on using quantitative methods? qualitative methods? Mixed methods? have you discussed with an expert?
will you be undertaking experimental research? clinical research? Community?

21. Typical project organization
Background - about 1/3 of proposal:
statement of the problem/focus (one/two sentences)
background and significance: current state of knowledge, and gaps
short and long-term objectives
hypothesis/research questions
progress / preliminary studies if possible

22. Typical project organization
Proposal itself - 2/3 of proposal:
research design and methods
characterize sample (cells or people)
data analysis
clearly describe the role of all team members
timelines
strengths and weaknesses

23. Knowledge Translation Plan
Knowledge translation activities and plan are worth 10% of total score, include:
a K/T plan that details the anticipated outcomes and impact
details on knowledge users, how they will be involved in study or K/T process
next steps (future grant applications, preclinical or clinical development, impacts on health policy)

24. Writing the Budget make sure the budget is justified
do not request items that are not allowed
publication is an anticipated outcome - costs should be included!!!

25. Grantsmanship can make the difference
The quality of science of applications in the 10% below the cut-off for funding is not significantly different from the 10% just above the cut-off
Grantsmanship can make the difference
Art placed here

26. Top 3 committee discussion points
Feasibility - Can the work be done in the timeframe allowed with the budget available?
Methods - Does the research support the question? Will the outcome flow from the methodology?
Team Qualifications - Are the investigators qualified? Does the team have appropriate expertise, credentials and experience?

27. Closing Comments you are responsible for your fundability
ask for clarification if necessary
you have some very good resources at this university – start with your colleagues or research mentor

28. WCHRI Can Help! Contact us at wcgrants.ualberta.ca
Further information on this program may be located on our website at: