1. Fellowship Writing Luc Teyton, M.D., Ph.D. Department of Immunology and Microbial Science lteyton@scripps.edu

2. Overall Considerations Be prepared, no last minute itch Two months head start Get the administrative part out of the way first Read the instructions You are not doing it for the money but money is at stake and 3 parties are involved: TSRI Your supervisor You

3. The Administrative Trail The Foundation/Organization Supervisor Chairman’s Office TSRI Administration

4. The Foundation/Organization Are you eligible? Read all the instructions Any question? Call

5. Your Supervisor Before you start anything, you need to sit down and discuss: The opportunity/the chances of… The financial aspects Fellowship itself Benefits (who is paying what) Laboratory work

6. TSRI Administration Animal protocol (4-6 weeks) Human subjects (2 to 8 weeks) Standard review process (RACO)

7. RACO All actions (including, but not limited to applications, requests for support, grants, contracts, awards, research, fellowships, competing and non-competing, etc.) taken by TSRI Faculty and their staff that may result in resources coming to, flowing through, or associated with, TSRI are subject to compliance review. These actions go through the RACO review process regardless of whether or not: 1. The applicant is currently at TSRI, 2. A budget is required, 3. Institutional signature is required, 4. The funding source is domestic or foreign, 5. The funding is research or training, 6. the funds flow to or through TSRI, or 7. Any other variations to the above.

8. Why? TSRI is the Recipient and Administrator of your fellowship As such they bear the liability associated to your research and they will guarantee compliance with animal research and human subject guidelines. They will also verify the financial aspects of the application

9. What is needed for RACO? Everything but the Science Title and abstract only

10. Recommendations Do the administration ASAP Talk to your AA Do not take offence if part or all of the application comes back for modifications

11. Review process Criteria for Review 1. Candidate 2. Research environment 3. Potential for training 4. Scientific merit

12. The Candidate Potential to become productive independent scientist Previous research Past productivity – quality over quantity Evidence of commitment to career in research Personal statement Reference letters

13. Sponsor and Training Environment Research expertise Prior experience as mentor Funding for project Laboratory environment Plan for mentorship Has he reviewed the application?

14. Research Proposal Scientific merit Training potential Contributions of candidate and sponsor 2-3 specific aims Realistic, with a realistic timetable -can strengthen by omission!! Preliminary data helpful - critical if have already been in the lab

15. Training Potential Preparation for an independent career Must augment conceptual and/or experimental skills “Key aspect of review”

16. Scoring and Selection 1.0Very rare, the goal 1.2Outstanding, see 1 or 2 per round 1.4Outstanding, 1.6Excellent, no major weaknesses 1.8 Excellent, minor weaknesses that detract 2.0Very good, some significant flaws 2.2Very good, some significant flaws 2.4Better than average, resubmit 2.6Needs significant improvement 2.8Needs significant improvement 3.0“Average” >3Below average, don’t want to see it again

17. 10 Common mistakes 1- non eligible 3- flawed concept 2- overambitious 4- technical impossibilities 5- poor writing 6- presentation/flow 7- junior fellow/senior fellowship 8- senior fellow/junior fellowship 9- timing - publications 10- why the hell did they apply? Any combination of 1-9