HRC Annual Funding Round 2015
Information for BMAC members
Dr Katie Evans
Project Manager - Biomedical
Investment Processes Group
ANNUAL FUNDING ROUND 2015
• 321 Project EOI’s submitted across all streams
• 137 to consider at 5 BMAC meetings (HW & IOACC)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
26 BMAC1
32 BMAC2
23 BMAC3
28 BMAC4
28 BMAC5
61 to consider at 2 CTAC (HW, IOACC & HD)
79 to consider at 3 PHAC meetings (HW & IOACC)
28 to consider at the HDAC meeting (NZHD)
16 to consider at the MHAC meeting (RHM)
RESEARCH INVESTMENT STREAMS
Health and Wellbeing in NZ
Understanding health and preventing
illness & injury
NZ Health
Delivery
Improving Outcomes for Acute &
Chronic Conditions in NZ
Immediate
impact on
policy &
health
delivery
Improving outcomes in illness
& injury
Rangahau Hauora Māori
Building Māori knowledge & capability to address
Māori health issues
 Purpose: Research that keeps people healthy & independent
 Scope: Clear link with improving health & wellbeing
Goals:
Understanding, maintaining & enhancing health
Preventing disease & injury
Understanding & reducing inequalities in risk factors &
determinants for disease & injury
• Driving innovation through new knowledge
• Delivering direct economic benefits for NZ

•
•
•
 Purpose: Improving understanding & management of disease
 Scope: Clear link to a specific disease, condition/impairment
 Goals:
• Improve understanding of molecular, cellular or pathological
basis
• Improving outcomes for individuals/populations
• Cost-effective economically sustainable solutions
• Reducing inequalities in health-related outcomes
• Delivering direct economic benefits
SCIENCE ASSESSING COMMITTEE
• Aim
• Meeting Procedure
• Full Stage Recommendations
SCIENCE ASSESSING COMMITTEE MEETING
AIM: to discuss, score and rank EOIs, and recommend
selection of Full applications (this is NOT a funding
decision)
• EOIs with lowest average pre-scores triaged
• Discussion will take place in a randomized order
• EOIs will be ranked by score & presented at the end of the
meeting
TIME ALLOCATION
The total time available for this meeting is limited so we
must keep to schedule.
For each application, the following times are suggested:
• Declaration & management of COIs ~ 1 min
• Lead Committee Reviewer (CR) comments ~ 5 min
• General Discussion ~10 min
• Scoring ~ 1-2 min
• Points noted for written feedback ~ 1-2 min
• Total time ~ 15-20 min
RECOMMENDATIONS
• Should an EOI be invited back as a Full application?
• Scores from each SAC will be normalized & ranked
(against all other committees in same RIS), and top EOI
applicants will be invited to submit full applications
• EOI outcomes released by 6th October
• Full Application – should allow 40-50% chance of funding
FINER DETAILS
• CR responsibilities
• Conflict of Interest management
• Responsiveness to Māori
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CR
• Providing an overview & assessment of assigned applications
• Commenting on 4 different score criteria
• Commenting on any issues relevant (positive/negative)
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Declare potential COIs with applicants (PI & NI’s), if:
• From same department, institution or company
• Directly involved in research/collaborated/published/coapplicant, within last 5 yrs
• A student/supervisor within the last 10 yrs
• A close personal friend/relative
• Any significant scientific/personal differences
• Potential for financial gain/loss from the outcome
• You cannot provide an objective review
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST MANAGEMENT
COIs discussed, with one of the following outcomes:
1. No action necessary, conflict noted
2. Member may be asked questions relating to their unique
knowledge, but will not score
3. Member must not be present during discussion or scoring
of proposals
RESPONSIVENESS TO MĀORI
• SAC required to review whether consultation &
involvement of Māori as researchers and/or participants is
appropriate
• Responsiveness to Māori could impact one or more scoring
criteria
ASSESSMENT & SCORING
•
•
•
•
Score criteria & descriptors
Assessing Impact
Weighting of scores
Review & re-ranking
ASSESSMENT & SCORING
• Rationale for Research
• Study design & methods
• Research Impact
• Expertise & Track Record of
the Research Team
• Global Score (not in total &
used only as tie breaker)
Score
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Descriptor
Exceptional
Excellent
Very good
Good
Adequate
Unsatisfactory
Poor
YOUR DISCUSSION
• Consider each of the 4 criteria
• Do not focus only on Design & Methods
• Consider Research impact (more next slide)
• Should the applicants be invited to submit a full
application?
SCORING IMPACT
• The applicant must state how their research contributes to
investment signal goal(s)
• If not addressed in any detail this must be reflected in score
• If definitely in the wrong research investment stream, a
score of 1 should be given
WEIGHTING OF SCORES
Criteria
Points
% score
Rationale for research
7
25
Design and methods
7
25
Research Impact
7
25
Expertise and track record
of the research team
7
25
Global (not incl. in total)
7
0
Total
28
100
Electronic Scoring
• Turn on device
• When “voting is open” you see :
–
–
–
–
application ID no 15/XXX
which “Question” 1-4: Rationale, D&M, TR, Impact
Q5 & Q6 blank (enter any number)
Q7 Global score
– “Answer” each question & “Enter” your score (1-7)
NOTE: - Whole numbers only
- Cannot re-score; record on score sheet
REVIEW SCORES & RE-RANKING
• Ranked total scores presented for discussion
• Re-ranking:
– Any member may propose an application for re-ranking
– COI noted & managed
– Scores modified, after discussion & agreement, by adding
±0.5 points max. to 1 or 2 score criteria
– New ranking & adjusted Totals considered
– This can be repeated for a number of applications
• Members identify cut point off – those below NOT invited to
submit full application
CONCLUSION
• At the end of the meeting
• Feedback to applicants
AT THE END OF THE MEETING . . .
• Hand in all documentation & proposals
• Complete your expense claim forms
• Complete feedback to applicants in next 3 days
• Keep everything confidential
• Committee Dinner
FEEDBACK TO APPLICANTS
• Applicants will receive review summary feedback from the CR
• In next 3 days – collated & Chair approval before results released
• Applicants will also receive quantitative feedback:
1) Percentile ranking of SAC score (if discussed); or
2) Percentile ranking of SAC pre-scores (if triaged)
THANK YOU
• All processes are fully described in the provided HRC
Peer Review Manual
• Don’t forget:
• to note your Review Summaries
• Hand in your expense claim