Systems Biology Pilot Study Application Procedure

1. Letter of Intent (max 1 page)
   Title of proposal
   Participants
   Paragraph (max 1 page) describing
   a. Specific aim(s)
   b. Significance of the potential findings/work emphasizing SyB aspects
2. Full Proposal (max 3 pages) – one year funding period
   Title
   Personnel
   Budget (max $15,000) and justification
   Specific Aim(s)
   Significance (emphasizing SyB aspects)
   Methods/potential results/potential problems and solutions
3. Progress report – at 6 months (max 1 page) & termination (max 3 pages)
   Title
   Synopsis of data collected and significance
   Future funding/publication plans
   Appendix -Budget expenditure report
4. Review criteria
   Systems biology approach (mandatory)
   Future extramural funding plans (mandatory)
   Soundness of the proposed experiments/approach by the usual NIH criteria, i.e., significance, approach, innovation, investigator and environment.
   a. Applications involving faculty across colleges/schools given highest priority
   b. Applications involving faculty across departments within a college/school given high priority
5. Review panel
   LOI
   a. SyBI Director
   b. Member of Steering Committee (1)
6. Full Proposal
   a. Members of Steering Committee (2)
   b. WVU/External reviewer (optional – as needed) (1)
   
   Funding Decision – vote of Steering Committee

Letter of Intent

Email submissions to jbarnett@hsc.wvu.edu encouraged (MS Word, ‘pdf’ or WordPerfect format).

Otherwise, send letter of intent to:
John B. Barnett, Ph.D.
System Biology Initiative
P.O. Box 9178 WVU

NIH Evaluation Criteria –

SIGNIFICANCE: Does this study address an important problem? If the aims of the application are achieved, how will scientific knowledge be advanced? What will be the effect of these studies on the concepts or methods that drive this field?  

APPROACH: Are the conceptual framework, design, methods, and analyses adequately developed, well-integrated, and appropriate to the aims of the project? Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem areas and consider alternative tactics?

INNOVATION: Does the project employ novel concepts, approaches or methods? Are the aims original and innovative? Does the project challenge existing paradigms or develop new methodologies or technologies?

INVESTIGATOR: Is the investigator appropriately trained and well suited to carry out this work? Is the work proposed appropriate to the experience level of the Principal Investigator and other researchers (if any)?

ENVIRONMENT: Does the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Do the proposed experiments take advantage of unique features of the scientific environment or employ useful collaborative arrangements? Is there evidence of [department/college/school] support?