• Lead faculty PI needs to be a UConn/UCH faculty member

• Faculty must be tenure-track, tenured, Research, and in-Residence faculty with Assistant Professor rank or higher with an active research program.  Investigators need to have institutionally-funded research time available to devote to the project.
• Faculty may only submit one proposal as lead PI. Investigators may serve as collaborators on multiple projects.

• Multi-PI, interdisciplinary projects are encouraged. Faculty are encouraged to use the School’s website or Lincus, a search engine that will assist in identifying specific faculty expertise at all UConn campuses, including UConn Health. You can also reach out to OVPR Research Development Associate Quinn McAdam at mcadam@uconn.edu.

PROPOSAL GUIDELINES

Please be sure to read all the guidelines thoroughly. Each item/section should be prepared, labeled, and ordered as indicated below.  Some information will need to be entered into a form on the application site.  Other documents will need to be uploaded.  See below for details.

Proposals must be submitted electronically through the UConn Quest Portal by 4/6 and will require the following information:

Faculty Applicant Information Form (some information may pre-populate into the form)

• Submitting PI Name
• Home Department
• School/College
• Email
• Phone
• Faculty/Academic Rank
• Primary Employer
• Question - is your position contingent on grant funding?

MPS SEED GRANT APPLICATION FORM

Faculty Applicant Information

• Special Reviewer Expertise (optional): If your project requires reviewers to possess specific expertise within the context of your discipline (i.e. familiarity with a specialized approach or methodology), please specify.
• Size of Team: 0-8
• Key Personnel: Co-PIs, department affiliation, role on project
• Project Title:
• Total Amount Requested for Reagents and Chips: (not to exceed $25,000.00)
• Total Amount Requested for Reagents:
• Total Cost of Chips: (each chip costs $850.00)
• Project Abstract / Lay Summary: Succinctly state (for a non-specialist audience) the objectives, methods to be employed, and the significance of the proposed activity.
• Future Funding and/or Activities: The applicant should specify where extramural grant proposals will be submitted and/or the high-level disciplinary accomplishments that will result from the MPS Seed Grant Program award.
• Keywords: List 4-5 keywords relevant to project

Project Plan (PDF upload)

The Project Plan should be 2-3 pages in length (12-pt font and 1” margins). The Project Plan should address each of the areas below in sufficient detail using the headings provided. Proposals should be written in straightforward language, keeping in mind that reviewers will possess general content knowledge but not necessarily specialist expertise. Proposals should avoid the use of technical jargon. Acronyms that are not universally understood should be spelled out the first time they are used.  References should be included in the project plan document, but they do not need to be counted against page limits

Significance/Importance: Provide a clear and compelling scientific rationale for the proposed project and how using the MPS platform will accelerate research progress in your chose area of inquiry. Narratives should address both the significance of the scientific questions being explored and the significance of using MPS techniques in the project.

Approach and Feasibility: Describe the plan for carrying out the proposed activities, including research aims, design, work plan, and methodological approach.

Overview of future work enabled by these pilot studies:

• • Identify the external funding opportunities you are targeting (sponsor, specific funding opportunity, targeted submission dates).
  • Briefly describe the team that you will gather for the external submission.
  • Describe other expected research products (publications, presentations, etc.) that you expect to emerge from the project.
  • Describe how the preliminary data produced using this funding will improve your competitiveness for external funding.

Biosketches/CVs (PDF upload, single document)

Please include biosketches/CVs (formatted as appropriate for your field) for all PIs/Co-PIs.  Include your most recent publications or those most relevant to the work proposed.  Also include current/pending support from external sponsors and UConn sources (including start-up funding). This may be appended to the end of the CV/biosketch or integrated within it, if your discipline format already provides space for current/pending.

Appendices (PDF upload, single document)

Additional information may be included when it is truly essential for adequate peer review of the proposal.

Review Process

All proposals will be evaluated by the OVPR for eligibility, then assigned to reviewers whose expertise aligns with the proposals.  The reviewers will in turn recommend proposal(s) for funding to the Faculty Co-chairs who will make final funding recommendations to the OVPR.

• The Faculty Co-chairs provide reviewer suggestions to be invited to review specific proposals. (2 reviewers for each proposal)
• The OVPR will invite reviewers based on disciplinary areas consistent with the proposal category, scholarly reputation, and expertise and specialization consistent with the proposal topic.
• Once the reviews are complete, the Faculty Co-chairs will review the recommendations by the reviewers, identify the strongest proposals for funding, and select the proposal(s) to be recommended for funding, keeping the review criteria in mind.

Review Criteria

Using a 5-point rating scale from 1 (Excellent) to 5 (Poor), reviewers will rate and evaluate 3 criteria (Significance, Approach/ Feasibility and Overview of future work enabled by these pilot studies in alignment with the MPS Seed Grant Program mission to support innovative and collaborative research using Javelin’s MPS (organ-on-a-chip platform).

 Significance/Importance

• Does this study clearly address an important scientific problem in a way that successfully leverages the MPS platform?
• If the aims of the project are achieved, will scientific knowledge, technical capability, clinical practice, and/or social conditions be advanced in meaningful ways?
• Does the proposed project significantly contribute to the concepts, theories, methods, technologies, applications, treatments, outcomes, services, and/or preventive interventions?

Approach/Feasibility

• To what degree does the proposal outline a clearly articulated and well-reasoned plan of action that includes activities, research aims, design and work plan?
• To what degree are the proposed approaches appropriate for the aims of the project? Do they reflect intellectual rigor?
• To what degree is the project, as described in the proposal, achievable?  Are there any concerns about feasibility?
• Does the environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success?

Overview of future work enabled by these pilot studies

• Are the identified external funding opportunities targets within the next year?
• To what extent are the selected funding opportunities appropriate for the proposed project?
• If the proposed project is successful, to what extent will the team’s competitiveness for the targeted external funding opportunities be improved? 

After awards are made and the project has been completed, the OVPR would like to evaluate project progress and to learn more about the impact on the work that has been done.  To this end, you will receive a link to a short survey asking questions about the outcomes and impacts of your project; publications, abstracts, external grant applications, patents, and awards related to the MPS Seed Grant Program once your project has been completed.