CDMRP Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program Discovery Award for Innovative Research

The intent of the PRMRP Discovery Award is to support innovative, non-incremental, high-risk/potentially high-reward research that will provide new insights, paradigms, technologies, or applications. Studies supported by this award are expected to lay the groundwork for future avenues of scientific investigation. The proposed research project should include a well-formulated, testable hypothesis based on a sound scientific rationale and study design.

Innovation is the most important review criterion. Innovative research may introduce a new paradigm, look at existing problems from new perspectives, or exhibit other highly creative qualities. Research that represents an incremental advancement on previously published work is not considered innovative. The following list, although not all-inclusive, provides examples of research that is not innovative:

• Using a published series of in vitro assays to further characterize a model system

• Incorporating known biomarkers into in vivo or clinical models of the disease or condition

• Investigating the next logical step or continuation of a previous research project

• Proposing work that is an incremental advancement of published data

Inclusion of preliminary data is not required, but is allowed. The strength of the proposed research should be based on sound scientific rationale and logical reasoning. The presentation of substantial preliminary data suggests that the proposed research project would be more appropriately submitted to a different award mechanism. The outcome of research supported by this award should be the generation of robust preliminary data that can be used as a foundation for future research projects. Absence of preliminary data will not negatively affect scientific or programmatic review of the application.

Early career investigators, including postdoctoral fellows (or equivalent), are encouraged to be named by the organization as the Principal Investigator (PI) on the application.

Reviewers at both tiers of review will be blinded to the identity of the PI, collaborator(s), and their organization(s). Due to the blinded nature of the review process, identifying or making references to the PI, collaborator(s), or their organization(s) in certain components of the application is prohibited and will result in administrative rejection of the application. Refer to Section II.D.2.b.i, Full Application Guidelines, for more information. A document describing common blinding mistakes to avoid can be found on the eBRAP “Funding Opportunities & Forms” web page (https://ebrap.org/eBRAP/public/Program.htm).

The intent of the PRMRP Discovery Award is to support innovative, non-incremental, high-risk/potentially high-reward research that will provide new insights, paradigms, technologies, or applications. Studies supported by this award are expected to lay the groundwork for future avenues of scientific investigation. The proposed research project should include a well-formulated, testable hypothesis based on a sound scientific rationale and study design.

Innovation is the most important review criterion. Innovative research may introduce a new paradigm, look at existing problems from new perspectives, or exhibit other highly creative qualities. Research that represents an incremental advancement on previously published work is not considered innovative. The following list, although not all-inclusive, provides examples of research that is not innovative:

• Using a published series of in vitro assays to further characterize a model system

• Incorporating known biomarkers into in vivo or clinical models of the disease or condition

• Investigating the next logical step or continuation of a previous research project

• Proposing work that is an incremental advancement of published data

Inclusion of preliminary data is not required, but is allowed. The strength of the proposed research should be based on sound scientific rationale and logical reasoning. The presentation of substantial preliminary data suggests that the proposed research project would be more appropriately submitted to a different award mechanism. The outcome of research supported by this award should be the generation of robust preliminary data that can be used as a foundation for future research projects. Absence of preliminary data will not negatively affect scientific or programmatic review of the application.

Early career investigators, including postdoctoral fellows (or equivalent), are encouraged to be named by the organization as the Principal Investigator (PI) on the application.

Reviewers at both tiers of review will be blinded to the identity of the PI, collaborator(s), and their organization(s). Due to the blinded nature of the review process, identifying or making references to the PI, collaborator(s), or their organization(s) in certain components of the application is prohibited and will result in administrative rejection of the application. Refer to Section II.D.2.b.i, Full Application Guidelines, for more information. A document describing common blinding mistakes to avoid can be found on the eBRAP “Funding Opportunities & Forms” web page (https://ebrap.org/eBRAP/public/Program.htm).