Getting Started

• Identify your participating faculty/mentors.
• Design your program and make sure it is unique.  How is this different than other programs on campus?
  • Click here to see all the Current Training Grants at UCSD
• Reviewers are looking for innovative, state of the art training.
• Based on your participating faculty list, what departments/programs (Table 1) will be involved?
• Contact your Program official and get their advice and opinion on the application.
• What are some of the strengths and weaknesses reviewers look for?
  • PI TG Workshop PPT
• Which institute should you apply too?   
  • e.g., Does UCSD already have an abundance of NIGMS or NCI grants?  If so, think about applying to another institute if possible.
• Check the TG Overlapping Faculty list to see if your participating faculty are on other UCSD training grants (Table 3)
  • Too much overlap will cause a red flag to reviewers.
• Secure institutional support and commitments.
  • Deans and/or Chairs may offer discretionary funds for unallowable expenses.
• Read and respond to the review criteria (if resubmission).

Reviewers will consider each of the review criteria below in the determination of the merit of the training program, and give a separate score for each. When applicable, the reviewers will consider relevant questions in the context of proposed short-term training. 

An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact

• Training Program and Environment
  • Are the research facilities and research environment conducive to preparing trainees for successful careers as biomedical research scientists?
  • Are the objectives, design and direction of the proposed research training program likely to ensure effective training? 
  • Do the courses, where relevant, and research experiences provide opportunities for trainees to acquire state-of-the-art scientific knowledge, methods, and tools that are relevant to the goals of the training program?  
  • Does the program provide appropriate inter- or multidisciplinary research training opportunities?
  • Is the proposed training program likely to ensure trainees will be well prepared for research-intensive and research-related careers? 
  • Is the level of institutional commitment to the training program, including administrative and research training support, sufficient to ensure the success of the program?
  • Is it clear how the proposed training program is distinguished from other externally funded training programs at the institution?
• Training Program Director(s)/Principal Investigator(s) (PDs/PIs)
  • Does the PD/PI have the scientific background, expertise, and administrative and training experience to provide strong leadership, direction, management, and administration of the proposed research training program?
  • Does the PD/PI plan to commit sufficient effort to the program to ensure the program's success?
• Preceptors/Mentors
  • Are sufficient numbers of experienced preceptors/mentors with appropriate expertise and funding available to support the number and level of trainees proposed in the application? 
  • Do the preceptors/mentors have strong records as researchers, including recent publications and successful competition for research support in areas directly related to the proposed research training program? 
  • Do the preceptors/mentors have strong records of training individuals at the level of trainees  proposed in the program? 
  • Are appropriate plans in place to ensure that preceptors lacking sufficient research training experience are likely to provide strong and successful mentoring?
• Trainees or Candidates/Scholars
  • Is a recruitment plan proposed with strategies likely to attract well-qualified trainees for the training program? 
  • Is there a competitive applicant pool of sufficient size and quality, at each of the proposed levels (predoc, postdoc and/or short-term), to ensure a successful training program?
  • Are there well-defined and justified selection and re-appointment criteria as well as retention strategies?
• Training Record
  • How successful are the trainees (or for new applications, other past students/fellows in similar training) in completing the program? 
  • Has the training program ensured that trainees are productive (or, for new applications, other past students/postdocs in similar training) in terms of research accomplishments, publication of research conducted during the training period, and subsequent training appointments and fellowship or career development awards?  
  • How successful are the trainees (or for new applications other past students/postdocs in similar training) in achieving productive scientific careers as evidenced by successful competition for research science positions in industry, academia, government or other research venues; grants, receipt of honors, awards, or patents; high-impact publications; promotion to scientific leadership positions; and/or other such measures of success? 
  • To what extent do trainees' subsequent positions in industrial, academic, government, non-profit, or other sectors benefit from their NRSA-supported research training and directly benefit the broader biomedical research enterprise? 
  • Does the program propose a rigorous evaluation plan to assess the quality and effectiveness of the training?  Are effective mechanisms in place for obtaining feedback from current and former trainees?

Training Program and Environment

• The program is not well described. 
• The program vision isn't clear.
• The program is not distinct from others on campus.  
• Research rotations arranged through home departments; not well described in proposal.
• What courses the trainees will take is unclear.
• Lack of balance between diadactic and experiential learning.
• Training opportunities are not broad enough.  Limited industry.
• No clear metrics for assessing the program are provided.
  • Evaluation process was not properly described.

Training Program Director(s)/Principal Investigator(s) (PDs/PIs)

• There is no real attention given to contingency plans or succession planning in the event one of the 4 PI’s is unable to continue.

Preceptors/Mentors

• Lack of diversity and in ladder rank.
• Program itself does not give oversight to the Junior faculty capacity to mentor students.
• Type of mentoring provided to assistant professors who have trainees in their laboratories is not elaborated.
• Lacking in grant support.

Trainees or Candidates/Scholars

• Deficient information on URG candidates.
• Lack of female candidates.
• Data tables lack much basic information about new entrants.

Training Record

• Lack of first author or overall trainee publications.
• Time to degree appears highly variable and is not explicitly listed.
• Little information regarding the rate of program withdrawals.
• None of the graduates have independent NIH research grants.
• No data on attendance of skills workshop.
• No trainees have secured F32 fellowships or similar external training fellowship.