Translational Research Award
Translational research to be supported by CBCRP should have the potential for major impact in the areas of:
- Prevention, detection, diagnosis or treatment of breast cancer;
- Improved quality of life for survivors;
- Reduction in the community and social burden caused by the disease in California; or
- Advances in medical practices, health systems changes, health policies or environmental modifications that will impact public health outcomes.
To distinguish translational research from other types of research funding, CBCRP requires applicants to present a critical path that maps how the project fits along a defined research continuum leading to practical applications. We encourage applications in translational research from all disciplines, including: basic/clinical sciences, behavioral/social sciences, public health/community-based health sciences and health policy.
To be responsive and eligible for funding, the project must involve human subjects and each applicant must explain how their proposed research addresses one or more of our priority issues.
Project Duration & Budget Caps:
- Maximum duration: 3 years
- Budget cap for total project direct costs: $750,000
Non-UC institutions are entitled to full F&A of the Modified Total Direct Cost base (MTDC); UC institutional F&A is capped at 30% MTDC (not retroactive to prior grants).
LOI decisions and invitations to submit a full grant application will be communicated to PIs in December.
LOI templates and instructions are available in SmartSimple and on the Application Materials webpage.
Full application Review Criteria
The decision to offer funding is determined by a combination of scientific merit and programmatic responsiveness. Each award type has specific requirements that must be addressed by successful funded projects. Applicants should pay careful attention to both the scientific and programmatic criteria that will be used to make the funding decisions from the start of your proposal preparation. The details of the components that constitute the scientific merit and programmatic evaluation are described below.
scientific Peer Review
| Component | Description |
| Translational Potential | The extent to which the project, if successfully carried out, would represent a “translational bridge” to bring the product/intervention/service to bear on the prevention, detection, diagnosis, or treatment of breast cancer, improved quality of life for survivors, and/or reduction in the community and social burden caused by this disease in California. Is the project focused on the use of human subjects? |
| Critical Path & Research Barriers | The extent to which the applicant has delineated a research continuum for the project (i.e., background, preliminary work, development, and translational endpoints) and has a strategy for overcoming barriers to achieve the translational endpoints. |
| Approach | The extent to which the conceptual framework, design, methods, analyses and collaborations are innovative, well integrated, and appropriate to the stated aims of the project. |
| Feasibility | The extent to which the investigator(s) can achieve the stated milestones, practical applications, or endpoints. Do the research team and collaborators have all the necessary expertise, skills, and resources to carry out the project? |
Programmatic Review
| Component | Description |
| Response to priorities | How responsive is the proposed research to CBCRP priority issues? [The Council will compare the PI’s statements on Program Responsiveness template, top section, and the content of the abstracts to the CBCRP priority issues and examples.] |
|
Response to award type |
How responsive is the project and PI to the stated intent of the selected award type? [The Council will compare the PI’s statements on Program Responsiveness template, bottom section, to the CBCRP award type criteria.] |
| Critical path/translation | The degree to which the applicant’s statements on Critical Path and Focus on Underserved Populations template provides a convincing argument that the proposed research fits into and advances a critical path for translation and impact on breast cancer. What barriers must be overcome to take the project to the next level, and what plans are provided for to address these barriers? |
| Underfunded | The degree to which the PI on Distinction from Other Funding template has highlighted the unique aspects of the proposed research from their own projects (past and present) and the research by others. Is the research relatively underfunded by other agencies, or not funded? [Council will use the ICRP database (https://www.icrpartnership.org) to assess the extent of funding in the topic area] |
| Quality of the lay abstract | Does the Lay Abstract clearly explain in non-technical terms the research background, questions/hypotheses, innovative elements, goals, general methodology and potential impact of the project (including impact on public health outcomes if appropriate)? Is the relevance to breast cancer understandable? |
| Addressing the needs of the underserved | Do the project and the PI’s statements on Critical Path and Focus on Underserved Populations template demonstrate how this research will contribute to health equity by addressing breast cancer issues that disproportionally affect communities who have been historically underserved by research and/or health systems? Does the project address inequities and/or the specific needs of communities who are underserved as they bear a disproportionally high burden of health-related problems due to factors related to race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, geographic location, sexual orientation, physical or cognitive limitations, age, occupation and/or other factors? |
| Advocacy involvement | Are the named advocate(s) and advocacy organization appropriate for the proposed research project? Is there a California-based advocate involved in the project? Will the advocate provide a perspective that is historically underrepresented in breast cancer research? Were the advocate(s) engaged in the application development process? Are meetings and other communications sufficient for substantive engagement? Are the roles and responsibilities of the PI and the advocate(s) clearly outlined and is the agreement for advocate compensation and reimbursement clear? [The Council will compare the content of the Advocacy Involvement form and the Letter of Commitment.] |
APPLICANT ORIENTATION WEBINAR
We held an applicant webinar on September 22, 2022 in which we described the requirements for the IDEA, Translational Research and Conference Awards and provided an orientation for the navigating the application process in SmartSimple.
View the video and slides below.
- Video (mp4) - 90 kb
- Webinar Slides (PDF) - 2.1 kb