Funding opportunities

Self-initiated research
Guidelines and information

General introduction
This category of research support by the MRC caters for research support applications, in the broad field of health research, describing original research initiated by a researcher at a recognized research institution (e.g. higher education institution, science council or other organization whose core business is conducting research and/or training postgraduate students).

For research proposals to be supported in this category they must be of a very high quality as there is stringent competition for limited funds. Normally therefore, applicants most likely to be successful are researchers who are well established in their fields. That having been said, in the end it is the quality of the research proposal at hand that will determine funding.

Definition of a research institution
A legally constituted institution or organization wherein research is one of the primary purposes for its existence, including the training of postgraduate students (full or part-time). The broad thrust of the organisation’s research, basic or applied, should be towards the advancement of knowledge and the research should be at a pre-competitive level.

Eligibility of applicants
Applicants for research support in this category should be either permanently employed at a recognized research institution (as above) or be in a long term contract (at least for the minimum of the duration of the project). Applying individuals should be South African citizens or permanent residents. Postgraduate students, full or part-time, are not eligible to apply. Only one research proposal will be considered for funding per individual applicant and once granted, only one such grant may be held by an individual until the project has been completed.

Research proposals that are proposing work on behalf of commercial entities are not allowed. Where co-funding of a research project is by a commercial entity to develop a process, product or technology for the benefit of such an entity, it should be clearly indicated. In such a case provisions of the MRC intellectual Property Policy will be diligently applied.

Nature of research supported

Fields of research: All research in the natural scientific, engineering, technology or social sciences conducted for the ultimate benefit of human health is eligible for support. The research should ideally be geared towards generating high quality new knowledge, new medical products, improved or enhanced medical/health practice, effective health promotion strategies or improved health policy and/or functioning of the national health systems. As mentioned above, the research should be of a pre-competitive nature.

Alignment of research: The MRC has recently adopted a new Research Strategy (2005-2010) which organizes the MRC’s research into 3 spheres: Population Health; Disease and Disease Mechanisms; as well as Health Systems, Settings and Policy. Research proposed for support should therefore be ideally aligned with one or more of these spheres. Applicants should motivate how the proposed research aligns with the indicated research sphere.

Prioritization of research. The MRC Research Strategy (2005-2010) and the MRC Strategic Plan (2005 – 2010) indicate areas of health research that are of priority given the health challenges in South Africa and the continent. Although research not in these areas may not be totally ruled out or excluded from support, it would be ideal if submitted proposals address one or more of these priority areas. An indication and motivation in this regard (in the proposal) will be important.

Application process, review and assessment of proposals

Application process
The MRC will issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) annually inviting researchers to apply for funding in the Self-Initiated Research Category. Once a prospective applicant has considered the above provisions and requirements and has judged themselves and their proposed research appropriate for MRC support, they may submit their application for funding to the MRC. The application should be submitted via the MRC online system (to be redeveloped and launched afresh in 2007) and the completion of the application form in the system. The online system will open for applications in March 2007 and close on 31 May 2007. No late applications will be accepted.

The research support applications should be:

• Signed off by the applicant on the online system
• Approved or validated online by an authorized person in the research administration office of the institution
• Reach the MRC by midnight on the 31st May 2007

Review process
Once the proposal has been received by the MRC it will be processed by two divisions, v.i.z the Research Administration Division and the Research Management Division.

The Research Administration Division will

• Issue a call for proposals for the category
• Monitor the progress of application processes by individuals and/or institutions on the online submission system.
• Provide technical support for applicants in the navigation of the application process and be involved in iterative interactions with the applicants where applicable, relevant and/or required in the process of their application or intention to apply.
• Receive, and do preliminary checking of, applications for appropriateness as per conditions and requirements of the research support category.
• Sign-off qualifying applications for further processing by the Research Management Division (i.e for the conduct of peer review).
• Upon completion of peer review, prepare and distribute documentation for the Grants Committee (a compilation of proposals and the peer review reports as well as any other relevant documentation).

The Research Management Division

1. Establishes and populates on a continuous basis a database of local and international health science researchers.
2. Receives applications signed off by the Research Administration Division.
3. Identifies 4-6 potential reviewers per application
4. Electronically requests the identified reviewers to review the proposal(s)
5. Electronically monitors the return of review reports and take appropriate action where required.
6. Assesses returned review reports for completeness and acceptability.
7. Accepts online the reviewer reports (indicating to Research Administration Division that they can start preparing the proposal(s) concerned for the Grants Committee meeting).

The overall peer review process is illustrated in the table below:

Criteria for peer review and scoring of proposals
Peer reviewers are asked to review a proposal according to a set of main criteria as well as specific questions under each criterion.  In submitting a research proposal for funding, researchers should therefore make every effort to ensure that the proposals address these aspects comprehensively. The criteria and questions are outlined below.

Upon consideration of the above criteria and specific questions peer reviewers will score the proposal and make recommendations about whether or not they think it is deserving of funding. The scoring of the proposals is by according to a set of quality descriptions of the proposal which go along with a numerical score. The statements and the numerical scores are indicated in the table below.

In addition, each reviewer will be asked to make a funding recommendation based on the review of the quality of the proposal as above. The recommendation will be done as per the framework indicated in the table below. The reviewer will indicate their recommendation by marking one of the three boxes under “reviewer recommendation”.

Assessment of proposals by the MRC Grants Committee
All proposals that have been reviewed will be assembled and referred to the MRC Grants Committee for assessment. The role of the MRC Grants Committee is to undertake an assessment, based on the peer review reports and their reading of the submitted proposals, of the overall quality of the proposals. Each proposal is assessed by at least one committee member with broad knowledge and expertise in the particular research field or research area of the proposal. The Grants Committee members assess the proposals using a set of criteria and questions as in the framework indicated below.

As can be seen, these are contextual questions focusing on the local environment.

The Grants Committee members will also score and categorize the applications as above and the combined reviewer and Grants Committee score will form the basis for ranking the proposals.

Ranking of proposals
Under the current system of alphabetical rating of proposals it is not possible to separate proposals with similar ratings (eg. how do you differentiate one “BB” from another?). By introducing a numerical scoring system, this shortcoming can be addressed by assigning a weighted average numerical score to each proposal. The scores allocated by both the peer reviewers and the Grants Committee will be factored into a calculation that will provide a summary score for the proposal. The summary score will be used to obtain a ranking of the proposals under consideration. The summary score will be calculated as follows:

Summary score of proposal = sum of the scores of the peer reviewers  X 0.7 (weight)
                                                  total number of peer reviews received                                                               PLUS
                  sum of the scores of the grant committee members  X 0.3 (weight)
                               total number of grant committee assessments

However, only proposals categorized as being Highly Fundable or Fundable will be ranked. The quality and scientific merit of the proposal (weighted at 70%) is thus the major determinant of whether or not each proposal is funded. The contextual questions of local and institutional relevance are important but not dominant (weighted at 30%). The final position of each proposal in the ranking may be used to determine whether or not there is funding to allocate to it. Historically there have been proposals that are not allocated funding even though they qualify considering their rating (often where proposals are rated B by each of two reviewers). With the ability to rank proposals, it will now be possible to advance the ranking position of the proposal as part of the reason it had not been possible to award funding, deserving as the proposal may be.

Overall timeline for processing proposals for funding
As of 2006, only one cycle of funding will be conducted per year. The timeline, to operate on annual basis, is indicated below.

Writing a proposal for funding by the MRC
Below is a detailed guideline meant to assist researchers in the writing of their research proposal. In the sections above, an indication was given of the review and assessment process and what aspects are considered in reviewing and assessing the quality of a submitted proposal. In this section an attempt is made to map out the contents required in a submitted proposal. Researchers are strongly encouraged to read this section before submitting a proposal. Because of the limited resources available, stronger emphasis will be placed on the quality of proposals received and the system/process will become even more unforgiving with time. Below is a guide as to what content is required in a proposal submitted to the MRC for funding. Applicants will do well to address the various aspects as comprehensively as possible in order to maximize the quality of their submitted proposal.

Problem identification

• Give a brief description of the health or scientific research problem that will be addressed by the proposed project.
• Outline the nature, source, extent and impact of the problem to be addressed in the broad global and regional context, giving particular attention to the extent of the problem in South Africa.

Rationale and motivation

• Provide a comprehensive background and scientific rationale for the proposed research, outlining the theoretical and operational framework that forms the basis of the research.
• Discuss how the proposed research will address the problem identified above.
• Justify the significance of conducting the research with respect to its potential to address unmet needs in human health, improvement or enhancement of the health system, contributions to health policy or the derivation of new products (medicines, devices, therapies etc) that can lead to improved health?
• Indicate how the proposed research is expected to contribute to advancing health relevant knowledge and/or contribute to improvements in either health or health outcomes
• Make use of the latest and most important references as is required and list these appropriately.

Research aims and objectives

• Outline the main aim(s) of the proposed research and specify the research objectives that are to be achieved.

Research design and methods
Give a detailed account of the overall research approach and the following:

• specifics of the research design
• the research methods and/or experimental techniques to be employed
• the data collection and analysis strategies / approaches to be adopted
• the statistical treatment  and analysis of data as well as
• the responsibilities and timelines in doing the work (who will do what when?)

First time applicants should give a detailed account as required above for the first year of their research, plus outlines of the research for the subsequent year(s). The research design and methods should be well aligned with the stated research aims and objectives.

Expected outputs/outcomes/impact
Outline the expected direct and/or indirect outputs/outcomes/impact of the research in terms of

• the advancement of scientific/health knowledge,
• specific research outputs (eg. publications)
• contributions the research is envisaged to make to improvements in either health or health outcomes.

Research capacity development
Indicate (as may be appropriate) how the execution of the research project will contribute to

• the training of postgraduate students
• the development of junior research/academic staff
• “skilling” and professional development of health system personnel or
• the educational/research development of community members where the research will be undertaken.

Institutional research environment
The success of many a research project depends on the existence of a supportive and conducive environment at the host institution. In this section, applicants are requested to provide a description of the research environment at their host institution in terms of 

• what complimentary research expertise exists within their own department and/or other relevant loci of research within their reach
• what structural support, infrastructure and facilities are available to them to conduct the research and
• how these will/may be mobilized to ensure the success of the proposed research.

Dissemination of research results
Give an indication of the main avenues through which the results of the research will be disseminated to the scientific/academic and public audiences).

Nomination of potential reviewers
In this section applicants are given an opportunity to nominate potential reviewers for their proposals. These should be experts who the applicant believes will be able to give an objective opinion on the quality of the submitted proposals. Applicants should endeavour to provide between 4 and 6 potential reviewers, half of which should be local and half should be from abroad. The MRC may or may not use any or all of the suggested reviewers, depending on the circumstances of the review process. The provided reviewers will assist in creating a large base of potential peer reviewers for proposals, thus increasing the chances of better returns of reviews.

Exclusion of reviewers
In any research community, and in particular one as small as South Africa has, it is expected that there may be several kinds of relationships that may complicate the choice of reviewers for proposals. These may be:

• collaborations and/or partnerships, in which case collaborators or partners cannot be used to review a proposal of one of their own
• strong paradigm differences above which no objective review can rise
• strong personal differences that would not allow fairness and/or objectivity
• strong personal relationships

Applicants may indicate in their proposal who they feel should not asked by the MRC to review their proposal, based on any one or more of the above reasons (or other reasons for that matter).

Budget
Please refer to the MRC Conditions of Grant for information on the allowable items in the budget and the maxima that are applicable.