New U of T Medicine Research Programs Offer Grant Review and Bridge Funds
The University of Toronto’s Faculty of Medicine is launching two programs this week that will see more researchers peer-review federal grant proposals, and provide bridge funding for very strong applications that just miss the cut.
The first program is a college of internal scientific reviewers for Canadian Institutes of Health Research Project Grants, the country’s main funding source for medical science. Faculty members will volunteer in a pilot to review proposals by on-campus researchers for Project Grant competitions, which run twice a year.
The second effort is a pathway grants program, which will provide $100,000 each to the top three U of T Medicine applications that don’t receive funding in project grant competitions. Success rates for CIHR biomedical operating grants have fallen significantly over the last two decades, from above 30 per cent to less than 15 per cent.
“Many faculty members support the idea of a scientific peer review to improve success rates, and some hospitals have had a system for years,” says Jeremy Knight, manager of research administration and operations in the Faculty of Medicine. “But how do you incentivize people to sign up when time is short, especially during grant season, and when competition for scarce dollars is intense?”
The Faculty’s approach to that problem is partly monetary. Peer reviewers of successful grants will receive an unrestricted $500 award for their own research, and all members of the college of internal scientific reviewers will be eligible for a pathway grant after the CIHR Project Grant competition.
“The two programs are independent from one another, but I think linking them together is a great idea,” says Stephen Girardin, a professor of laboratory medicine and pathobiology who advocated for and helped organize the internal peer review over the last year.
“Researchers will likely notice the pathway grants foremost, because they have the potential to impact their lives in a big way,” Girardin says. “But the peer review will increase the movement of knowledge across disciplines, which is extremely important and should have us doing better science.”
Girardin says he often has brief encounters with other scientists doing interesting work on campus, but that few opportunities arise to work together closely. The peer review system should facilitate deeper interaction among researchers, and boost grant competitiveness by providing broader scientific and critical feedback on proposals.
Over two dozen faculty members have signed up for the college of internal reviewers, and Girardin expects more will join as they learn about the program. He says researchers and departmental chairs across the Faculty have expressed keen interest, and that the vice dean of research and innovation, Richard Hegele, has been very enthusiastic and supportive.
Aaron Reinke volunteered for the college, and he says the benefits of peer review are clear. “My first successful CIHR grant improved immensely through feedback from fellow researchers,” says Reinke, an assistant professor of molecular genetics who started his lab in 2017. “And by reviewing proposals, you learn a lot about how to write a grant and about other areas of science. This peer review program will make that learning easier and more widespread.”
As for the pathway grant funding, Reinke says it could make a world of difference to investigators who have come close to success but have nothing to show for it. “That can be a disheartening situation, as I’ve heard from several of my colleagues,” he says. “Bridge funding means you can keep working on a project without disruption, and hopefully submit a better grant in the next round.”
