In their evaluation, the Committee will consider the following criteria:
Criterion 1: Evaluation of the Applicant
- Potential for a career in PAH-related research
- Academic record
- Prior research experience and/or publications
- Clearly written presentation supporting the research need
Criterion 2: Mentor/Training Plan and Scientific Environment
- Letter of support from mentor which includes: mentor’s track record of productivity, funding, and success with prior trainees; detailed description of the mentoring plan, including available resources allocated to the proposed research project, provision of protected time and available laboratory facilities
- Is the mentor an independent investigator?
- Does the mentor have the experience to direct the proposed research training, as evidenced by the letter of support?
- Is the training plan sufficient to facilitate the applicant’s progress towards his/her research career goals?
- Does the proposed scientific environment contribute to the probability of success for the training experience?
- Is the institution willing and able to commit the resources necessary for the applicant to complete the proposed research, including sufficient protected time?
Criterion 3: Evaluation of the Proposal
- Innovation and Significance: Is the research proposal new and original and does it address an important question/issue related to PAH? Will this study have an effect on concepts, methods, and/or technologies related to PAH research?
- Approach: Are the conceptual framework, design, methods and analyses adequately developed, well-integrated, well-reasoned, feasible (as determined by preliminary data or the expertise available in the mentor’s laboratory), and appropriate to the aims of the project? Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem areas and consider alternative tactics?
- Feasibility: Can the project, as described in the submitted proposal and budget, be accomplished within the timeframe of the award?