In their evaluation, the Committee will consider the following criteria:

Criterion 1: Evaluation of the Applicant

• Potential for a career in Oncology-related research
• Academic record
• Prior research experience and/or publications focused on Oncology Solid Tumors.

Criterion 2: Evaluation of the Mentor Support and Mentoring Plan

• 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 resources allocated to the proposed research project, provision of protected time, and available laboratory facilities.
• The mentor is an independent investigator.
• The mentor has the experience to direct the proposed research training, as evidenced by the letter of support.
• The mentoring plan is sufficient to facilitate the applicant's progress toward his/her research career goals.
• Letter of support from the department chair or division chief to document the institution is willing and has the ability 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: The research proposal is new and original and addresses an important question/issue related to Oncology Solid Tumors. The proposed study will have an effect on concepts, methods, and/or technologies related to Oncology Solid Tumors research.
• Approach: The conceptual framework, design, methods, and analyses are adequately developed, well-integrated, well-reasoned, feasible (as determined by preliminary data or the expertise available), and appropriate to the aims of the project. The applicant acknowledges potential problem areas and considers alternative tactics.
• Feasibility: The project, as described in the submitted proposal and budget, can be accomplished within the timeframe of the award.

To ensure equal opportunities for all applicants, the Scientific Review Committee do not consider the prominence of the Institution or mentor within the scoring criteria, only that you have and articulate a robust training and mentoring plan and access to a Scientific Environment and Mentor with the experience and explicit commitment to support your proposal.