Sentences with phrase «research grant review»

He has published over 100 scientific journal articles and book chapters, chaired and been a member of numerous agricultural and ecological research grant review panels and been a member of two National Academy of Science National Research Council Committees on Agriculture.

Not exact matches

He has published over 150 peer - reviewed research papers and won more than $ 4 million in peer - reviewed research grants.

Review of perinatal deaths and home births 1988 - 90 was assisted by a grant from the National Health and Medical Research Council.

Work on this review was supported in part by a grant from the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme, grant number 10 / 106/01.

Review of academic research grants and strengthening of global university collaboration opportunities, ideally supported by government Tsar.

He said he would provide, subject to independent review, training and skills support to the car industry, help with regional grants such as nurturing the local supply chain and help in research and innovation.

It directed that any decisions by SUNY Poly or the SUNY Research Foundation — a quasi-public entity that handles the oversight of grants — regarding the projects «shall be subject to review and approval pursuant to guidelines to be established by Bart Schwartz.»

The seven disciplinary councils will together continue to give out about # 3 billion annually, mostly as peer - reviewed grants, while part of another council — now renamed Research England — will keep providing # 3 billion in unrestricted grants to English universities.

NSF is committed to increasing its support of basic research, mostly through competitive merit - reviewed grants, by shifting resources away from facilities and instrumentation support, a commitment that shows in its 3.8 percent increase for basic research to $ 2.1 billion.

[BOX 5] Alliance of Third Class Non-Profit Mailers, 1981 - 1982 Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs (OES) files I, 1981 II, 1980 - 1981 III, 1978 - 1980 IV, 1979 - 1980 Council of Allied Engineering and Scientific Societies, 1969 - 1981 Council of Allied Engineering and Scientific Societies, 1981 - 1982 Department of Education, 1977 - 1978 Energy Research Advisory Board Multiprogram Laboratory Panel, 10/15/81 -11 / 19/82 Institute of Medicine - I, 1982 - 1983 Institute of Medicine - II, 1979 - 1982 Roger W. Jones Award, 1979 - 1980 W. K. Kellogg Foundation, 1982 Mellon (Andrew W.) Project, 1978 National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) Files: I, 1981 - 1984 National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) Files: II, 1981 - 1982 National Committee on Public Employee Pension Systems (PEPS), July 1982 National Governors» Association Meeting - Task Force on Technological Innovation, 2/21/82 National Publication Act of 1979 Office of Technology Assessment, 1972 - 1973 Peace and Conflict Resolution, 1980 Pensions for Professionals, 1971 - 1972 Saturday Review of Science, 1972 - 1979 Scientists and Engineers Emigrant Fund, 1978 - 1979 SOHIO, Standard Oil of Ohio Grant, 1982 - 1986 Technology in Science - Advisory Board, 1981 Tyler Prize, 1984 - 1985 White House Study of Science and Engineering Education, 1980 Znaiye (Soviet Scholarly Society), 1971 - 1977

AAAS provided 42 reviews for proposals submitted to the Nebraska EPSCoR Faculty FIRST Awards initiative, which is designed to help early career faculty initiate their research programs and compete more effectively for NSF CAREER grants.

While Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have sought hands - on assistance with grant review and administration from the Research Competitiveness Program, others have participated in more wide - ranging discussions through a meeting series organized by the AAAS Center for Science, Technology and Security Policy (CSTSP).

RCP provided peer review services to the University of North Carolina General Administration (UNC GA) for their Inter-institutional Planning Grant (IPG) and Research Opportunities Initiative (ROI) programs.

In the «Grants and Grantsmanship» workshop, fellows learn about different research funding mechanisms, grant writing, and grant review.

In particular, the researchers want the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) to reinstate face - to - face meetings of peer review panels, which the agency has ended in favor of an on - line system for evaluating grant proposals.

NIH's Office of AIDS Research (OAR) then reviewed AIDs grants coming up for renewal in fiscal year 2016 to see how they fit the new priorities.

However, when I was offered my first academic clinical position with a mandate to obtain «peer - reviewed external funding from agencies such as the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) within a 3 - year span,» it was soon evident that, despite my solid training, I had a lot to learn if I was to be able to be seen as a competent scientist and be able to survive the tough peer - reviewed grant process.

In my opinion, it's better to fund one novel, exciting paper than 10 pedestrian «dotting i's and crossing t's» papers, but such high - risk research seems to go against the prevailing attitude of grant review panels.

A grant review committee might reject a grant to work on a new squid or squirrel, citing a lack of research in the area.

AHRQ shares the National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant application and review processes, including those for research studies (e.g. R01, R03), training (K - series), and small business.

It's easier to do research in a lab with more resources and fewer insecurities, but most established scientists spend less time in the lab and more time traveling to conferences and invited lectures, in grant - review meetings, and on other activities.

Your grant applications test the feasibility of your research; peer review tests the soundness of your scientific arguments; undergraduates test your patience.

Recent Activity RCP Provides Peer - Review for the RI Research Alliance Awards RCP worked with the Rhode Island Research Alliance (part of the Rhode Island Science and Technology Advisory Council), to provide peer - review for their Collaborative Research Grant AReview for the RI Research Alliance Awards RCP worked with the Rhode Island Research Alliance (part of the Rhode Island Science and Technology Advisory Council), to provide peer - review for their Collaborative Research Grant Areview for their Collaborative Research Grant Awards.

... Without the defined academic productivity and rank requirements of the TTT type (e.g., «publish or perish»), clinician — educator faculty who face ever - increasing clinical demands may put less emphasis on producing measurable academic products, such as publications in peer - reviewed journals or grant - funded research.»

Like all the Australian government's special research centres, the centre was reviewed after three years operation by a panel appointed by the Institutional Grants Committee of the Australian Research research centres, the centre was reviewed after three years operation by a panel appointed by the Institutional Grants Committee of the Australian Research Research Council.

Service to your research community — such as reviewing manuscripts and grant proposals, and doing it well — can pay real professional dividends.

Based on Duke's investigation and ORI's review, officials concluded that Potti had included false research data in a grant application, a submitted manuscript, and nine research papers.

Witt - Enderby is on the grant review panel for the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer charity, which is placing greater emphasis on translational research, and a corresponding increase in suitable bids.

The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, for example, received more than four times its usual number of applications owing to cuts in NIH spending on breast cancer research, according to Paula Witt - Enderby, a researcher at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh and a member of the charity's grant review panel.

In addition, Shah might be able focus USDA on funding peer - reviewed, competitive research; the Gates Foundation is known for the rigor with which it reviews its grant applications.

These issues are very much on the minds of policymakers and funding agency administrators... so much so that an explicit and measurable focus on training — scientific and soft skills — may well become a review criterion at NIH in the near future, even for pure research grants.

In particular, the researchers want the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) to reinstate face - to - face meetings of peer - review panels, which the agency has ended in favor of an online system for evaluating grant proposals.

I have a few grants under review at the moment to build on my research identifying the challenges faced by disabled academics in the workplace and develop training for line managers and universities on how to best support their disabled colleagues.

The review encompasses the operations of CIHR and the nation's two other granting councils, as well as programs like the Canada Foundation for Innovation, Canada Research Chairs, and Genome Canada.

«CIHR embarked on the reform of its open funding programs and peer review process to improve the sustainability of our health research system, the transparency and fairness of our granting processes, and the quality and impact of the research supported by federal investments,» he wrote.

Last week, a coalition of universities and professional societies warned legislators working on the defense bill that «a mandatory increase in the SBIR - STTR allocation across federal agencies will result in funding cuts for investigator initiated, peer - reviewed grants that are the cornerstone of the nation's research enterprise.

Peer - reviewed research grants of between CA$ 10,000 to $ 20,000 are awarded annually.

The government has also struck a requirement, introduced by former research and education minister Daniel Funeriu, that international panels review grant applications and that applicants have papers published in an internationally ranked peer - reviewed journal.

Although research grant funding was more or less preserved in last year's comprehensive spending review, capital spending on research was hit hard.

T. A. Kotchen et al, «NIH Peer Review of Grant Applications for Clinical Research.»

As China's equivalent to NSF, NSFC disbursed $ 2.8 billion last year through peer - reviewed grants and programs to support basic research, young talents, and facilities.

Q: What measures are NSFC putting into place to promote research integrity and reduce misconduct in grant application and review of proposals?

Further on he warns that in the oversight committee's next funding round in July, «negative decisions» about peer - reviewed grants awaiting the board's final approval «would have a fatal impact on CPRIT's peer review system» and would «be extremely harmful to the research community's view of science in Texas, and thus on the ability to recruit scientists to the state.»

«Under Al's leadership, CPRIT recruited the best review committees in the world while implementing a conflict - free system that is the cornerstone of our cancer research grant award process,» the statement says.

Applications will be reviewed by subject matter experts at NIH and other health agencies to see if «they show a reasonable potential to meet the statutory goals,» says NIH's Jo Anne Goodnight, who oversees NIH's small - business research grants.

The panel found that the existing grant review process, in which NHP studies undergo extra scrutiny by NC3Rs, generally works: Most research was justified in its use of NHPs and led to peer - reviewed publications.

In the coming months, the government is expected to establish an agency akin to the U.S. National Science Foundation that will distribute research funds through competitive, peer - reviewed grants.

Conservatives also promise that research grants will be reviewed on quality, not predicted economic impact.

Thus, the NCI's grant review cycle could be significantly delayed, threatening a smooth restart of NCI's support of extramural research, even if the NIH reopens relatively soon.»

It's the first stop for any grant application; indeed, your grant application will be reviewed for scientific merit entirely within the CSR, regardless of which institute ultimately funds (or decides not to fund) your research project.