Frequently Asked QuestionsResearch Grants Program
About Our Granting ProgramWhat areas does AHAF fund through its programs?AHAF accepts investigator uninitiated proposals related to developing treatments, preventions, and cures for glaucoma, macular degeneration, and Alzheimer’s disease. Funding is provided by donors to the specific disease program. AHAF currently supports three programs entitled, “National Glaucoma Research,” “Macular Degeneration Research,” and “Alzheimer’s Disease Research.” AHAF has a broad mandate for funding proposals relevant to any of these fields. For a list of current and previous awards, please click the appropriate links.
The American Health Assistance Foundation (AHAF) awards grants for basic, translational, and clinically oriented research on the causes of, or treatments for, age-related and degenerative diseases. Grants are awarded on the basis of the scientific merit of the proposed research and the relevance of the research to understanding aspects of the disease that lead to improved treatments, prevention strategies, and diagnoses of the program disease. The scientific plan should be well focused and able to stand alone. It is understood that more senior investigators will have other funding in related areas of research, but the application to AHAF should not be used to simply subsidize these other efforts or to compensate for grant cutbacks. Therefore, the applicant is advised to focus on a specific project that can be addressed in terms of a hypothesis and two or three specific aims. The proposed project should be distinct from other investigations and grant awards. Please keep this in mind when preparing the research plan section of this application. What projects are currently supported?For a list of current and previous awards, please click the appropriate links.
What type of grant support does AHAF provide?AHAF supports U.S. domestic and international research proposals related to developing treatments, preventions, and cures for glaucoma, macular degeneration, and Alzheimer’s disease. Funds awarded are to be used solely for research. AHAF does not fund institutional overhead, large capital equipment, or construction of buildings. AHAF prefers not to fund the salary of the Principal Investigator. If salary for the P.I. is requested, it must be clearly and thoroughly justified. AHAF will not fund proposals for which duplicate funding has been awarded and accepted, and will not fund portions of grants that are superfluous, irrelevant, or inconsistent with AHAF policies. Applications are reviewed on an annual cycle. Are there any special requests for proposals beyond the regular AHAF awards?Please see our list of open awards. How much funding will AHAF provide for my proposal?The following maximum award values may be requested:
Do you allow for Principal Investigator salary support?Yes. Principal Investigator (P.I.) and Co-Investigator (Co-P.I.) salary and benefits may be requested in all award programs, but must be justified in the Budget Justification section. For awards restricted to independent investigators, salary and benefit support requests for the PI are limited to the lesser of 25% of the maximum award value or 25% of the sum of the Principal Investigator’s institutional salary and benefits. Co-Principal Investigator salaries are allowed in addition to the PI salary cap. Co Principal Investigator salaries maximums are limited to the lesser of 15% of the total award value or 15% of the sum of the Co-PI institutional compensation. At this time, postdoctoral fellowships are available ONLY through the Alzheimer’s Disease Research program. Postdocs applying for the ADR postdoctoral fellowship may request up to a maximum salary and benefits determined by their institutional salary and benefits multiplied by their percent effort on the proposal. For example, a Postdoctoral fellow with $45,000 of salary and benefits who commits 75% effort to a proposal may request a maximum of $33,750 in salary and benefits. Since postdoctoral fellowships are not offered in the Macular Degeneration Research or National Glaucoma research programs AHAF does allow postdoctoral fellows to serve as Co-PI’s on proposals IN THESE PROGRAMS ONLY. For post-doctoral fellows serving as a Co-PI on MDR or NGR awards, the postdoctoral fellow may request up to a maximum salary and benefits determined by their institutional salary and benefits multiplied by their percent effort on the proposal. See the preceding paragraph for an example of this arithmetic. Salary caps are imposed on the Principal Investigators and Co-Principal Investigators only. Salary and Benefit support for other roles is not restricted to any further limitation. Budgeting for these personnel, however, should be justified in the application and should by proportional to the percentage of effort contributed by the individual personnel. Other than PI salaries, what categories of expenses are allowed, or disallowed?The budget may not contain administrative overhead or indirect costs, and should be prepared in US dollars. AHAF budgets are divided into the following categories: Personnel: The Principal investigator, CO-PI, key investigators, and any support personnel (usually postdoctoral fellows, graduate students, or technicians) actively involved in research may request salary and benefits. Such requests should be justified and include indications of the percentage of time the personnel will devote to the proposed project (percent effort). Supplies: The amount of money requested for supplies should be divided into major research supply categories (e.g., cell biology reagents, test fees, etc.) If animals are to be involved, the justification should state how many are to be used, their unit purchase price, and their unit care cost. Equipment: Any major item of equipment valued over US$1,000, should be included in the budget. AHAF will not fund the purchase of large capital equipment. Requested equipment must be directly related to and enabling of the proposed research. Contractual Services: The Budget should specify any major support services required under the proposed research, such as preparation or laboratory testing of biological materials. The justification should indicate the period of contractual service. Travel: Travel must be relevant to the accomplishment of the project or dissemination of results of the supported research. The purpose of the travel and destination should be clearly indicated, justified, and may not include premium ticketing packages (i.e., first class or other luxury travel). Other: Itemize any other expenses by category. This category is often used by investigators seeking funding to defray costs of publication or registration at conferences where the results of the proposed research are to be presented. NOTE ON BUDGET CUTS: When awards are offered, most budgets are approved as requested. However, in some cases AHAF may elect to make awards for only a portion of the requested budget. These decisions are made on the recommendations of peer reviewers and may manifest as an elimination of specific budget items, proposal aims, or percentage cuts off of the total award value. NOTE ON OPEN ACCESS PUBLICATIONS: AHAF does not require publication in specific journals or attendance at specific conferences. However, as a publicly supported charity AHAF recognizes contribution of open-access model journals to the scientific community. AHAF grant applicants may request reasonable funds to allow publication in such journals. What are the deadlines for proposals?For the FY10 review cycle the following deadlines are scheduled as follows.
*Note that MDR applicants must receive an invitation based on their Letter of Intent in order to be eligible to submit the full application. Proposals should be submitted by 11:59 PM Eastern (Washington, DC) on the day of the deadline. How long does it take to receive notice of grant funding?All awards are announced by March 31st (about 5-6 months following full application). The first check is dated April 1st and is mailed once all contracts are agreed upon and signed. Funding is contingent upon receipt of signed contracts and, if required, demonstration of approval by the institution to initiate research involving human or vertebrate animals.. How many proposals did you receive in the last round of funding?For the FY09 programs the following numbers of applications were received.
*Macular Degeneration Research employs a Letter of Intent process. Of the 123 Letters of Intent submitted in FY09, 38 were later invited to submit full proposals. What are the Terms and Conditions and Patent and Intellectual Property Policies of the awards?Please review the following documents. Grant EligibilityWho is eligible for an AHAF grant?Alzheimer’s Disease ResearchStandard and Pilot Awards In order to be eligible for grant funding from the Alzheimer's Disease Research (ADR) Standard Award Program, the Principal Investigator (P.I.) must be an academic rank equivalent or higher than Assistant Professor. Applicants with pending appointments are eligible to apply, but the appointment must be finalized by the start of the award. The applicant must be permitted by the applicant’s organization to petition for and receive research grant support and must be permitted to supervise any additional personnel named in the application. The applicant should use the indicated space on the Application forms to clarify any position that is not immediately recognizable as equivalent to, or higher than, an assistant professor rank. Research Fellowship Award Research fellowships are available to junior and senior postdoctoral fellows. Applicants with pending appointments are eligible to apply, but the appointment must be finalized by the start of the award. The proposal should be initiated by the postdoctoral fellow and not the supervisor. In the event that a senior postdoctoral fellow becomes an independent investigator during the duration of the award, the balance of the award may be transferred to the new position at the discretion of the American Health Assistance Foundation. In this case, an assurance that the original specific aims would be addressed in the new position would be required. AHAF accepts the NIH/NSF definition of a Postdoctoral Research Fellow emphasizing the mentored training component of the position. “An individual who has received a doctoral degree (or equivalent) and is engaged in a temporary and defined period of mentored advanced training to enhance the professional skills and research independence needed to pursue his or her chosen career path.” -Letter to Ms. Alyson Reed, National Postdoctoral Association from the Deputy Director of the NSF, and Deputy Director for Extramural Research of the NIH. January, 2007. Macular Degeneration ResearchStandard Award In order to be eligible for grant funding from the Macular Degeneration Research (MDR) Standard Award Program, the Principal Investigator (P.I.) must be an independent researcher at a non-profit research institution and hold an academic rank equivalent or higher than Assistant Professor. Applicants with pending appointments are eligible to apply, but the appointment must be finalized by the start of the award. The applicant must be permitted by the applicant’s organization to petition for and receive research grant support and must be permitted to supervise any additional personnel named in the application. The applicant should use the indicated space on the application forms to clarify any position that is not immediately recognizable as equivalent to, or higher than, an assistant professor rank. NEW: A single post doctoral fellow may be listed as a Co-Principal Investigator on a Macular Degeneration Research proposal as long as the post doctoral fellow remains under the mentorship and direct supervision of the named Principal Investigator. This Co-Principal Investigator may not be the successor of any award resulting from the proposal without approval from the AHAF Board of Directors. Post doctoral fellows should not be named as Co-PI on AHAF Alzheimer's Disease Research awards, but should instead apply for the ADR Post Doctoral fellowship. National Glaucoma ResearchStandard Award In order to be eligible for grant funding from the National Glaucoma Research (NGR) Standard Award Program, the Principal Investigator (P.I.) must be an independent researcher at a non-profit research institution and hold an academic rank equivalent or higher than Assistant Professor. Applicants with pending appointments are eligible to apply, but the appointment must be finalized by the start of the award. The applicant must be permitted by the applicant’s organization to petition for and receive research grant support and must be permitted to supervise any additional personnel named in the application. The applicant should use the indicated space on the application forms to clarify any position that is not immediately recognizable as equivalent to, or higher than, an assistant professor rank. NEW: A single post doctoral fellow may be listed as a Co-Principal Investigator on National Glaucoma Research proposal as long as the post doctoral fellow remains under the mentorship and direct supervision of the named Principal Investigator. This Co-Principal Investigator may not be the successor of any award resulting from the proposal without approval from the AHAF Board of Directors. Post doctoral fellows should not be named as Co-PI on AHAF Alzheimer's Disease Research awards, but should instead apply for the ADR Post Doctoral fellowship. Who is not eligible for an AHAF grant? Are these rules flexible?
Are there any program preferences for types of research or investigators?Although preliminary data is required for all awards, AHAF considers its awards as “pilot funding”. AHAF prefers to fund innovative proposals for which there are few alternative sources of funding, and to support the ability of investigators to generate the data needed to receive governmental or other third-party funding after the expiration of the AHAF award. AHAF’s awards, therefore, are biased towards junior investigators with new laboratories and projects, or more established investigators with particularly innovative projects. If a proposal addresses a subject not already represented in the AHAF funding portfolio, or in the pool of reviewer expertise, AHAF will solicit additional ad-hoc reviewers from that field to review the proposal. How much preliminary data is required?Although, in theory, no preliminary data is necessary for AHAF awards, the most competitive proposals have data serving to back the proposal. This data is used to evaluate the merit of the hypothesis and the competence of the investigators to perform and interpret the proposed experiments. Why does AHAF fund internationally as well as domestically?The donors to AHAF have defined a research mandate to fund the best science that is of the greatest relevance to the disease program. AHAF believes that the nationality of the Principal Investigator or Institution is irrelevant to this mandate. Are there any biases against internationally submitted proposals?No. However, some investigators may be limited by their ability to communicate in English. These investigators are strongly encouraged to consider having their proposal reviewed by colleagues fluent in English prior to submission. You may also consider paying an editorial service to help you refine your proposal. The costs of these services are typically no more than the cost of many laboratory reagents. If the use of an editor is the difference between an award and a denial, then the cost is certainly a worthwhile investment. Several such companies exist, and have services ranging from spelling and grammar checking to advanced scientific critique. Individual editors will have differing styles; request samples from several editors and pick one or two whose styles reflect the way you would like your research to be presented. Application Review ProcessHow is the general review process structured?AHAF awards grants for research on the causes of, and preventions or treatments for the diseases specified by each of its disease programs (i.e., Alzheimer’s disease, Glaucoma, and Macular Degeneration). Grants are awarded on the basis of the scientific merit of the proposed research and the relevance of the research to improving our understanding of these diseases. To ensure that AHAF is funding meritorious research proposals that have high potentials for success, the Board of Directors bases its final funding decisions on the results of a formal, rigorous, scientific peer-review process, taking program goals and the availability of funds into consideration. General AHAF Review Committee Procedures AHAF recruits and maintains a Scientific Review Committee (SRC) for each of the four research programs. These committees are comprised of established investigators with the appropriate expertise to provide constructive and equitable evaluations of grant applications. These individuals serve as volunteers but are provided with a small honorarium for the time and effort they put into the review process. Almost all serve on NIH study sections or review committees for other foundations. The AHAF Research Grants Department, in consultation with the Chairman of the each Scientific Review Committee, assigns each proposal to a primary and secondary reviewer based on the expertise of the reviewers and the research area(s) of the proposal. In some cases a tertiary reader is also assigned. All proposals are checked against the pool of available reviewers for real or potential conflicts of interest prior to assignment of the proposal to individual reviewers. Reviewers are required to decline assigned applications for which they do not have the appropriate expertise and must decline to review applications in which they have a real or potential conflict of interest. These applications are reassigned to other reviewers. Reviewers with Conflicts of Interest (e.g., applications from investigators at the same institution as the reviewer, applications from previous or current collaborators, or applications to support research in which the reviewer has a financial interest) may not participate on a committee in any review cycle in which they themselves have submitted a proposal for consideration. Reviewers are required to keep the information presented in grant applications and the deliberations of the Scientific Review Committee strictly confidential. It is the responsibility of the AHAF Grants Department to communicate with applicants regarding the results of the review process and to serve as the intermediary between the Reviewers and the applicant. Review Criteria Reviewers are instructed to take the following criteria into consideration when reviewing grants: 1. Scientific merit. Does the investigator have a clear hypothesis and specific aims? Are the hypothesis and specific aims reasonable in light of current knowledge? Will the experimental design allow the investigator to achieve the specific aims and test the hypothesis? Are the methods clearly explained and appropriate? Has the investigator addressed satisfactorily issues or concerns regarding the rights of human subjects and/or the appropriate care and treatment of laboratory animals? Can the research proposed be accomplished in the time period of the grant? 2. Relevance. Will the proposed research contribute significantly to current knowledge regarding the etiology, diagnosis, or treatment of the program focal disease? 3. Appropriateness of the budget. Is the total amount requested reasonable for the research proposed (i.e. neither too high nor too low)? Are the amounts requested for each budget category reasonable? Has the investigator clearly justified the budget requests? 4. Expertise and experience of the investigator. Does the principal investigator and/or co-investigator(s) have the appropriate expertise and experience to perform the proposed research? Has the investigator identified appropriate team of individuals to serve as key personnel, collaborators, or consultants? Has the investigator documented the willingness of collaborators or consultants to participate in the research? Priority Score Ranking Reviewers use the following system of priority score ranking to recommend applications for funding by the AHAF Board of Directors: Priority Score Description of Merit 1.0 – 1.4 Outstanding 1.5 – 1.9 Excellent 2.0 – 2.4 Good 2.5 – 2.9 Satisfactory 3.0 – 3.4 Adequate 3.5 – 3.9 Fair 4.0 – 4.4 Acceptable 4.5 – 5.0 Unacceptable Review Results Applicants normally will be notified in writing of the Board of Director's decision concerning their application in a letter dated March 31. AHAF staff are not authorized to provide information on priority scores, ranking, or likelihood of funding of applications prior to written notification of applicants. Please do not write or telephone AHAF to request such information. Triage procedures of specific programs.As a consequence of high proposal volumes, AHAF may elect to initiate peer-review of proposals in multiple stages. The first stage is used to identify the top proposals considered to be competitive for final award offers. Alzheimer’s Disease ResearchADR employs a two tiered review process in which all applications are submitted as full proposals. In stage I, a minimum of two reviewers assign a preliminary grade to each proposal based on the criteria described above. These preliminary grades are not accompanied by formal written critiques of the proposal, and are used solely as a triage process to identify those proposals that will be the most competitive in the final stage of review. In consultation with the Chair of the ADR Scientific Review Committee the AHAF Research Grants Staff passes the most enthusiastically reviewed proposals to Stage II, where they are reviewed as noted above. The cut-off line is based on number of received proposals and fluctuates each year. Macular Degeneration ResearchMDR employs a two tiered review process in which proposals are first submitted by Letter of Intent. The Letters are individually ranked by 3-5 reviewers. These preliminary grades are not accompanied by formal written critiques of the proposal, and are used solely as a triage process to identify only the most competitive proposals. In consultation with the Chair of the MDR Scientific Review Committee the AHAF Research Grants Staff invites the most enthusiastically reviewed Letters of Intent to submit a full application, which are reviewed as noted above. The cut-off line is based on number of received proposals and fluctuates each year. National Glaucoma ResearchIf proposal volumes require triage, the NGR program will employ a two tiered review process in which all applications are submitted as full proposals. This last occurred in review following the 2007 application deadline. If triage is employed, in stage I, a minimum of two reviewers assign a preliminary grade to each proposal based on the criteria described above. These preliminary grades are not accompanied by formal written critiques of the proposal, and are used solely as a triage process to identify those proposals that will be the most competitive in the final stage of review. In consultation with the Chair of the NGR Scientific Review Committee, the AHAF Research Grants Staff passes the most enthusiastically reviewed proposals to Stage II, where they are reviewed as noted above. The cut-off line is based on number of received proposals and fluctuates each year. Who sits on your Scientific Review Committees (SRC)?Names of participating reviewers are released following the review cycle. In order to protect the anonymity of the reviewers, it is AHAF’s policy to release the names of reviewers who have participated at least once in the prior two years. Since many proposals require very specialized expertise for review, this policy limits the risk that a reviewer on an individual proposal might be inferred from knowledge of the roster. Alzheimer’s Disease Research FY08-FY09Chair:
Co-Chair:
Committee Members:
Macular Degeneration Research FY08-09Chair:
Committee Members:
National Glaucoma ResearchChair:
Committee Members:
Multiple ApplicationsMay I submit multiple applications in a single review cycle?Due to high proposal volumes, we ask that you submit no more than one proposal to any AHAF program in a givenreview cycle. For example, it would not be permissible to submit two ADR proposals, but it would be permissible to submit one ADR and one MDR proposal in a given year. If I have a current award, may I submit a request for additional funding or award renewals?One of the goals of AHAF awards is to give highly innovative research the opportunity to generate the preliminary data necessary to be competitive for larger governmental or industrial sponsorship. In light of this, AHAF does not have a mechanism to allow renewals of existing awards. If you are seeking continuing funding for an existing award, you will be required to submit a new proposal in the next review cycle. This proposal will be evaluated by the same criteria as all other proposals in the same review cycle. Your current award must expire before any new award funds can be dispersed within a given program. This includes awards in No Cost Extension. Thus, you may not overlap two awards in a single disease program, but it is permissible to have two concurrent awards in separate disease programs (e.g., having concurrent awards through Alzheimer’s Disease Research and Macular Degeneration Research is possible, while having two concurrent ADR awards is not.) You may apply for a new award prior to the expiration of a current award. However, funding will not be initiated on any new award until the current award or the current award of your laboratory is terminated. What are the reasons a proposal might be declined before review (administrative decline)?If a proposal is received past the deadline, it will be declined before review. If a proposal fails to adhere to the guidelines of the award, including page limitations or word counts, it will be administratively denied prior to review. If it is determined that the applicant is ineligible, then the application will be declined before review. AHAF may decline to review proposals received from previously funded investigators or institutions that have failed to submit final financial or progress reports on previous awards. My proposal was declined and I would like to know my options/ can I resubmit?AHAF maintains a strong Scientific Review Committee (SRC) that assesses the scientific merit of each proposal. AHAF must rely on the advice of its SRC and will not fund proposals that have not been recommended for funding by the SRC. Resubmission of the proposal in the next review cycle is permissible. Applicants choosing the resubmit may submit an additional single page summary of responses to prior reviewer critiques (if any) and a description of any difference between the original submission and the resubmission. While there is no limit to the number of resubmissions possible, applicants are advised to exercise restraint when considering submitting the same proposal over multiple years. Regarding Appeals: The appeals process is designed to address only extraordinary situations in which the review process is believed to have been compromised in such a way as to prevent unbiased or competent review of a proposal. This process IS NOT intended for routine rebuttal of specific reviewer critiques or opinions, or to overcome the consequences of poor writing or grantsmanship. Routine rebuttal of reviewer critiques may be submitted as a revised proposal in a later review cycle. If the appeal is found to merit further investigation, the Director of Research Grants, in consultation with the chairs of the Board Grants Committee and appropriate Scientific Review Committee, shall determine an appropriate action on a case by case basis. Such actions may include re-evaluation of the proposal by the original reviewers for clarification of opinions, or evaluation by new reviewers who have not previously seen or discussed the proposal. If it is determined that the proposal was evaluated inappropriately, new priority scores will be solicited from the most recent reviewers, and the proposal will be ranked in its current review cycle using the most recent scoring. Note regarding proposals declined in Stage I (triage) review: Can you give me general advice on grant writing?Obtaining funding is a difficult, frustrating, and an increasingly competitive task. Organizations such as the NIH have put together significant online resources for advice in “grantsmanship.” Once such website is available from the NIAID Institute of the NIH. http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/grants/new/default.htm The most valuable advice you will receive will come from your peers. Have a colleague read your proposals and provide critique. By the time you have produced a readable draft, you will have lost much of your ability to effectively critique your own presentation. What seems intuitive to you will only seem intuitive because you have lived and breathed these words for the last few weeks. Your colleague will have a much easier time identifying vague wording or even spotting typographical and grammatical errors. Make sure you give your colleague your proposal with enough time for both review and for you to make any major changes based on your colleague’s recommendations. With a week or two of preparation time you will get an honest critique from your colleague. Who can I talk to in order to gauge the competitiveness of my proposal?You should call or write the AHAF Director of Research Grants (drg@ahaf.org). If the Director of Research Grants is unable to assess your proposal, it will be communicated to appropriate members of the Scientific Review Committee. Since the majority of AHAF award programs are investigator initiated research, the competitiveness of any proposal is contingent on the quality of other proposals received in the same review cycle. Although applicants are encouraged to review the ‘current awards’ section of the AHAF website, they should note that AHAF ultimately can only fund proposals that it receives and has the opportunity to evaluate through peer review. The composition of the AHAF award portfolio is reflective of the academic breadth of the proposals submitted to the organization. I know a member of Scientific Review Committee or AHAF staff or leadership. Should I talk with them about my proposal?Any attempt to influence your reviewer will invalidate your application. SRC members and AHAF staff are required to report any correspondence with applicants regarding their application to the AHAF Director of Research Grants for review. It is therefore inappropriate to discuss your pending proposal with any persons other than the AHAF Research Grants Department staff. About The American Health Assistance FoundationHow can I contact the American Health Assistance Foundation?Research Grants Department Telephone: (800) 437-2423 For email addresses please review the Grants Department section of our website. What is the mission of the American Health Assistance Foundation?I am a clinician and am interested in waiting room brochures. Do you have disease specific literature available for waiting rooms?Yes, free or nominally priced literature can be found at the following URLs:
Last Reviewed On: 12/18/09 |
American Health Assistance Foundation |
