Cancer Center Support Grant

Preparation

Michael DarlingAssociate Director for Administration

IU Simon Cancer Center

• Planning: September due date with guidelines published in January impacted the planning stage

• Experience: Several key members new to CCSG preparation and submission or in a new role since previous submission: Director; 4 out of 6 Associate Directors; 7 out of 10 Program Leaders; 2 new cores with new directors

• Guidance: EAB in old guideline mode during construction of CCSG

• Logistics: Difficulty in developing template for 12 page research narrative

Challenges

CCSG Guidelines: Briefly discuss the following

• How the interests, expertise and research approaches of the Program members facilitate achievement of the central themes listed in the description above (80-90 pages above!)

• The most significant scientific accomplishments of the Program

• Briefly describe how the cancer research relevant to the catchment area is addressed

Research Program Narrative

Our folks and the EAB asked “where are these items?”

• Response to summary statement critique• Value added to the Program from the Cancer

center (also in review criteria)• Value added to the Cancer Center from the

Program • Research Program Training and Education

activities• Future Plans

But…

Page Limit: 12 Pages!

The Problem

Page 1 • Program Goals and Themes (restated from program description) • Response to Previous Summary Statement (brief and just the

critical ones)

Pages 2-10 • Major Scientific Accomplishments

Pages 11-12 • Program Relevance to the Catchment Area • Research and Clinical• Education and Outreach Activities• Value Added to the Cancer Center from the Program• Vision and Future Plans

Template

Retitled Section

• Value Added by the Cancer center to the Research Program: Shared Resource and Services Usage (also in review criteria for research program)

• We added support through: – Seminars – Pilot projects– Grand Rounds speakers– Faculty recruitment

Value Added By Cancer Center

• Major services/equipment• Management Structure• Cost Effectiveness• Qualifications of personnel• Use of Service• Policies on Operation

Formatting Shared Facilities

• What are the quality and cost efficiency of the service provided, and how effective are accessibility policies governing institutional and other specialized shared resources?

• How appropriate are the qualifications of the staff and their time commitment?

BUT…

• FOA/Guideline Changes: More emphasis on support of science as opposed to usage metrics

Shared Facilities Review Criteria

Additions• More emphasis on support of science as opposed to

usage metrics

Template• 6 pages addressing the formatting from above

including response to summary statement• 6 pages on importance to Center’s Scientific Needs

and Objectives; short science stories and publications

FAO/Guideline Changes

• Get everyone to know and use the new terms: e.g. Interventional therapeutic, Interventional non-therapeutic, Non-therapeutic and where they are used

• Use an EASY mechanism to transmit files to internal and external reviewers: IU Box is too complicated

• Clever ideas for metrics created 6-9 months earlier need an easy to find place for the data details

Other Hurdles / Lessons Learned

What I won’t miss:

Lugging over 8,000 single sided pages of paper across campus to our Office of

Research Administration

Other Things