Do you have an idea you think can move the needle in your field, but you’ve had no traction with NIH or other federal funding agencies? We continue our conversation about the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs, or CDMRP. Here is more conversation between CDMRP expert Dr. Emilie Clemmens (Artemis Editing) and NIH expert Dr. Meg Bouvier (Bouvier Grant Group).
MB: I am fascinated by the prominent role played by consumer advocates and lobbyists at CDMRP. It makes the agency’s priorities very nimble and very directly tied to consumer perception of impact. That is a really interesting idea to me. One upside— it really ties the funding decision to impact on patients. One downside— It might be difficult for a patient advocate to fully understand the importance of a seemingly dry aspect of research that could truly be impactful.
EC: Yes, there are definitely pros and cons to this. It’s great that we have a mechanism for stronger input from advocates. CDMRP was born by patient advocates lobbying Congress, so their role is central to the funding objectives. In my experience, they provide some powerful perspectives on the research approach. They help scientists and engineers step back and look at the big picture to answer the questions “If we complete this research, will it help patients? And if so, how soon and how much?” They articulate the patient perspective. I witnessed many instances of advocates explaining that a proposed solution wouldn’t be readily accepted by patients because of comfort or ease of use issues, for example. As far as the cons go, yes, time must be spent in the review helping explain concerns on research strategy to the lay reviewer, as they, too, provide an overall score for the application. This can lengthen the review process, but ultimately it enriches the discussion for all participants.
MB: I love the idea that CDMRP funds risky ideas (versus next logical steps research). It is really interesting to see the breadth of topics they fund.
EC: As a CDMRP SRO, it was sometimes a challenge to remind the reviewers of this. I think we are all so trained to be incremental in our work that we still look for that in research strategies. A good chair was always a huge help in keeping the panel on message/mission. But I agree—CDMRP provides a mechanism for peer-reviewed applied research on a very wide range of topics and for research areas that may otherwise have limited funding opportunities.
MB: Can an applicant see a roster of reviewers before they submit, to inform their writing approach? Probably not, if the review panels are all ad hoc.
EC: No, applicants won’t get that information, but they can see the Programmatic Panel members. The Programmatic Panel is the 2nd tier of the 2-tier review process, and it includes field experts from academic institutions, industry, and/or other research institutions, patient advocacy group representatives, and Department of Defense representatives. They receive the summary statements on the highest scoring applications from peer review and select the applications to fund from that group. It can be somewhat informative to know who is on this panel in terms of, perhaps, predicting their priorities, but they are not involved at all with peer review.
MB: How quick is the turnaround from submission deadline to funding decision? It’s SO long at NIH, like 9 months.
EC: It varies. Some are expedited, such as during COVID. The length of time depends on the type of funding mechanism; shorter “idea development” awards are typically reviewed more quickly, where larger applications such as clinical trials or consortium awards take much longer. Six to eight months is the goal, as I recall.
MB: Tell me more about the structure of the narrative portion of the application, and specifically how it differs from NIH application structure.
EC: Most of it is pretty familiar, but there are unique elements that vary by funding opportunity. But that’s true for NIH, too, right? With the heavier emphasis on short-term impact, there is almost always more the applicant has to discuss in that regard. A discussion of technology transition is often a key element as well, so applicants have to consider and document how they plan to get the tech or therapy to clinic and/or how it might be commercialized.
MB: You are a wealth of knowledge about this agency, thank you for sharing your expertise!
EC: My pleasure!
