AHA's Second Century Early Faculty Independence Award

Applicant’s Biosketch (5 pages)*

Biosketches from primary and secondary mentors (5 pages each)*

Primary and secondary mentors’ past/current trainees (3 pages each)*

* The same documents uploaded for the Pre-proposal may be uploaded for full proposal submission

Mentor's Training Plan (4 pages maximum) - The award requires, at a minimum, a primary mentor and a secondary mentor who will provide counsel and direction and scholarship oversight. Up to two additional mentors may be named to the mentoring team. A mentoring team approach with a committed lead mentor is an essential piece. Applicants should clearly define each person’s role as part of the mentoring team.

The primary and secondary mentors should have, most importantly, prior history of successfully mentoring of early career investigators to independence, track records of high-quality investigation, academic accomplishment, and should be invested in the career progress of the early career scientist. The mentors’ primary function is to work with the applicant to develop the proposal and training plan, make necessary arrangements with the institution to conduct the proposed research work, enforce the appropriate timelines for accomplishing the work, and guide the awardee toward a productive career in their chosen research field.

• One individual must be identified as the primary mentor who will assist in the coordination of the candidate’s research. The primary mentor should be an active investigator in the proposed research and be committed both to the applicant’s career development and the applicant’s research. The mentors must document the availability of dedicated sufficient research support (e.g., time and effort) and facilities for high-quality research.

• At least one mentor must be from outside of the applicant’s department, division, or institution.

• One mentor should be committed to guiding the applicant’s future grant writing endeavors (such as, how to write an R01 or equivalent).

Career Development Plan (3 pages maximum) - The applicant is required to submit a comprehensive career development plan that includes:

• Primary career intention – The AHA does not require this to be a traditional academic research or health profession track. For example, an applicant might wish to pursue a career in industry, technology, teaching, or public health, etc.
• Long-term professional goals (for example, positions desired or other specific professional goals, such as ‘write a book’).
• Explicit short-term goals that contribute to long-term interests and the most important anticipated challenges that must be mitigated/overcome to reach these goals.
• Timeline and 2-3 metrics that will define success in reaching each goal.
• Describe training or experiences you will develop to contribute to and ensure that long term goals are achieved.
• Which aspects of your current work/job will be delegated to others to accomplish the early career training and tasks necessary to achieve your goals?
• Identify additional skills, knowledge or experience you will need to acquire that may directly or indirectly help you in your current job or future positions, and how you plan to ensure that this occurs.
• Specifically delineate when and how progress assessments or checkpoints will occur, particularly with each member of your mentoring team (e.g., memos, phone calls, meetings) and what developmental activities will be completed or discussed at these times.

Resources: While the AHA does not endorse a particular resource, the following are offered for applicants’ reference:
How and Why to Write a Career Development Plan | Robert Half
Guide to Writing a Career Development Plan | SuccessFactors, Inc.

Proposed Research Plan (8 pages maximum)

Budget Justification (DOC) (2 pages maximum)

Research Project Environment (DOC) (2 pages maximum)

Vertebrate Animal Subjects (if applicable, no page limit)

Literature Cited (4 pages)

Full proposals will also require the following items will be entered into form fields in ProposalCentral. They are listed here for applicant awareness:

• Abstract
• Non-Scientist Summary
• Budget

Optional Third Parties

Collaborating Investigator:

• Biosketch (5 pages)
• Letter (5 pages)

Consultant  Letter (5 pages)

An applicant is prohibited from contacting AHA peer reviewers. This is a form of scientific misconduct and will result in the removal of the proposal from funding consideration, and the applicant’s institution will be notified of misconduct.

The AHA reserves the right to an initial triage, whereby a minimum of half of the submissions may be triaged.

To judge the merit of invited full proposals, reviewers will comment on the following criteria. Please address these in your proposal. The AHA uses a 1-9 score scale and AHA Peer Review Guidance (PDF).

AHA Mission: To be a relentless force for a world of longer, healthier lives.

• How well written is the Non-Scientist Summary in explaining to a non-scientist audience the research proposed and its importance?
• Does the Non-Scientist Summary adequately explain the major health problem being addressed by this study?
• Does it provide specific questions and how the projects will address them?
• Does it provide information on the overall impact of this work and the potential advances in the field?
• Does it relay how the proposal supports the mission of the AHA?

Mentor’s Training Plan (4-pages maximum)

• Do the mentors have the experience to direct the proposed research training, as evidenced by a track record regarding productivity, funding and prior trainees?
• Does the primary mentor demonstrate familiarity with the applicant’s career and developmental goals and provide a comprehensive training plan that supports the applicant's progress towards his/her career development plan?
• Is an appropriate level of time, effort, funding, and involvement proposed for the mentoring component?
• Is there a contingency plan for mentors, if they cannot fulfill their contract for mentorship to the early career investigator?

Career Development Plan (3-page limit)

• Is the candidate’s career development plan, both during the award and afterward, of high quality and sufficient feasibility?
• Do the structured activities meet the applicant’s long- and short-term career goals?
• Are appropriate timelines and metrics of success planned for the candidate’s progress?
• Is there a mitigation plan if timelines and metrics are not fulfilled on time?
• Is there a satisfactory and appropriate relationship of the proposal to the career development goals and the candidate’s previous experience?

Investigator and Environment:
Investigator (applicant): Is the investigator appropriately trained, productive, and well suited to carry out this work? Is the work proposed appropriate to the experience level of the principal investigator (applicant) and other researchers? Does the investigative team bring complementary and integrated expertise to the project (if applicable)? Does the Investigator have a record of diligence, commitment, and productivity that warrant support as an early career investigator?

Environment: Does the environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Does the proposal benefit from unique features of the investigative environment, or subject populations, or employ useful collaborative arrangements? Does the mentoring team have experience and success mentoring early career investigators to independence?

Significance:
Does this study address an important problem and/or one or more of the critical or emerging priorities referenced above to fill gaps in the health and well-being of all? Does the science accelerate the discovery, interpretation, and application of scientific knowledge to enhance and treat cardiovascular and brain health? If the aims of the proposal are achieved, how will scientific knowledge or clinical practice be advanced? What will be the effect of these studies on the concepts, methods and technologies that drive this field? How will the acquisition and analysis of data during this early career award facilitate the successful transition to independence of the early career investigator toward successful future funding and independence?

Approach:
Are the conceptual framework, design, methods, and analyses adequately developed, well-integrated, well-reasoned and feasible (as determined by preliminary data) and appropriate to the aims of the proposal? The assessment of preliminary data should be put into perspective so that bold new ideas and risk-taking by beginning investigators are encouraged rather than stymied. Does the applicant acknowledge potential challenges and problem areas and consider alternative tactics and mitigation? Will the training and experience attained during this mentored project support and promote a pathway to becoming an independent investigator?

For all proposals that include vertebrate animals or human subjects, applicants must explain how relevant biological variables, such as sex and age, are factored into the research design, analysis, and reporting. Furthermore, strong justification from the scientific literature, preliminary data, or other relevant considerations, must be provided for proposals proposing to study only one sex or a specific age group.

Innovation:
Is the proposal original and innovative? For example: Does the proposal challenge existing paradigms and address an innovative hypothesis or critical barrier to progress in the field? Does the proposal develop or employ novel concepts, approaches, methodologies, tools, or technologies for this area?

Impact:
How does the training and experience supported by this award ensure that the early career investigator will progress to success in funding and independence as a career research investigator?