Before you submit your application please read the following information carefully. Your project must meet the below listed requisites to be recommended for funding.
- Have an original idea to address an important problem which is relevant to the aims of the Fund/Institute.
- The idea and objectives are supported by evidence e.g. literature and/or supporting additional/preliminary data.
- There are clear research question(s) which follow the “SMART” principles (simple, measurable, achievable, realistic, timely).
- There is justification of the type of study design to answer the research question.
- There is experimental design and statistical treatment.
- The application justifies the involvement of the applicants; their track record in the field of study.
- The applicant addresses the necessary safety and ethics of the proposed research; appropriate approvals in place, applied for Home Office Project License of REC Favourable Opinion.
- The project is feasible in the time allocated.
- The project is appropriately funded to ensure success.
The researchers who receive funding present their progress either in person or in writing annually to a panel comprising 2 Trustees, 2 external academics and 2 Renal Consultants.
Every five years an external review panel examines the results of the Institute, its management, and projected research for the following five years, and reports to the Fund’s Trustees. The members of the Review Committee are Dr Paul Sweny, Prof Bruce Hendry, Prof David Oliveira and Prof Gordon Ferns.
In the event of a negative site review by the Quinquennial Review Panel the Trustees would interview the researchers concerned, discuss the findings with them, and require the ‘negatives’ to be eliminated. Funding for the project would be withdrawn until the Trustees were satisfied that the project was on course. The work would be reviewed periodically to judge whether improvement was being made but if progress was no satisfactory the project would be abandoned.
If a member of our Peer Review Panel, our Quinquennial Review Panel, or one of the Trustee’s advisors submits an application for funding that person will not be asked or allowed to take part in the review process for that round. The Trustees would also consider whether the person should continue in their role. Members of these advisory bodies would be required to sign a declaration of conflicts of interest which will require them to develop a culture of openness, to absent themselves from any discussion where a conflict of interest is possible, to declare a conflict of interest and not participate in any aspect of that particular review process.