Frequently Asked Questions
Can there be multiple PIs on one application?
Yes. There can be up to two PIs per application, but each must be responsible for the project as a whole.
Can someone from another division of the University be a PI?
The PIs must have a primary appointment in the Bloomberg School.
Can a faculty member be the PI on more than one application?
No. But you may be a PI on one application and an investigator on another application.
Is there a limit on how many applications you can be listed on?
No. You may be listed as an investigator on more than one application. But you can only be listed as a PI on only one application.
Can faculty from another division of the University be listed as an investigator?
Is salary support allowed for faculty from other divisions?
Yes, but the PI must be at the JHSPH, and the funding must be administered through JHSPH. If there is a CORE resource at another division that is required for completing the project that is not available at JHSPH, collaboration with that division can be established to accomplish the project goals.
Can salary support be provided for faculty from other institutions? Are indirect costs available for other institutions?
We would prefer that the majority of the funding be used to support faculty, students and staff within the School and in some cases in other divisions of the University. There must be an explicit justification for supporting partners external to the University. SCIBAR funding will not cover indirect costs within or outside the University.
What will we need to submit for the concept summary?
Interested teams will have the summer of 2019 to prepare a concept summary of no more than 3 (single-spaced) pages. The summary should also include: (1) a CV of the proposed PI(s); (2) anticipated effort for the PI(s); and (3) a budget of up to $10,000 for work to prepare the oral presentation and the full written proposal.
A selection committee appointed by the Dean will choose the concept summaries to be developed into full proposals.
How will the selection committee make decisions about the concept paper finalists?
A selection committee appointed by the Dean will oversee a process involving expert reviews for scientific promise and feasibility, and select the concept summaries that will receive a small award ($10,000) for development of a full proposal.
For concept summaries that are selected to be developed into full proposals, what can the $10,000 development grant be spent on?
This funding can support salary time, student support, travel, and convenings with partners that are intended to further develop the proposal.
What will happen at the public pitches?
Each team will have 10 minutes for presentation and 10 minutes of moderated questions from the audience. The audience will also be given an opportunity to provide feedback on each pitch.
What will be required for full proposal submission?
The full written proposals—10-12 pages, exclusive of the budget summary and letters of support—will be due in the Spring of 2020. Specific guidance for the submission of the full proposals will be forthcoming.
How will the final awardees be selected?
The Selection Committee will make recommendations to the Dean’s Office based on how well the proposal and pitch perform on stated criteria listed above. More specific criteria will be forthcoming.
If a full proposal eligible for the Bloomberg American Health Initiative SCIBAR funding is not approved, could Initiative funding be provided at a lower level for a shorter period of time without an additional review process?
Yes. Based on recommendations from the selection committee, the Initiative Office may offer funding at a lower level and negotiate an appropriate budget with the team.
Is health equity relevant to the choice of problems targeted by SCIBAR proposals?
Yes. SCIBAR challenges teams to use both basic and applied research to address major problems undermining health and well-being in the world. Many of these problems pose special threats to health equity. For example, infectious diseases, road traffic injuries, environmental hazards, and many chronic illnesses not only lower aggregate measures of health and well-being, but also disproportionately and unfairly affect specific groups of people on the basis of race, region, or income. The result is often that progress on the overall challenge is impossible without addressing the experience of specific populations. In their SCIBAR applications, teams can explain how the problem they are targeting creates “avoidable, unfair, or remediable differences among groups of people.”
Is health equity relevant to the basic research in SCIBAR proposals?
Yes. It is worth considering whether the results of basic research will apply across diverse populations affected by the public health problem. For example, if a laboratory study uses a particular model to anticipate human illness, the team may want to explore whether the translation has been validated in diverse populations. Otherwise, there is a greater risk the results may not be as generalizable and that the model may exacerbate inequities. In many cases, there may be no changes to a basic science protocol based on considerations of health equity. In their SCIBAR applications, teams can explain how they have considered the relevance of the basic research to diverse populations affected by the problem under study.
Is health equity relevant to the applied research in SCI-BAR proposals?
Yes. Teams have the opportunity to consider health equity in designing the applied work in the SCIBAR proposal. For example, researchers can focus on policy formulation and implementation questions in a way that addresses the needs of diverse populations affected by a problem. Implementation work can also shed light on or even address more fundamental drivers of poor health, such as racism, poverty, and social disadvantage. Such thinking can assure that solutions do not have the perverse effect of helping only the most advantaged population, thereby increasing health inequities. In their SCIBAR applications, teams can note how their approach to applied research aims to assure that solutions will advance health equity.
Is health equity relevant to the process proposed by SCIBAR teams to conduct their research?
Yes. Respectful and authentic engagement with affected communities, including as research and translation partners, is empowering. Authentic engagement with communities may take the form of community-based participatory research, community advisory boards, community building, or other forms of meaningful engagement with stakeholders or intended beneficiaries of the research. In their SCIBAR applications, teams can explain their approach to such partnerships.
Is there support available to teams related to health equity?
Yes. Faculty with expertise in health equity who are not applying for SCIBAR awards will be available to provide technical assistance. In addition, a number of Centers that focus on health equity and health disparities exist across Johns Hopkins that can be called upon to support SCIBAR investigators. Also here are some helpful resources on different aspects of health equity.
Where can I send my questions?
Questions can be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org and resulting updates to the FAQ document will be made available on the SCIBAR website.