Young Investigator Award
The award details, application and more.
Funding Opportunity Description
The evolution and vitality of biomedical, behavioral, and clinical sciences requires a constant infusion of new ideas, techniques, and points of view. This is particularly relevant to the fields of laryngology and bronchoesophagology where extant differences in thinking and practice may not yet be supported by substantial preliminary data. The ABEA seeks to foster the introduction of novel scientific ideas, approaches, and clinical innovations in prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and development of approaches and technologies that have the potential to advance biomedical behavioral, and clinical research in our field.
The ABEA recognizes the tremendous scientific talent among its members and this funding opportunity intends to encourage promising early career surgeon-scientists to actuate new exploratory and developmental research projects that enables the PI to develop preliminary data toward a programmatic research program and compete for federally funded research opportunities.
Anticipated Number of Awards
- One per year, contingent on submission of a sufficient number of meritorious applications
- Total costs for the 1-year project period may not exceed $15,000. No funds are offered for indirect costs
- In the event the money is not fully spent, it should be returned to the American Broncho-Esophagological Association so it can be used to award more fellowship grants in the future
Award Project Period
The total project period may not exceed one year
- A progress report will be due in-person at the next years COSM Meeting
Any individual with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to carry out the proposed research as the PI is invited to work with her/his organization to develop an application for support. Individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, individuals with disabilities and who are LBGTQ+ are always encouraged to apply.
All PI(s) must (1) be an Early Stage Investigator (≤5 years since terminal degree/fellowship) and (2) have identified a research mentor with appropriate research experience who is willing to dedicate time to advise and guide the PI’s career and programmatic research development. PI(s) do not need to be active ABEA members, but are strongly encouraged to apply for membership once eligible.
Application and Submission Information
Requesting an application package
The application forms package may be accessed below. Completed application forms are to be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Content and form of application submissions
It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in this funding opportunity announcement. Arial font required, size 11, ½ inch margins minimum is expected for all grant sections. Applications out of compliance will not be accepted for review.
- Abstract: 30 lines of text
- Cover Letter: 1 page
- Project Narrative: 3 sentences (lay language)
- Specific Aims: 1 page
- Research Strategy: 6 pages
- Biographical Sketch: 5 pages
- Research Mentor Letter: 2 pages
- Budget (NIH criteria used)
- Facilities and Resources
- IRB/IACUC approvals
Application Review Information
The ABEA developmental grant supports investigation of novel scientific ideas or new model systems, tools, or technologies that have the potential for significant impact on biomedical, behavioral research, clinical care, and/or the public health of patients with conditions affecting communication, voice, upper airway, and the esophagus. An ABEA grant application need not have extensive background material or preliminary information. Accordingly, reviewers will emphasize the conceptual framework, the level of innovation, and the potential to significantly advance our knowledge, understanding, and impact on health in the upper airway. Appropriate justification for the proposed work can be provided through literature citations, data from other sources, or, when available, from investigator-generated data. Preliminary data are not required for ABEA applications; however, they should be included if available. It is required that the PI identify a research mentor that s/he have committed to dedicate sufficient time to guide the PI’s career and programmatic research development.
Reviewers will provide an overall impact score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research, clinical, and/or public health field(s), in consideration of the following review criteria and additional review criteria.
Scored Review Criteria
Reviewers will consider each of the review criteria below in the determination of scientific merit, and give a separate score for each. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact. For example, a project that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field.
Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? Is the prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project rigorous? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, clinical practice, public health and/or health equity be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?
Are the PI(s), collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? Do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project? Does the Research Mentor have the appropriate research experience and time to advise and guide the PI’s career and programmatic research development?
Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research, clinical practice, or public health paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?
Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Have the investigators included plans to address weaknesses in the rigor of prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project? Have the investigators presented strategies to ensure a robust and unbiased approach, as appropriate for the work proposed? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed? Have the investigators presented adequate plans to address relevant biological variables, such as sex, for studies in vertebrate animals or human subjects?
If the project involves human subjects and/or NIH-defined clinical research, are the plans to address (1) the protection of human subjects from research risks, and (2) inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals on the basis of sex/gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as the inclusion or exclusion of individuals of all ages (including children and older adults), justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?
Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements?
Additional Review Considerations
Protections for Human Subjects
For research that involves human subjects but does not involve one of the categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate the justification for involvement of human subjects and the proposed protections from research risk relating to their participation according to the following five review criteria: 1) risk to subjects, 2) adequacy of protection against risks, 3) potential benefits to the subjects and others, 4) importance of the knowledge to be gained, and 5) data and safety monitoring for clinical trials.
For research that involves human subjects and meets the criteria for one or more of the categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate: 1) the justification for the exemption, 2) human subjects involvement and characteristics, and 3) sources of materials.
The committee will evaluate the involvement of live vertebrate animals as part of the scientific assessment according to the following criteria: (1) description of proposed procedures involving animals, including species, strains, ages, sex, and total number to be used; (2) justifications for the use of animals versus alternative models and for the appropriateness of the species proposed; (3) interventions to minimize discomfort, distress, pain and injury; and (4) justification for euthanasia method if NOT consistent with the AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals.
Reviewers will assess whether materials or procedures proposed are potentially hazardous to research personnel and/or the environment, and if needed, determine whether adequate protection is proposed.
2. Review and Selection Process
Applications will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by (an) appropriate scientific review committee, using the stated review criteria.
As part of the scientific peer review, all applications will receive a written critique.
Applications may undergo a selection process in which only those applications deemed to have the highest scientific and technical merit (generally the top half of applications under review) will be discussed and assigned an overall impact score.
Following initial peer review, recommended applications will receive a second level of review by the ABEA Executive Council. The following will be considered in making funding decisions:
- Scientific and technical merit of the proposed project as determined by peer review.
- Availability of funds.
- Relevance of the proposed project to program priorities.
3. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates
After the peer review of the application is completed, the PD/PI will be emailed his/her Summary Statement (written critique).
Letter of Intent (1 page) — January 1, 2024
Grant Submission — February 15, 2024
Scientific Review — February-March 2024
Council Review — March 15, 2024
Notice of Award — April 2024
If you have questions about our services or would like to speak with a member from our staff, please connect with us.
PO Box 1488
Warrenville, IL 60555