NIH Mentored Career Development Awards (K Series) Part 3

Slide 1: Section 2: Statements by Mentors, Co-Mentors, and Collaborators

• Seek complementarity
  • Choose a primary mentor who is a senior investigator with a track-record of NIH funding.
  • Include co-mentors who will complement the primary mentor's strengths.
  • Avoid including "mentors" from other institutions.
  • Establish a relatively small (3-4) mentoring committee.
  • If you need to add additional members, call them scientific or technical advisors/collaborators, who have a relatively narrow area of responsibility and focus.

Slide 2: Section 2: (cont)

• Evaluation criteria for primary mentor:
  • Appropriateness of mentor's research qualifications in the area of this application.
  • Quality and extent of mentor's role in providing guidance and advice to candidate.
  • Previous experience in fostering the development of more junior researchers.
  • History of productivity and support.
  • Adequacy of support for the research project.

Slide 3: Section 2: What goes where?

• Write a brief section for each mentor/co-mentor/collaborator that includes the following:
  • Academic title and institutional affiliation.
  • Primary area of research.
  • Mentoring track record (include total number and individual names, if possible; particularly for the primary mentor).
  • Relevance of mentor's research to your proposed training and/or research.
  • Mentor's role in your proposed training/research.
  • Say how often you'll meet with each mentor.

Slide 4: Section 2: What goes where? (cont)

• Include an evaluation component that describes how your mentors will assess your progress (e.g., quarterly meetings); include specific milestones during the K award (refer to timeline).

Slide 5: Section 2: Letters of Collaboration

• Include signed letters of collaboration from each mentor/co-mentor/scientific advisor.
• The letter from the primary mentor is key. It should cover the following areas:
  • His or her qualifications in the research area proposed by the candidate.
  • Previous experience as a research supervisor.
  • The nature and extent of supervision that will occur during the award period.

Slide 6: Section 2: Letters of Collaboration (cont'd)

• The following issues should also be addressed, which are the criteria by which the candidate will be evaluated:
  • Potential for conducting research
  • Evidence of originality
  • Adequacy of scientific background
  • Quality of research endeavors or publications to date
  • Commitment to patient-oriented research
  • Need for further research experience and training

Slide 7: Section 2: Primary mentor's letter (cont'd)

• The primary mentor's letter can also "re-frame" any potential weaknesses in the application.
  • Examples:
    • Productivity of candidate (e.g., few publications).
    • Feasibility of conducting research plan with resources of K award.
    • Limited mentoring experience of primary mentor.
    • Limited resources of primary mentor (e.g., no current R01 funding.
    • Co-mentor(s) not at UCSF.
    • Scientific overlap with primary mentor.

Slide 8: Section 2: Letters of Collaboration (cont'd)

• Letters from co-mentors, scientific advisors, and others can be much shorter.
• Be sure to include description of the role of the co-mentor/scientific advisor.
• Make sure that letters are consistent with text in grant application (re: frequency of meetings, etc.).