Mission and Purpose

The School of Public Health at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is pleased to offer support for Gillings Innovation Labs (GILs), beginning in 2008. Each innovation lab will engage in high-impact research, demonstration projects and teaching practices which anticipate future public health challenges and accelerate sustainable solutions. Priority will be given to proposals that focus on solving problems in areas of the School’s strategic initiatives: obesity, drinking water, global health, and health disparities. However, the School will accept letters of intent for truly groundbreaking work, even if the work of the proposal is in a different subject area.

In addition to promoting major improvements in public health, Gillings Innovation Labs will engage interdisciplinary teams, train future public health leaders, and encourage connections among academic investigators, communities, governments, and public and private institutions committed to stemming public health threats. Initial funding for Gillings Innovation Labs is intended to stimulate rapid gains toward solving material public health problems. Many goals will not be reached within the period of initial funding, and it will be important for awardees to sustain efforts after an initial funding period. GILs may provide initial support for a promising line of research and demonstration, enabling an awardee to acquire ongoing support after the award period. We also will accept proposals that seek support for transformative user-centered curricular innovations that meet the needs of 21st century learners.

Challenges to public health occur at local, state, regional, national and international levels. Solutions at any of those levels may be proposed, though solutions that cross (or potentially cross) barriers of geography, environment, culture, income, and education have benefit beyond the populations in which they are demonstrated. An Innovation Lab effort should speed solutions to significant public health challenges through groundbreaking science—basic, intervention and applied science—and through effective translation of interventions to high-impact settings.

The GIL program is funded by a generous personal gift from Dennis and Joan Gillings.  The donors are not involved in the evaluation of proposals or the administration of the program.

Award information

Key dates
Call for proposals: August 15, 2007
Deadline for brief application submission: October 31, 2007
Invitation to submit full proposals: by December 10, 2007 (new date)
Deadline for full proposals: January 31, 2008 by 12:00 noon (EST)
Notification of awards: April 2008
Earliest start date: May 2008

Funds available
A maximum of $2 million will be available to support the first round of Innovation Labs. Applicants may request support for an initial period of up to two years.

The dates for 2008 applications have not yet been determined.

Eligible principal investigators/organizations

Principal investigators
Gillings Innovation Labs may have a single principal investigator (PI) or two co-principal investigators. The PI, or at least one of two co-principals, must be a member of the faculty of the School of Public Health who otherwise would be entitled to be a PI under University rules. (UNC Guidelines for Sponsored Research may be found at http://research.unc.edu/pub/guidelines/guidelines.pdf; page 2 describes qualifications for principal investigators.) If co-principal investigators are proposed, one may hold a UNC appointment and otherwise be eligible to be PI, and one may be a member of a collaborating institution or organization. A strong rationale should be presented for the proposal of co-principal investigators, and the proposal must substantially involve the School of Public Health.

Investigators/collaborators/consortia
Gillings Innovation Labs should be comprised of investigators and collaborators appropriate to the proposed activity. In some instances, members of a single discipline may collaborate to develop well-defined technology; in most, the make-up of the Innovation Lab will cross disciplines, schools, and institutions, and often will benefit from partnerships with other academic and government institutions, communities, non-government organizations, and corporations. Participation of each collaborator and consortium member must be carefully described and justified in the proposal. Though not required, it is highly desirable that students be given opportunities to participate as members of Innovation Lab teams.

Applications for Gillings Innovation Labs

Basic elements of Innovation Lab proposals are similar to those for other research or program proposals: state major aims of the proposal, demonstrate need for the work, describe specific activities required to implement the activity, demonstrate that the team has skills and experience to perform and evaluate the activity, present clear metrics for assessing the success of the project, and show that adequate measures have been taken to assure the ethical conduct of the activity. Though details will vary across proposals, successful Innovation Lab proposals often will be characterized by:

• Clear connection to demonstrable, high-impact improvements in public health or in measurable steps on the pathway to improved public health; that is, the proposal provides evidence that the activity will solve an important problem and that the solution is likely to be obtained—by the team proposed, in the time allocated, and within the budget requested;
• Use of a logic model to show how this activity could affect public health (see figure 1);
  
• Novel, innovative approaches to address important public health problems;   
  
• Interdisciplinary, multi-institutional teams to create and implement solutions;
• Technology, products, or programs that are replicable, scalable and are being developed with potential users in mind; 
  
• Opportunity for rapid dissemination of findings, rapid improvements in public health; and,  
  
• Clear outcome metrics to demonstrate impact.
  

NOTE: A letter of support from the department chair of the School of Public Health's PI (or co-PI) must be included. Proposals submitted without this letter will not be sent to reviewers.

Brief proposals

Investigators/Consortia applying for Gillings Innovation Labs first will submit a three-page brief proposal providing an overview of proposed GIL activities, including a two-page abbreviated version of all elements of a full proposal: aims, brief background, design and methods, evaluation plan, and plans for sustaining activity/dissemination. A third page should include a list of investigators and/or consortia members, proposed activity sites/organizations, and a preliminary, but not detailed, budget.

The focus of brief proposals should be on the public health impact of the proposed GIL and how the conduct of the proposed activities will accelerate solutions to pressing public health problems. Though the basic approaches to GIL activities should be enumerated, it is not expected that brief proposals will provide detailed descriptions of methods or protocols.

Full proposals

For full proposals, the following sections, under Activity of the Innovation Lab, may not exceed 15 single-spaced pages (using 10-point Arial or 12-point Times New Roman, or equivalent font), including text, figures and tables. Though appendices may be used to present technical or supporting material (e.g., technical descriptions of equipment or questionnaires), appendices may not be used to circumvent page limitations.

Project Aims
Project aims should be specific, quantifiable and clearly related to achievement of a high- impact gain in public health or the development of technology or techniques that will enable important improvements in public health. Aims should not address incremental improvements in existing approaches or technology but rather should propose public health solutions that 1) make substantial progress in technology application, 2) develop novel methods for intervention delivery, or 3) translate effective interventions into practice or make the interventions available to previously underserved populations. While important gains in public health may be beyond the scope of the project (e.g., reduction in morbidity or mortality), the connection of project aims to ultimate goals of improved public health must be made clear. We encourage proposal writers to use logic models to illustrate connections.

Connection to Public Health
The public health challenge underlying the proposed project should be detailed, including the burden of disease or disability, geographic distribution of the condition, populations susceptible to the condition, implications of the condition for societal function and quality of life, current attempts to ameliorate the condition, and barriers to successfully overcome the challenge. The proposed project should be placed in the context of current knowledge on the topic. Progress toward meeting the public health challenge that can be expected if project aims are met should be enumerated.

Project Design and Methods
Detailed plans, methods and procedures for carrying out the proposed activity should be included. In particular, describe the setting in which the activity will take place, populations from which participants (if there are human participants) will be drawn and plans for identifying a sufficient and representative sample, any new technology to be developed as part of the project, methods to be used to implement any interventional activity or development plan, and the methods by which important processes and outcomes will be assessed. Particular attention should be given to any methods or procedures that are novel or that constitute an important outcome of the study in their own right (e.g., a project in which development and testing of methods is central to the specific aims). If there are important technological challenges or methodological barriers, these should be discussed, along with a plan for overcoming potential barriers. If it is possible that a patent or other intellectual property will emerge from the project, please indicate.

Assessment and Evaluation
The assessment plan should describe crucial outcome variables, justify proposed outcome variables as most appropriate for the proposed activity, explain relationship of outcome variables to more distal improvements in public health (e.g., how development of a novel technology will decrease morbidity or mortality), and specify means by which outcomes will be collected with maximal accuracy and minimal bias. The analysis plan should describe how project aims will be evaluated, and the a priori criteria for judging relative success in meeting project aims. Important process or intermediate outcome variables should also be described in detail, including the purpose for collecting such variables, methods for measurement, means for assuring timely collection of data (particularly if they are to be used for mid-course modifications in protocol), and specific approaches to analysis. Process and outcome measures should be linked explicitly to one or more specific aims of the overall project.

Plan for Dissemination of Findings and Sustained Effort
Dissemination includes traditional dissemination of findings in academic settings, but goes well beyond that. In many cases, the most important dissemination will occur in non-academic areas. Plans for expanding reach of interventions, further development or distribution of technology, or applying novel methods developed in the initial award period must be made clear. In particular, if there are activities crucial to the broad fielding of interventions or technology, a plan for conducting those activities must be included, even if the plan does not involve the original members of the Innovation Lab. (As an example, if a community-based intervention is to be expanded to other communities, the means by which dissemination will be promoted should be detailed, even if dissemination is to be conducted by a government agency or philanthropic concern.)

Protection of Human Subjects, Care and Use of Vertebrate Animals, and Biohazards
If a proposed Innovation Lab involves human participation, whether as part of an intervention or otherwise, adequate measures must be taken to protect personal information and assure safety. At a minimum, a human subjects plan must meet criteria for a data and safety monitoring plan set forth by the applicable UNC Institutional Review Board (IRB). Similarly, projects involving vertebrate animals must propose safeguards sufficient to meet the criteria set forth by the UNC Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). In either case, the proposal must make clear that involvement of humans or non-human vertebrates is crucial to the success of the study and that every reasonable effort has been made to minimize risk or injury associated with participation. If biohazards are involved in project activities, their use and handling must be justified and must be in accordance with all UNC regulations. Projects that take place outside UNC (e.g., in collaboration with county health departments, foreign health districts) must get approval not only from relevant UNC authorities but from appropriate local authorities. Any projects involving human subjects, invertebrate animals, or biohazards must get approval from relevant UNC authorities. Approval may be pending at the time of application but must be obtained prior to any funded activities.

Budget and allowable costs

Budgets for Innovation Lab proposals may include salary support (including fringe benefits) for investigators and study staff, costs of study-specific intervention or assessment materials (e.g., medications, blood collection materials, air sampling equipment), procurement or conduct of crucial assessments (e.g., lab assays, environmental measurements), or study-specific travel or transportation. In general, costs directly related to conducting the proposed work are allowed. Costs for infrastructure or other activities that are spread beyond the efforts of the Innovation Lab (e.g., buildings, general lab equipment and computers) generally are not allowed. Because Innovation Labs will be administered by UNC, generally there will be no F&A (indirect) costs allowed. Exceptions to this may be made on a case-by-case basis for non-UNC consortium members who require indirect funds in a sub-contract. In that case, a maximum of 10% overhead might be permitted. Innovation Lab funds may not be used to support training programs or training grants, but individual students may be supported through Innovation Labs for work specific to the Lab. Budgets should be drawn up in accordance with regulations in place at the School and University offices of sponsored research.

The program does not require cost sharing, but if there are important resources or funding available which will complement the Innovation Lab funding, these should be identified. Such funds or resources should be specific to the activities of the Innovation Lab, and not general support (e.g., buildings, lab infrastructure, salaries for administrative support) that crosses projects.

Innovation Labs are intended to develop important interventions, methodology, and interventions that have broad and demonstrable impact. Projects may be proposed for up to two years. While substantial projects (those similar in scope and funding to an NIH R01) may be proposed, it is the intent of the GIL program to support a range of activities, which vary in content, scope and level of support.

Review and selection

Both brief and full proposals will be submitted electronically. To speed the review process and minimize the burden on applicants, reviews will be conducted in two rounds: brief proposals and full proposals. Brief proposals will be evaluated rapidly, and those judged to have the greatest promise and merit will be invited to submit full proposals.

Brief proposals

Brief proposals will be reviewed for the potential to anticipate public health challenges and accelerate solutions to public health problems. Emphasis in the initial round of reviews will be upon:

• potential of the activity to substantially improve public health;
• proposal aims consistent with School priority areas;  
  
• designs, methods and activities likely to achieve the proposed aims; and, 
  
• appropriate investigators/consortia and settings for the proposed activities.
  

For this round, additional programmatic criteria may be applied to assure that a broad spectrum of full proposals is evaluated (i.e., a mix of local, national and international projects; basic, clinical, translational and population science; and interventional, technological and observational projects).

NOTE: A letter of support from the PI’s department chair must be included.

Full proposals

Full Gillings Innovation Lab applications will be reviewed by a panel of methodology and content experts. These experts will be drawn from academic institutions (including UNC and others), governmental and non-governmental organizations, community organizations, and for-profit and not-for-profit corporations. While a number of reviewers will represent broad methodological expertise or transdisciplinary approaches to public health challenges, others will be chosen because of their expertise in content areas and methods represented in the Innovation Lab proposals submitted in any given round.

Reviewers will be asked to comment on every aspect of the proposal but will focus upon the following questions.

Investigators/consortium

• Is the principal investigator qualified by experience and training to lead the proposed work?
• Will appropriate collaborating investigators and organizations support the work, and is the effort proposed sufficient to carry out proposed activities?  
  
• If multiple organizations are involved, is there a clear delineation of tasks, plan for coordination of work, and evidence of either previous/ongoing collaboration or the development of a working relationship?
  

Budget

• Are the budget and budget allocation in line with the funding guidelines, proposed project activities, and personnel effort?
• Are all budget items clearly identified, described and justified?    
  

 Innovation Lab Activities

•   Are there specific, quantifiable aims directly related to improving public health?
• Is there sound, evidence-based basis for addressing the proposed public health challenge, even if the study aims themselves are ambitious or highly innovative?
• If study aims are successfully achieved, will they result in either direct improvement in public health, in substantial ability to achieve public health improvements through application of results, or in achievement of measurable and crucial steps on the path to public health improvement?   
  
• If study aims are achieved, will results apply to broad population groups, particularly those at greatest risk, those who are traditionally underserved a those economically or otherwise disadvantaged? That is, does the work, even if conducted in a relatively restricted setting or on a small scale, have the potential (not necessarily as part of the GIL) to generalize to broader settings and larger populations, particularly those in greatest need?   
  
• Will the project advance scientific and methodological knowledge?  
  
• Is the study population (when applicable) appropriate for the proposed work? Is there an acceptable method to recruit and retain participants or organizations, consistent with ethical conduct of the proposed activities? 
  
• Are methods likely to achieve specific aims?  
  
• Does the study protocol describe appropriate and feasible methods for project implementation and activities and for measurement of important outcomes?   
  
• Does the assessment and analysis plan specifically address each specific aim, with clear metrics for determining success?  
  
• Is there a plan for dissemination -- not only of results but of products or inventions -- to broad and appropriate audiences?
  

Other review considerations
Because Gillings Innovation Labs will support a wide range of projects, from technology to development; to partnerships with local health districts; to international public-private collaborations; some review criteria will be considered:

• Will the project create or sustain interdisciplinary teams?
• Will the project foster collaborations among schools at UNC-Chapel Hill, community organizations, governmental and non-governmental organizations, and corporations?   
  
• Does the proposed activity involve students, particularly in leadership roles or roles that demonstratably promote their training and career development?   
  
• Does the project develop the careers and opportunities of junior members, helping them to advance or develop new opportunities for independent work?
  

The SPH Research Council, or a sub-group of the Committee, will consider the results of the merit review in light of available funding and will recommend which applications can and should be funded. Investigators on funded projects will be notified, and all submitted proposals will receive brief feedback on the merit review.

Since the GIL program is new and evolving, the review process and questions will be subject to revisions as we work to fund the strongest portfolio of ideas.

Reporting

For awards of greater than one year's duration, brief, impact-focused annual reports will be required. All Gillings Innovation Labs will be required to submit final reports within 90 days of the end of the award period. Details of reporting requirements will be contained in a separate document. All publications should cite the Carolina Public Health Solutions program at the UNC-Chapel Hill School of Public Health as source of support.

Solicited Innovation Labs

On occasion, we may solicit specific proposals in high-need, potentially high-impact areas from individuals, groups of investigators or consortia. Such proposals otherwise would be competitive if submitted in response to these guidelines. Solicited awards will be reviewed for merit, with the same criteria used for submitted proposals.

Sharing Information and Tools

One of the goals of GILs is to accelerate the translation of scientific discoveries into practice. To facilitate this process, we encourage the use of open source technologies that permit broadest access to research methods, results and outcomes across geographic, disciplinary and other boundaries. We also encourage investigators to share tools and findings through Web-based and other methods.

Figure 1:  Logic Model (Source: CDC)
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/hwi/program_design/logic_model.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/eval/resources.htm - logic model