DoD Tuberous Sclerosis Idea Development Award | Apply Online

FAQs: DoD Tuberous Sclerosis Idea Development Award (W81XWH-16-TSCRP-IDA)

What is the DoD Tuberous Sclerosis Idea Development Award?

The DoD Tuberous Sclerosis Idea Development Award is a Department of Defense funding opportunity intended to spark conceptually bold research in tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC). It is designed to open new directions for the field and ultimately improve patient care, rather than funding routine, incremental work.

Who issues this funding opportunity?

This opportunity was issued by DOD-AMRAA.

What is the Funding Opportunity Number (FON) for this program?

The Funding Opportunity Number is W81XWH-16-TSCRP-IDA.

What type of funding mechanism is used (grant or cooperative agreement)?

The mechanism allows for either grants or cooperative agreements.

What is the CFDA number and activity category?

The program is listed under CFDA 12.420 and falls within the Science and Technology/Research and Development activity category.

What research areas does this award support?

The award supports research focused on tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC), specifically projects that could change how researchers think about TSC biology, diagnosis, or treatment and that could ultimately improve patient care.

What is the main goal of this award?

The central goal is to support innovative, high-impact TSC research that is more than the next incremental step. The program seeks ideas that can open new research directions and lead to major advances if successful.

What does the program mean by "innovation"?

Innovation is a core requirement. Competitive applications are expected to introduce a new paradigm, challenge an established assumption, apply a novel method or perspective, or pursue a creative high-risk/high-reward strategy. The intent is to move beyond straightforward follow-on experiments or routine extensions of existing studies.

Are incremental or routine extensions of existing studies considered a good fit?

Generally, no. The program explicitly signals that routine extensions of existing studies or straightforward follow-on experiments are unlikely to fit the intent of this award.

What does the program look for in terms of impact?

Impact is emphasized as strongly as innovation. Applicants are expected to explain both near-term value during the award period (such as a decisive mechanistic finding, a new model, a validated target, a diagnostic approach, or a proof-of-concept intervention) and the longer-term potential to reshape future TSC research or translate into better clinical management.

What kinds of near-term deliverables are examples of strong impact?

Examples named in the opportunity include a decisive mechanistic finding, a new model, a validated target, a diagnostic approach, or a proof-of-concept intervention that can be achieved during the award period.

Does the project need a hypothesis?

Yes. Supported work is expected to be framed around a clear, testable hypothesis.

What level of scientific rationale is expected?

Applications are expected to be backed by a strong scientific rationale, with enough evidence to justify the approach and demonstrate feasibility.

Is preliminary data required?

Yes. The award requires preliminary data to show that the proposal is not purely speculative and that it has credible grounding in evidence.

What counts as acceptable preliminary data for this award?

Preliminary data can include unpublished findings generated by the Principal Investigator (PI) or named collaborators, and/or published literature directly supporting the proposed direction and its relevance to TSC.

Why does the program require preliminary data?

The preliminary data are meant to support the hypothesis, justify feasibility, and strengthen confidence that the project can generate interpretable and meaningful outcomes, even if the overall concept is ambitious.

Does the award encourage high-risk/high-reward approaches?

Yes. The opportunity highlights creative high-risk/high-reward strategies as a hallmark of competitive, innovative applications, particularly when they could lead to major advances if successful.

Is there a New Investigator category?

Yes. A notable feature highlighted for FY16 is a dedicated New Investigator category intended to encourage early-career researchers who are beginning faculty appointments or building independent research programs.

How are New Investigators reviewed compared to Established Investigators?

New Investigators compete in a separate review grouping from Established Investigators. This separation is intended to level the playing field and broaden participation.

Are New Investigators expected to collaborate?

They are strongly encouraged to form collaborations with researchers who have demonstrated TSC expertise or other key capabilities, supported by funding and publication records.

What should a New Investigator application say about collaborations?

The proposal should clearly explain how each collaboration fills gaps, strengthens the overall team, and improves the chances of answering the research question.

Are there specific eligibility rules for New Investigators?

Yes. New Investigator applicants must meet specific eligibility criteria described in the opportunity's eligibility section.

Who is eligible to apply overall?

Eligibility is listed as unrestricted, meaning any entity type may apply, subject to any additional eligibility clarifications in the full announcement.

What is the application deadline for the posted FY16 opportunity?

The original and current closing date for the posted FY16 opportunity was July 18, 2016.

How many awards were anticipated?

The program anticipated making about two awards.

What kind of projects are most likely to be competitive?

Projects that align with the intent are those that are distinctly innovative in TSC, are built around a clear and testable hypothesis, are supported by a strong scientific rationale and preliminary data, and articulate compelling near-term and long-term impact on TSC biology, diagnosis, treatment, and ultimately patient care.

What should applicants avoid based on the stated intent?

Applicants should avoid positioning the work as a routine extension of existing studies or as straightforward follow-on experiments, since those approaches are explicitly described as unlikely to fit the intent of the award.