Institute for Precision Health

Funding spotlight MRC DPFS

Dr Tim Hammonds: Applying to the MRC Developmental Pathway Funding Scheme (DPFS)

Having recently joined the MRC DPFS panel I can share with you some of the things I have learned about applying for and successfully achieving funding for translational programs in this health care space. 

The most important thing about your translational grant is to remember that the output is something that will directly affect patient health at some point in the future. From my experience to date, there are some things that stand out in applications and some red flags that suggest it may not be fundable.

Need

What is the need the proposal aims to help address? Is the need significant and does the proposal have a competitive advantage over competing solutions?

Aims: Clearly articulate the problem from a patient-centric perspective. Estimate the market need and say why your idea will be the best available solution.

Red Flags:

  • A solution to a problem that doesn’t exist, i.e. the science might work, but will it help?
  • Are we clear who it will help? Is this so niche as to be vanishingly rare?
  • Is this a new way to do something or a rehash of something that is too far ahead?

Rationale

What is the rationale and supporting evidence for why the proposed solution will meet the targeted need? Is the rationale and level of qualification reasonable?

Aims: Be focussed on a solution. Show clear and concise preliminary data which you aim to exploit and build upon. How will the next stage you aim to get to convince yourself and others that this is likely to work effectively in patients?

Red Flags:

  • Woolly preliminary datasets - How robust are these findings, will a reviewer be convinced?
  • If it is robust, is the dataset and subsequent hypothesis overanalysed or overinterpreted?
  • Is there an obvious drawback, toxicity or contraindication that has been overlooked?

Deliverability

Is the proposed development plan realistic? Does it offer good value-for money? Does the team have access to the necessary assets to deliver the plan?

Aims: Have a concise, clear and costed plan with well explained start and endpoints. Why will ending at that point create a more valuable project? Why is the team the best for this job? Where have you added external expertise that you clearly need, but currently don’t have?

Red Flags:

  • Propose to stop the project plan stop at a key point where value is added, rather than where the maximum funding available runs out.
  • VFM is important. Reviewers all know how much stuff costs and overpromising vs a small budget also suggests lack of experience in translational project management.
  • Have the team collaborate where it makes sense rather than overconfident that they can do it all. Shared success is better than individual heroic failure.

Intellectual Property

Is there an appropriate intellectual property strategy in place to optimise the chances of downstream funding or partnering?

Aims: Show a coherent plan for patenting, even if it is not to generate patents (yet) with at least shared ownership. Explain clearly what the patentable invention is or will be. Make it clear that you are aware of any competition.

Red Flags:

  • Is there actually a patentable idea? Has it been protected? Is it better not to patent?
  • Who owns what when this is done? Does a company simply own everything?
  • Are three major Pharma already 4-5 years into this and if so, why is this better? (Note: If it genuinely is much better than current Pharma work, then it can be very attractive to investors)

I would recommend anyone who thinks they have a great idea in the translational space at least go to the UKRI MRC DPFS website and read about these awards. Of course, as your Royal Society Entrepreneur in Residence I’d be happy to chat about an application anyone was thinking of putting forward

Back to top
MENU