This site is hosted by the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, MD, USA.
MECHANISM OF SUPPORT
The MECC Small Grants Program involved limited funds (up to U.S. $15,000 per year per individual principal investigator) to support project-based efforts of up to two-year’s duration. Proposals involved investigators only from the five MECC signatories. A single application could request up to U.S. $15,000 for each principal investigator per annum -- one Principal Investigator per each eligible signatory. That is, for example, if a joint application is received from 3 principal investigators representing three signatories, the total budget request for the first year could be up to U.S. $45,000. The duration of an individual project could last up to two years.
These awards covered direct costs incurred in the conduct of the project only. No overhead or indirect costs were allowed.
The time period covered by the grant was determined by the study design of the proposed or ongoing project.
Applicants were responsible for all facets of the proposed project, including the planning, direction, and execution of the proposed work. The chances of success in obtaining an award depended on the number of applications submitted and their overall merit and cost. Renewal applications were considered for successful grantees, dependent on the availability of funds.
[Note: the description of procedures below are historical, and do not reflect availability of SGP funding.]
APPLICATION PROCEDURES
Applications should be received by the date specified in the Call for applications.
Applications must be received by the NCI office by the close of business on the due date. This uniform policy is designed to be fair to all applicants and to enable the review and award process to proceed with minimal delays, thus resulting in the earliest possible award dates (see Section V: Anticipated Schedule for Review and Award). For these reasons, it is important to allow enough time for the application delivery system that you select.
Receipt of applications in the MECC office will be acknowledged by postcard or e-mail.
No official application form is required, although a sample layout for the face page is included with this announcement. Applications must be typed in English and legible. All page limitations listed in this announcement (for example, a limitation of two pages per biographical sketch) refer to single typed pages.
The purpose of the application is to make clear to the MECC what it is that is being requested, who will actually be involved in the project, how the project will be conducted, monitored and evaluated; and what research question is being proposed. A group of experts will evaluate each application for scientific merit against a set of standard review criteria indicated below. The application should be written in a way that makes clear to the reviewers how those criteria will be met.
In place of a standard application form, refer to sections 1-4 below for required information to be included in the application.
1. FACE PAGE (ONE PAGE)
- Title of the proposed study (25 words or less)
- Names, titles and affiliations of principal investigator(s)
- Telephone and Fax numbers; e-mail address of principal investigator(s) if available
- Proposed project period (give start date and end date for requested funding)
- Site(s) of the proposed project
- Original signatures of principal investigators. Multiple face pages may be submitted (one or each original signature) if this will facilitate transmission
- Name of person to notify in case of award (if different from principal investigators)
- Total requested budget (in U.S. Dollars)
2. REQUESTED BUDGET (UP TO ONE PAGE) - Itemize the requested budget by:
PERSONNEL -
List of individuals to be supported either in whole or in part, through the proposed grant.
Include consultants by name and affiliationEQUIPMENT AND RESEARCH SUPPLIES -
Do not itemize items which are below U.S. $1,000 in costOTHER -
List all other expenses such as travel, equipment maintenance, photocopying etc. for
which funds are requested.
Note that the adequacy of the proposed budget to actually cover the costs of the proposed infrastructure or research project will be evaluated in the review of this application (see Review Considerations). If the proposed project will utilize additional resources which are not requested in the application, please indicate them so the reviewers will be able to
understand if the resources are adequate to accomplish what is proposed.3. BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH (UP TO TWO PAGES PER INVESTIGATOR)
Provide a brief statement to document the academic background, training, and relevant professional experience of each investigator. This is requested to evaluate the ability of the key investigators to undertake, supervise and report on the proposed project. Note that information in this section is critical since the competence of the principal investigator(s) to undertake the proposed project will be evaluated as part of the review process (see Review Considerations).
Include for each key investigator:
- Name
- Title, academic degrees including where granted, name and year
- Current institutional affiliation (employer)
- Brief summary of research experience. You may provide a narrative of your relevant professional experience that would document your ability to conduct the proposed project, and cite any publications of your own here. Please follow the format of this sample reference:
Aamad, O. and Weisman, A. (1966). An inhibitor of protein kinase activity. Nature 212, 20-210.
- References: In addition to information about yourself, list the name, full address, telephone number, Fax and E-mail address (if any) of three (3) individuals who are acquainted with your profession training or work who could be contacted as a reference.
4. RESEARCH PLAN (UP TO FOUR PAGES, EXCLUDING LITERATURE CITATIONS)
When the application is reviewed (evaluated) for scientific merit, the major focus of the review will be on quality of the proposed project, the qualifications and experience of the investigators and the relevance to the goals of the MECC program. To assess the quality of the proposed project, the reviewers must clearly understand the nature of the work, its importance as you see it to cancer research, the rationale for the proposed time frame and resources, and goals at specific time points within the project period.
This section of the grant application provides you the opportunity to present the importance and feasibility of the proposed research and to demonstrate how you will approach the actual research. For example, explain what is expected at key points in the project, and describe how the design will be modified if the early results are not as expected. Explain what you expect to be accomplished by the conclusion of the project, and how results will be disseminated.
The reviewers will be aware that you are limited to a four page research plan, and they will account for it in the evaluation of the proposed research. This section, therefore, should be concise yet clear, with the following information included:
- Specific aims
- Significance - how the proposed project will contribute to meeting the goals of the MECC
- Preliminary Data - this item may not apply if the proposed project is a feasibility study
- General methods that will be utilized - consider including a letter of support from any additional collaborators who are being asked to provide expert help of key materials/reagents for the conduct of the research
- Description of available resources
- Literature Cited - in one page or less, give the most relevant literature citations including title of each article that would support the goals and approach of your proposed project. Please use the literature cited format sample presented in the Biographical Sketch section of this announcement.
REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS
Grant applications will be reviewed via a two-tiered process: the first will involve a review system where experts (peers) in the same fields of research as proposed in the application will evaluate the scientific merit of these applications; the second tier will be consideration of those recommendations by the Board of Governors for approval and funding. The two tiers are described further below.
- TIER 1: Peer Review will be the responsibility of the Division of Extramural Affairs (DEA) of the U.S. National Cancer Institute, in accordance with established procedures for mail review. The peer review will assess: the significance and feasibility of the proposed project, its quality, the importance to cancer research and the goals of the MECC program, the ability and experience of the principal investigator(s) to undertake the proposed project, and the adequacy and appropriateness of the proposed budget.
Please be aware that the application should not include a tutorial on the area to be investigated. Instead, the application should be written at the same scientific and technical levels as in a scientific presentation to peers within the proposed area of research. The application must make clear the relevance to the goals of the MECC program.
- TIER 2: The Board of Governors will review the recommendations of the peer review process for each grant cycle and establish the actual awards based upon the peer review recommendations, policy priorities of the Board, distribution of awards among all the MECC participant countries, and the financial resources made available to this call of proposals by the Board.
All applicants will be notified by the MECC. A written summary statement of the conclusions of the peer review will be provided to each applicant.
PROGRESS REPORTS AND RENEWAL
The progress report for year 1 should describe the main findings obtained. Reprints, preprints of manuscripts wherein MECC support is acknowledged are accepted as a progress report. Abstracts of presentations in national and/or international meetings, conferences, workshops are also accepted. An important issue to be included in the progress report relates to the mode of cooperation between the researchers. The progress report should be accompanied by a financial report, describing the use of funds in year 1, and authorized by the researcher's research authority or the institute's administration. When the principle investigators wish to extend the research for a second year, the first year's progress report (including the financial report) should be accompanied by an explicit request for renewal of the research for year 2. Such a request should include a description of the working plan for the second year of the research as well as a detailed budget request.
By the end of year 2, the progress report should summarize 2 years of activity. Any published material is accepted to that aim. If the findings have not been published the researchers should provide a detailed description of the results and findings. A financial report for year 2 should accompany the above progress report.
FUNDED PROJECTS
Principal Investigator(s) & Country of Origin
Title of Proposal
Institute(s)
A. Savva (Cyprus)
K. Arlitsch (USA)Creation of an internet-based information infrastructure for cancer research in Cyprus
Nicosia General Hospital Cyprus
J. Cohen (Israel)
Application of MRI for the localization of photodynamic therapy
Chaim Sheba Medical Center
Tel Hashomer, IsraelV. Neocleous (Cyprus)
Oncogene gene expression in UVR skin fibroblasts and Keratinocytes
Centre for Biomedical Sciences
Nicosia, CyprusC. Deltas (Cyprus)
Development of methodology for early and efficient presymptomatic detection of molecular tumor markers
Cyprus Institute of Neurology and Genetics Nicosia, Cyprus
S. Mordechai (Israel)
Diagnosis of tissue abnormalities using optical fiber based methods
Ben Gurion University
Beer-ShevaJ. Mahajna (Israel)
M. Ali-Shtayeh (Palestinian Authority)
Medicinal plants as a source of therapeutics for the treatment of hormone-refractory prostate cancer
R&D Regional Center
The Galilee Society, IsraelAl-Najah National University
Nablus, West BankE. Friedman
(Israel)K. Kyriacou (Cyprus)
Z. Abdeen
(Palestinian Authority)A. Adamou (Cyprus)
Characterization of the mutational spectrum in BCRA genes in individuals of high risk for developing breast and ovarian cancer in the Mediterranean region
Tel Hashomer
HospitalNicosia Institute of Neurology & Genetics
Al-Quds University
Nicosia General Hospital
Z. Kraim (Israel)
Metalloproteinase gene expression and activity in neoplastic and non-neoplastic human thyroid cells
Carmel Medical Center Haifa
Y. Assaraf (Israel)
An SSCP-based clinical assay for the identification of mutations in the reduced folate carrier gene
Department of Biology Technion, Haifa
I. Roisman (Israel)
R. Coleman (Israel)
J. Zidan (Israel)
Investigation of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in Israel
Faculty of Medicine Technion, Haifa
Safed Hospital
S. Merchav (Israel)
Naturally-occurring STAT isoforms in normal and leukemic myeloid progenitors
Faculty of Medicine Technion, Haifa
C. Benayahu
(Israel)Bone and tumors, from cell biology to diagnosis
Faculty of Medicine
Tel Aviv UniversityY. Assaraf
(Israel)Molecular cloning of a folate exporter gene associated with a novel resistance to antifolate anticancer drugs
Faculty of Biology
Technion, HaifaE. Kahan
(Israel)K. El-Najjar
(Palestinian Authority)Primary care physicians’ knowledge and attitudes related to the prevention and control of cancer collaboration between Israel and Palestine
Rabin Medical Center
Petah TikvahMoH, Gaza
I. Vlodarsky
(Israel)S. Ayesh
(Palestinian Authority)Heparanase gene expression and involvement in tumor metastasis and angiogenesis
Hadassah Medical Center Jerusalem
Makassed Islamic Charitable Hospital, Jerusalem
S. Slavin (Israel)
H. Alian
(Palestinian Authority)Innovative and cost-effective immunologic interventions for the treatment of blood cancer in children
Hadassah Medical Center Jerusalem
Bet Jalla Hospital
West Bank, Palestinian National AuthorityJacob Bar-tana (Israel)
Rachel Hertz (Israel)
Nabeel Hahas (Palestinian Authority)
Suppression of tumor development by (ω-3) polyunsaturated fatty acids Israel
Department of Human Nutrition,
Hadassah Medical School
JerusalemAl-Quds University
Abu-DiesEphrat Levy-Lahad (Israel)
Samir Al-Kayed (Jordan)
Elias Awad (Palestinian Authority)
Genetics of Breast Cancer in Arab Middle Eastern Populatinos
Medical Genetics Unit,
Shaare Zedek Hospital
JerusalemDepartment of Radiotherapy,
Al-Bashir Hospital
Amman, JordanDepartment of Oncology,
Beit Jala Hospital
BethlehemRachel Bar-Shavit (Israel)
Beatrice Uziely (Israel)
Mahjer Sughayer (Palestinian Authority)
The Role of Protease Activated Receptor (PAR) Family in Tumor Invasion and Metastasis Israel
Department of Oncology,
Hadassah Hospital
JerusalemDepartment of Pathology,
Makkassed Hospital
Mount of OlivesVasilios Tanos (Cyprus)
Froso Iacovou (Cyprus)
Demetrakis Christodoulides (Cyprus)
Constantinos Pattichis (Cyprus)
Gynecological Cancer Diagnostic Telepathology and Teleconsultation Network
Ban of Nicosia
Oncology CenterDepartment of Histopathology,
Nicosia General HospitalDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology,
Paphos General HospitalDepartment of Computer Sciences,
University of Cyprus NicosiaAmr Soliman (Egypt)
Tareq Al-Jaberi (Jordan)
Khamis El-Najjar (Palestinian Authority)
A population-based study of colorectal cancer in Egypt, Jordan, and Palestine: Exploring the Early-Onset Disease
Faculty of Medicine
MenofeiaDepartment of Surgery, Jordan University
Amman, JordanDepartment of Hematology-Oncology,
Shifa Hospital, GazaDaniel Wreschner (Israel)
Pavlos Neophytou (Cyprus)
Changes in Gene Expression Elicited by Activation of the Breast Cancer Associated MUC1/Y Receptor Protein
Department of Cell Research & Immunology
Tel AvivUniversity
Mendel Center for Biomedical Sciences Nicosia, CyprusJamal Mahajna (Israel)
Hussam Massalha (Palestinian Authority)
Natural Products as Sensitizers of Chemoresistant Tumour Cells
Galilee R&D Society Eilaboun, Israel
Department of Life Sciences,
Al-Quds University
Abu DiesNathan Cherny (Israel)
Bassam Al-Hijawi (Jordan)
Mahmoud Iliam (Palestinian Authority)
Michael Boyiadzis (Cyprus)
Middle East Collaborative Cancer Pain Survey
Department of Medical Oncology,
Shaare Zedek Hospital
JerusalemCancer Registry
Ministry of Health
AmmanDepartment of Oncology, Beit Jala Hospital Bethlehem
Cancer Registry,
Ministry of Health
Nicosia, CyprusMorris Srebnik (Israel)
Reuven Reich (Israel)
The Design and Evaluation of C1 Bridged Phosphono-boronates as Matrix Metalloproteinase-2 Inhibitors Israel
Department of Natural Products,
Hebrew University JerusalemJoav Horn (Israel)
Abdel Razzaq Salhab (Palestinian Authority)
Bassam Al-Hijawi (Jordan)
Breast Cancer Risk Factors among Different Ethnic Groups
Department of Oncology, Assaf Harofe
Hospital
ZerifinDepartment of Oncology, Beit Jala Hospital Bethlehem
Cancer Registry,
Ministry of Health
Amman, JordanEsther Granot (Israel)
Arnon Nagler (Israel)
The effect of an ω-3 fatty acid enriched diet on chronic graft-versus-host disease of the liver Israel
Department of Pediatrics, Hadassah Hospital Jerusalem
Department of Bone Marrow Transplantation, Hadassah Hospital Jerusalem
Tamar Peretz (Israel)
Aviram Nissan (Israel)
Ram Spira (Israel)
Mahmoud Badriyah (Israel)
Screening for BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 mutations in Palestinian women with breast cancer
Department of Oncology, Hadassah Hospital
Ein Kerem, JerusalemDepartment of Surgery, Hadassah Hospital
Mount Scopus, JerusalemReuven Reich (Israel)
Breast Cancer and Transcription Factor AP-2
Department of Pharmacology,
Hebrew University JerusalemNadir Arber (Israel)
Hisham Darwish (Palestinian Authority)
Why is colorectal cancer rare among Palestinians and common among Israelis? A molecular and epidemiological approach.
Department of Gastroenterology,
Ichilov Hospital
Tel AvivDepartment of Biochemistry,
Faculty of Medicine,
El-Quds University
Abu DiesGadi Spira (Israel)
Nimer Assay (Israel)
Angiogenic factors may prevent post-operative liver failure following hepatic resection in experimental cirrhosis
Technion Medical School, Haifa, Israel
Upper Galilee Medical Services
Samy El-Badawy (Egypt)
Cancer research infrastructure development workshop
National Cancer Institute Cairo, Egypt
Daniel H. Wreschner (Israel)
Pavlos Neophytou (Cyprus)
Serum Levels of the Tumor Marker Muci Isoforms for Breast Cancer Diagnosis in Cypriot Families and in Non-Familial Patients
Faculty of Medicine Technion, Haifa
Mendel Center for Biomedical Services Lefkosia, Cyprus
Eitan Friedman (Israel)
Kyproula Christodoulou (Cyprus)
Adamos Adamou (Cyprus)
Ziad Abdeen (Palestinian Authority)
Identifying novel genomic regions and genes associated with inherited predisposition to breast and ovarian cancer Israel
Oncogenetics Unit,
Institute of Genetics
Chaim Sheba Medical CenterDepartment of Electron Microscopy and Molecular Pathology,
Cyprus Institute of Neurology & Genetics
Nicosia, CyprusBank of Cyprus Oncology Centre
Nicosia, CyprusAl Quds University Jerusalem
Amr Soliman (Egypt)
Kamal Bani Hani (Jordan)
Khalil Hamdan and A.R. Salhab (Palestinian Authority)
Farhat Ben Ayed (Tunisia)
Melissa Bondy (USA)
Exploring Oxidative Damage in Premenopausal Breast Cancer Patients from Egypt, Jordan, Palestine, and Tunisia
National Cancer Institute Cairo, Egypt
Irbid
Gaza & West BankSalah Ben Aziz Cancer Center, Tunisia
M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
Houston, TexasPavlos I. Neophylou (Cyprus)
Samir Al-Kayed (Jordan)
Establishment of DNA and serum banks for Jordanian familial cancer patients and relatives
Mendel Center for Biomedical Sciences
Nicosia, CyprusRadiotherapy and Oncology Department,
Al Bashir Hospital
Amman, JordanAmr Soliman (Egypt)
Nidal Al-Masri (Jordan)
A pilot study to investigate the epidemiology of non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma in Egypt and Jordan
National Cancer Institute, Cairo University
Jordan University for Science and Technology
Amy Avgar (Israel)
Carol El-Jabari (Palestinian Authority)
The impact of an empowerment model on Palestinian and Israeli Women coping with Breast Cancer: A Proposal for Action Research
JDC-Brookdale Institute
Jerusalem, IsraelPatient’s Friends Society
Jerusalem, Palestinian AuthorityEldad J. Dann (Israel)
Alyan Husein (Palestinian Authority)
Acute myeloid leukemia in-patients from different ethnic origin: Incidence, age, genetic factors, and environmental factors
Department of Hematology and Bone Marrow Transplantation,
Rambam Medical Center Haifa, IsraelBeit Jala Hospital
Bethlehem, Palestinian AuthorityEitan Friedman (Israel)
Kyriacos Kakoullis (Cyprus)
Mohammad A. Sultan (Jordan)
Characterisation of the mutational spectrum in BRCA genes in individuals at high risk for developing breast and ovarian cancer from Cyprus and Jordan
Oncogenetics Unit,
Sheba Medical Center
Tel-Hashomer, IsraelMendel Center for Biomedical Sciences
Nicosia, CyprusSultan Medical Labs
Amman, JordanEmma Guttman-Yassky (Israel)
Shai Linn (Israel)
Ronit Sarid (Israel)
Reuven Bergman (Israel)
Bassam Qasem (Jordan)
Investigation of Human Herpesvirus-89 (HHV-8) Transmission routes among Kaposi’s sarcoma patients and their families
Department of Dermatology,
Rambam Medical CenterBruce Rappaport Faculty of Medicine
Haifa, IsraelDepartment of Epidemiology,
Rambam Medical CenterFaculty of Life Sciences,
Bar Ilan University
Ramat Gan, IsraelJordan Cancer Registry
MoH, Amman, JordanTaleb H. Al-Tel (Palestinian Authority)
Musa H. Abu Zarga (Jordan)
Jamal Mahajna (Israel)
The synthesis of novel, potent, and selective modulators of tyrosine kinases for cancer therapeutics
Studies and Projects Unit,
An-Najah National University Nablus, Palestinian AuthorityChemistry Department,
Jordan University
Amman, JordanR&D Regional Center,
The Galilee Society, Israel
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Conflict of interest arises when a reviewer has a personal, professional or financial reason to provide other than an objective review of an application or a proposal. If personal or professional bias is acknowledged by a reviewer or determined to exist by review staff; the individual is required to recuse him/herself from the review.
A reviewer will be considered to have financial conflict of interest if he/she has received or could receive a direct financial benefit from an individual or organization in relation to the application under review.
Even the appearance of conflict of interest should be avoided.
A conflict of interest may occur indirectly if an application is submitted by a close relative or professional associate of a reviewer, or if the relative or associate has financial dealings with an applicant. Close relatives are considered to be parents, a spouse or domestic partner, or children. Professional associates include colleagues with whom the reviewer engages in research, as well as other colleagues, scientific mentors, or students with whom the reviewer has personally worked within the past two years. If a close relative or professional associate could receive a financial benefit as a result of a reviewer's recommendation, this financial benefit shall be treated as the reviewer's own.
A reviewer should not be from the same institution (or any of its branches) as the applicant, or have a "close relative" at that institution.
SMALL GRANTS PROGRAM: AN EXAMPLE OF A REVIEW FORM
Principal Investigator
The application requests funds for:
A cancer research project or feasibility study
Establishing the infrastructure necessary to perform cancer research
Evaluate the merit of the application according to the following review criteria. For each criterion circle a numeric score, with 1 = Lowest Merit; 5 = Highest Merit. For each item space is provided for brief written comments.
- Significance of the project to cancer research and to the goals of the MECC. For proposed research projects, what is the probability that important new information will result? For feasibility studies and infrastructure requests, will the proposed effort help to establish a foundation for future cancer research project?
1 2 3 4 5 Low High
Comments:
- Feasibility of the project. Are the goals realistic? Will the resources be in place to carry out the proposed work?
1 2 3 4 5 Low High Comments:
- Ability and expertise of the principal investigator(s) to undertake the project. Does the written application provide convincing evidence that the principal investigator(s) has the ability, time and expertise to complete the project as proposed?
1 2 3 4 5 Low High
Comments:
- Adequacy and appropriateness of the proposed budget and time line. This relates to the question of feasibility to the project. Are the proposed budget and duration of the work realistic?
1 2 3 4 5 Low High
Comments:
- Overall merit of the proposed project. Considering the preceding four criteria, assign an overall rating. Note that this rating need not be the average of the preceding scores. Instead, this score should represent the overall quality of the application.
1 2 3 4 5 Low High
Comments: