BECOME A PWS COMMUNITY ADVOCATE REVIEWER FOR OUR GRANT PROGRAM
The grant selection process at FPWR is based on a collaborative approach, with scientists and parent advocates both playing critical roles. Scientific reviewers are chosen to review grant applications and determine if the work proposed in the application is scientifically sound, feasible, and will significantly advance the field. PWS Community Advocate reviewers are charged with reviewing the project to determine its importance to the PWS community. After all, a proposed research project might be terrific science, but if it isn’t relevant to what people with PWS and their families feel is important, then its not our project to fund.
Community members who wish to participate as an advocate reviewer may contact Research Project Coordinator, Caroline Vrana-Diaz at email@example.com.
About the PWS Community Advocate Review Process
In general, advocate reviewers are paired up and receive a total of 4-6 grants. You and your partner will read all the same proposals, communicate/discuss and then each be responsible for submitting a written review for half of them. Each grant proposal contains ~5 pages of the specific research plan along with other pages of supporting materials. For the purposes of Advocate Reviewing, please assume that the science is sound, and note that you are not expected to perform outside research to review this application. The scientific reviewers are responsible for evaluating the feasibility, experimental design and technical aspects of the proposal. Please base your answers on your own experiences and how you believe the PWS community would view this research.
For background and reference information on current topics in PWS research, we would encourage you to explore the FPWR website and learn about our currently funded projects as well as read some of the recent posts on the research blog.
FPWR wants to fund the best science with the highest degree of relevance to our community. A thoughtful advocate review is key to using our limited resources wisely, and funding the best science with the highest likelihood of positively impacting those with PWS. You can see our advocate review evaluation criteria here.