The PCC has one of the quickest funding decision turnaround times in the industry while maintaining a rigorous scientific peer review process – a fact we are incredibly proud of. If you have applied for a PCC grant, or are thinking about doing so (our upcoming cycle requires pre-applications submitted by July 1st, 2017) you may be interested in the life cycle of your application.

The below infographic highlights our process, and the important players involved in taking a scientific idea from an online proposal to real world science (click to enlarge).

 

Most applications take a total of four months from the submission of the pre-application to final Board approval. Negotiating terms and conditions with an investigator’s host institution takes another 4-6 weeks on average. Most project terms will be set for 1-3 years.

One of the most important steps in the process involves scientific peer review by several industry experts. Each application will be analyzed comprehensively on its merits (including experimental design, application to anti-doping, and budget, among other important details) by two members of the PCC Scientific Advisory Board (SAB). These primary reviewers are chosen based on their expertise in the application’s subject matter (for instance, Proteomics technique, EPO, Genomics applications). In some cases, the PCC will bring in scientists outside of the current SAB to ensure applications are seen by leading experts on a given subject. At this stage only the two primary reviewers will have access to the application, and their own analysis.

Following this process, for which 5-7 weeks is allotted, the SAB meet to present their individual grant reviews and their recommendation to fund, not fund, or solicit an application re submission with specific changes or additional details. The entire SAB then engages in collective discussion regarding the application in order to make a final, holistic funding recommendation. One month later, the PCC Board of Governors gives final approval for the SAB’s recommendations, and investigators are notified of the PCC’s decision.

The efficient nature of the PCC processes balances both the need for deliberate and professional examination of each scientific proposal with the desire to innovate ‘ahead of the curve’ in the anti-doping sphere. As the world of performance enhancing drugs is fast paced, innovative, and ever-changing, so too must be our approach to its deterrence. Thanks to our team of experts and world-class researchers, we are most certainly up to the challenge.

If you have any questions about the PCC grantmaking process, or an individual grant submission, please email Jenna Celmer at jcelmer@cleancompetition.org