Feature: Improved interactions
19 December 2007. By Penny Bailey.
Wellcome Trust online
In early 2008, the Trust will be introducing a new, web-based Grant System to help process grant applications and to help applicants keep track of progress at every stage. The new system aims to make all grant-related interactions with the Trust, in whatever field - biomedical research, the medical humanities, technology transfer or public engagement - as simple, straightforward and useful as possible.
Everyone who interacts with the Trust on grant-related matters will have a unique interface, or 'portal', on the new system. Users will be able to use their personal portal to send in a grant application, to check its status at every stage of the approval process, and to get clear guidance throughout all the application and post-award procedures. Participants in the Trust's peer-review process will be able to send in referee reports via the portal; Funding Committee members will be able to receive 'committee packs' of applications to consider.
The portal will also serve as a 'one-stop' shop for applicants to enter and update personal details, which will simplify future applications. Once a CV, list of publications, equal opportunities and other information has been entered, all the user need do is to leave it all in their portal, and update it on publishing a new paper, receiving an award or prize, changing address, or making other changes to their status.
The new Grant System will be supported by enhancements to the Wellcome Trust's website, which is being refocused to suit the needs of applicants and grantholders. The new website aims to make it easier to find out what kind of grant would be most suitable, how to go about applying for that particular grant - and possibly also to discover other grant opportunities or research directions that hadn't occurred before.
The new Grant System and website will streamline the day-to-day business and administration of grants. But the grants teams will of course still be delighted to discuss any questions and ideas in person.
Smoother system, smarter science
The introduction of the new system to enhance how the Trust processes and manages grants has also presented an opportunity to improve and refocus the way the Trust works with grantholders and applicants.
The Grant System will be run by a dedicated Grants Management department, led by Catherine Quinn (formerly Director of Research Services at the University of Oxford). Advisers in this department will be the first post of call for applicants, dealing with applications, liaising and providing guidance on all necessary policy matters, procedures, eligibility checking and so forth.
While the new Grants Management department will manage the application and award processes, staff in Science Funding, Technology Transfer, and Medicine, Society and History will spend more time 'out in the field', liaising with researchers and other communities to identify talent, ideas and opportunities in areas that are strategically important to the Trust.
The aim is to spend more time talking to experts in different fields, so that the Trust can help to catalyse new research directions, develop new partnerships - and ultimately foster an environment in which scientific research, research into its broader historical, social and ethical implications, and public understanding of science and its impact can all flourish.
“For Science Funding, that means thinking about what the future of science might look like, then thinking of ways to make it happen,” says Dr Alan Schafer, the new head of two Science Funding streams - Molecules, Genes and Cells, and Physiological Sciences.
“For example, if we decide that synthetic proteins are likely to be important in ten to 20 years, we would then think about what research is needed, and what funding mechanisms might be appropriate. They might be major grant programmes, Strategic Awards, calls for proposals, or targeted initiatives or fellowships. We would also think about what infrastructure we would need. What clinical expertise? What would be the policy, ethical and social implications? How might the public feel about possible developments, and how could we engage people in the debate?”
Dr Schafer is joined by Professor Richard Morris, Professor of Neuroscience at the University of Edinburgh, who will head the Neuroscience funding stream, while Dr Pat Goodwin remains head of the two remaining streams: Immunology and Infectious Disease, and Populations and Public Health. Dr Candace Hassall, Dr John Williams and Dr Jimmy Whitworth will continue to lead the Basic Careers, Clinical and International funding activities respectively.
The new Grant System, and separate Grants Management department, will also benefit the Trust's Medicine, Society and History (MSH) division, headed by Clare Matterson.
“We provide different grants to those delivered by Science Funding: they are often smaller, they use different mechanisms, and are aimed at a broad range of people - artists, theatre workers and educators as well as researchers,” she explains.
“So the new system can be designed to fit much more easily with MSH needs. We'll be able to ask more sophisticated questions about what we've funded, and where we're at, which will help us serve the medical humanities and public engagement communities in a more informed way. And of course, like the Science Funding division, it frees us up to get out and meet people, and develop more productive, personal relationships with our grantholders and the communities we support.”
A further benefit of the new structure is that, with a separate Grants Management department, the two MSH 'grant-making' departments - Medical Humanities (headed by Liz Shaw) and Public Engagement (headed by Ben Stewart) - will be brought together under one umbrella: MSH Grants, headed by Dr Tony Woods.
The Medical Humanities (incorporating the Trust's History of Medicine, Biomedical Ethics and Research Resources in Medical History funding schemes) and Public Engagement departments have always had areas of overlap. There is a strong public engagement element to biomedical ethics, for example. Now that they form one department, the connections between them will become more visible, and could spark new grant-making ideas. “We might be able to link academic researchers with public engagement experts working in their area, which could produce more creative, collaborative and useful grants for both communities,” says Ms Matterson.
Overall, across all funding divisions, it is the Trust's intention to keep the best of what it was doing before, and enhance this with changes designed to benefit the communities the Trust supports. The aim is to make these changes to grants funding and management as seamless as possible, and for any differences applicants and grantholders notice to be positive and beneficial.
