VisualSonics understands the need for detailed and specific grant submissions and would be glad to support you in your grant writing and development efforts. As such, we can provide documentation to assist with your grant preparation for one of VisualSonics’ in vivo imaging systems.
TIPS FOR SUCCESSFUL GRANTS
Several of VisualSonics’ customers have submitted in the past an application for a Shared Instrumentation Grant to fund a Vevo ultrasound system. This has proven to be a successful funding avenue, especially in 2009 due to the release of ARRA funds. Listed below you will find some key points to consider when writing a Shared Instrumentation Grant (S10), under the five main sections rated by NIH reviewers:
Justification of Need
- If another Vevo system has been used by you or your research group (Vevo 660 or Vevo 770) historical data should be included. This shows the review committee that there is on-site knowledge of this high-resolution imaging technology.
- All line items in the quote should be justified fully for each research project described in the application. It should be clear how the software options, probes, and other items will contribute to the research projects.
- If a similar system is located in the institution - another Vevo or clinical US - a detailed comparison should be provided to highlight rationale in requesting funds for a 2100. Please see the section on Vevo 2100 and Vevo 770 comparison.
- Image quality alone is not a strong justification for requesting funds for a Vevo 2100. Specific advantages of this technology over other alternatives should be mentioned for every project.
- If comparing to other modalities ensure that it is a detailed review and communicate solid knowledge of small animal imaging and potential to take full advantage of the capabilities of the Vevo 2100 system.
- If you are a Vevo 660 customer, make sure to highlight that there is no trade-in value for this first-generation technology.
- Verify that projects mentioned in the application are ongoing (not about to expire, or not yet fully funded)
- Ensure that the proposed experiments fall within the imaging capabilities of the system. (E.g. do not suggest that the mouse lung will be imaged with the Vevo 2100).
- One of the main users should have rodent ultrasound imaging experience. Again, this guarantees that the system will be used properly and its capabilities fully explored.
- If the Vevo 2100 is to be placed in a barrier facility, indicate how it is possible that all the experiments outlined will be performed in the barrier. Are animals housed there around the clock, or will they have to be sacrificed after the imaging session? How does this affect the longitudinal aspect of the studies?
Technical Expertise
- In describing the Vevo 2100, ensure that information is accurate (e.g. do not reference EKV, a software option only available in the Vevo 770).
- The availability of a full-time dedicated sonographer is optimal. This person should be responsible for training new users and providing support to on-going projects.
- Fully describe how other major users, and new users, of the system will be trained on Vevo ultrasonography. Although supported and brought in by the PIs on the S10 grant, a Shared Instrument should be made available to other researchers. Priority is given to those funded by the NIH, but others may also access the system.
- If a specific technician is mentioned include details on how this person will be involved: what are her responsibilities? Her training? Is she involved full-time in small animal ultrasound? Who will acquire and analyze the ultrasound images? How would new users be trained?
- Plan for increased technician time availability in the first few months, since new users will be inexperienced at handling the system.
Research Projects
- Preliminary data should be included in the application. VisualSonics-generated images and data are not as impactful as on-site generated data with your own animal models.
- Make clear the advantages of the Vevo 2100 over other in-house (if available) ultrasound systems.
- If tumor studies are described, indicate how the Vevo 2100 is advantageous over other Vevo systems (if these are available to the researchers).
- Although the minimum is three NIH-supported researchers, 4 or 5 is still considered a modest number. More is better.
Administration
- Include a long-term detailed plan for maintenance of the system. (Contact us for a chart on exam times)
- Define usage fees (typical is $100 to $150/hour)
- Detail how new users will be drawn to the system (e.g. Internal Advertising, Local Imaging Symposium). For example, Vevo MicroMarker® contrast agent training on a core system a few months post-installation will serve to bring in cancer researchers.
- It is helpful if the Advisory Committee is composed of a mix of users and senior level non-users with experience in imaging and administrative duties.
- Outline in detail how scheduling of the system will be arranged.
- How will the Advisory Committee be organized, how often will it meet?
- Time should be available on the system for multiple users, not just limited to the labs that apply for funding.
- Detail a financial plan for supporting maintenance and repair. Will it be covered by the users, paid for with the user fees, or covered by the University?
- If results are to be analyzed off-line ensure that site licenses are included in the quote.
Institutional Commitment
Institutional commitment to the shared instrument is key. Although matching of funds is not required, if possible the application should include a letter from a representative of Institution (e.g. VP of Research) outlining support for all, or a portion of:
- Salary for a dedicated technician/sonographer. If a technician already employed by the University will assume responsibility for the Vevo system, make very clear that his/her salary is already secured.
- Funds for multi-year service contract.
- Space for the system.
