Criteria for Review
Proposal and Applicant
The Applicant’s achievements (as reflected by awards, honors, etc.) should indicate their sincere interest in urology research. The Applicant’s stated career goals, and the letters of recommendation should provide indications of their commitment to pursuing urology disease research throughout their career.
The Mentor should be an independent investigator with a track record of success in research publication, grant funding and development of trainees who have achieved academic success.
The Mentor’s Letter of Support should emphasize the Applicant’s interest in urology research and include a solid plan to utilize the Applicant during their summer fellowship. It should be very clear that the Applicant’s Mentor is strongly supportive of urology research and possesses expertise to provide sufficient scientific guidance and oversight.
The training environment will be evaluated based on the ongoing urology disease research and how that will promote the Applicant’s development.
Selections are awarded based on the results of the review panel. Awardees will be notified of funding decisions in writing. An initial communication will advise Applicants if his/her proposal will be funded. Regardless of funding status, Applicant’s will be provided with a summary statement of his/her grant review. Please note that results will not be given over the phone.