We believe creative insight comes from being open to new experiences and ideas, making connections across disciplines and domains, and embracing contradictions and outliers rooted in evidence. Successful applications ask novel questions with the potential to advance health and medicine. No preliminary data is required.

Select institutions are invited to submit a limited number of project ideas each year. Project ideas are reviewed for alignment with program goals, and a subset are invited to submit full proposals. Full proposals are short (~2500 words) and are reviewed by an external scientific review committee and science program staff. A subset of full proposals are selected as finalists.

Finalists complete a 15-minute virtual pitch and Q&A session with members of the selection committee and their advisors. This pitch is in lieu of the lengthy scientific writing that scientists are accustomed to for most grant proposals. Instead, finalists receive state-of-the-art science communications training and dedicate time to honing their communication with a general audience. The virtual pitch is one data point in the decision-making process and is intended to build science communication capacity for the finalists.

The selection committee considers several factors when making award decisions. These factors are evaluated through a combination of scientific peer-review, programmatic review, and the virtual pitch.

• Significance of the question

• Creativity of the potential solution

• Quality and innovation of the approach

• Potential for advancements

• Principal investigator and team qualifications

• Collaboration and partnership

• Communication capacity

• Rationale for the budget

• Role and impact of philanthropic support

• Support from the principal investigator’s institution