to have a conversation about some of the things that we are interested in with the DoD. First, I'll say that I think some of the perception of the DoD and biomedical research is that DoD's research is in creating tanks, and tactical warfare, uniforms, and things like that. But we are also interested in biomedical research because there's people that are in those uniforms. There's people that are in the tanks. So we have injuries just as everybody else, and we need to also protect our biggest force, which is our people. So there are a lot of different opportunities for orthopedic research, sports medicine research, pain research, many different spaces there within the DoD. I will be specifically talking about the congressionally directed medical research programs, which does sit within the DoD today, but there are some other DoD funding streams, and we can have a conversation about that as well afterwards. I just needed to make sure to hit my five minute mark. So about the congressionally directed medical research programs, you're thinking, why is congressionally directed under DoD? DoD is executive, congressional is legislative. So this organization was started by Congress in 1992 by essentially advocates and breast cancer research that were looking for, that were essentially wanted a new way of doing biomedical research because they really wanted an answer for breast cancer. So they were shopping around, and they went to the DoD, and the DoD said, yeah, we're interested in thinking outside the box, doing things a little bit differently. So in 1992, the CDMRP, which is now 35 plus programs, started with breast cancer research. And since then, our real mission is really to transform healthcare through innovative and impactful research. We fund research and biomedical research that's conducted around the world. So many of you are thinking, okay, DoD, government, it has to be U.S. institution. No, we do fund international research. You can collaborate with an international researcher. You can collaborate with military, with industry. All those are fine with us. And we use a two-tier review process. So this is very important, because it might be a little bit different than what some of the other funding agencies that you're maybe more familiar with do. So we do have a scientific peer review, and that's a review of your peers. We don't have a standing panel. So every year when we solicit for research projects, we will recruit a peer review panel to review the applications that are received. So for example, if we are not soliciting for osteoarthritis, we're not gonna have a panel of osteoarthritis researchers. We're gonna solicit those researchers for review for those topic areas. And then we also have a programmatic. So peer review will assess the scientific merit and the technical evaluation of the research that you propose. Then we have a second tier, which is programmatic review. So at programmatic review, this is where, yes, we're investigator-initiated in that. We want your ideas, but we're also very programmatic in saying that there are other large funders in any of the spaces that we're in. So where can we best identify that we can have the best impact for our limited dollars? I'll show you in a subsequent slide some of our dollar values so you can get a better sense of that. So for example, in orthopedics, we know that there are funders in the basic science space as well as in the career development space. So we tend not to be there for orthopedics. We are more in that translational space because we know that that's like the valley of death. So we're willing to take that risk and fund research in that translational space as well as in the clinical space. We do want things that are militarily, I'll say, aligned, but we also know that the military population, one, is not accessible to all and is not as robust as we need it to be in order to address a lot of the research questions that we have. So we are in the civilian space as well. These are taxpayer dollars. Any of the outcomes from our programs are gonna impact the military service members, the veterans, as well as the American population. Orthopedics especially is a huge space in sports medicine and otherwise that we're all gonna benefit from, if not already. So it's important to keep that in mind. So at programmatic review, we identify what topics we want to address with the limited dollars that we have, and we will specifically solicit for those topic areas. So yes, it's your idea, but we're asking you to hone down and say, well, we are looking for solutions for these specific problems. In addition to that, on this slide at the bottom is consumers. So at every stage of our research, at peer review of our review process, at peer review and programmatic review, setting the vision, determining what areas we need to focus on, we also, in addition to scientists and clinicians, have consumers. So those are our stakeholders. Those are military service members with limb loss. Those are civilians with limb difference. It can be anybody. But they are at the table to make sure that what we are soliciting is going to actually move the field forward and impact patient care. Because again, in that middle, we're really trying to transform healthcare. And then why do we do this? We're really trying to accelerate research to advance cures, improvements, and breakthroughs. So my line is that we don't fund science for science sake. We're looking specifically for healthcare changes. I've already talked about a lot of this already. The only other thing I wanted to comment on here is that our funding opportunities are publicly announced, that's the fourth bullet, are publicly announced and competed. The reason why that is important is because everyone has the same opportunity. So whether you're in uniform or you're not, you have the same opportunity. Whether you have a military collaborator or you don't, you have the same opportunity. And because of that, whereas I think there's a lot more engagement with the program officers, with the NIH, and with the foundations and things like that, we have to be very careful as to what type of information we give out to those that have a direct line to me, for example. So I'm the program manager for the Peer-Reviewed Orthopedic Research Program, as well as the Orthotics and Prosthetics Outcomes Research Program. I have, Dr. Andy Sheehan and I, he has a direct line to me because he's one of our awardees, Jay Ergen, so many others in the audience as well. But I have to be careful not to give them additional information that I wouldn't necessarily be able to give to someone I just haven't necessarily had an opportunity to meet before. So the information we give, because it's publicly and fairly competed, we have to make sure it's consistent across the board and it is fair. What I will do is I will coach anybody. So I won't tell you what to do, what your research is. I won't tell you if this is something that is aligned with our program, but I might ask you some questions, right? I might say, oh, well, why are you thinking of using that technique instead of this other technique? Why do you think this is gonna advance something? So, and your answer to that oftentimes gives you the answer you need in order to best craft the best research proposals for the research question you're trying to answer. And then we can have a conversation as to, is this more in line with the NIH interests, with Arthritis Foundation, OREF, whomever, or with the DOD? We can have that conversation. So here's a snapshot, and this is just for fiscal year 23. For the CDMR-P, just in last year alone was 1.5 billion total. But you can see, as I mentioned before, it's across 35 different programs. So there are cancer programs, neurological programs. We have infectious disease programs. And what I did here in the red boxes are the ones that I, in my personal opinion, think might be of interest to you and your colleagues and your team members. Chronic pain management, combat readiness medical, orthotics and prosthetics outcomes, peer-reviewed medical, which has 50 different topics of which arthritis and osteoarthritis has been a topic for many years. There are follow-up subsequent slides, reference slides in this slide deck, so please get them from the conference organizers that will spell out what those 50 topics are. Peer-reviewed orthopedic, as well as traumatic brain injury and psychological health, because I think there's a lot of concussion research in this space as well, in the source medicine. And the last thing I think I'll comment on is the award mechanisms. So as I mentioned before, our programmatic review, so if you go back to this slide, for peer-reviewed orthopedic, $30 million. That's just for fiscal year 23. We have $30 million to spend. But when you think about the cost of orthopedic research and you're thinking about clinical trials, translational research, if we're funding a two million, three million dollar study, you can see how quickly the $30 million will start to windle down. So we try to be very specific as to what we're calling out for. And that also means that we're gonna be specific as to the types of award mechanisms we offer. But for CDMRP in general, we have award mechanisms that span initial concepts, so very early ideas, invest, you know, hypothesis, finding, top of concepts, all the way to clinical trials, team science, consortia type research, and everything in between. We do, within CDMRP, have some career development type options as well, and some training type things. But for orthopedics, again, as you've heard before, we have a lot of other funders in that space. We've decided that with our $30 million that we are not going to be in that career development, although in our team science, and even in our other projects, I have seen a lot of mentoring within the research team, right, so there will be a senior investigator, whatever level, and then having junior staff as part of the research team, and I think that's really impactful. So it's not that we're excluding it, it's just that we're not calling it out specifically. Same thing for arthritis. Peer-reviewed medical, I'll go back again. Peer-reviewed medical, again, has $370 million. One of their 50 topics is arthritis. You've heard from Arthritis Foundation that that's their main focus. You've heard NIAMS as a significant portion of their portfolio. With $30 million, we have not been prioritizing arthritis as of recently. That's not to say that we don't receive arthritis applications that go on to get peer-reviewed and get funded, but we're not calling it out as a specific focus area. So if you have any topic that you are interested in, make sure that it aligns with our focus area, because that focus area is essentially saying that this is what we're interested in, tell us how what you're doing is going to help us meet the goal of addressing that focus area. If it just so happens to be an arthritis project, if it just so happens to be an ACL project, a rotator cuff project, then it can be submitted to that. But we're less interested in how you think this project is so important and more interested in how you think that your project is gonna help us meet our goal. So the DoD is very mission and goal-oriented. So if you think about that in that context, I think it tends to help applicants a little bit more, especially if this is your first time. I'm here, so feel free to ask me any questions. I'll most likely coach and ask you some questions to help get you there, and please feel free. If there's a question I'm not authorized to answer, I'll just say I can't answer that, and I will try to get you to someone who can. Or I'll tell you why I can't answer that, which is oftentimes an easier question. But I can usually get you to something close. And I think that's all I have. Thank you. Can I sit here? Please, please have a seat right here. It's very good. I love that, and I'm gonna use that line for the next question that I get that I'm just gonna say I'm not authorized to tell you this. It's fantastic, especially if Dr. Spindler asks me something. So this is fantastic. I saw that you outlined the psychological health, and you've probably seen a lot of the studies here have to do with psychological readiness and return to sport, all this. Would that fall under that as well, or is it just the concussion type of studies? Yeah, we actually have a few high-profile sports medicine research projects within that program. So take a look. I would recommend taking a look at that for TBI, PH, Traumatic Brain Injury and Psychological Health. I think they have $175 million for fiscal year 23 alone. And look at what they have funded. So that's another thing about our transparency. Everything we've ever funded is on our website. You can go onto the website, search. It's not as good as the Matchmaker. That is gorgeous. I wish we had that. But you can go into any one of the programs and see what has been funded. But yes, to answer your question simply, yes, that is something that we are interested in. It is very helpful, especially for that program, to align what in the sports medicine that you're seeing, how it will translate to the military population, specifically for that, because TBI is a huge issue in military populations. If you have questions, please stand up or raise your hand. When Jay Irgang and I started the STAR trial, the mechanism of the planning grant was a very, very helpful thing. It just imagined yourself going on a trip, packing your bags, that's the most fun part. We were packing our bags for a year with your help. How do you get into that type of, how do you find your path into this? How do you find your path into the planning stage? Yes, I know, but if you can. I will say oftentimes, in my experience, that the planning happens before the application is fully submitted. But as far as the planning as in that award where there was the regulatory planning and the infrastructure planning, there are some, the peer-reviewed medical, I think they have an aspect of their program because they have such a larger, they have almost a whole magnitude than we do as far as funding goes. They're allowed, they have the latitude to do that. For peer-reviewed orthopedic, we have been, it's been recommended by our contracting office that we have the clinical trial award so that the award, the clinical trial can get started. But there be about some time in the beginning before the clinical trial opens where there's some time for planning. So we haven't released a clinical trial development award, that planning award, because now we're hoping that within the award, there's time for that planning phase. And that's just, it's just a contracting grant's office challenge. Great. Anyone has a question, I'll walk up to you and the mic go there. I'll ask two questions over there. There are a lot of young members in the audience and they're just starting their first time submitting grants and they always, their question is how do I find out when the deadlines are, what program to apply to? Chuck, you mentioned with the matchmaker in the CUNY, how do you, what is the right way for like a young investigator to kind of find out what an opportunity, how could they actually look for that? Go ahead. One for the NIH and NIAM, so you can join, you can subscribe to our funding newsletter and then this will be fed right into your inbox or follow us on Twitter or YouTube. So I don't know, Chuck, if you wanted to add to that. Yeah, and again, it's more about contacting us. That's really the first step. And like I said, we're using matchmaker for NIH because mechanism is, what you submit to is one thing. But for us, it's our job to help guide you to find out, okay, do you have enough data? If you saw my one slide, I didn't mention it because it really throws people off when I say it. I said for the R21, not recommended for young investigators. The reason being is everybody thinks, oh, it's a small grant, I can write that. It also has other levels with it. It's high risk, high reward, has other things that are being evaluated and it's not a good mechanism to get preliminary data. There are better mechanisms. You can do a small R01. R01s don't have to be five years, it's up to five years, remember that. So there's a lot of misconceptions and that's what we are there for. We're there to help guide you through that.

Department of Defense

biomedical research

CDMRP

orthopedic research

funding opportunities