Every CMTA-STAR research investment goes through a structured, expert-driven review process. This page outlines how projects are evaluated, how decisions are made, and what researchers need to know before submitting a proposal.
How CMTA-STAR Funds Research
CMTA’s Board of Directors or Chief Research Officer will, on occasion, seek out and invite targeted proposals in specific areas of CMT research and treatment development. Funding is not allocated via open calls. When proposals are invited, they will be reviewed via the following process:
- CMTA-STAR Advisory Board Members will conduct a first-level scientific review of projects. Application is via a Step 1 proposal template limited to three pages and must include specific aims. Applicants will be invited to present their Step 1 proposal at a monthly CMTA-STAR Advisory Board meeting. The CMTA-STAR Advisory Board Members will then provide a recommendation for one of two outcomes:
- Reject the proposal if there is insufficient interest or strategic alignment.
- Request a full Step 2 proposal from the applicant, including a detailed budget. (Please note: It is CMTA policy that indirect costs shall not exceed 10 percent of the total.)
- Applicants whose projects are green-lighted for a Step 2 proposal will then have two weeks to submit it. The Step 2 proposal template includes a research plan with preliminary data, budget, timelines, and information about the investigative groups involved in the project. Collaborative efforts will be emphasized.
- Step 2 proposals will be subjected to scorecard review by members of the appropriate Boards. Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) members will evaluate the strength, relevance, and scientific merit of the proposal; Therapy Expert Board (TEB) members will assess the translational potential and confirm that there is a therapeutic opportunity/asset that will benefit the CMTA-STAR treatment development mission; Clinical Expert Board (CEB) members will assess the clinical applicability of the proposal. The of the Advisory Boards’ recommendations (Scores + Comments) will be collated and presented to CMTA’s Board of Directors.
- CMTA’s Board of Directors will approve/reject the project for funding. Repeat submissions of proposals will not be accepted.
- Following CMTA Board of Directors’ approval, CMTA will agree and sign off on the research plan with the investigator’s institution via a Sponsored Research Agreement.
Evaluation Approach
Project proposals will be scored with a specific set of criteria.
Scoring System
0 – Fails to address the criterion or cannot be judged due to missing or incomplete information.
1 – Very poor. The criterion is addressed in a cursory and unsatisfactory manner.
2 – Poor. There are serious inherent weaknesses in relation to the criterion in question.
3 – Fair. Broadly addresses the criterion, with significant weaknesses which require correction.
4 – Good. Addresses the criterion well; minor improvements are possible.
5 – Excellent. Successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criterion in question.
Scientific Advisory Board Scorecard
Project Design
1.1 – Quality of experimental design.
1.2 – Likelihood of the research proposal to meet all the key objectives.
1.3 – Innovation (i.e. discovery, approach, technology)
1.4 – Overall impact of the project to CMT research.
20 points maximum
Excellence of the Personnel/Environment/Resources
2.1 – Scientific quality and technological expertise of the individual participants.
2.2 – Ability to provide the contributions expected.
2.3 – Quality of environment and resources for proposed research.
15 points maximum
Workplan Excellence
3.1 – Quality of work plan, appropriate budget, timelines for deliverables, and future directions outlined.
3.2 – Planning for potential complications, alternative strategies. Benchmarks for success established.
3.3 – Probability that the project will produce results that will contribute to translational development for CMT.
15 points maximum
Therapy Expert Board Scorecard
Scientific-Technical
1.1 – Translational Research innovation of the project? What problem is it solving?
1.2 – Scientific-technical competition? Alternative approaches considered?
10 points maximum
Commercialization
2.1 – Do the research objectives lead to commercial objectives?
2.2 – What is the risk associated with the attempted commercialization?
2.3 – Probability that the funding will produce results that will lead to a patent, license, external funding?
15 points maximum
Market
3.1 – What is the strategic market opportunity catalyzing interest? Competitor approaches defined? Understanding of where project would land next (e.g.; Exit)?
3.2 – Potential economic funding identified to assist in further technology or therapeutic development?
10 points maximum
Product/Service Enablement
4.1 – Solve real market need? Has this been well defined?
4.2 – Sufficient intellectual property (IP) protection? Freedom to operate?
4.3 – Other IP requirements associated with the project requiring a license?
15 points maximum
Turning Research Into Real-World Impact
Every CMTA-STAR funding decision is grounded in scientific merit, therapeutic promise, and potential for real-world impact. By advancing only the most promising projects, we’re working to deliver treatments that can truly change lives.
Start a CMTA-STAR Funding Conversation With Us Today
To discuss a potential research collaboration or the CMTA-STAR funding process, contact:
Katherine Forsey, PhD
Chief Research Officer
katherine@cmtausa.org
