Deadline: August 1, 2019 – no extensions will be allowed.

Submit your research project for consideration to receive a $50,000 grant.

The Foundation of the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (ACAAI) invites young academic faculty members to apply for a $50,000 grant to fund relevant research projects involving basic or clinical research, innovative teaching or delivery of care in an academic setting. The grant will be awarded during the 2019 Annual Meeting in Houston.

Clinical research projects must start immediately upon IRB approval, which should be secured in a timely fashion. Research not requiring IRB approval should begin January 2, 2020. All research must be completed within 12 months.

Eligible candidates

Applicants must be ACAAI members and under 40 years of age or within the first five-years of medical practice in an academic environment affiliated with an allergy/immunology division. Applicants may not be a prior awardee of the Foundation of ACAAI Young Faculty Support Award.


  • Grant can be used with other grants if used for a different or related research project and applicant can justify the additional time and budget. 
  • Grantee must agree to:
    • Submit an abstract on the results of their research for consideration for presentation at the next ACAAI Annual Meeting. Abstract submissions open in April each year.
    • Submit the results of their research, within three to six months of completion, to the Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology for right of first refusal to publish. 


Applicants are requested to submit the following to the Foundation of ACAAI with a hard deadline of August 1, 2019. No extensions will be allowed.

1. Complete this biographical sketch and submit a curriculum vitae which includes contact information (mailing address, e-mail address and telephone number).

2. A letter of recommendation from the Section Chief or Department Chair.

3. A research plan describing the proposed research, stating its significance and how it will be conducted. The plan should not exceed five pages of description. Use font 11 pt or larger, Arial, Georgia, Helvetica or Palatino.


  • Title
  • Background and significance
  • Specific aims (one page recommended)
  • Methodology
  • Institutional or other support.  Description of facility, how your institution will support you.
  • How your career will be advanced due to this grant.  (one page recommended)

4. Complete this budget. The grant is to provide salary support (no greater than 10%), supplies, equipment or research patient costs. No indirect costs or overhead allowance may be charged by the institution.

5. Documentation and, if applicable, that the proposed research was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the grantee’s institution.

6. Information about any other grants awarded for this research.

7. Compile the above (in numeric order) into a single PDF and submit by email to by August 1, 2019.

Evaluation criteria

Scoring for this award will follow NIH criteria for study sections, which rate each of the following sections detailed below on a scale of 1-9, with the lowest possible score representing the best proposal.

Significance. Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? Is there a strong scientific premise for the project? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved?

Investigator(s). Are the PD/PIs, collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or New Investigators, or in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training?

Innovation. Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation or interventions?

Approach. Are the overall strategy, methodology and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Have the investigators presented strategies to ensure a robust and unbiased approach, as appropriate for the work proposed? Are potential problems, alternative strategies and benchmarks for success presented?

Environment. Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed?

Note that an application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact. For example, a project that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field. Overall, the project should clearly outline an idea that can be accomplished in a year, and most importantly, show a direct pathway as to how this award would be used for career development. 

Additional guidelines

  • Be realistic. Don't propose more work than can be reasonably done during the proposed project period.
  • Make sure you have appropriate scientific expertise on your research team.
  • Make sure that the budget is reasonable and well-justified.
  • Write clear headings and sub-headings, short paragraphs and other techniques to make sure your research plan is easy to navigate. Successful proposals often make use of bold, italicized or underlined text to help direct reviewers to key points of attention.
  • Be specific and informative, and avoid redundancies. Make your points as direct as possible. Avoid jargon or excessive language. Be judicious with the use of abbreviations.
  • Support your idea with collaborators who have expertise that benefits the project and can guide your progress towards achieving your goals.
  • Edit yourself, but also enlist help. You’ve most likely been looking at the same words, sentences and paragraphs repeatedly!  Allow someone with fresh eyes to read your content, check your punctuation and give you feedback on whether the content flows.
  • Have zero tolerance for typographical errors, misspellings, grammatical mistakes or sloppy formatting. A sloppy or disorganized application may lead reviewers to conclude your research may be conducted in the same manner.
  • Allow ample time for an internal review by collaborators, colleagues, mentors and make revisions/edits from that review. Persons who have been awarded NIH or similar foundation grants in the past and have a track record for mentoring should be involved to help guide the development of this proposal.
  • Prior to submission, look over the entire grant application one final time. Remember, you want a convincing proposal that is also formatted according to the application guidelines, punctuation error-free, clear to read and is to the point. The little details matter!

If you have questions, please contact