Disease-State Track
Get disease-state research into the rooms where care decisions get made.
This Request For Proposals (RFP) is offered with support from:
Disease areas in scope
This RFP funds work only in the following disease states:
- Cardiovascular / Metabolic
- Lupus Nephritis
- Multiple Sclerosis
- Diabetic Macular Edema
- Food Allergy
- Women's Health
- Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD)
- Alzheimer's Disease
The work of innovation is not finished until the evidence reaches the people who can act on it. A finding that is never published or presented does not change diagnosis, treatment, care pathways, or patient outcomes. Too much important disease research stops short of the rooms where care decisions get made.
The Science Center and Genentech created this program to close that gap. The Disease-State Track funds focused, peer-reviewable studies in the disease areas above and supports the work required to move those studies into publication and presentation.
Awards are up to $25,000 for a 12-month project period. Funded teams are expected to produce, at minimum, one manuscript submission to a peer-reviewed journal or comparable scholarly outlet and one conference submission to an appropriate scientific or clinical venue.
Program purpose
This Request for Proposals supports disease-state research that answers a focused question, uses a sound evidence-based method, and produces findings that can inform diagnosis, treatment, care delivery, outcomes, persistence, access, or value. Competitive proposals will demonstrate methodological rigor, credible data access, and a realistic path to deliver work that matters in practice.
This is not exploratory funding for loosely formed ideas. It is support for research that is ready to execute, ready to be scrutinized, and ready to be disseminated.
Who this is for
This program is built for researchers working in the disease areas above who:
- Have a focused research question and a feasible, evidence-based method.
- Already have access to the required data, or can document a realistic and timely path to securing that access.
- Intend to turn the work into a manuscript submission and a conference submission during the award period.
The program is especially well-suited to early-career researchers, postdoctoral researchers, and clinician-researchers. Eligibility is broader than that, and applicants will be evaluated on fit, rigor, feasibility, and dissemination readiness rather than career stage alone.
What this program is not for
This program will not fund:
- Exploratory concepts without a focused research question or executable method.
- Projects without credible, confirmable data access.
- Product development, market research, or sales- and marketing-oriented analysis.
- Clinical trials or projects requiring patient-care costs.
- Basic or bench science without a clear link to outcomes, access, or value.
- Travel-only requests.
- Advocacy or lobbying activities.
- Projects without a realistic 12-month path to a manuscript submission and a conference submission.
1. Request for Proposals
The Disease-State Scholars Program supports publication and conference dissemination of rigorous disease-focused scholarship. The goal is to fund work that generates useful evidence and gets that evidence into the scientific and clinical settings where decisions are made.
Proposals should address a focused question in a named disease state, use a rigorous evidence-based approach, and show a clear path to external dissemination. Strong applications will connect the work to practical implications for diagnosis, treatment, care pathways, adherence or persistence, outcomes, or healthcare decision-making.
2. Proposal objectives
Funded projects should:
- Answer a focused question in a named disease state using a rigorous and evidence-based method.
- Produce findings with clear implications for diagnosis, treatment, care pathways, outcomes, access, value, or persistence.
- Reach the field through at least one manuscript submission and at least one conference submission.
- Show how the work can improve diagnosis, treatment, and persistence for people with serious, high-need conditions.
3. Eligibility
3.1 Eligible applicants
Applications are welcome from faculty, postdoctoral researchers, clinician-researchers, and senior research staff based at accredited U.S. academic institutions, academic medical centers, research organizations, or nonprofit entities. Multi-institutional teams are eligible when one qualified institution serves as the lead applicant and fiscal agent.
Researchers working in company, startup, or other applied settings may apply when the proposed work is genuine peer-reviewable scholarship rather than product development, market research, or a travel subsidy. Independent researchers or consultants without an eligible institutional affiliation are not eligible.
3.2 Applicant fit
This program is built for applicants who are ready to execute. The strongest proposals will come from teams that already have a defined question, a feasible method, the right expertise, and a realistic path to the data and outputs required to complete the work during the award period.
Career stage is not a scoring advantage by itself. Applications will be judged on fit, rigor, feasibility, and the credibility of the dissemination plan.
3.3 Principal Investigator requirements
The Principal Investigator should hold a terminal degree such as a PhD, MD, JD, DrPH, or equivalent, or must be able to demonstrate comparable professional research experience. The Principal Investigator must also have a documented record of peer-reviewed publication or equivalent scholarly output.
3.4 Conflict-of-interest disclosure
All key personnel must disclose any financial relationships with Genentech, Roche, or their subsidiaries at the time of application. Disclosed conflicts are not automatically disqualifying, but they may require review, management, or mitigation consistent with institutional policy. Applicants must comply with their institution's conflict-of-interest requirements and provide institutional clearance if requested.
4. Research themes
Strong proposals should address one of the following research themes. Applicants should select one primary lens rather than attempting to cover multiple themes superficially.
- Start and stay on therapy. Identify the highest-friction points in treatment initiation, adherence, or persistence for a named disease state, and test or model interventions that can measurably improve time-to-therapy or persistence.
- Real-world outcomes and disparities. Use claims, EHR, or registry data to characterize outcomes, treatment patterns, or disparities in a named disease state, with clear clinical or coverage implications.
- Comparative barrier mapping. Compare patterns across two disease states and identify what appears generalizable versus disease-specific, provided the analysis remains rigorous and decision-useful.
5. Disease-state requirement
Projects must address at least one disease state listed on page one of this RFP. Applicants should make the disease-state relevance explicit, not assumed. Reviewers should be able to see, quickly and clearly, why the question matters in the selected disease area and how the findings could influence care or decision-making in that context.
6. Scope
6.1 What this program funds
The program welcomes approaches such as:
- Real-world evidence studies using claims, EHR, registry, or related data sources with credible governance and feasibility.
- Health economics and outcomes research, including budget-impact and value frameworks.
- Implementation science and care-pathway redesign tied to a named disease state.
- Mixed-methods work that ends in clear, measurable recommendations.
- Systematic reviews or meta-analyses only when they produce novel synthesis with clear practice or policy relevance.
6.2 Out of scope
The following are not fundable under this track:
- Literature reviews or summaries that do not produce novel synthesis or actionable findings.
- Opinion pieces, editorials, commentaries, or advocacy documents.
- Clinical trials or work requiring patient-care costs.
- Basic or bench science without a clear link to outcomes, access, or value.
- Product development, market research, or sales- and marketing-oriented analysis.
- Travel-only requests.
- Advocacy or lobbying activity.
- Projects without credible, confirmable data access.
- Projects without a realistic 12-month path to both a manuscript submission and a conference submission.
7. Dissemination: conference and publication
This program funds research with the expectation that it will reach the field. Every funded project must include a credible dissemination strategy tied to the outputs proposed in the application.
7.1 Conference strategy
Applicants must identify one to three target scientific or clinical venues and explain why those venues are appropriate for the work. Applicants are not scored on whether they choose a venue from any example list; they are scored on fit, plausibility, and alignment between the proposed study and the intended audience.
Appropriate venues may include:
- Large clinical or specialty meetings.
- Disease-specific scientific forums.
- Health economics or real-world evidence meetings.
- Health-services or population-science conferences.
7.2 Publication requirement
Every funded project must submit at least one manuscript to a peer-reviewed journal or comparable scholarly outlet by the end of the award period. Applicants should propose outlets that fit the study design, audience, and likely contribution of the work.
7.3 Proceedings, embargo, and branding
Applicants should state where the work would appear if accepted, such as an abstract catalog, journal supplement, proceedings, or comparable format, and should note any known embargo or formatting constraints. Some venues restrict the use of commercial logos, company names, or proprietary drug names on posters and slides, and awardees are responsible for complying with current venue rules.
8. Deliverables and awardee expectations
8.1 Minimum required deliverables
Each funded project must produce the following:
- At least one manuscript submitted to a peer-reviewed journal or comparable scholarly outlet by the end of the award period.
- At least one conference submission to a target venue named in the application, with proof of submission.
- A non-technical executive summary of approximately 2 to 4 pages.
- A 10 to 15 slide deck suitable for presentation and sponsor briefings, consistent with any applicable venue branding restrictions.
- A kickoff report within 30 days of project start, a midpoint report at 6 months covering progress and financial status, and a final report within 30 days of project close addressing outcomes and financial closeout.
8.2 Review of external submissions
Before external submission, awardees must provide draft conference artifacts and near-final manuscript drafts to the Science Center Program Administrator for administrative review. This review is intended to confirm compliance, required disclosures, funding acknowledgment language, the absence of confidential information, and adherence to venue rules. It is not intended to dictate the scholarly conclusions of the work.
8.3 Funding acknowledgment
Required funding-acknowledgment and disclosure language will be provided at the time of award. Awardees must include the required language on all external outputs where applicable.
9. Application materials
Applicants must submit a complete application package in a single PDF unless otherwise instructed in the application materials. Submission timing, review windows, and administrative milestones will be communicated separately.
9.1 Required components
A. Concept note (maximum 3 pages)
The concept note must include:
- Project title, team, and institution.
- Research theme and disease state.
- Research questions or aims.
- Methods overview, described concretely enough to assess rigor and feasibility.
- Data sources and feasibility, including whether data is already accessible or requires a data use agreement, purchase, approval, or other prerequisite.
- Expected outputs and why they matter.
- Conflict-of-interest disclosures for all key personnel.
Applications that depend on data not yet secured must provide a realistic timeline, process, and contingency plan. Unconfirmed data access is a material feasibility risk and will be evaluated accordingly.
B. Draft submission artifact(s) (1 to 2 items; maximum 1 page each)
Applicants should submit one or two draft dissemination artifacts appropriate to the intended venue, such as:
- A draft structured abstract for a scientific or clinical meeting.
- A session or panel pitch plus a one-page outline when the intended venue does not use abstract review.
C. Dissemination and timeline worksheet (required)
Applicants must provide a next-12-month dissemination and execution plan using the required template or equivalent format. The plan should show how the work moves from project launch to external submission.
D. One-page workplan (required)
Applicants must provide month-by-month milestones covering execution, drafting, internal review, and submission activities.
E. Budget and justification (maximum 1 page; spreadsheet optional)
The total request may not exceed $25,000. Facilities and administrative costs are capped at 10% of modified total direct costs. Applicants should identify anticipated travel as part of project planning if relevant, but travel by itself is not a fundable use of this award.
F. Biosketches or CVs
Applicants must provide biosketches or CVs for key personnel, limited to 2 pages per person.
9.2 Optional second-stage request
Top-ranked applicants may be invited to submit a brief follow-on packet with additional materials, such as a more detailed analysis plan, draft figures or tables, or evidence of data use agreement or IRB status. Invitation to provide these materials does not guarantee funding. It is part of the review process when additional diligence is needed.