Award for Excellence in Human Research Protection
Innovation Award questions

Judges evaluate an applicant's answers to the following Award questions against Award criteria. To suggest improvement to questions

Q.1. Publication: Where and when was the (report of the) innovation published? Please provide one or more citations to published work, preferably in Index Medicus style; attach a copy of the article. Submit up to 3 articles regarding the innovation.

Q.2. Innovation: What is the innovation for which you seek the Award? Please describe it completely yet concisely. Mention particularly to what the innovation pertained, for example, enriched understanding of, raised visibility of, shaped the debate regarding, advanced knowledge about, offered reforms and/or increased awareness of requirements for human research protection, and/or how to meet these requirements, including, for example, how to improve programs and activities intended to protect human subjects of research.

Q.3. Significance/contribution: What is the innovation's significance? How does (or did) it contribute toward protecting or advancing the protection of human subjects of research?

Q.4. Impact: What has been the innovation's impact to date? If the impact has been measured or evaluated, how was it measured or evaluated? If not measured yet, how could it be measured or evaluated? Please describe impact in relevant detail, for example, on the public, health care researchers and/or practitioners, research institutions, research subjects, sponsors, and government; in such terms as programs, funding, policies, procedures, practices, knowledge, skills, attitudes, and/or motivation. Substantiate impact with reference to published reports. Please attach a copy of completed evaluations and/or any other evidence of the innovation's adoption and/or its effectiveness in protecting or advancing the protection of human subjects of research.

Q.5. Role: Who were the innovators (i.e., the people who created or made the innovation for which you are applying for an Award)? What were individuals’ roles in the innovation (e.g., design, implementation, communication, dissemination)? Please describe in relevant detail. If applicable, refer to published reports.

Q.6. Justification for Award: Why should the reported thinking, research, action, etc be considered innovative? How does it demonstrate leadership in protecting or advancing the well-being of people who participate in research? Summarize the main points made above. Add any others necessary to convince judges that this innovation should receive this year's Award.

To apply for Award

To judge Award applications

To participate in program

To request additional information

To provide feedback