Home > Granted research > The funding philosophy and selection process

The Thierry Latran Foundation wants to enhance basic, applied and clinical research with potential therapeutic benefit in sporadic Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis.

The Foundation wants to encourage innovative approaches.


The Scientific Advisory Board is responsible for the selection and the evaluation of the projects.

The assessment reports of the successful projects, their rating, and a brief report of the Scientific Advisory Board meeting will be transmitted to the members of the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee will then decide the budget allocated to each successful application. The Scientific Advisory Board is also responsible for assessing the budget required to perform the project.

The Executive Committee is responsible for approving the budget allocated to research projects.

The members of the Executive Committee will be asked to finance the selected projects with one of the following two types of grant :

  • Major Grants, up to a maximum of € 150,000 per year over three (3) years, for a full research project.
  • Pilot Grants, up to a maximum of € 100,000 over a two (2) year period, which aim at gathering a specific set of data in a new and promising field in preparation for further in-depth research.

The typology of the above grants is purely indicative and applications for grants of smaller or larger amounts shall be considered as well.

Maximum flexibility will govern decision on financing formats and schemes.

Beyond Major Grants and Pilot Grants, co-financing schemes, financing including royalty sharing plans based on co-ownership of intellectual property, refundable loans with profit sharing schemes and all forms of financing will be considered as well as other type of financing.

The Executive Committee will have complete liberty to adapt the funding of each project, taking into account the advices of the Scientific Advisory Board.

The Executive Committee will not fund projects that have not received a positive advice from the Scientific Advisory Board.



The selection process is driven by the secretary of the Scientific Advisory Board.

 Abstract evaluation

Each abstract will be rated by each member of the SAB independently following a defined methodology

Each abstract will be evaluated taking into account the following criteria:

  • Clarity of objectives
  • Relevance to ALS and to the Foundation’s objectives
  • Expertise, track record, and standing of the applicant
  • Originality, position with respect to ongoing research
  • Feasibility
  • Estimated budget compared to the expected results

Abstract will be scored as follows

A shall mean a definitive yes and will be invited to submit a full application

B shall mean maybe and will depend on the level of budget available for the call

C shall mean a definitive no and will not be invited to submit a full application, it being specified that a C can only be given to a project not reaching the criteria on clarity of objectives or relevance to ALS and to the Foundation’s objectives or feasibility

The Scientific Advisory Board will meet  to make a final selection that  will be submitted to Founder and the college B  for approval

The General Manager will then invite all successful applicants to submit a full application. Unsuccessful applicants will be informed by the General Manager that they will not be invited to submit a full application.

No further feedback will be provided to uninvited applicants.


Full application evaluation

On receipt of the applications, the secretary of the SAB will send the full application to a minimum of two external referees that are not involved in the Foundation and have no link with the applicant.

Referees will be selected by the secretary of the SAB among the international research community after validation by the president of the SAB, taking into account any potential conflict of interest situation.

The referees will review the application and send in a full report, which includes their recommendation: “funding suggested” with three (3) possibilities:

A” shall mean high priority for funding;

B” shall mean to be considered for funding

C” shall mean not to be considered for funding

The SAB and  the secretary of the SAB guarantee the anonymity of the referees.

SAB will meet to grade the applications.

Each application will be presented by one SAB member together with the 2 referee’s evaluation.

SAB will then grade it ’A’ (high priority), ‘B’ (acceptable for funding), or ‘C’ (not suitable for funding).

If the external referees all advise not to fund the project, it will be ranked as Group C and no further discussed unless one member of the SAB wants a discussion.

If two referees consider a project as “high” priority, it should be ranked A or B by the SAB.

Group A and B projects will be further ranked in order of priority by each SAB Member, anonymously

The proposal for a final selection will be submitted to the Executive Committee by the president of the Scientific Advisory Board

Feedback will be given to each applicant with the anonymous referees’ reports.

Unsuccessful applicants may decide (but will not be invited) to change their application according to the referees’ reports. They may submit an amended version of the application to the Foundation during the following call.