Writing Prelim and Qualifying Proposals Iris Lindberg 3/05

1
Writing Prelim and Qualifying ProposalsIris
Lindberg 3/05
2
Timing

• Qualifying- collect references from the time you
  enter the lab (ie for a semester)
• Qualifying- you need experimental data before you
  can propose work, so do not stop lab work until
  1-2 weeks before proposal is due
• Preliminary- be collecting interesting
  references during the same time period
• Preliminary- discuss possible topics with
  committee at Qualifying Exam
• Take off only 2 weeks full-time to write
  Preliminary proposal (or longer but then only
  part-time)

3
Topics of Each Exam

• Qualifying
• Shows mastery of your field
• Outlines the next few years of experiments
• Preliminary
• Topic must be out of your field
• Shows you can think/design/present science
  independently

4
Getting Ideas and Writing Experimental Design

• Do not focus on technique but answering a
  definitive question
• What is missing from this picture?

5
Experimental Design- Planning

• A small, focused project is much better than a
  diffuse, multifaceted project- do not be
  overambitious!
• Use 2-3 specific aims at most
• Get advice from your committee on potential aims
  during planning stages
• Committee approval is required for Prelim exam
  topic

6
Experimental Design What Constitutes a Good
Experiment?

• Doability is required but by itself is not
  enough- Timeliness and Significance
• Unambiguously interpretable results
• If result 1 is obtained, your hypothesis is
  upheld
• If result 2 is obtained, then a new direction is
  indicated (but grant is not invalidated)
• Stronger if different exptl approaches are used
  to confirm hypotheses

7
Common Project Errors

• Risky (pyramid approach)
• Cataloging data (Descriptive)
• Data must already fit into a hypothesis
• No quantitation possible
• How will different models/hypotheses be
  distinguished?
• How will experimental bias be avoided?
• Controls not explained adequately
• How can results be arrived at artifactually?

8
Page Requirements- Qualifying Proposal

• Description (1/2 page)
• Specific Aims- 1 page
• Background and Significance- 3 pages
• Preliminary Studies- 3 pages
• Experimental Design totals 25 pages including
  the above

9
Page Requirements- Preliminary Proposal

• Description (1/2 page)
• Specific Aims- 1 page
• Background and Significance- 1.5 pages
• Preliminary Studies- 1-2 pages (no limits)
• Experimental Design totals 12.5 pages
  including the above

10
The Description

• This is a very important part of the proposals!
  Do not omit!
• Introduce the subject, briefly explain what has
  been done and what gaps remain
• Describe each of your aims succinctly,
  summarizing what you will learn
• Put the project into a clinical perspective
• Polish remove extra words, make it elegant!

11
A. Specific Aims

• A one page summary of the proposal
• Specific aims test specific predictions based on
  hypotheses
• Provides rationale and brief summary of work, and
  the expected impact on field
• Refine and revise this page multiple times! A
  very important part of the proposal (second only
  to abstract)

12
Specific Aims can contain questions
13
Or not..
14
B. Background and Significance

• Comprehensive and clear background for the
  scientific reader who is not in the field
• In-depth and critical knowledge of the literature
  demonstrated
• Constantly point out holes or discrepancies
  that the present grant will address
• Persuasive rhetoric the reader must agree that
  the studies are necessary and important
• Clinical relevance can go here as well as in
  significance section

15
C. Preliminary Studies

• You can cite supporting data from other labs here
• You can present the data you think you would need
  in order to get your grant funded (this is
  unusual)
• Because this is a hypothetical exercise, this
  section is not strictly necessary
• In a real grant you would NEVER make anything up
  here!

16
C. Preliminary Studies

• All figures should be formatted nicely and
  located on same page as discussion. Use a
  conclusion for each title!
• Number all figures for easy reference later

17
D. Experimental Design- Sections

• Rationale
• The experiments themselves
• Results and interpretation
• Potential pitfalls and alternative approaches
• Summary of aim goals

18
D. Experimental Design- Rationale

• Ties into the background section
• Provides brief explanation for the experiments
  which follow

19
The Rationale Begins the Experimental Design
Section (part 1)
20
D. Experimental Design, part 1

• Why did you choose the approach that you did?
• Convince us that it is the best approach of all
  that are currently available. Cite the success of
  other investigators -with specific references.

21
Experimental Design, part 2

• Lay out broad scope of experiments
• Reserve technical details for another section at
  end
• Do not be exhaustive- many experiments are
  POSSIBLE but will not add to the results!

22
Experimental Design Part 3Anticipated Results
and Interpretation

• Use anticipated results section to convince us
  that you will move science forward -no matter how
  experiments come out!
• Most common failing of grants is to omit the
  interpretation section
• Make it obvious what you will learn from each set
  of experiments and how this moves the field
  forward

23
Results and Interpretation Section
Use persuasive words like will provide, will
learn, confirm/refute, understand etc ie you
will move the field forward!
24
Experimental Design Part 4- Potential Problems
(or pitfalls) and Alternative Approaches

• Use pitfalls section to anticipate possible
  problems- then try to persuade that they are not
  serious because you have alternative approaches
  (or, because others have data showing this)

25
Potential Problems and Alternative Solutions
Identify the problems before your reviewers do-
then say why you dont believe they will be
obstacles, but if they are, what you will do
26
Common Sense Items

• Step back and look at your reasoning. Would you
  buy it from someone else?
• Accept criticism from your colleagues even if you
  think it is wrong it means you did not get your
  point across
• Dont perfect the beginning at the expense of the
  end- work on the last aim alone some days!
• Polish, polish, and polish again. Remove excess
  words construct clearer sentences improve
  formatting
• Give yourself enough time!

27
References

• You must include the titles of all references for
  NIH
• Check to make sure that your references are
  accurate!
• Any format ok

28
Formatting
29
The Package Is As Important as the Content

• One cannot extract a great experiment from a
  hard-to-read page
• Do not use busy fonts
• Use Sans Serif such as Arial for Figures (10
  point) and a Serif font (Times Roman or Palatino
  at 11 point) for all the rest of the text
• Do not combine many fonts- bold, underline,
  italics and sizes on one page (and never
  underline! it is very difficult to read)
• Separate all paragraphs with empty space- make it
  look like a book (ie, easy to read)

30
Make it Easy!

• Your committee may read your grant over several
  weeks
• Construct discrete sections which can be
  understood alone
• They will not remember a rationale you presented
  only in the Background and Significance

31
Lots of white space between small paragraphs!
32
The Package Is As Important as the Content

• Be extremely clear- few abbreviations, a simple
  layout, repeat/rephrase your necessary justifying
  statements throughout
• No jargon! we are NOT in this field
• Perfect spelling and grammar show that you can
  pay attention to detail

33
Consider putting experimental detail in a
separate section at the end so that the flow of
experiments is not interrupted
34
Specific Methods Section (an NIH-acceptable 10
point font)
35
Summaries

• Use summaries throughout the grant to help the
  reviewer see what the grand goals of each aim
  are
• Use a summary at the end of the grant to rephrase
  again how this proposal will move science forward
  (tell them what you told them)
• Writing a grant is an act of rhetoric you must
  persuade

36
Use of Summaries
37
Always Get Multiple Outside Opinions

• You should have other people look at your
  proposals at all stages
• Specific Aims can be discussed with your
  committee even prior to beginning to write!
• Give your first draft to as people- both expert
  as well as non-expert- senior and non-senior, who
  will agree to read it (give them at least 2
  weeks!)
• Give the final draft to someone who is very good
  at finding typos and sentence errors (1-2 days)

38
Self-Check

• Did you provide persuasive language in every
  section?
• Do not use highly self-promoting language
• Did you make sure the last Aim is as well-written
  as the first?
• Did you include the references and/or the actual
  papers that support your approach?
• Did you polish sufficiently? (spell-check,
  outside reviewers saw it)

39
Please..

• The word data is PLURAL!
• (ie data ARE or SHOW (never IS or SHOWS)

40
Additional Resources

• Your committee! is there for you to provide
  advice, technical tips, references etc
• See references on Biochem 299 website
• University of Pittsburgh
• MIT
• Columbia Resource collection
• http//www.the-scientist.com/yr1998/mar/prof_98030
  2.html

41
Any Questions?
42
Good Luck!