RGC Grant Applications in Biology & Medicine
-
Upload
herrod-gonzalez -
Category
Documents
-
view
36 -
download
2
description
Transcript of RGC Grant Applications in Biology & Medicine
RGC Grant Applications in Biology & Medicine
Formulating and Writing winning proposals
Kathy Cheah, 2003
RGC Grant Applications in Biology & Medicine
The application: Project gestation/incubation
period Project design Writing the application
The Application
Gestation/incubation period - Before you put pen to paper
Discuss the ideas/approach with others.
Answer the following questions: Am I addressing important
issues/problems in the proposed project? Would the results of the project have
significant impact? If the answer is yes – go on…..
Common mistakes in project choice I like this topic.
Should be based on significance, not your interest Although this is not new, I have been doing
this for yearsInnovation is critical
It was not funded last time because the reviewer was biased/ignorant
But maybe not? Although it is controversial, I can resolve it
Avoid too much controversy This issue has not been studied
But can it pass the “so what” test?
Common Mistakes in Selecting a Project
Because it doesn’t need new methodology Because it uses the latest (fashionable) technology
Nature of question is always more important than the method
Technology is the means NOT the end Purely descriptive
Aim to provide functional insight or mechanism This issue has been resolved in other cell
types/species, but this is new to my cell type/species
Innovation will be questioned
The Application - Project formulation
Do consider the following.. Is there a clear hypothesis or question? Or is
this a “fishing exercise”? Fishing has to be strongly justified.
Projects solely aimed at creating a database not supported.
Is the project aimed at studying a local problem (e.g. diseases of particular prevalence or presenting a problem regionally?
The Application - Project formulation
Do consider the following.. Is the project built on preliminary findings,
past findings, your own or of others? Are there other groups doing the same
thing? What is your competitive edge?
Developing a Hypothesis
Should increase understanding of normal biologic processes, diseases, or treatment and prevention
Testable by current methods
Common Mistakes Selecting project Establishing Hypothesis
Scientific flaws Setting goals (specific aims) Showing preliminary data Developing research plan Choosing methods
Common Mistakes in Developing Research Plan
Descriptive Too ambitious No hypothesis No anticipated results No alternative plan Scientific flaws
Flaws
Hypothesis is wrongPlanned studies cannot
demonstrate the hypothesisMethods are wrong or obsolete
Project formulation and design
Do not be too ambitious with what you aim to do, i.e. can you achieve everything proposed in the time?
Two or three year funding required? If you really need 3 years, apply for 3 years, not 2.
Project design Think of the loopholes, controls
required etc. Think of contingencies to cope with
unexpected results or failure. Are all the necessary expertise,
reagents available? Line up collaborators, co-investigators
if possible.
“Too ambitious” Huge goals
Establish realistic goal(s) Vague hypothesis
Develop a testable hypothesis Unfocused aims
Set reasonable specific aims Too much work planned
More is not necessarily better Plan feasible experiments
No alternative plan
If you anticipate to have some difficulties, you need show an alternative plan
Only for critical issues Clearly explain your alternative
studies Don’t use too much space
The Ideal Project Hypothesis-driven
Asks important questions Innovative
To study mechanisms Realistic and focused
Not too controversial You have track record Feasible in the time frame You have preliminary data
Writing the application
Abstract Short, simple explanation of what
the project is about. Understandable by non-specialist
Simple and concise. Clear statement of the hypothesis, objectives and importance of the project
Writing the application
Objectives & Significance Summarise
the objective(s) of the project. approaches to achieve main objective(s) These should be clear, logically formulated.
State if: the project is addressed at clinical or environmental
problems of particular local relevance, the project may lead to downstream application.
Use these points to justify why you should be PI
Background: Are you up to date with the literature? Make clear your preliminary results or your
previous published findings. Summary of preliminary data may be attached
as appendix, 1-2 pages. The background should lead clearly to the
question(s) to be asked. State question(s) you wish to ask or
hypothesis you wish to test
Writing the application
Common Mistakes in Objectives, Background and Significance
Purpose To demonstrate the significance of the project, To articulate critical issues to be addressed Provide the rationale for your hypothesis.
Problems: Not focused, too long
only review the related materials Too many references
cite only critical papers Ignored the critical or new reports
Cite recent important references relevant to the hypothesis
Writing the application
Research plan and methodology Have a clear plan of action, logical
sequence of experiments to achieve aim. Avoid ambiguity For some projects e.g. in Molecular Biology,
Clinical studies, some diagram attached may be helpful for the reviewer to understand vector/experimental design if these are not straightforward.
Writing the applicationResearch plan and methodology Not usually necessary to describe methods in
detail, unless they are very new approaches. Clear explanation of rationale of approach is
usually sufficient. Are all controls included? If human samples
are involved, have these been collected or will be available?
Describe contingency plans against failure or action if results dictate a different direction? Show awareness of such possibilities and can
cope.
Write the proposal in two weeks?
Never do it! Plan your grant-writing as early
as possible (at least one month before deadline)
Have it read by a peer Leave enough time for
modification
Application should be focused, addressing important questions.
Avoid convoluted arguments/justifications of approach. Do not try to address too many questions.
Show that you (or your co-investigator /collaborators) have the track-record/ expertise to do the work.
If the project is a resubmission, clearly state improvements and how you have addressed points raised by reviewers.
Summary
Some common problems.. Microarray projects
Strong justification of fishing required Clear description of how the data will be
analysed – not just the software – bioinformatics expertise
Reproducibility and statistics Family / human genetic / clinical studies
Families, patients & controls available? Statistical genetics expertise available? Ethics
Transgenic studies Phenotype analysis – how this will yield
functional insight
Filling in the ERG form
Presentation Don’t strain the reviewer’s eyes! Font
size, at least 11.5 preferably 12pt Use sub-headings Margins. Avoid cramming everything in
by shrinking the margins.