Student
Grants Sites that provide hints for grant writing: http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/grants/write/index.htm http://www.hfsp.org/how/ArtOfGrants.htm Some don'ts:
The purpose of your report is to convince the peer study section, that the project you wish to undertake is significant meaning worthwhile and beneficial to science and/or medicine, that you understand the topic and thus are capable of conducting the research, and that the project, if attempted, has a high probability of success. Your grant will be more exciting if you follow the Biology First Rule. Start out every segment by developing the biological question you wish to ask or the problem you like to solve. Once the problem is clear go into how you will solve it. Do not start with the technology. Your typed application should have the following parts: Abstract: (no more than 300 words) a one-paragraph summary of the proposal, including background information, what you propose to do, and what you expect the implications of the research will be. The abstract is a synopsis of the background to your topic and a brief delineation of your planned work. The importance of and the rationale for your work should become clear. There is no need for a comprehensive list of all your proposed studies here. Just convey what is exciting about your idea. (As a hint for the real world, this might be most of the reviewers will have time to read, make sure they will understand this and will want to read more) Specific Aims : (no longer than 1 page). Break your project into 2- (maximal) 4 specific aims. Give each a title and a short descriptions that reflects the essence of each aims rational, method and expected outcome without too much technical detail (do not write more than 4-6 lines per aim). Make the hypothesis clear and exciting you have time for detail later one. Once you have written your aims look them over with the Biology First rule in mind. If you wrote an aim called 'microarray studies on trypanosomes' that looks for tse tse fly specific genes, shuffle it around and call it 'Identification of regulators of trypansome development'. Biology first, technology second. Introduction: (4 pages). This will be the bulk of your paper. Here you will introduce your topic by citing relevant literature, describing what is known and also what is not known. Provide a rationale for your proposed study, formulate an hypothesis that you would like to test and describe briefly how you are going to test it. Finally, indicate how the proposed approach and study will lead to a new understanding in the chosen area. Try to include as much primary (meaning publications of the original data from research studies) literature as possible to show that your understanding of the topic is up to date (you don't look like an expert if you reference a bunch of CDC or WHO websites meant for the general public). A minimum of 10 citations of primary papers (i.e. non-review papers - if you are unclear of the difference between a review and a primary paper, please ask) is an absolute requirement. Avail yourselves to the services of the Science Library and online sources such as PubMed to locate papers on your specific topic. Two final notes: 1) It is not acceptable to reference work that you have not read and 2) web pages should not be used as referenced sources - most are not peer-reviewed and therefore may not contain trustworthy information! Experimental Plan: (2 pages). This is the section where you outline your proposed study (in a 'real' proposal this is the most extensive section). Explain how you will do your research, what materials, animals, and other resources you will use, and what you expect to find. Make sure that the hypothesis is clear. Usually it is best to lead with the biology then follow with the technique. Proposals that look like a method looking for something to do often do not fare that well. Obviously you do not have experience with all these techniques (and in contrast to a real proposal you do not have any preliminary data) but use the literature and your judgement. You are not expected to be familiar with all technical details but be as specific as possible. Remember you want to get funded to do this work, usually you don't get much credit for not knowing stuff in the research business. You are a hot shot new investigator who just starter his or her lab and you want to show off you expertise. You should also consider and discuss alternative or back up approaches. E.g. you suggest to test something by knocking out the gene. What would you do if you can't isolate a knock out mutant because the gene is essential? You could try to see if you can knock if if you provide the gene on an extra copy, or you could use a regualted system, is there a way to supress the target gene other than knocking the locus, and so on. Do not hang everything on one little experimental detail. Again make it clear what your hypothesis is and why this is exciting then delve into technical aspects. Literature Cited: Include authors, year of publication, title of article, journal name, volume and page numbers, in that order, for each. Number each in the order of citation in the application and use this number to refer to the paper in the text (e.g. "According to Smith, et al. (1) opportunistic infections are the leading cause of death in transplant patients"). You can also cite by name and list alphabetically but that will cost you space. You are the author of a cutting edge proposal so please use up to date references -- and again use original literature rather than reviews and text book chapters. UGA is offering a liscence for endnote (a handy program widely used to manage references) to all departments and grad students. Investing a little time to learn how to use endnote will make the writing and editing of this grant (and all your papers and your thesis later) much quicker. You can download the program for free from (http://www.libs.uga.edu/liaison/endnote/endnote2.html). Submission: You should submit your grant as a pdf file and you should be on time. Please make sure you find out how to generate pdf files beforehand (feel free to ask). You can e-mail the grants to me. We cannot accept other formats to ensure everybody will be able to read your proposal, especially when figures are used. Your grant can include figures if you find these helpful. Pleae don't overdue it though and try to fill space with figures. You should not use more than one or two. Don't show stuff everybody knows already like the malaria life cycle. Illustrate background or concepts the reviewers might not be familiar with, e.g. an outline of the biochemical pathway you want to develop a drug against. You can also use a figure to ilustrate your hypothesis or to explain your experimental approach e.g. a genetic screen or a vaccination scheme. Review: We will use peer review to critique and rank the proposals
very much like funding agencies like the NIH or NSF do. Students will be
split into two study sections each reviewing the proposals of the other group
respectively. Each student will be assigned to study two proposals in detail (one as the primary the other one as secondary reviewer). The reviewer is expected to write a review for each (this does not have to be more than an page or two).
Each proposal will be introduced briefly to the panel by the student who is the primary reviewer. This reviewer has to explain the proposal in sufficient detail for the panel to understand what is to be done in the proposed study without going into too much detail. Then the reviewer points out strengths and weaknesses of the proposal. The secondary reviewer get's to talk next and mostly focusses on his or her oppinion of the proposal and how these are similar or different to what the primary reviewer said. Finally the entire
panel has the opportunity to discuss the proposals merits and in the end the proposals
will be ranked. Each member of the panel will rank all proposals confidentially on a paper. Feel free to ask the reviewer questions and feel free to disagree and to voice that disagreement. A faculty member will be present as an "unbiased" monitor to ensure the fairness of the process and to answer questions that might come up but the review
process and discussion is the responsiblity of the student reviewers and panel and to be performed by students. The dead line for grant submission is Monday,
April 16
|