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

Presentation: Poorly organized Language errors Show muddled thinking

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

CollaborationProvide copies of letters of

collaboration

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.

Remember simple and clear is beautiful and..

GOOD LUCK!