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 years Innovation 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 wrong Planned studies cannot demonstrate the hypothesis Methods 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 application Research 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 Collaboration Provide 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!