Hypothesis, Question, Specific Aims Ed Puzas, Ph.D. University of Rochester School of Medicine Rochester, NY

Hypothesis (“theory, view, explanation, question”) Catch the reviewers attention with a good idea! The hypothesis should be supported by a clear rationale (Occam’s Razor, 1280, The number of entities used to explain phenomena should not be increased unnecessarily) But not a trivial statement of low informative content. A well formulated hypothesis will imply an experimental design.

Hypothesis (“theory, view, explanation, question”) Tips: Identify the hypothesis with a subtitle. Make sure the Specific Aims address the hypothesis(es) Keep the same words for the hypotheses throughout the application

Specific Aims The entire essence of the proposal should be captured in the Specific Aims I like to start with a single statement saying why the study is important 2-4 well thought out aims (sub-Aims are OK) Specific Aims need to be parallel not serial Don’t wait to the end to write the specfic aims

Specific Aims Tips: Specific Aims should fit on one page Write the Specific Aims first Don’t aim to “quantify”, “describe”, “devise a model”, etc. These are means to the end result, not an end in and of itself No citations in the Specific Aims

Background and Significance Opening paragraph describes the importance of the study (impact, cost savings, not “increase our understanting”) Your opportunity to show comprehensive but not exhaustive review of the problem. Anticipate criticisms The first sentence in each paragraph should be able to stand alone.

Tips: Look over the review group on the www and cite their papers Avoid density, break it up with sub headings and figures Resubmission; 3-page limit…..cheat in the B&S Use simple illustrations

Preliminary Studies Ed Puzas, Ph.D. University of Rochester School of Medicine Rochester, NY

Preliminary Studies….. i) demonstrate you can perform the experiments (or show your collaborators expertise) ii) provide data to bolster your conclusion iii) provide a means to show new technology iv) demonstrate productivity Take this opportunity to present the facts that support your hypothesis, but don’t “over-interpret”. e.g.. “Our transfection protocol works well in vitro so we should have no difficulty in using in vivo.”

Data Presentation i) keep the figures simple ii) make sure the “blots” are discernable (quantify them) iii) space the data throughout the text (don’t group it onto separate pages at the end….my personal preference) iv) use color or submit complex images on a CD disc (I have seen grants refer to a web site for animated data….be careful of confidentiality.) v) use figure legends to describe the data vi) Adobe Photoshop trick for immuno’s vii) all data should have statistical comparisons…show the error bars!

Fatal Flaws (from personal experience) i) preliminary results are not the high point of the grant…the “Research Design and Methods” section is. Preliminary results are a compilation of (perhaps) years of data generation. You can always make this section look good. In far too many applications this is the best section and the Design is left to “flounder”. Don’t assume because your data looks good that the reviewer will assume you can perform quality experiments in the future. ii) present the key data in the body of the grant, not as an appendix. Space limitations are a problem by the strategy is worth it. iii) resubmissions require updated preliminary results. (Preferably in the form of published or submitted ms’s.)

Have a colleague read it over to see if it makes sense. I think he owes me for this favor

“As we consider the proposals, lets not forget who included a gallon of Rocky Road with their Preliminary Results” And if all else fails…..