Transcript Under Construction” - University of Toronto

“Under Construction”
Building the Best Possible (Team)
Grant Proposal
Components of a
Successful Grant

Good ideas

Good writing


Well thought-through hypotheses,
outcomes, contingencies
Clear sense of “team science”
Specific to MBP 1018: Components
of the Team Science Grant






Abstract (1 page)
Rationale (0.5 page)
Background and preliminary data (2.5 – 3.5 pages)
Overall objective and hypothesis (0.5 page)
Outline of specific aims and team collaborations (0.5 page)
Detailed description of team members’ specific aims (4 pages per
person)
– Objectives, hypotheses, study designs, contingencies, outcomes

Summary and future directions (1 page)
– Includes integration of the work of team members



Translational significance (0.5 page)
Feasibility and timeline (0.5 page)
References
Introduction/Background





Review the RELEVANT literature
This is not meant to be an exhaustive literature
review, but rather a discussion of what is most
important to what you want to do
Provide background for the disease and questions
you will be addressing
Also provide background about any novel technical
approaches
Include a succinct rationale for the project (concept
and approach)
Specific Aims

Should address:
– What are the major questions your
project is designed to address?
– What are the objectives of your project?
– How will each objective address the
project-specific questions?
Hypotheses



VERY IMPORTANT TO INCLUDE THESE!!
Each hypothesis should correlate, where
possible, with a specific objective or
question being addressed
EXCEPT when you are addressing a
technical objective (e.g., the creation of an
experimental system)
Methodology


Describe your experiments in detail
Focus on study design
– Study design should match up with objective

Reference previously established
techniques, except for specific modifications
– For example, no need to describe RNA isolation
in detail…unless that’s your project!

Need to address where your samples are
coming from
Probable
Outcomes/Contingencies




What do you expect to observe?
What are your plans in case your experimental system goes
awry?
You should not merely describe your experimental plan – the
reader would not be expected to know how the studies are
supposed to turn out
Under what circumstances will your hypothesis be:
– Proved?
– Disproved?

What will you do if something doesn’t work out that the rest
of the project is dependent upon?
Translational Application



How is your project relevant to the human
condition, and to patients?
Describe the relevance and importance of your
work to the diagnosis, prevention and treatment of
cancer or the appropriate disease
Be careful – sometimes use of patient samples is
not sufficient for translational application!
Feasibility of Studies


Most grants are funded for a 2-5 year timeframe
You need to ensure that, whatever you propose, it
can be accomplished within that window
– Aim for 3 years, knowing that you have margin for error in
that regard

Be careful about # samples and types of
experiments you propose
– For e.g., a microarray study on a cohort of 100 patients,
prospectively over time (collecting 5 samples total)
amounts to 500 array experiments, plus controls!
– For Affymetrix GeneChip expression arrays, that’s easily
$300K
Referencing



Be consistent in terms of style
# references provided are often an
indicator of effort put into proposal
development
At a graduate level, anything less than
20 references is NOT acceptable
Evaluation: Is this team
science?






Abstract (1 page)
Rationale (0.5 page)
Background and preliminary data (2.5 – 3.5 pages)
Overall objective and hypothesis (0.5 page)
Outline of specific aims and team collaborations (0.5 page)
Detailed description of team members’ specific aims (4 pages per
person)
– Objectives, hypotheses, study designs, contingencies, outcomes

Summary and future directions (1 page)
– Includes integration of the work of team members



Translational significance (0.5 page)
Feasibility and timeline (0.5 page)
References
Complete this chart for
yourselves…
Member 1 Member 2 Member 3 Member 4
Month 1-6
Month 712
Month 1318
Month 1924
Month 2530
Month 3136
Each group should…


Know the points of collaboration
Know how all the projects “fit”
together (what does the puzzle look
like?)

Know the team’s failure modes

Know each other’s timelines
Evaluation: Is the project
planning strong?






Abstract (1 page)
Rationale (0.5 page)
Background and preliminary data (2.5 – 3.5 pages)
Overall objective and hypothesis (0.5 page)
Outline of specific aims and team collaborations (0.5 page)
Detailed description of team members’ specific aims (4
pages per person)
– Objectives, hypotheses, study designs, contingencies,
outcomes

Summary and future directions (1 page)
– Includes integration of the work of team members



Translational significance (0.5 page)
Feasibility and timeline (0.5 page)
References
Building a Specific Aim
Aim title
“To determine”/”Determining” X in Y
Use strong action verbs where possible
- Don’t hand wave or write “diffidently”
-
Rationale
“Given that [X, Y and Z], it is likely that [A, B and
C] are true”
Set up as a series of logic statements
- It’s OK to recap some preliminary data or language from the rationale
(expected, even)
- Can be combined with your hypothesis statement (see below), but
doesn’t have to be – and in some cases, probably shouldn’t be
-
Hypothesis
“We therefore hypothesize X”
- Make sure it’s falsifiable!
Study design
“In order to test this hypothesis, we will use
samples derived from [X and Y] in order to conduct
experiments [1, 2, 3 and 4]”
- Don’t go overboard with methods – unless it’s not something the
reviewer is expected to be familiar with
- Outline where your sample tissues are coming from
- Give enough detail so that the reviewer knows what you intend to do
- For discovery grants: Give specifics of data analysis methodology here
Building a Specific Aim
Anticipated
Outcome
“If [X] is observed…”
Interpretation
“…then [Y] must be true”
Be CONCISE yet SPECIFIC
- Don’t do more than one outcome at a time, as a rule – otherwise, it
makes it hard to follow what’s going on.
-
Directly linked to your anticipated outcome
- Your chance to explain what you think your outcomes mean and how
they support/refute your hypotheses
-
Contingency
“However, if A is observed, then we will do B”
-Your
chance to say “OK, I know things can go wrong – here’s why this
isn’t a lost cause!”
- Contingencies can be necessary for technical reasons as well as for
scientific ones
- Repeat outcome/interpretation/contingency IF/THEN statements as often
as necessary
Summary and
significance
“Therefore, taken together, these studies will allow
us to determine [X]”
-
-
Feel free to restate your aim language
Pull it all together – what does this aim mean, taken as a whole?
Caveats

Mahadeo’s favourite way to write aims

NOT the only approach
– Personal idiosyncrasies in style
– Clinical aims usually don’t fit the model
– Discovery aims can fit the model, with
some creativity
Evaluation: Is this translationally
relevant/significant?






Abstract (1 page)
Rationale (0.5 page)
Background and preliminary data (2.5 – 3.5 pages)
Overall objective and hypothesis (0.5 page)
Outline of specific aims and team collaborations (0.5 page)
Detailed description of team members’ specific aims (4 pages per
person)
– Objectives, hypotheses, study designs, contingencies, outcomes

Summary and future directions (1 page)
– Includes integration of the work of team members



Translational significance (0.5 page)
Feasibility and timeline (0.5 page)
References
Evaluation: Is the writing
solid?

Tips for success
– Follow formatting guidelines
– Make the grant look “pretty”
– Proofread!!!
– Catch silly mistakes (e.g., “Western blots
detect DNA”)
– Team science = team reviewing and
editing
Evaluation: Is the writing
solid?

What does a reviewer look for?
– Flow
– Grammar and spelling
– A “team voice” in writing – no jarring
discontinuities between sections
– Glaring errors and inconsistencies
– “Mosquitoes” – irritants to the reviewer
that are idiosyncratic of their own
reading/writing style
How to use
Figures/Tables





Show off somebody else’s preliminary
data
Schematics of models
Workflows (especially for data analysis
methods)
Timelines
“Concept maps”
Clarity






Grant should be written as if it were directed at a
general scientific audience
You are the most knowledgeable person with
respect to what you have written
Do NOT make assumptions about what the
reviewer knows or not
Be CLEAR
EXPLAIN yourself
Your work should be able to be intuitively followed
by the reviewer
What to Make Sure You
Do When Writing A Grant

Follow formatting guidelines carefully
–
–
–
–






10 double spaced pages
Page count does not include figures, tables, references
1” margins
12 point font
Include a Title Page
Include Page #’s!
Include section headings
Include your hypotheses, clearly stated
Clearly delineate your goals and study designs
Reference your work carefully
QUESTIONS?