4) It is a measure of semi-independence and your PI may treat you differently since your fellowship will be providing salary support. owship support is a merit award and can facilitate obtaining future process itself will help shape your thinking about your science. Fellowship Writing : The Applicant Perspective Why should you apply? 1) If you are serious about academic-type science then you will be writing applications for support money the rest of your career.
Transcript
4) It is a measure of semi-independence and your PI may treat you differently since your fellowship will be providing salary support.
2) Fellowship support is a merit award and can facilitate obtaining future awards.
3) The process itself will help shape your thinking about your science.
Fellowship Writing : The Applicant Perspective
Why should you apply?
1) If you are serious about academic-type science then you will be writing applications for support money the rest of your career.
4) Common candidate: You have worked 1 or more years in the lab that has not resulted (yet) in a publication. Although you may have good ideas and have generated preliminary results in support of your proposal, your score may be subject to reviewer “variables”.
B) When should you apply? (This is one of the biggest variables)
1) Strong candidate: You have a first-author publication from your mentor’s lab and you are using this manuscript as the foundation for your proposal. Prior first-author publications and strong letters of support from your graduate work.
2) Good candidate: You are a year into your postdoc, you have generated strong preliminary results (with a paper submitted or in press as 1st or second authorship position), and you have first-author publications from your graduate studies.
3) Rare candidate: Strong publication record as a graduate student and are starting a postdoc in an established lab (i.e. full professor). It is possible that you could be a competitive candidate with very little preliminary data in support of a proposal.
*All 3 areas are important to the success of an application. A proposal that is weak in one area is unlikely to be funded.
If your grant does not get a fundable score, you will know which “areas” may be weak from the Summary Statement from the review committee.
C) Fellowship Evaluation Criteria (ranked in order of importance)
1) The applicantnumber and type of publicationsletters of support or referencepersonal statements of past and future research goals
2) Your proposed specific research project
3) The environment and “training” program-this is usually a reflection of your PI’s lab (funding and productivity)-the PI’s written statement of how they plan be your mentor-inclusion of seminar series, meetings, or affinity groups that add “training” potential-the institution (in most cases Scripps is judged to be outstanding)
D) Getting started on the proposal itself…
1) Plan to start early (at least two months ahead of deadline). READ THE DIRECTIONS!
2) Remember that animal/human subjects protocols are time consuming, you need to have the appropriate training, and approvals take weeks (and may require subsequent alterations). Check to see whether “Just In Time” approvals are accepted (means that you can do this once the grant is approved for funding). Remember microbiological hazard approvals too.
3) Make an outline of your proposed research project (talk it over with your PI).
4) Formulate your Specific Aims. In general: propose 1 aim per year of support.
VERY IMPORTANT: Your aims should be centered around a SPECIFIC TESTABLE HYPOTHESIS
Use sentences such as “My proposal will test the hypothesis that….” or “My proposal will test the importance of ….”
Specific Testable Hypothesis
Importance…..
Aims…..
6) Timing: Give plenty of time for your PI to read. Plan on re-writing. This is where hard work, focus, and attention to detail pays off.
Remember, a reviewer will have 7 to 10 proposals to read. He/she will choose the top 2 for potential support. Clarity of writing and ideas are of paramount importance.
5) The Proposal Organization:Many postdoctoral proposals are ~10 pages (Science) plus Abstract/Summary
How to “Balance” the Science Sections:
Introduction and Specific Aims ( 1 page)
Background/Significance ( 1 page)
Preliminary/Results (~3 pages)
Experimental Design and Methods (~5 pages)
F) Writing / Presentation Suggestions
1) A “clean” and organized writing and presentation style will show the reviewer that you have taken this process seriously. Too much description or too much data/information will only confuse the reviewer with unnecessary details.
2) Abstract/Summary and Specific Aims. This will be viewed by all committee members. Usually one page. A good synopsis of your proposal can influence committee members (who did not directly review your proposal) but who nevertheless will be voting on your proposal.
3) Background/Significance. Give a balanced overview. Cite reviews. Show graphical models of the system you are studying. End by telling the reviewer why your proposal is important and how it will advance the field.
4) Preliminary Results. Try to structure this section so that the reviewer knows the connection to the data that you are presenting with regard to a particular aim in your proposal. Header titles: “Prelim Data in Support of Aim X” etc. Make sure you have data in support of all aims. Insert pictures/images so that the figures are close to the text description.
5) Include a “bulleted” or short summary of your important Preliminary Results.
Step by step…..
Embed figures
Summarize w/ conclusionstatements
Summarize what you just showed in the Preliminary Results
Summarize w/ conclusionstatements
Reminder of the hypothesis to test or proposal goal
6) Experimental Design and Methods. (Structure of sub-sections… a suggestion)a) Repeat the Specific Aim sentence.
b) Rationale: One paragraph to remind the reviewer of the hypothesis to be tested. Possibly include a model/graphic if appropriate.
c) Summary of Approaches to Accomplish this Aim. One sentence that will be used as subsequent paragraph headings (below).
d) Detailed Approaches to Accomplish this Aim. Here’s where you describe the procedures to be used, the sequence of experimental analyses, and the methods of evaluation in “appropriate” detail. Include discussion of “Anticipated Results”. Include short description of “Potential Pitfalls” and add comment on how you might work around these issues.
7) Remember to include a timetable of proposed research. “What you expect to accomplish during year 1, year 2, etc.”
