1

CHE 594 Lecture 12Structure Of A Successful Proposal

2

Building A Successful Proposal

Solid

Rese

arch

Pla

n

Qu

alifi

ed

Investig

ato

r

Good Research Idea

Describe The Work Well

A good research idea is the

foundation of any successful proposalYou need an idea that satisfies the Heilmeier criteria and is fun to do

Good research ideas are not enoughYou need to be

qualified to do the work and have a good

research plan

The research plan and investigators qualifications are key pillars that

support a proposal

A compelling presentation is also

criticalYou need to describe

the work well and create excitement

3

Objective for The Next Few Letcures

Move up the proposal and start to describe how to describe the work well

Outline All of the things that must be included in a proposal

What sections are needed What goes in each section

Solid Research Plan

Qualified Investigator

Good Research Idea

Describe The Work Well

Solid Research Plan

Qualified Investigator

Good Research Idea

Describe The Work Well

4

My Typical Outline

Introduction One page giving an overview of the work, describe how it

advances the literature and make a case for funding Figure that gives a picture of the work I am proposing

Literature review (NSF, DOE, NIH not DARPA, DHS) 1-2 pages giving the main themes in the literature

Proposed work Specific Objectives

Paragraph outlining the entire scope of work & its major challenges

Work plan Subsections organized around each major question (paper) I

wish to address Variables I will vary Techniques I will use Sometimes data analysis if that is significant Description of preliminary data

Summary Highlight the significance -

Lect 13-16

Lect 18

Lect 17

Lect 6,7 12

5

Need To Design Your Proposal To Be Accessible To People Who Have Not Read

it Carefully

Typical NSF Review Panel 1 senior scientist in a

related area Industrial representative Many assistant

professors Diversity representatives

Women or minorities People from Epscor states People from smaller

universities

Typical NIH study Section

4-8 senior scientists in related areas

4-8 Physicians or medical researchers

1-2 younger scientistsReview panel

membership is published

http://www.drg.nih.gov/Roster_proto/sectionI.asp

Only 2 people or so will read your proposal, but everyone on the panel votes

Final Decisions On Proposals Typically Made By People Who Have Not Read Proposal Carefully!

6

Implications

Need to design your proposal so someone can get the salient points without reading the proposal carefully

Strong opening sentence Grab the readers attention

Great first paragraph Well crafted one page summary Section headings for easy navigation Lots of illustrations, tables, ...

7

My Typical Outline

Introduction One page giving an overview of the work, describe how it

advances the literature and make a case for funding Figure that gives a picture of the work I am proposing

Literature review (NSF, DOE, NIH not DARPA, DHS) 2-4 pages giving the main themes in the literature

Proposed work Technical Objectives

Paragraph outlining the entire scope of work & its major challenges

Work plan Subsections organized around each major question (paper) I

wish to address Variables I will vary Techniques I will use Sometimes data analysis if that is significant Description of preliminary data

Summary Highlight the significance -

Lect 6,7, 12

Lect 17

8

Most Successful Proposals Written Like A Newspaper Article

First page contains all of the essential information. What is the main objective, how will it be

accomplished, what is novel about the approach, why should anyone care

Next ideas that support the main objective: background information,

preliminary data, any other information essential to understand the main

objective

Details: How are you going to actually the project,

why that works, risk

mitigation strategy

Key information

Background &

Elaboration

Details

Needs to be written so someone can jump around in a proposal and still get it

9

Hints For The First Page

First page must cover what you need to accomplish, how you are going to do it, what is novel about it and why it is important

Start with a strong opening sentence. I usually try to describe the long term objective & need

Great if you can point to a specific reference or report that identifies the need e.g. according to the national academy report there is a need to better understand ... (avoids reviewer saying the topic is unimportant)

Could also lead with your accomplishments: in recent papers we have discovered a new way to ...

Next: tell what you are proposing to do You need to say what you are doing, how you are doing it, and what is novel

about it. Lastly explain why this is important

It is not good enough to say that an area is important Instead you need to explicitly show that your particular work with make an important

contribution to an important problem

You need to tailor the opening to the funding agency NSF, DOE – mainly scientists – get to the science quick NIH – be sure to involve the study session DHS – tell them we are listening to them DARPA – tell them why it is important again and again

My First Page Outline

The long term goal …Specifically I propose examining …By way of background … but according to a recent DOE report … The DOE report calls this a critical needIn this proposal I wish to do something unique: Techniques:likely results: FeasibilityImportance

10

Examples From The Textbook

Chapter 5 in the textbook has many additional NIH oriented examples.

NIH: Call out hypothesis, specific aims, significance

11

12

Talking Points For What Difference Will Your Work Make?

What will be available that is not present now?

What will the products of your efforts be?

What are the social and economic benefits? Remember educational/pedagogical

benefits

Adapted from http://www.sba.gov/gopher/Innovation-And-Research/SBIR-Pro-Prep/

13

Please Remember The Heilmeier Criteria

What are you trying to do? Articulate your objectives using absolutely no jargon.

If you cannot explain it simply you are not going to get it funded

Who cares? If you're successful, what difference will it make?

What's new in your approach and why do you think it will be successful?

What special skills do you bring to the question?

How much will it cost, how long will it take and what are the risks?

What are the midterm and final "exams" to check for success?

This needs to be on the first page or else

your proposal will not be

funded

14

Motivation: The motivation must first give the “big picture.” Why the big picture will advance science and/or technology, i.e. why people will care about it, how it will help people, make life better, more secure, etc. Then give why your proposed topic is important to solve in order to achieve the “big picture.”

Start With A Motivation

Adapted from http://www.sba.gov/gopher/Innovation-And-Research/SBIR-Pro-Prep/

15

Next Say What You Specifically Will Do

Purpose of the current work: What specifically is being detailed in this proposal, i.e. what is the purpose of this proposal (not to be confused with motivation)?

For example “The main purpose of the proposal is to: create a theory that will address …” or “construct a new experimental method that will be able to answer…” or “demonstrate a new phenomenon …” or “develop a new fabrication method that solves …”

Questions: What specific questions are being answered with respect to the problem in this proposal. THIS IS KEY

Adapted from http://www.sba.gov/gopher/Innovation-And-Research/SBIR-Pro-Prep/

16

Opening From One Of My Recent Proposals

The threat from explosives is pervasive. Explosives of all types are the current weapon of choice of terrorists worldwide, their effects on the innocent are seen almost daily overseas, and at times within our homeland. We do not know where the next attack will come from, when it will occur, or what form it will take. We only know that the damages are measured in millions of dollars, hundreds of lives lost, and increased fear among our nation’s citizens. Yet we are ill-equipped to counter such threats since explosives are extremely difficult to detect, especially in a free country with a high value on civil liberties. Some explosives can be detected only with cumbersome, prohibitively expensive equipment, and some not at all. On February 14, 2007 Under Secretary Cohen testified "Detection is a key defense against successful attacks." The nation has a critical need for more reliable detection systems—equipment that detects a broader spectrum of explosive threats and their precursors at useful detection probabilities while ignoring environmental confusors. Systems and that are relevant to the operational environment, inexpensive, and easy to use.

The current generation of deployed capabilities are of at best marginal utility, despite concerted research efforts going back for decades. However, the advent of new detection methods and materials, signal processing techniques, and their integration into system concepts promises to revolutionize the field. The technology needed to create the next several generations of explosive detection systems is emerging in the laboratories of the CEDUE faculty members. DHS funding for the proposed Center of Excellence will accelerate the rate of development.

2 Major Research Activities of the Center

We propose creating a broad-based program on explosive properties, detection, and mitigation. Objectives include characterizing the properties of explosives, particularly newly emerging explosives, creating new technology to reliably detect explosives, developing sensor networks that can be used to organize the information from the sensors, developing techniques to aid the police in their search for bombs and bombers, and developing techniques to mitigate the damage should an explosion occur. Figure 1 shows

Str

on

g M

oti

vati

on

Ok

Pu

rpose

17

Why This Opening?

Proposal was being reviewed by scientists and others from the Department Of Homeland Security Only one proposal will be funded (out of

100) They know we do good science but need

to be reassured that we care about homeland security

I particularly wanted to praise Secretary Cohen He is the final decision final decision

maker for this project

18

Rewrite of the Paragraph For an NSF Proposal

According to Admiral Jay Cohen, The Undersecretary Of The Department Of Homeland Security (DHS) For Science, the nation has a critical need for more reliable explosive detection systems. The systems need to detect a broad spectrum of explosive threats at useful detection probabilities while ignoring background chemicals. Admiral Cohen notes that the current generation of deployed sensors are of at best marginal utility, despite concerted research efforts going back decades. Recently we have discovered … The objective of this proposal is to develop a new generation of sensors with the following capabilities:… .

Refer to an expert or report or BAA

Specific Objective

Let the expert say it needs

improvement

19

Opening From Another Proposal

The objective of this proposal is to create, test and optimize a series of novel acid and base catalysts for lignocellulose hydrolysis. To put this in perspective, in a recent paper Wyman[16] lists pretreatment and hydrolysis as steps "offering, by far, the greatest economic leverage" for improving the economics of cellulosic ethanol. At present, there are 6 leading processes for pretreatment of lignocellulosic materials[1-3]: dilute acid hydrolysis[17-33], flow through water treatment[34-36], controlled pH pretreatment[10, 37-39], ammonia fiber explosion[40-45], aqueous ammonia recycle[46-52] and treatment with lime[53]. The hot acid and ammonia recycle processes have the advantages that they are the least expensive of the competing processes[54] and they has already been verified on the pilot plant scale. The acid process has also been used for complete destruction of cellulose[4-9] at higher acid concentrations both as a way of manufacturing sugars from cellulose, and as a method for cellulose analysis. These processes, though, suffer from the limitation that one needs to continuously add acid or base to the mixture[2, 10] and the final mixture needs to be detoxified before further processing[11-15]. We have an idea how to extend the hot acid process and aqueous ammonia processes so that all of the acid or base can be easily recycled instead of having to continuously supply acid or base. Our approach will to tether the acid or base to a solid surface, so that the acid or base can be separated from the cellulose by simple sieving. We expect the resultant material to behave like the acids and bases in use today, but since the acids and bases are tethered to solid surfaces, much less acid will need to be supplied and detoxification will be much easier.

Refer to an expert

(He also reviewed the

proposal)

Cite work of other likely reviewers(I should

have praised it)

Outline what I am

doing

20

Also need Illustrations

People read the first paragraph and look at the illustrations Need to get the main ideas from that

21

Explosive Proposal

Detection

Detector Technologies

Detectors for Dogs

Computation & Data Fusion

A1: peroxide-based recognition & detection

A2: explosive vapor properties

A3: headspace analysis & protocols

Explosive Properties

B1: micro-calorimeters

B2: chip-scale chromatographs

B3: biochips for explosive detection

B4: quantum dot reporting

B6: coated micro-cantilevers

B5: opto-electric noses

B7: chip-level sensor arrays

B8: data mining & analysis

B9: sensor networks

B10: large-scale vapor modeling

B11: self-cleaning vapor collectors

B12: behavioral cues for baggage screening

Human Factors

C2: terrorist simulations

C3: HF in technology use

C1: Behavioral profiling

Properties

D1: ablative concrete

Other Countermeasures

D3: Public Involvement

D2: self-healing airplane skin

Detectors for Dogs

22

NiCr microheater

Valve 2Valve 1

preconcentrator

Carrier gas

Sensitivity>1 ppt using nanotubes

Accuracy10 orthogonal mode detectors: nanotubes, nanogates, microM8

Analysis time> 4 seconds using MEMS valves, and nano-engineered stationary phases

Power budget: 0.9J/analysis

Slide for MGA Program

Preconcentrator collects the analyte and injects it in a narrow pulse

Column separates analyte from interferents

Parallel Detectors

selectively detect analyte agents

MEMS Pump

23

Characteristics Of Winning Introductions

Strong opening sentences Cite an expert, national report or

proposal call if possible Make a case for funding Illustration so reviewers can

understand what you are doing without reading the proposal

24

Next Discuss Literature Review

You do not win proposals by having a great literature review

Can lose a proposal by having a poor literature review

Need more than 50 references Need to cite the reviewers key work and that of other

leaders Need to demonstrate that your problem is significant Need to demonstrate that you understand the literature

Most reviewers will not read your literature review!!

They will check your references to make sure that the right people are being cited (The reviewer and his friends)

The might read one section to check that you understand the literature

Need to make the key points in the introduction

Key Objectives Of the Literature Review

Position your proposed work within the state of the art; provide a convincing theoretical research basis for the techniques and approaches to be used in the project.

provide reason to believe your approach will work based on related work; show that you are building on current research and not working in isolation.

demonstrate that your work will not duplicate work someone else is already doing, that it is a unique solution, and that it is the best possible solution.

build confidence among reviewers in both the breadth and depth your knowledge of the field

recognize potential reviewers by referencing their work in the Literature Review. Be sure to include references for the biggest names in the field, because they are the most likely to review proposals. Also see if you can find out who is on the review panel, and include their work in the literature review and bibliography.

25

26

Key Challenge

Only have 1-3 pages but typically there is too much literature to describe in 1-3 pages Need to be sure to cite a reviewers papers

Maybe even the reviewer’s research advisors papers

Need 50+ references for NSF/DOE – (Someone on the panel will claim you are unaware of the literature if you have less).

A proposal is not a literature review Many reviewers will not read it

27

What Are Reviewers Looking For In A Literature Search?

Cite reviewer’s key papers, the papers of other key leaders and those of the reviewers friends The people that the reviewer cites in his papers

should be cited in your proposal Demonstrate that your work will solve an

important problem in the literature Need to also make this point in the introduction

Demonstrate that you understand the literature Needed to demonstrate that you are qualified to

do the work Usually judged by whether you cite the most

important papers and explain their findings

28

Key Parts Of Literature Search

Describe major themes in the literature Theory has been developed for these classes of problems

Key results Experiments have been done on these classes of

problems Key results

It is very important that you show that you understand the literature. If you are superficial the reviewers will assume that you do not understand the literature

Holes in the literature Important factors/effects that have not been

examined carefully Important missing information Experimental results that are not understood

theoretically Theories needing experimental verification Discrepancies between theory and experiment

Use holes to motivate your own work

Chapter 4 in the text has good ideas how to present such work

29

Hints From The Small Business Administration

Past Work/Scholarship: What has been done to date to address this topic and/or problem. What questions have been answered to date about the problems and what questions remains to be answered with respect to this problem. Give order of importance if possible in answering the questions. THIS SETS UP YOUR LONG TERM PLAN!

A proposal is not a literature review. If you make your review long you will fail.

Adapted from http://www.sba.gov/gopher/Innovation-And-Research/SBIR-Pro-Prep/

30

Hints From Johnson-Sheehan

Start with an opening that indicates that you are reviewing the literature “Before I describe the proposed work I …” NSF/NIH – be sure to have a separately labeled

section that the reviewers can find Body – describe what is known, and holes

Text says to divide the literature into camps or thrusts and show contrasts

Text also suggests dividing the flow into eras Be sure to include some of your work if possible Level should be like that in a technical paper and

not like that in an undergrad report Summary

Summarize the key points and motivate your work

31

Other Key Hints

Literature review must be positive Praise everyone – they or their friends

can be on the review panel Write body in a plain style (see

chapt 9 in text) Use “breathable” sentences Stay with active voice Try to be informal (Some reviewers will

not like this but most will)

32

Summary

Proposals contain Introduction, Literature review, description of work, conclusions

Introduction: describe what you want to do and why it is important Cite a expert paper, proposal call or report

saying it is important if at all possible Literature review: describe what has been

done and highlight holes 50+ references Cite reviewers papers and any papers the

reviewer cites Citation list more important than text

33

Questions?