CHE 594 Lecture 12

1. CHE 594 Lecture 12 Structure Of A Successful Proposal

2. Building A Successful Proposal Create Excitement Describe The Work Well Solid Research Plan Qualified Investigator The research plan and investigators qualifications are key pillars that support a proposal Good research ideas are not enough You need to be qualified to do the work and have a good research plan A good research idea is the foundation of any successful proposal You need an idea that satisfies the Heilmeier criteria and is fun to do Good Research Idea A compelling presentation is also critical You 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

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 6,7 12 Lect 13-16 Lect 17 Lect 18

5. 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 scientists Review panel membership is published http://www.drg.nih.gov/Roster_proto/sectionI.asp Need To Design Your Proposal To Be Accessible To People Who Have Not Read it Carefully Final Decisions On Proposals Typically Made By People Who Have Not Read Proposal Carefully! Only 2 people or so will read your proposal, but everyone on the panel votes

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

10. 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 need In this proposal I wish to do something unique: Techniques: likely results: Feasibility Importance

11. Examples From The Textbook • Chapter 5 in the textbook has many additional NIH oriented examples. NIH: Call out hypothesis, specific aims, significance

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. Start With A Motivation 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.” 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 Strong Motivation Ok Purpose

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 Let the expert say it needs improvement Specific Objective

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

22. Slide for MGA Program Valve 1 Valve 2 Carrier gas preconcentrator NiCr microheater Sensitivity >1 ppt using nanotubes Accuracy 10 orthogonal mode detectors: nanotubes, nanogates, microM8 Analysis time > 4 seconds using MEMS valves, and nano-engineered stationary phases Power budget: 0.9J/analysis 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

25. 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.

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?