FISH 521 Research Proposal Writing

1. FISH 521Research Proposal Writing Welcome!!

2. Synopsis • Introducing the class • Need and aims • Logistics • Proposal (NSF format) • Introducing yourself • Advisor, project, expectations • Funding bodies and proposals • The National Science Foundation • Aims and process • Proposal format & review criteria • Getting started • What is your project? • Flow chart • Homework • Title, summary and flow chart

3. Dr Lorenz Hauser School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences Marine Studies, room 207 Tel: 685 3270 lhauser@uw.edu Office hours: by appointment Fisheries MAR Instructor

4. Aims Research Proposals Preparation Writing Budgets Forms Review Revision Panel Decisions General Scientific Writing Dos and don’ts Scope In class Lectures and class examples on scientific writing Guest lectures Proposal discussion Panel review Homework Research proposal preparation Proposal review Aim of the Course

5. Aim of the Course • By the end of the course you should • Have a very good draft of your dissertation proposal • Start thinking about your project • Have a good idea about the process of • Proposal preparation • Proposal review • Panel decision • Gained experience in proposal review • Improved your scientific writing skills • Class participation • What do you want to get out of it?

6. Why do we need this class?3 reasons • Scientific writing is important • Most important factor in finding a job • Forget grades • Disseminate results • Prepare manuscripts • Apply for funding • Proposals • Peer review • Basic system to evaluate research • Manuscripts • Proposals • Constructive Criticism • Take criticism • Research project • Start thinking about it • Develop own ideas • Get comments from others

7. Class logistics • Class time • Mon 1:30 – 4:20 • Lecture • Panel discussions • Homework (Catalyst) • Proposal draft • Submission Thursday, 12 noon • Add to existing sections • Naming convention • LastNamePart.doc, e.g. HauserIntro.doc • Review • Submission Sunday, 12 midnight • Only review new sections • Naming convention • Add initials, e.g. StudentIntro LH.doc • If you have problems let me know in advance • Commenting Panels • Groups of 4-5 students with related projects • Will read and comment on each other’s proposals • Review panel • Will provide NSF style reviews • Decision panel • Have 60% of requested funding • Award, award partially, deny

8. Flowchart Summary Panel members Intro-duction Panel members Rationale Final Proposal Complete Draft Proposal Comments Comments Work Plan Budget IM & BI Decision Panel Review Panel Review

9. Expectations • Much online • Submissions & Reviewing • A lot of writing and commenting • Communications • Message board • Two holidays • Meet outside class • Tight deadlines • One section due each week • Panel comments due each week • Review of whole proposal • Will take time • But you’ll have a proposal in the end • Panel Work • Everybody needs to contribute • Part of grading • Peer evaluations • Existing proposals • Write on your thesis research • If proposal exists • Develop an aspect of your work that is your own • If in doubt, ask me

10. Tentative timetable Guest speaker

11. Grading • Proposal (40 %) • Summary and title (5 %) • Introduction and aims (5 %) • Rationale and scope (5 %) • Research plan (5 %) • Intellectual merit and broader significance (5 %) • Budget and budget justification (5 %) • Full proposal draft (10%) • Proposal reviews (20 %) • Including peer assessment • Incorporation of comments (10%) • Will check some parts • Final proposal (20 %) • graded at end of class • Discussion participation (10 %)

12. Website • http://courses.washington.edu/fish521/ • Class information • Course description • textbooks • Syllabus • Links and documents • Textbooks • Links for submission (Catalyst) • Proposals • Reviews

13. Textbooks • Friedland & Folt (2000) • Writing Successful Science Proposals • $ 16 (Amazon) • Used for lectures • Zeiger (2000) • Essentials of Writing Biomedical Research Papers • $ 46.71 (Amazon) • Williams (2006) • Style: Lessons in Clarity and Grace • $ 39.60 (Amazon)

14. Introductions • Name • Advisor • Project proposal available • Project idea • General framework / question • System studied • Methodology • Expectations

15. Need money? How to get started • Conceptualize idea • Main hypotheses • Work plan • Outcome • Decide on appropriate funding body • Fundamental vs applied • Download proposal guide and other information • Read proposals • review criteria of funding body • Develop timeline • Starting from deadline • Administrative tasks • Signatures • Budget • Start writing • Sections in order • Easiest first

16. Funding Bodies • Competitive proposals • State agencies • Federal agencies • NSF, Sea Grant, North Pacific Research Board • Vary in specificity • Foundations • Gordon & Betty Moore • Sometimes very specific, but less competition • Foundation goals are often negotiable • Contracts • E.g. International Pacific Halibut Commission • Usually very applied - want deliverables • Fellowships • Usually need additional funds

17. Basic Scientific NSF NIH USDA Broad RFP The Division of Environmental Biology (DEB) supports fundamental research on populations, species, communities, and ecosystems. Scientific emphases range across many evolutionary and ecological patterns and processes at all spatial and temporal scales.  Areas of research include biodiversity, phylogenetic systematics, molecular evolution, life history evolution, natural selection, ecology, biogeography, ecosystem services, conservation biology, global change, and biogeochemical cycles. Research on origins, functions, relationships, interactions, and evolutionary history may incorporate field, laboratory, or collection-based approaches; observational or manipulative experiments; synthesis activities; as well as theoretical approaches involving analytical, statistical, or simulation modeling. Applied Sea Grant North Pacific Research Board Specific RFP E.g. SeaDoc Society The efficacy of aggregation as an in-situ restoration technique for the recovery of Northern abalone (Haliotis kamtschatkana) in the Puget Sound Georgia Basin The potential relationship between Minke Whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) population declines in the Puget Sound Georgia Basin and the availability of forage fish prey Funding Bodies

18. Funding Bodies • Questions to ask: • Is my project more suitable for applied or basic funding? • Chances are higher if somebody is already interested • Which specific agency could I apply to? • Read mission statements and overall goals • Read request for proposal (RFP) documents • Find previously awarded projects • Talk to project managers • Could collaboration improve the project? • Decide on co-PIs and collaborators • In any case, ask for advice and feedback • What level of support do I need? • Salary support already available?

19. A good proposal is a good idea, well expressed, with a clear indication of methods for pursuing the idea, evaluating the findings, and making them known to all who need to know. A Good Proposal A Competitive Proposal is… All of the above Appropriate for the Program Responsive to the Program Announcement

20. Proposal Award Process Funding Body Principal Investigator Request for proposals Project Idea Proposal Preparation and Revision Sent out for Review Proposal Submission Panel Review & Recommendation Response to Reviewers Comments Administrative Review Award Negotiations

21. Audience for the Proposal • Important for all scientific writing • Conform to readers expectations • Reviewers • Experts in your specific area • Species & methods • Busy people • Make it interesting • Desired impression • Wow – I wish I had thought of this! • Panelists • Expert in the field • E.g. evolutionary biology • May have to go through dozens of proposals • Make it easy to read • Figures and tables • Compare between proposals • Program Managers • Generalists • See hundreds of proposals

22. Scientific Idea Goals of funding body (?) Conceptual Framework Proposal Format Administrative tasks (?) Proposal preparation Deadlines Budget Information needed? Sampling & ResearchPermits Award timeline University Approvals Submission Process Flow of a typical proposal

23. The class proposal • Written in NSF format • 10 pages – • 15 pages for NSF • 8 pages for DDIG • Broadest, most basic format accommodating everybody • Other formats fairly similar • Who is the NSF?

24. The National Science Foundation • Mission • To promote progress in basic science • Goals: discovery, learning, research, infrastructure and stewardship • Budget • $ ~ 7 billion • Fund 10,000 new awards per year • Average duration 3 years • Usually research proposals, but also equipment, fellowships etc.

25. NSF Merit Review Criteria • Intellectual Merit • Importance to advancing knowledge within field or across different fields • Qualifications of investigator • Evidence for creative, original or potentially transformative concepts • Concept and organization of research • Access to resources • Broader Impact • Advancement of discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training and learning • Participation of underrepresented groups • Enhancement of infrastructure for research and education • Broad dissemination to enhance scientific and technological understanding • Benefits to society

26. National Science Board Director Office of the Director Office of the Inspector General Office of Polar Programs Office of International Science Directorate for Biological Sciences Directorate for Geosciences Division of Environmental Biology Division of Ocean Sciences Other Divisions Other Divisions Other Directorates Other Offices NSF structure • Different priorities and deadlines • Talk to program officers • Possibly several programs

27. NSF Funding Rate • BIO Directorate • 2011 compared to 2002 • 45% more proposals • 7 % fewer awards • 9% lower funding rate

28. Success Rate • Differs between funding bodies and divisions • Fairly low for NSF • Especially BIO • BIO now with preproposal stage • Only one round per year • January preproposala • July: full proposals • Others too (e.g. Sea Grant) • Few people get grants the first time • 2.2 submissions before award • Revise and resubmit • Data available from FastLane Call for Preproposals Preproposal Panel Review Invite Decline Full Proposal

29. NSF format • Title • Project Summary • Project description (10 pages, 15 for NSF) • Introduction & background (why relevant?) • Significance statement in book • Lead to objectives and hypotheses • Rationale and scope (why appropriate?) • Research management plan (how?) • Sampling and analyses • Progress to date • Contributions to education and human resources • Intellectual Merit and Broader Impact • References • Biographical Sketches • Budget and budget justification • Current and pending support • Facilities, equipment and other resources

30. Getting started • Conceptualize your idea / key question • Wider significance • Why would anybody (other than you) be interested? • Existing knowledge • What is known? • Solution • Overall Aim • Specific objectives / hypotheses • Feasibility • Logistics • Deadlines, permits, approvals • Literature needed • Literature management system • E.g. Endnote, Mendeley • Preliminary data needed

31. Panel Exercises • Exercise 1 • Wider Significance • Give a brief summary of your project WITHOUT mentioning the species or the specific study system • Concentrate on the conceptual framework • Produce graph • Produce bulleted list • Discuss

32. Molecular evidence for selective mortality in walleye pollock larvae Environment Spawning Stock Larvae Random Mortality Selective Mortality Recruitment Improved Stock-Recruitment Relationship

33. Panel Exercises(FSH 129 & 106) • Exercise 2 • Existing knowledge • Now expand you concept using the specific system • Explain why your system is suitable for tackling the wider problem • Produce graph • Produce bulleted list • Discuss

34. Molecular evidence for selective mortality in walleye pollock larvae Temperature Fluctuations (PDO) Environment Spawning Stock Temperature Data Commercial importance Random Mortality Selective Mortality Stock Recruitment Data Climate change in Bering Sea Recruitment Improved Stock-Recruitment Relationship

35. Panel Exercises • Exercise 3 • Proposed solution • Now expand you concept using the specific approach • Explain why your approach is suitable for tackling the specific question as well as the wider problem • Produce graph • Produce bulleted list • Discuss

36. Molecular evidence for selective mortality in walleye pollock larvae Temperature Fluctuations (PDO) Environment Spawning Stock Temperature Data Commercial importance Random Mortality Selective Mortality Stock Recruitment Data Climate change in Bering Sea Recruitment Genetic Method (AFLP) Suitable larval samples (cold & warm) Improved Stock-Recruitment Relationship

37. Panel Exercises • Exercise 4 • Provide • An overall aim of the study • A set of objectives • A set of specific testable hypotheses • Points to consider • These lists may or may not be used in the proposal • Make sure you will be able • To achieve objectives • To test hypotheses • Should be linked to significance

39. Homework • Title • More important than you think • First impression • Project Summary (1 page) • Background & Problem • Objectives • Methods • Intellectual merit • Broader impact • Flow chart

40. Title • More important than you think • First impression • Read first and by many people • General guidelines • Keep it short • Don’t use • A study of … • Investigations of … • Be specific • Keep it comprehensible to non-specialists • Avoid jargon • Be careful with overstatements and humor • Coming up with a title • Decide early • Revise often • Think of several titles and pick the best • Ask friends and family

41. Title • Example: same project • Microsatellite analysis of archived herring scales from Puget Sound • Long-term changes in genetic diversity and population structure of Pacific herring in Puget Sound • The genetics of Pacific herring • Example: same project? • Red Haired Musicians and their Preference for Musical Style • Music Style Preference of Red Haired Musicians • Which one is better? • The Systematic Development of a Local Initiative to Create a Learning Center for Community Education • A Local Learning Center for Community Education

42. Think of a Title • The objective of the proposed research is to experimentally investigate the effects of temporal variation in resource supply on the outcome and dynamics of competition between consumers. The proposed research would use planktonic rotifers (small, multicellular zooplankton) as model systems. Experiments would test the prediction that temporal variation in resource supply changes competitive outcome, slows the rate of competitive exclusion and allows competing species to coexist. These experiments would go beyond existing experimental studies by combining the following aspects: (1) using multicellular organisms instead of microbes, (2) using a temporal pattern of resource supply that is more realistic than that used in previous experiments, (3) measuring the effect of temporal variation in resource supply on the threshold resource concentration for positive population growth, and (4) predicting changes in competitive outcome, dynamics and species diversity at different scales of temporal variation. • Source: K.L. Kirk, in Friedland & Folt (2000)

43. Think of a title The complex effects of environmental variation cascade through trophic levels and are integrated by top predators. Thus, studies of predator population dynamics should be useful for integrating and understanding linkages between physical and biological ecosystem components. A breeding population of Weddell seals, a prominent Antarctic apex predator associated with fast ice, has been intensively studied in Erebus Bay at the southern extent of the Ross Sea since 1968. The proposed research couples synthesis and modeling of long-term data for Weddell seals with multi-decadal data on temporal variation in climate, marine, and sea-ice conditions in the Ross Sea. The research, in part, will rigorously evaluate a variety of hypotheses regarding effects of environmental variation on life-history evolution and population dynamics. Additional details regarding how physical drivers influence ecosystem dynamics from the bottom-up will be obtained by conducting field studies of how seal body mass, a surrogate for annual variation in marine food resources, varies among years and individuals. The study will (1) use a combination of mark-recapture analysis of vital rates and matrix population modeling to evaluate hypotheses regarding how fitness is affected by temporal environmental variation and (2) collect longitudinal and cross-sectional data on body mass dynamics for mother-pup pairs to evaluate relationships between environmental variation, body mass, and population dynamics. Source: Garrott et al., NSF Award database

44. The Interactions of Environmental Variability, Life History Traits, and Demography in an Apex Antarctic Predator The complex effects of environmental variation cascade through trophic levels and are integrated by top predators. Thus, studies of predator population dynamics should be useful for integrating and understanding linkages between physical and biological ecosystem components. A breeding population of Weddell seals, a prominent Antarctic apex predator associated with fast ice, has been intensively studied in Erebus Bay at the southern extent of the Ross Sea since 1968. The proposed research couples synthesis and modeling of long-term data for Weddell seals with multi-decadal data on temporal variation in climate, marine, and sea-ice conditions in the Ross Sea. The research, in part, will rigorously evaluate a variety of hypotheses regarding effects of environmental variation on life-history evolution and population dynamics. Additional details regarding how physical drivers influence ecosystem dynamics from the bottom-up will be obtained by conducting field studies of how seal body mass, a surrogate for annual variation in marine food resources, varies among years and individuals. The study will (1) use a combination of mark-recapture analysis of vital rates and matrix population modeling to evaluate hypotheses regarding how fitness is affected by temporal environmental variation and (2) collect longitudinal and cross-sectional data on body mass dynamics for mother-pup pairs to evaluate relationships between environmental variation, body mass, and population dynamics. Source: Garrott et al., NSF Award database

45. Proposal Summary • Very important • Second impression • Program manager • Used to identify reviewers • Target your audience • Reviewers • Used as guide through proposal • Impressions critical for review • Panelists • Have many proposals to read • Summary is the only section certain to be read • Make your proposal stands out by some memorable sentences • Usually best written last • This is a draft • Main purpose: Write down ideas – provide a plan • Include graphs, tables, flow chart if easier • Will be revised • Use proper format

46. Proposal summary - NSF • The proposal must contain a summary of the proposed activity suitable for publication, not more than one page in length. It should not be an abstract of the proposal, but rather a self-contained description of the activity that would result if the proposal were funded. The summary should be written in the third person and include a statement of objectives and methods to be employed. It must clearly address in separate statements (within the one-page summary): • the intellectual merit of the proposed activity; and • the broader impacts resulting from the proposed activity. It should be informative to other persons working in the same or related fields and, insofar as possible, understandable to a scientifically or technically literate lay reader. Proposals that do not separately address both merit review criteria within the one-page Project Summary will be returned without review.

47. Proposal Summary - guidelines • No single format • Possibility 1 • Start with bold statement • The proposal will test the hypothesis that… • But does not provide background • Possibility 2 • Develop the proposal, starting with background • Be careful that emphasis is not lost • 2-paragraph format (+ merit & impacts) • Statement of problem and current state of knowledge • Statement of objective, methods, outcomes (link back) • Intellectual merit and broader impacts • Have a look at examples • All on the NSF Fastlane website • Work out what they all have • Explanation of significance • Statement of research questions

48. Homework • Make a start • Title • Summary • Flowchart • Submit to Catalyst for your panel • Set up today • Deadline Thursday 12 noon • Find examples of good and bad writing • Paragraphs with meaningful information • Work out WHY they are good or bad • Discuss next week