Overview of the Research Proposal

Author(s):  
Marin S Robinson ◽  
Fredricka L Stoller ◽  
Molly Constanza-Robinson ◽  
James K Jones

In this module, we focus on writing a research proposal, a document written to request financial support for an ongoing or newly conceived research project. Like the journal article (module 1), the proposal is one of the most important and most utilized writing genres in chemistry. Chemists employed in a wide range of disciplines including teaching (high school through university), research and technology, the health professions, and industry all face the challenge of writing proposals to support and sustain their scholarly activities. Before we begin, we remind you that there are many different ways to write a successful proposal—far too many to include in this textbook. Our goal is not to illustrate all the various approaches, but rather to focus on a few basic writing skills that are common to many successful proposals. These basics will get you started, and with practice, you can adapt them to suit your individual needs. After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the following: ■ Describe different types of funding and funding agencies ■ Explain the purpose of a Request for Proposals (RFP) ■ Understand the importance of addressing need, intellectual merit, and broader impacts in a research proposal ■ Identify the major sections of a research proposal ■ Identify the main sections of the Project Description Toward the end of the chapter, as part of the Writing on Your Own task, you will identify a topic for the research proposal that you will write as you work through this module. Consistent with the read-analyze-write approach to writing used throughout this textbook, this chapter begins with an excerpt from a research proposal for you to read and analyze. Excerpt 11A is taken from a proposal that competed successfully for a graduate fellowship offered by the Division of Analytical Chemistry of the American Chemical Society (ACS). As is true for nearly all successful proposals, the principal investigator (PI) wrote this proposal in response to a set of instructions. We have included the instructions with the excerpt so that you can see for yourself how closely she followed the proposal guidelines.

Author(s):  
Marin S Robinson ◽  
Fredricka L Stoller ◽  
Molly Constanza-Robinson ◽  
James K Jones

The Project Summary is a short description of the proposed work (one page or less), which, unlike the rest of the proposal, can be accessed by the public. It is usually the first page of the proposal (excluding the cover page, which provides institutional information) and, therefore, precedes the Project Description. In this chapter, we consider the Project Summary and highlight a few language features pertinent to the summary. We conclude the chapter (and module) with suggestions for writing a title for your proposal. By the end of this chapter, you will be able to do the following: ■ Recognize the audience and purpose for the Project Summary ■ Know what content should be included in (and excluded from) the Project Summary ■ Follow the typical move structure of the Project Summary ■ Write an appropriate title for your proposal As you work through the chapter, you will write your Project Summary and give your proposal a title. The Writing on Your Own tasks throughout the chapter will guide you step by step as you do the following: 15A Write the Project Summary 15B Write the proposal title 15C Complete the proposal Most external funding agencies require a Project Summary. Funding agencies often share project summaries with their donors, boards of directors, prospective grantees, and others interested in the types of projects that they fund. The Project Summary is also used by program officers to determine the most appropriate review panel for the proposal. In complex agencies like the NSF and NIH, there are many related program initiatives, and it is ultimately the decision of the program officer to forward the proposal to the right division for consideration. As such, the Project Summary is typically written for a scientific audience, enabling a scientifically literate but nonexpert audience to understand the project. The Project Summary is not the same as a journal article abstract (chapter 7) or a conference abstract (chapter 8), even though the Project Summary is sometimes called an abstract. The Project Summary summarizes work that has yet to be done and is written for a scientific audience.


Author(s):  
Alan G. Gross ◽  
Joseph E. Harmon

Do the changes in the scientific article incident on Internet publication constitute a revolution in representation and communication? John Stewart MacKenzie Owen insists that they do not. In The Scientific Article in the Age of Digitization, he argues that contrary to claims about the impact of digitization on scientific communication, “the journal article as a communicative form for reporting on research and disseminating scientific knowledge does not seem to have been transformed by … [the Internet]: it remains a digital copy of the printed form.” Owen views the current situation as preserving and extending “existing functions and values rather than as an innovation that radically transforms a communicative practice that has evolved over the centuries.” The conclusion Owen draws cannot be faulted. We do not doubt that the articles and journals in his sample are, on average, to quote Stevan Harnad, “mere clones of paper journals, ghosts in another medium.” We do, however, question Owen’s sample of online scientific journals. While he includes such journals as the Brazilian Electronic Journal of Economics, Internet Journal of Chemistry, and Journal of Cotton Science (all three now defunct), he excludes the most highly cited scientific journals producing printed and electronic issues, like Nature, Physical Review, Journal of the American Chemical Society, or such highly successful open-access journals as those of the Public Library of Science. It is the latter set that contains the journals we need to scrutinize if we are to discover what innovations, if any, have surfaced and are likely to be widely adopted in the future. These journals have the robust readership, the prestige, the financial resources, and the technical capacity necessary to introduce web-based innovations on a large scale. It is in these that the Internet revolution is now most visible. Still, among all scientific journals today, whether print or electronic, there remains a conservative core at this revolution’s center, a still point in the turning world of knowledge generation and communication.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
MAK Williams ◽  
V Cornuault ◽  
AH Irani ◽  
VV Symonds ◽  
J Malmström ◽  
...  

© 2020 American Chemical Society. Evidence is presented that the polysaccharide rhamnogalacturonan I (RGI) can be biosynthesized in remarkably organized branched configurations and surprisingly long versions and can self-assemble into a plethora of structures. AFM imaging has been applied to study the outer mucilage obtained from wild-type (WT) and mutant (bxl1-3 and cesa5-1) Arabidopsis thaliana seeds. For WT mucilage, ordered, multichain structures of the polysaccharide RGI were observed, with a helical twist visible in favorable circumstances. Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations demonstrated the stability of several possible multichain complexes and the possibility of twisted fibril formation. For bxl1-3 seeds, the imaged polymers clearly showed the presence of side chains. These were surprisingly regular and well organized with an average length of ∼100 nm and a spacing of ∼50 nm. The heights of the side chains imaged were suggestive of single polysaccharide chains, while the backbone was on average 4 times this height and showed regular height variations along its length consistent with models of multichain fibrils examined in MD. Finally, in mucilage extracts from cesa5-1 seeds, a minor population of chains in excess of 30 μm long was observed.


2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (35) ◽  
pp. 5970-6014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Md. Jawaid Akhtar ◽  
Mohammad Shahar Yar ◽  
Vinod Kumar Sharma ◽  
Ahsan Ahmed Khan ◽  
Zulphikar Ali ◽  
...  

This review presents the detailed account of factors leading to cancer and design strategy for the synthesis of benzimidazole derivatives as anticancer agents. The recent survey for cancer treatment in Cancer facts and figures 2017 American Chemical Society has shown progressive development in fighting cancer. Researchers all over the world in both developed and developing countries are in a continuous effort to tackle this serious concern. Benzimidazole and its derivatives showed a broad range of biological activities due to their resemblance with naturally occurring nitrogenous base i.e. purine. The review discussed benzimidazole derivatives showing anticancer properties through a different mechanism viz. intercalation, alkylating agents, topoisomerases, DHFR enzymes, and tubulin inhibitors. Benzimidazole derivatives act through a different mechanism and the substituents reported from the earlier and recent research articles are prerequisites for the synthesis of targeted based benzimidazole derivatives as anticancer agents. The review focuses on an easy comparison of the substituent essential for potency and selectivity through SAR presented in figures. This will further provide a better outlook or fulfills the challenges faced in the development of novel benzimidazole derivatives as anticancer.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document