PET 5936: Current Topics in Exercise and Sport Sciences: Grant Writing / Professional Skills

Course Director:  Scott Powers, Ed.D., Ph.D., Professor of Applied Physiology & Kinesiology
E-mail:  spowers@hhp.ufl.edu

Course overview: This is an introductory graduate course in grant writing and professional skills (i.e. reviewing manuscripts for journals and making research presentations). The bulk of this course will focus on the fundamental aspects of grant writing using both lecture material and online "research proposal" information as required reading. During this course, each student will write an "experimental" grant for possible submission to a funding agency. The course will conclude with the formation of "peer-review study sections" to review the grant proposals written by class members.

Required text: None-See suggested reading list texts on research proposals and technical writing

Evaluation procedure:
midterm exam = 30 pts
grant proposal  = 50 pts (due March 24)
manuscript review = 10 points (due March 17)
Grant reviews = 10 pts
Total points = 100

Grade breakdown:
A = >90 pts;  B = 80-89 pts;  C = 70-79 pts;  D = 60-69 pts;  E = <59 pts

Details of the lecture schedule and grant proposal are contained in subsequent pages of this syllabus.

Lecture Schedule

The objective of this assignment is to improve the student's ability to identify an important problem (dealing with some aspect of exercise science or other biological fields), devise an experimental solution to the problem, and compose a peer-reviewed competitive grant. Students should use the instructions provided by the NIH PHS398 form (see NIH web page for details). Please complete all required PHS 398 forms for an R01 grant (instructions can be found at NIH website). However, the research plan of the grant proposal in this class will be limited to 10 pages (unlike the 25 pages for the NIH proposal) and should contain the following sections:

1. Abstract: The abstract (~ 1 page) provides a brief summary of the proposed study.

2. Specific aims: This section (~1 page) should briefly list the questions to be addressed in the experiments and the hypotheses to be tested.

3. Background and significance: (~3-4 pages) This section should provide the reader with a brief literature review of the topic and provide a sound rationale for the proposed experiments.

4. Methods: (~5 pages): The methods should briefly outline the experimental design and the general techniques to be employed. An explanation of the statistical procedures for data analysis should be included and a brief interpretation of the expected findings.

5. List of references: use any accepted scientific reference style. (reference pages do not count against the 10 page limit).

Abstract 10 points total):
Outstanding = 10 points;  Excellent = 9;  Very good = 8;  Good = 7;  Satisfactory = 6

Specific aims (10 points total)
Outstanding = 10 points;  Excellent = 9;  Very good = 8;  Good = 7;  Satisfactory = 6

Background and significance (15 points total)
Outstanding = 15 points;  Excellent = 13.5;  Very good = 12;  Good = 10;  Satisfactory = 8

Methods (15 points total)
Outstanding = 15 points;  Excellent = 13.5;  Very good = 12;  Good = 10;  Satisfactory = 8

Definitions for evaluation terms:
Outstanding = well organized and conceived; succinctly written and compelling writing style
Excellent = adequately conceived and succinctly written
Very good = generally well written but lacks clarity in two or more sections
Good = well written areas exist but lacks clarity in numerous sections
Satisfactory = lacks organization and clarity in many areas

MIDTERM EXAM

The "mid-term" exam will be a short answer test designed to test students on the fundamental aspects of grantsmanship. The examination material will come directly from a list of study questions provided by the instructor.

Grant reviews

Each class member will be assigned one or more grants to review during the peer review sessions. Successful completion of written reviews for all assigned grants will result in the awarding of all 10 points.

Manuscript reviews

Each class member will be asked to write a peer review of a research paper selected from the published literature. Successful completion of this manuscript review will result in the awarding of all 10 points.

Suggested Reading List

Books/articles on writing research proposals:
Martin, W. J. Grant writing: successful techniques for securing pulmonary funding. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. Duquque, IA 1996.
Thomas E. Ogden and I. Goldberg. Research Proposals: A guide to success. Raven Press. Second edition. 1995.
Wagner, P. D. On writing a grant application: a personal view. Physiologist. Volume 34: (2) 29-31, 1991.

WEB-based information on writing research proposals:
NIH TIPS for writing grants:  http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/grant_tips.htm
Science: numerous articles on grant writing.  http://nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1999/09/20/2

Books on technical and scientific writing:
Fiske, E. H. Guide to concise writing. Websters New World. New York. 1990.
Strunk, W. And E. White. The elements of style. Macmillan. New York. 1979.
Shertzer, M. The elements of grammar. Collier Books. New York. 1986.
Bates, J. Writing with precision. Acropolis Books. Reston, Virginia. 1990.
Andersen, R. Writing that works. McGraw-Hill, New York. 1989.
Lannon, J. Technical writing. Little, Brown, and Company. Boston. 1982.
Blake, G. and R. Bly. The elements of technical writing. Macmillan. New York. 1993.
Pechenik, J. A short guide to writing about biology. Harper-Collins College Publishers. New York. 1993.
Alley, M. The craft of scientific writing. Prentice-Hall. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 1987.

Articles on manuscript peer review:
Seals, D. and H. Tanaka. Manuscript peer review: a helpful checklist for students and novice referees. Advances In Physiology Education. 23:52-58, 2000.