1. Writing a research application Ewa Ehrenborg 1

2. 2 Research application Write a grant application 3-4 students/group Send in title by Friday November 23 rd Follow-up November 26 th (1+2+3) and 30 th (4+5+6) – 20 min/group Use the application form provided Send in your application by noon, December 21 st Oral presentations on January 17 th and18 th Each group will act as opponent for one other group Assessment form

3. 3 Choose your own project within the “broad” topic allocated –Interesting –Relevant Supply provisional title by November 23 rd Research plan should be a maximum of 3 A4 pages (12-point text, single spacing) Provide a short reference list (max 20)

4. 4 Group 1 - Mesenchymal stem cells and bone cell formation: Lars-Arne.Haldosen@ki.se - Allergy: Hans.Gronlund@ki.se Group 2 - Immunological aspects of gastric disease: Ola.Winqvist@ki.se - Cell death in metabolism: Joelle.Magne@ki.se Joelle.Magne@ki.se Group 3 - Thyroid diseases: Jens.Mittag@ki.se - Thrombosis and hemostasis: Angela.Silveira@ki.se Angela.Silveira@ki.se Group 4 - Metabolism and CVD: Ferdinand.Vant.Hooft@ki.se Ferdinand.Vant.Hooft@ki.se - Vascular remodelling: Cecilia.Osterholm.Corbascio@ki.se Cecilia.Osterholm.Corbascio@ki.se Group 5 - Aneurysm: Hanna.Bjorck@ki.se - Diabetes and co-morbidities Jing.Wang@ki.se Group 6 - MicroRNA and vascular disease: Lars.Maegdefessel@ki.se - Inflammation in CVD: D.Johansson@ki.se D.Johansson@ki.se

5. 5 Discussion partner Facilitate the process and discuss the strategy NOT: Decide what to study Write the application Responsible for making contact The role of the mentor

6. 6 Examples of previous titles The role of Natural Killer T cell subtypes in different stages of asthma An in vivo comparison of the cardiovascular effects of coffee diterpenes cafestol and kahweol in relation to diabetes

7. 7 Follow-up meeting Groups 1-3 November 26 th, 10-14 Groups 4-6 November 30 th, 10-14 Separate schedule on the web Present your plans Each research team ~ 20 min Support and discussions

8. 8

9. 9

10. Summary/abstract Relevant (what is your research question?) Clearly written Easy to follow 10

11. 11 Research programme Title Hypothesis/Aims Background Work plan including methods Importance/ impact of results References (max 20) 3 pages

12. 12 Research plan - Title Informative Interesting - attention catching Not too long Should not contain abbreviations

13. 13 Research plan - Aims/Hypothesis State clearly the aims of the research Explain the scientific hypothesis –Most important part of the application –State very clearly –Is it novel? –Is it realistic? –Is it possible? –Is it well planned?

14. 14 Research plan - Background Introduce the field (generally + specifically) Place the proposed research in the context of what is already known (or not known) How would the proposed research add to current knowledge?

15. 15 Research plan - Work plan Define clearly the proposed research –Which research questions can the work answer –Whom will carry out the work? –What facilities are needed? –What are the critical steps?

16. 16 Research plan - Methods Describe the methods of choice –Explain the choice –Are they the best to meet the objectives? –If novel, how do they compare with already known methods? –Novel methods require detailed description –Validation –Sample size (refer to the work of others)

17. 17 Research plan - Importance/Impact Explain how the proposed research would contribute significantly to: –scientific knowledge –society –health care –specific patients –commercial interests

18. 18 Research plan - References Relevant publications (key papers) May include previous work published by the applicant Cite full reference (according to instructions)

19. Help the reader to understand - clearly state the hypothesis and aims - include an overview slide (strategy & context) - relevant background - well described work plan - appropriate methods - include titles in the references 19

20. What is the evaluator looking for? 20

21. Scoring the research question Low = Unclear wording, poorly constructed or previously conducted Mid = Interesting but conventional High = Innovative and extremely important. 21

22. Low = Materials, methods or applications are not entirely accurate Mid = Correct, but not original methodology High = Unique materials and techniques. Innovative, well thought through Scoring the methodology 22

23. 23 Oral presentations January 17 th and18 th 15 min presentation/group + 5-10 min discussion 3-4 students/group – all students will present Everybody in the group should be able to present all parts of the application Each group will act as “opponent “for one other group Assessment form

24. 24 Replacement assignment Consists of two parts: Your own research project –Application (filled in forms + research proposal) –Submit a relevant article that the application is related to and explain your choice –Powerpoint presentation of the application Opponent for an application from another group –Application will be e-mailed to you before January 9 (KI mail address) –Critically assess the hypothesis, strategies, methods and importance of the study ( ̴ one A4 page) To be e-mailed to ewa.ehrenborg@ki.se by January 18ewa.ehrenborg@ki.se

25. Take home message Clearly state the hypothesis/aims and how it will be tested Specify what should be measured and why Explain how the experiments/strategy can contribute to an increased understanding - could include an overview figure with strategies & pathophysiological context 25