Scott Filler, PhD speaks on the topic of "How to Structure the “Approach” Section of a Grant Application," at the R Award Workshop on November 08, 2018 at UCLA.

1. Approach
(Basic Science)
Scott G. Filler, M.D.
Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute
at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center

2. Approach--Overall Layout
• Preliminary data
• Aim 1
o Rationale and overall approach
o Experimental methods
o Anticipated results
o Alternative outcomes (potential pitfalls)
o Future directions
• Aim 2
o Rationale and overall approach
o Experimental methods
o Anticipated results
o Alternative outcomes (potential pitfalls)
o Future directions

3. Approach--Alternate
Layout
• Aim 1
o Preliminary data
o Rationale and overall approach
o Experimental methods
o Anticipated results
o Alternative outcomes (potential pitfalls)
o Future directions
• Aim 2
o Preliminary data
o Rationale and overall approach
o Experimental methods
o Anticipated results
o Alternative outcomes (potential pitfalls)
o Future directions

4. Preliminary Data
• Present compelling preliminary data
o Supports PREMISE of the work
o Demonstrates feasibility
o Sparks interest, but leaves reviewer wanting
to learn more
• Potential pitfalls in prelim data
o Clear weaknesses
o Supports alternative hypothesis

5. Approach
• Describe overall approach and the
controls
• Need power calculations for animal
studies
o Many details of animal studies can be move
to Vertebrate Animals section
• Address sex as a biological variable

6. Rigor and Transparency
o Strong scientific premise (Significance)
o Scientific rigor (Approach)
• Blinding, sample size, reducing bias
• Plans to address weaknesses in rigor of the
prior research that serves as key support for
the proposed project
o Consideration of relevant biological variables,
such as sex (Approach)
• Include animals of both sexes if feasible
o Authentication of key biological and/or chemical
resources (separate page)

7. Approach
• Potential pitfalls
o One aim depend on another *
o Excessive detail
• Detracts from overall message
• Target for criticism
o Densely written prose
“If reading a grant gives the reviewer a
headache, that grant is unlikely to receive a
good score”

8. Anticipated Results and
Potential Pitfalls
• What do you think the results will be?
• Creativity and flexible thinking very
important
• Interesting alternative outcomes--convert a
bug into a feature
• What if hypothesis is not supported?
• Never present a potential pitfall for which
you don’t have a good solution

9. Future Directions
• Where is your research going?
• What will be its impact?
• How can the specific information
learned be applied to a broader
question?