You must request a preliminary warrant at least 3 weeks prior to your oral defense from the MDTP Program Coordinator.
The student will prepare a written proposal (see guidelines) and distribute it to their committee at least 4 weeks before the exam (unless otherwise agreed upon by the committee). The PI is encouraged to work with the student in development of the proposal, but the proposal should reflect the student's writing and intellectual skills.
The purpose of the following outline is to provide some guidance for students as to the form and function of research proposals. The model for the particular version used below is the NIH plan for Public Health Service Grants. As in the case of a "real" grant proposal, your goal should be to persuade a reviewing group that your goals are interesting and important, that you have chosen a plan of experimentation that is highly likely to return interesting and interpretable results in a reasonable time frame, and that you have the background and understanding to bring this plan to fruition.
In any such proposal, clarity is key. The people who review the proposal will not all be experts in your field and you must therefore provide significant information to document the above goals to this group. In line with this idea, you should avoid unnecessary arguments and information, since they will distract from the essential arguments.
While you will actually be judged on the final version of the proposal and your defense of it, it would obviously be prudent to generate as good an initial proposal as possible for submission to your committee. It is therefore reasonable that you begin the overall outline of the proposal well before the fact and discuss the goals and approaches with colleagues before distributing the initial draft. You are therefore strongly encouraged to obtain input from other students, and particularly from your advisor, prior to distribution of the proposal to your committee.
The proposal description below contains information about the overall structure of the proposal as well as suggestions about each of the individual sections. If you have further questions concerning the proposal, contact a MDTP Graduate Advisor.
This is the critical initial contact with the reader. Distill the necessary parts of your proposal to one-half page or less, stating the problem and what you intend to do about it. Make it understandable to the intelligent, but inexpert, reader.
List the major questions that will be answered in your research and the specific approaches that will be used to address those questions. This is typically done in an outline form of no more than one-half page. It should also provide the framework for the Experimental Design section below, so its organization is key to the entire proposal. Try to be realistic and propose an amount of work that you are likely to accomplish in the next 2-3 years; excessively optimistic proposals suggest a lack of critical thought.
It is often advisable to divide the following sections into subsections with titles to orient the reader.
This section should be several pages long and contain enough information to make the subsequent sections understandable to the reviewer. It should also give the reviewer an understanding of the state of the field before your participation. It should therefore cite any critical information that is either published, or known to you through personal communication. Your accomplishments will be described in the following sections, but it may be necessary to allude to some of your results in this section for clarity or argument. Results from your laboratory, but which you were not involved in, should be described in this section. This section should also serve to convince the reviewer that the general question chosen is an important one.
Describe the progress you personally have made while in the lab. The goal of this section is to convince the reader that you have made some progress and/or that you have developed skills that will be necessary to complete the proposed work.
Typically the sections in this part will follow in the order laid out in the Specific Aims. The goal here is to convince the reviewer that the approach you have chosen will yield interpretable results and that you really understand those approaches. If there are intermediate goals that are absolutely critical to the whole project, either defend why your single approach must work, or propose alternative "backup" approaches. Provide enough information to make it clear that you understand the technique; this does not mean an abundance of detail, but a terse description of potential problems and shortfalls in the experiment or its analysis. If there are obvious experiments that will not be done, tersely say why.
Throughout this section, make your priorities clear; not every experiment is as important as the next, and some approaches will be pursued only under certain circumstances. Continually orient the reader by explaining how each intermediate goal fits into the overall plan.
This short section should be a realistic estimate of when the critical intermediate goals in the proposal will be accomplished. It should also make clear when the primary approaches will be dropped and the alternatives adopted. You wish to convince the reviewer that, no matter what happens, you will return with a "story" suitable for a thesis in a reasonable time period.
Using a standard format (authors' names and journal citation, including titles), list the references cited throughout the proposal. This should not only document your understanding of the state of current information, but also that you know the critical sources of information on the methods you have proposed to use.
The proposal should be limited to no more than 15 double-spaced text pages including tables and figures. References are not included in the page limit.