Writing Proposals
Whether you want access to telescope time (radio,optical, X-
ray, whatever), money to travel, money to build instruments,
money to run conferences, resources to build instruments, …
in fact in order to obtain most of the resources you need to be
an astronomer, you will have to write
PROPOSALS!
Your proposals will almost always be evaluated alongside
other proposals, which means your success as an astronomer
will not depend on how good those proposals are, but how
much better they are than your competitors.
Overview
Telescope Time Allocation
Although proposal writing skills are something you’ll use over and
over again, I’ll concentrate on the process of writing proposals to get
telescope time as a specific example
Remember, you are experimental scientists … learn from your
experience
How proposals are evaluated
How to Write your Proposal
Formulate your experiment
What you put in (dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s).
A suggested outline
Hints
How not to Write your Proposal
How Proposals are Evaluated
Proposals are almost inevitably reviewed by a committee
and that committee is composed of people
committees make every effort to be unbiased, objective, perceptive,
intelligent and diligent (the optimist assumption)
subject to all the same frailties as you and me (the cynical assumption)
In practice, you should assume your proposals will be read
By people who have no background in your research
who don’t care about your research
who don’t have enough time to read your proposal properly
who are just looking for a reason to ignore it
(this is probably the safe assumption)
Telescope Time Allocation
Time is competively sought after … very competitively.
In any one semester the applications for the use of any large optical
telescope will exceed the available time by a factor of at least four …
more for VLT, Gemini and HST.
Time is awarded by time assignment committees (TACs),
They read all the proposals (usually between 50 and 200), and evaluate
them for scientific merit, feasibility and timeliness.
TACs are charged with maximising scientific return (ie publications)
for the observatory.
Proposals are graded relatively.
Telescope Time Allocation
In any one round of proposals
a few will stand out as being clearly the best, and a few will stand out
as being clearly the worst.
Most fight it out in the middle.
Proposals are graded by several people, grades are discussed,
then combined, ranked and time is allocated.
The final grade is an estimate, a “measurement” of the worth of a
proposal.
It therefore has uncertainty (eg. rms ~ 0.3-0.5 / 5 is common)
Proposal grading is an imperfect estimation process.
Small differences in the proposal (as opposed to the science) can make
all the difference.
They can also make all the difference in whether your brilliant science
is understood.
Astronomers are Scientists
When writing a proposal, you should always keep in mind that
you are a scientist
ie you should make hypotheses, and then test them
You are not (or should try to pretend that you are not) just
observers.
You shouldn’t write proposals aiming to “discover” things
Or work out what’s going on after you have the data.
You should be trying to establish whether something is true or not.
You should not be trying to find the first “something”.
Time Allocation Committees want to see proposals which will cleanly
show something to be true or false in a finite amount of telescope time
Imagine you’re buying something with your hard earned
money… who do you hire?
First, formulate your experiment
Before you even put pen to paper (or finger to key board), you
need to develop a clear idea of the problem you want to attack
“What question am I trying to answer?”
“Is it interesting?”
“Is it timely?”
Then determine what finite set of observations are need to
answer that question.
If the question, or the set of observations, becomes too big, then break
it down into a series of smaller problems, and attack each of those in
turn, with a separate project for each.
It is essential these things are clear to you, so that you can
clearly explain it to someone who does not have your expert
background in the field.
Writing
Clear Expression
Use of language - keep it clear and simple.
Layout - the reader must be clearly led through the text. Remember this
is one of a hundred proposals the TAC member is reading
Length - minimise the length! Don’t use all the available space just
because you can
Well Reasoned
Your thought processes must be clearly expressed.
Eg.
Here is the scientific background, therefore we have
A Question we’d like to answer, which can be done with
The Observations we’d like to carry out, which will give us
The following positive or negative results.
Writing
The project itself must be
A well defined experiment with clear positive and negative outcomes.
Ideally the experiment will be constructed such that either result is
interesting and worth publication. That way the TAC gets a guaranteed
publication.
Finite - TACs hate to see the same proposal again and again. If your
proposal will take time in more than one period, then estimate how
much and say so, and why. TACs will avoid starting projects which
look like they might turn into continuous applications for time.
Use Figures
They save words, and can be much, much clearer.
Make sure your figures are well annotated.
Notations on the figure are better than in the caption. Eg. use xfig,
Word, Powerpoint to add notes, arrows etc to GIF or Postscript file.
The Proposal Itself
“Form” Section
Names, institution, address etc of proposers
Abstract - spend time on this after you’ve written the Science Case.
Technical stuff
Instruments, dates, positions, fluxes etc (Don’t make mistakes here)
Results from previous allocations, related publications, etc
This is your chance to show that you are productive.
“Text” Section
Scientific Justification - this is where you make the pitch for your
project
Technical Justification - this is where you prove your observations are
feasible.
A Suggested Science Case Outline The Scientific Background
Why the objects you want to look at are interesting and astronomically
important. If they are at all obscure, explain what they are.
Explain all acronyms, classes of objects, symbols.
What has been done to date … from which should follow
The Oustanding Question(s) to be answered.
That is, the questions you want to answer in this work.
The Observations proposed
How they will answer your questions. Make sure you define your
positive and negative results - if both are significant your proposal will
be that much stronger
Conclusion/Summary
recap for those “skimming” the proposal. Which will be most readers!
Abstract - yes, write this LAST!
A Suggested Technical Outline
Technical Justification
Why have you chosen the instrument you have? If you can point out
that the instrument is somehow unique, then you strengthen the case
considerably.
You must justify the time you ask for
How bright are your targets?
How many of them are there?
What S/N do you need to achieve your scientific goals? How long
do you need to expose (based on the Observatory’s sensitivity
estimates, and/or your experience with the set-up)?
Remember
Use figures - especially schematics of any complexities in your science
case or observations, as much as possible.
Keep it brief.
Useful stuff to be able to use
That the observations can only be done with this facility.
Useful to “massage the ego” of the Observatory.
Observations which can be done elsewhere are easy to reject.
Essential when applying to places you don’t get time as of right (ESO,
HST, UK facilities).
Concise, but readable, Abstract and Conclusion.
Clear divisions in your text
Use sections, headings, emphasized text, etc to make the thought
processes “flow” through your proposal.
Show you’ve completed and published previous work in a
timely fashion.
Clearly delineate your experiment with +ve and -ve results
Useful stuff to be able to use
Check archives to ensure this data doesn’t already exist.
And insert a short note to this effect if you have any reason to believe
the TAC may believe these observations already exist
Use on-line resources (NED,SIMBAD,etc)
This is really just doing your homework, and making sure you know all
about your targets. But it may allow you to shorten your program, or
provide essential information for your science case
A really cool figure
A well constructed figure can explain an entire project in seconds to the
reader. You should think hard about whether you can make a
meaningful and useful figure.
Use notes on the figure
Use schematic drawings
After the TAC meets
Lets assume for a moment that after all this, you’ve still
managed to write a proposal which got rejected.
The next thing you must do is find out why!
Many TACs (eg. ATAC and PATT) provide feedback on the TACs
evaluation.
If you didn’t get time you need to revise your proposal for next time
taking these comments into account
You can also contact TAC members to ask if they have any comments
on what you can do to improve the proposal
Above all, don’t get depressed and assume its all a conspiracy to sink
your project. Or get mad and assume they are too lazy or stupid to read
and understand your project. The TACs are composed of people.
Usually if you ask for their comments and/or help, they’ll give it.
In any case, its your job to make the proposal understandable, not the
TACs job to understand it.
The “worst case” TAC
Someone will ask, “why do they need 24 objects?”
Someone will think all research in your area is a waste of time
Someone will only have read the abstract and conclusions and
looked at the pictures
Good reason to make your figures explain the proposal.
Someone will ask “can’t they do this on another (usually
smaller) telescope?
What NOT to do
“These objects are really cool, and we’d like to learn more
about them …”
“We’d like to discover the first _______ .” (Insert brown
dwarf, z=8 galaxy, black hole, …..
Avoid a “blizzard of questions”
it is better to concentrate on 1 or 2 things you will answer than 4 or 5
things you might answer.
Nothing reflects as poorly as stupid mistakes
Like appplying in the wrong semester, with the wrong instrument,
or a no longer current detector.
Or leaving out essential information (like how bright or how many
are your targets).
What NOT to do
Don’t submit proposals which are badly written - if English
(or French or Spanish nor whatever) is not nyour first
language, get a colloborator who can proof-read/rewrite it for
you.
Don’t plow into an obscure discussion of a peculiar class of
objects, without placing them in context.
Don’t present dense blocks of undifferentiated text
Avoid programs aiming to obtain data and to then perform a
postiori determinations of what’s going on
Make a hypothesis and test it.
Don’t say we’ll work out what’s going on once we have the data.
This is one of the most common failings of lowly ranked telescope
proposals.
Conclusion
Remember you are a scientist.
Your proposals should reflect a clear hypothesis and testing, with
clearly defined positive and negative results.
Make sure these are clear to you before you start writing.
Remember TAC members are people.
They read lots of proposals, and will not make the effort to understand
a poorly explained concept, or a poorly written proposal.
Try to make the logic of your proposal as clear and simple as
possible.
Try it out on a friend who doesn’t know the field. If they can’t follow
it, neither can the TAC.
If you don’t get time, find out why, fix it, and try again.
When writing a proposal you are “marketing” your project.
So try to en sure your marketing is better than your competitors!