biowriting

BQAERLA: a formula for (most) hypothesis-driven research

• Background

• Question

• Approach

• Experiment

• Results

• Literal Interpretation

• Author Interpretation

Background

• Summary of what is currently known about the subject/topic/protein/gene/process/etc.

• Sets up the Big Question and the smaller questions that are current in the field and specific for the study

Question(s)

• subdivided into The Big Question and smaller subquestions

• The Big Question is one that drives research in the field as a whole

• subquestions drive individual studies (papers) and individual experiments

Approach

• The Approach lays out in a general sense how the question will be addressed

• It does not encompass experimental details

Experiment and Results

• The Experiment includes the relevant detail needed to understand scope

• Results are usually figures/pictures/graphs/tables/etc. Results do not encompass any interpretation (comparative or judgemental, etc.)

What’s the difference between Literal and Author Interpretations?

• Literal interpretations are simple, logical extensions of the Results (they are also known as Conclusions)

• Author interpretations put the Literal interpretations into the context of the Big Question and often include some speculation and/or more questions

Biol-311L Cell Biology TechniquesOral Presentation Instructions

Prepare a 10-12 minute presentation using PowerPoint. You will present your PowerPoint to a group of colleagues at one of the presentation sessions (date and time TBA, see BlackBoard). This presentation is physically due by email or on some sort of disk (floppy, CD or ZIP) three hours before the start of the session. The order of presentations will be determined at the beginning of the session, so be prepared to go first. If you made the presentation on a home/personal computer, then you should try it on a college computer prior to submitting it.

Consider the following:What Background information needs to be understood?What cellular processes and what are the Big Questions about the cellular process?What gene/protein are you talking about?What is known about this protein?Does it have any interesting domains?What are their molecular/biochemical functions?Does it have relatives (paralogues or orthologues) and what do they do?How are the biochemical functions and cellular role required by the tissue and whole organism?What is not known?Questions?The focus of the presentation is one to three figures worth of primary data. The data that you present may be your own RNAi experiment or published data about your C. elegans gene or a homologue. Data that provides insight into some significant aspect of the biology of the gene/protein is required. What are the Approaches being employed to answer the Questions?Is there an hypothesis (what is the proposed answer to the questions)?What is the Experiment being presented? How did you (or someone else) generate the Result?What is the Result(s)?What is the Literal interpretation of the Result? What can be concluded?What is/are the Author's or your interpretations of the Result?What might be done next?

Biol-311 Cell Biology Techniques Evaluation of Oral Presentations < Adequate Average Outstanding Background (10) not clear or implied,

mistakes in content concise and precise description of what is currently known

'hook' provided with relevant and adequate detail

Question (5) lacking made obvious and linked to background (what is not known?)

as above with description of the significance and relevance

Approach (5) as above made obvious and compared to alternatives

links Background to Question, compared to other possibilities

Experiment (5) glossing over detail factual mistakes

completely and precisely explained with relevant technical detail

as above with complete understanding of caveats

Result (5) glossing over data, factual mistakes

define/explain what figures depict including scales, axes and all other relevant elements

as above with accurate, relevant detail and mention of shortcomings

Literal Interpretation (5)

lacking or too simplistic

explain and identify the conclusion

separate literal from author interpretation and critically evaluate both

Author's Interpretation (5)

mistakes in identification or lacking

identify how the data move the field forward, evaluate author’s bias

as all of the above

3.700

3.800

3.900

4.000

4.100

4.200

4.300

4.400

4.500

4.600

4.700

1 2 3 4 5 6

Series1

Approach

Question

Experiment

Result

Literal Interp.

Author Interp.

2004 Cohort

3.800

3.900

4.000

4.100

4.200

4.300

4.400

4.500

4.600

4.700

4.800

4.900

1 2 3 4 5 6

Series1

Approach

Question

Experiment

Result

Literal Interp.

Author Interp.

2005 Cohort

4.350

4.400

4.450

4.500

4.550

4.600

4.650

4.700

4.750

4.800

1 2 3 4 5 6

Series1

Approach

Question

Experiment

Result

Literal Interp.

Author Interp.

Peer Evaluation (2004 cohort)

The “Formula”

• Background

• Question

• Approach

• Experiment

• Results



The “Formula”

• Background

• Question

• Approach

• Experiment

• Results



Sections of a research paper

AbstractIntroductionMaterials and

MethodsResultsDiscussion

The “Formula”

• Background

• Question

• Approach

• Experiment

• Justification

Sections of a research proposal

BackgroundSpecific Aims

The reasons a proposed experiment is important, necessary, logical, interesting, etc.

biowriting

Technology