research project proposal 2021

Princeton Correspondents on Undergraduate Research

How to Write a Research Proposal as an Undergrad

As I just passed the deadline for my junior independent work (JIW), I wanted to explore strategies that could be helpful in composing a research proposal. In the chemistry department, JIW usually involves lab work and collecting raw data. However, this year, because of the pandemic, there is limited benchwork involved and most of the emphasis has shifted to designing a research proposal that would segue into one’s senior thesis. So far, I have only had one prior experience composing a research proposal, and it was from a virtual summer research program in my department. For this program, I was able to write a proposal on modifying a certain chemical inhibitor that could be used in reducing cancer cell proliferation. Using that experience as a guide, I will outline the steps I followed when I wrote my proposal. (Most of these steps are oriented towards research in the natural sciences, but there are many aspects common to research in other fields).

The first step is usually choosing a topic . This can be assigned to you by the principal investigator for the lab or a research mentor if you have one. For me, it was my research mentor, a graduate student in our lab, who helped me in selecting a field of query for my proposal. When I chose the lab I wanted to be part of for my summer project (with my JIW and senior thesis in mind) , I knew the general area of research I wanted to be involved in. But, usually within a lab, there are many projects that graduate students and post-docs work on within that specific area. Hence, it is important to identify a mentor with specific projects you want to be involved in for your own research. Once you choose a mentor, you can talk to them about formulating a research proposal based on the direction they plan to take their research in and how you can be involved in a similar project. Usually, mentors assign you one to three papers related to your research topic – a review paper that summarizes many research articles and one to two research articles with similar findings and methodology. In my case, the papers involved a review article on the role of the chemical inhibitor I was investigating along with articles on inhibitor design and mechanism of action.  

The next step is to perform a literature review to broadly assess previous work in your research topic, using the articles assigned by your mentor. At this stage, for my proposal, I was trying to know as much about my research area from these papers as well as the articles cited in them. Here, it is helpful to use a reference management software such as Zotero and Mendeley to organize your notes along with all the articles you look into for a bibliography. 

After going through your literature review, you can start thinking about identifying questions that remain to be answered in that field. For my JIW, I found some good ideas in the discussion section of the papers I had read where authors discussed what could be done in future research projects. One discussion section, for example, suggested ways to complement in-vitro experiments (outside of a living organism) with in-vivo ones (inside a living organism) . Reviewing the discussion section is a relatively straightforward way to formulate your own hypothesis. Alternatively, you could look at the papers’ raw data and find that the authors’ conclusions need to be revisited (this might require a critical review of the paper and the supplementary materials) or you could work on improving the paper’s methodology and optimizing its experiments. Furthermore, you might think about combining ideas from different papers or trying to reconcile differing conclusions reached by them.

The next step is developing a general outline ; deciding on what you want to cover in your proposal and how it is going to be structured. Here, you should try hard to limit the scope of your proposal to what you can realistically do for your senior thesis. As a junior or a senior, you will only be working with your mentor for a limited amount of time. Hence, it is not possible to plan long term experiments that would be appropriate for graduate students or post-docs in the lab. (For my summer project, there was not a follow up experiment involved, so I was able to think about possible experiments without the time or equipment constraints that would need to be considered for a JIW). Thus, your proposal should mostly focus on what you think is feasible given your timeline. 

Below are two final considerations. It is important that your research proposal outlines how you plan to collect your own data , analyze it and compare it with other papers in your field. For a research project based on a proposal, you need only establish if your premises/hypotheses are true or false. To do that, you need to formulate questions you can answer by collecting your own data, and this is where experiments come in. My summer project had three specific aims and each one was in the form of a question.

It is important to keep in mind in your proposal the experiments you can perform efficiently on your own – the experimental skills you want to master as an undergraduate. In my view, it is better to learn one to two skills very well than having surface-level knowledge of many. This is because the nature of research has been very specialized in each field that there is limited room for broad investigations. This does not mean your proposal should be solely based on things you can test by yourself (although it might be preferable to put more emphasis there). If your proposal involves experiments beyond what you can learn to do in a year or two, you can think of asking for help from an expert in your lab. 

A research proposal at the undergraduate level is an engaging exercise on coming up with your own questions on your chosen field. There is much leeway as an undergraduate to experiment within your field and think out of the box. In many ways, you will learn how to learn and how to formulate questions for any task you encounter in the future. Whether or not you want to be involved in research, it is an experience common to all Princeton students that you take with you after graduation.

In this post, I have described the basic elements of a natural science research proposal and my approach to writing one. Although the steps above are not comprehensive, I am hopeful they offer guidance you can adapt when you write your own proposal in the future.

— Yodahe Gebreegziabher, Natural Sciences Correspondent

Share this:

• Share on Tumblr

• Get Curious
• Talk to People
• Take Action
• Inspire Others
• Events and Outcomes
• JHU At-A-Glance
• Students and Schools
• Ready to Hire?
• Mentor Students
• Hire Students
• “When U Grow Up” Podcast

Creating a Proposal for Your Research

• Share This: Share Creating a Proposal for Your Research on Facebook Share Creating a Proposal for Your Research on LinkedIn Share Creating a Proposal for Your Research on X

Creating a research proposal is the first step that you should take when you want to pitch your project to the research administration: Johns Hopkins University Research Administration (JHURA) that supports the research and related activities of the Johns Hopkins University community through professional expertise, excellence in service, and comprehensive guidance. JHURA is responsible for sponsored projects administration for all JHU schools except for the School of Medicine. For the School of Medicine Research center, visit https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/research/ .

JHURA reviews each proposal and the funding opportunity for accuracy, completeness and compliance with University and sponsor policies and procedures. Complex proposals, such as those which involve the use of human subjects, animals, subrecipients, or pose a possible conflict of interest should be started well in advance of the agency deadline. Departments should forward the program announcement, Request for Proposal (RFP), Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) or other guidelines to JHURA as soon as they are available to expedite review.

In a Request for Quote (RFQ), Request for Proposal (RFP), Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) or Funding Opportunity Announcement, guidelines can be very detailed with specific forms accompanying proposal text. Often there are limitations for page length, type size, title length, and supporting documents.

Where there are no sponsor guidelines, JHURA has minimum requirements for ALL proposals. JHURA requires all of the following uploaded as separate documents at least 3 days prior to the due date.

For the list of all required documents, view the minimum requirements . 

To get help developing the budget for your research project, view Budget Development guidelines .

With any additional questions or concerns, don’t hesitate to contact your departmental JHURA representative .

What’s Included: Research Proposal Template

Our free dissertation/thesis proposal template covers the core essential ingredients for a strong research proposal. It includes clear explanations of what you need to address in each section, as well as straightforward examples and links to further resources.

The research proposal template covers the following core elements:

• Introduction & background (including the research problem)
• Literature review
• Research design / methodology
• Project plan , resource requirements and risk management

The cleanly-formatted Google Doc can be downloaded as a fully editable MS Word Document (DOCX format), so you can use it as-is or convert it to LaTeX.

PS – if you’d like a high-level template for the entire thesis, you can we’ve got that too .

Research Proposal Template FAQS

What types of research proposals can this template be used for.

The proposal template follows the standard format for academic research projects, which means it will be suitable for the vast majority of dissertations and theses (especially those within the sciences), whether they are qualitative or quantitative in terms of design.

Keep in mind that the exact requirements for the introduction chapter/section will vary between universities and degree programs. These are typically minor, but it’s always a good idea to double-check your university’s requirements before you finalise your structure.

Is this template for an undergrad, Master or PhD-level proposal?

This template can be used for a research project at any level of study. Doctoral-level projects typically require the research proposal to be more extensive/comprehensive, but the structure will typically remain the same.

How long should my research proposal be?

The length of a research proposal varies by institution and subject, but as a ballpark, it’s usually between 1,500 and 3,000 words.

To be safe, it’s best to check with your university if they have any preferences or requirements in terms of minimum and maximum word count for the research propsal.

How detailed should the methodology of the proposal be?

You don’t need to go into the fine details of your methodology, but this section should be detailed enough to demonstrate that your research approach is feasible and will address your research questions effectively. Be sure to include your intended methods for data collection and analysis.

Can I include preliminary data or pilot study results in my proposal?

Generally, yes. This can strengthen your proposal by demonstrating the feasibility of your research. However, make sure that your pilot study is approved by your university before collecting any data.

Can I share this template with my friends/colleagues?

Yes, you’re welcome to share this template in its original format (no editing allowed). If you want to post about it on your blog or social media, we kindly request that you reference this page as your source.

What format is the template (DOC, PDF, PPT, etc.)?

The research proposal template is provided as a Google Doc. You can download it in MS Word format or make a copy to your Google Drive. You’re also welcome to convert it to whatever format works best for you, such as LaTeX or PDF.

Do you have templates for the other chapters?

Yes, we do. We are constantly developing our collection of free resources to help students complete their dissertations and theses. You can view all of our template resources here .

Can Grad Coach help me with my dissertation/thesis?

Yes, you’re welcome to get in touch with us to discuss our private coaching services .

Further Resources: Proposal Writing

The template provides step-by-step guidance for each section of your research proposal, but if you’d like to learn more about how to write up a high-quality research proposal, check out the rest of our free proposal-related resources:

• Research Proposal 101
• Examples of research proposals
• How To Find A Research Topic
• How To Find A Research Gap
• Developing Your Golden Thread
• How To Write A Research Proposal
• 8 Common Proposal Writing Mistakes

You can also visit the Grad Coach blog for more proposal-related resources.

If you’d prefer 1-on-1 support with your research proposal, have a look at our private coaching service , where we hold your hand through the research process, step by step.

CompSci216, Fall 2021

Everything data, project: proposal.

Due: Monday 10/11

General Directions

The purpose of this document is to prepare your team for success in the course project. Your proposal should contain at least three parts, which we define below. In terms of length, it should be 1-2 pages using standard margins (1 in.), font (11-12 pt), and line spacing (1-1.5). In addition to these three components, you should provide any additional context or information necessary to understand your vision for your project. You should convert your final document to a pdf and upload it to Gradescope under the assignment “Project Proposal” by the due date. Be sure to include your names and NetIds in your final document and use the group submission feature on Gradescope to include all of your group members on a single submission.

Part 1: Introduction and Research Questions

Your proposal should begin by introducing your topic in general and then defining one or more research questions. Research questions are the guiding questions you want to answer or problems you want to solve in your project. Your research question(s) should be (1) substantial, (2) feasible, and (3) relevant.

• Substantial research questions require more than a surface-level analysis (more than just computing basic summary statistics on readily available datasets, for example).
• Feasible research questions can actually be addressed by four or five team members over the course of approximately six weeks using data you can access.
• Relevant research questions address a subject of importance and interest within the scientific community or broader society.

You should provide a brief justification of your research question(s) with respect to each of these three points.

While you are welcome to study whatever topic you like, the following have been popular themes in previous years: health and medicine, business and economics, sports analytics, social media analysis, politics and/or policy, gender and/or race. The Project Ideas in the group formation post has many examples of topics.

Part 2: Data Sources

Your project should deal with real data. We provide pointers to some data sources in the Project Ideas section of the group formation post, but you are welcome and encouraged to look for your own data sources. After your introduction and research questions, your proposal should discuss the data you will use to answer your research questions. Be as specific as possible: name the datasets you will use and how you will access them or specify where you will look for the relevant datasets and why you expect to be successful in finding them. You should also briefly justify why the data you plan to obtain will be relevant and appropriate for addressing your research questions. Searching for data sources as you refine your research questions is likely to be the most time-consuming part of preparing your proposal and is crucial for a good start on your project, so do not put it off.

Part 3: Collaboration Plan

This is a collaborative course project pursued by a team of students who bring different strengths and interests to the table. This is reflective of the reality that significant real-world projects in data science are almost always pursued by teams. For the collaboration to be successful, it helps to establish some guidelines that serve as a starting point. Your collaboration plan should address the following:

• How will you divide responsibilities? Will some students be responsible for certain portions of the project, or will you be more integrated and decide responsibilities on a weekly basis?
• About how much time do you expect every group member to spend on the project each week, on average? It is ok if this number is higher toward the last couple of weeks of the semester.
• When and how will you meet? You should plan to meet at least once per week for at least 30 minutes to check in on one another’s progress, get help, and plan for what comes next. Identify a day of the week, a time, and the platform you will use to meet.
• What platform(s) will you use to communicate between meetings? Will you primarily use email, text, slack, or other chat apps? If you want a more professional enterprise tool, Duke provides free access to Microsoft Teams .
• Where will you store data, code, writing, etc., so that all group members have easy access to shared materials?* Duke provides free access to Box and GitLab which could serve these purposes, but you could also use external services like Google Drive or GitHub. Provide a link to the folder/repository in your proposal to demonstrate that it is created and ready.

* In addition to a common repository for data, you may find it useful to explore the Google colab which allows you to collaborate on Jupyter notebooks and execute them in the cloud (like a google doc for Jupyter notebooks).

Feedback and Grading Rubric

Proposals will be evaluated on the following criterion-based rubric. Proposals satisfying all criteria will receive full credit. Formative feedback (comments and suggestions) will also be provided for each proposal by a teaching assistant who will be assigned as a project group mentor.

• Satisfies general directions (length, on-time pdf submission, group submission, etc.)
• Includes a brief introduction to the topic of interest
• Poses one or more concrete research questions
• Provides a reasonable justification that research questions are substantial
• Provides a reasonable justification that research questions are feasible
• Provides a reasonable justification that research questions are relevant
• Includes one or more specific datasets or reasonable discussion of how to locate data
• Provides reasonable justification that data sources are appropriate for research questions
• Collaboration plan specifies how responsibilities will be divided and about how much time on average each group member should expect to spend per week
• Collaboration plan specifies when and how team will meet, at least weekly
• Collaboration plan specifies platform/technology for communication between meetings and provides a link to a folder/repository for sharing data, code, etc.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Call for Fiscal Year 2021 Research Proposals

The Horticultural Research Institute is now accepting research project proposals designed to improve green industry efficiencies and profitability. Proposals for the 2021 grant cycle are due no later than June 1, 2020.

The Horticultural Research Institute’s mission is to direct, fund, promote, and communicate horticultural research. Supporting research that advances current methodologies, develops better technology, and bridges the divide between businesses and the consumer is exactly how HRI helps build prosperous businesses, advance the green industry, and fulfill its core vision.

Researchers are encouraged to submit proposals for research that addresses  HRI's four strategic areas of focus :

• Quantifying Plant Benefits
• Gathering Consumer Insights
• Creating Innovative Solutions
• Producing Practical & Actionable Solution

Applicants are further encouraged to present projects that represent collaborative research efforts. Researchers are challenged to focus their research on attainable outcomes that demonstrate a return on investment for all sectors of the horticulture industry.

Grant awards typically range from $5,000 to $35,000. The Horticultural Research Institute encourages investigators to seek out matching funds as part of the proposal application process, although matching funds are not required.

Learn more about the grant application and procedural guidelines and access the online application submission portal  here . 

Share This Post

Unveiling Vascular Streak Dieback: Insights, Surveys, and Solutions

Horticultural Research Institute Invests $420,000 in 13 Innovative Projects Addressing Critical Green Industry Challenges

Hri's support fuels 5-year national green industry survey.

The Horticultural Research Institute (HRI), the AmericanHort foundation, has provided more than $9.5 million in funds to research projects covering a broad range of production, environmental, and business issues important to the green industry. Nearly $18 million is committed to the endowment by individuals, corporations, and associations .

Contact Info

Phone: 614-487-1117 

Useful Links

Scholarships

News & Impacts Americanhort

All Rights Reserved | Horticultural Research Institute|   Privacy Policy | Accessibility Statement

Department of Biological Sciences

Examples of Undergraduate Research Projects

Fall 2021 projects, previous projects.

• Checkmail Roundcube
• Checkmail Squirrelmail
• Internal Web

Projects & Consultancies

• Sponsored Research Projects
• Consultancy Jobs
• International Collaborations
• Significant Products & Technologies Developed at IIT Delhi
• Latest Filed IP

General Information

• RTGS Details/Bank Mandate
• PFMS Details
• Registrations / Certifications
• Information for Vendor Registration
• Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)
• ITRs/Annual Reports/Annual Accounts
• Concessional GST Notification
• Receipt of foreign contribution - project funding

Project Positions @IIT Delhi

• Current Openings
• Shortlisted Candidates
• Selected Candidates
• Project Recruitment Norms

Information for Superannuated Faculty

• Use of PDF By Superannuated Faculty

IRD Schemes

• The IRD Schemes for Faculty & Students
• MFIRP Guidelines

Centre of Excellence

• List of Ongoing CoEs
• Centre of Excellence (CoE)
• Call for proposals

Latest News

• IRD Newsletter - IRD Connect
• Rules & Procedures for IRD Operations (For PIs)
• Interviews for Project Positions are being scheduled online

Online System

Ird newsletters.

• IRD Newsletters - IRD Connect

MoU/Agreement

• IRD Circulars
• Announcements (from external agencies)

Funding Opportunities

Information for faculty.

• Delegation of Powers
• IBSC Protocol Form
• Institute Ethics Committee Clearance Form for Projects
• Institute Overhead Distribution Norms
• Revised PDF Utilization Norms
• PDF Creation and Utilisation Norms
• PDF Distribution Norms
• TA/DA Rules
• Project Staff TA/DA Rules
• New Faculty Grants
• SBI Corporate Card

Information for Students

• Student Start-up Action and Discover & Learn Project
• List of Student Start-up Action and Discover & Learn Projects
• Assistantships
• IRD Early-Doc Fellowship
• Honorarium from Projects
• Research Scholar Travel Award
• Research Excellence Travel Award
• Recruitment

• National Security
• Environment
• Special Investigations
• More Ways to Donate
• Impact & Reports
• Join Newsletter
• Become a Source

© THE INTERCEPT

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Leaked Grant Proposal Details High-Risk Coronavirus Research

The proposal, rejected by U.S. military research agency DARPA, describes the insertion of human-specific cleavage sites into SARS-related bat coronaviruses.

• Share on Facebook
• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on WhatsApp

A grant proposal   written by the U.S.-based nonprofit the EcoHealth Alliance and submitted in 2018 to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, provides evidence that the group was working — or at least planning to work — on several risky areas of research. Among the scientific tasks the group described in its proposal, which was rejected by DARPA, was the creation of full-length infectious clones of bat SARS-related coronaviruses and the insertion of a tiny part of the virus known as a “proteolytic cleavage site” into bat coronaviruses. Of particular interest was a type of cleavage site able to interact with furin, an enzyme expressed in human cells.

The EcoHealth Alliance did not respond to inquiries about the document, despite having answered previous queries from The Intercept about the group’s government-funded coronavirus research. The group’s president, Peter Daszak, acknowledged the public discussion of an unfunded EcoHealth proposal in a tweet on Saturday. He did not dispute its authenticity.

Join Our Newsletter

Original reporting. fearless journalism. delivered to you..

Since the genetic code of the coronavirus that caused the pandemic was first sequenced, scientists have puzzled over the “furin cleavage site.” This strange feature on the spike protein of the virus had never been seen in SARS-related betacoronaviruses, the class to which SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes the respiratory illness Covid-19, belongs.

The furin cleavage site enables the virus to more efficiently bind to and release its genetic material into a human cell and is one of the reasons that the virus is so easily transmissible and harmful. But scientists are divided over how this particular site wound up in the virus, and the cleavage site became a major focus of the heated debate over the origins of the pandemic.

Many who believe that the virus that caused the pandemic emerged from a laboratory have pointed out that it is unlikely that the particular sequence of amino acids that make up the furin cleavage site would have occurred naturally.

Adherents of the idea that SARS-CoV-2 emerged from a natural spillover from animal hosts have argued that it could have evolved naturally from an as-yet undiscovered virus. Further, they argued, scientists were unlikely to have engineered the feature.

“There is no logical reason why an engineered virus would utilize such a suboptimal furin cleavage site, which would entail such an unusual and needlessly complex feat of genetic engineering,” 23 scientists wrote earlier this month in an  article in the journal Cell. “There is no evidence of prior research at the [Wuhan Institute of Virology] involving the artificial insertion of complete furin cleavage sites into coronaviruses.”

But the proposal describes the process of looking for novel furin cleavage sites in bat coronaviruses the scientists had sampled and inserting them into the spikes of SARS-related viruses in the laboratory.

“We will introduce appropriate human-specific cleavage sites and evaluate growth potential in [a type of mammalian cell commonly used in microbiology] and HAE cultures,” referring to cells found in the lining of the human airway, the proposal states.

The new proposal, which also described a plan to mass vaccinate bats in caves, does not provide conclusive evidence that the virus that caused the pandemic emerged from a lab. And virus experts remain sharply divided over its origins. But several scientists who work with coronaviruses told The Intercept that they felt that the proposal shifted the terrain of the debate.

Tipping the Scales

“Some kind of threshold has been crossed,” said Alina Chan, a Boston-based scientist and co-author of the upcoming book “Viral: The Search for the Origin of Covid-19.” Chan has been vocal about the need to thoroughly investigate the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 emerged from a lab while remaining open to both possible theories of its development. For Chan, the revelation from the proposal was the description of the insertion of a novel furin cleavage site into bat coronaviruses — something people previously speculated, but had no evidence, may have happened.

“Let’s look at the big picture: A novel SARS coronavirus emerges in Wuhan with a novel cleavage site in it. We now have evidence that, in early 2018, they had pitched inserting novel cleavage sites into novel SARS-related viruses in their lab,” said Chan. “This definitely tips the scales for me. And I think it should do that for many other scientists too.”

Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist at Rutgers University who has espoused the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 may have originated in a lab, agreed. “The relevance of this is that SARS Cov-2, the pandemic virus, is the only virus in its entire genus of SARS-related coronaviruses that contains a fully functional cleavage site at the S1, S2 junction,” said Ebright, referring to the place where two subunits of the spike protein meet. “And here is a proposal from the beginning of 2018, proposing explicitly to engineer that sequence at that position in chimeric lab-generated coronaviruses.”

“A possible transmission chain is now logically consistent — which it was not before I read the proposal.”

Martin Wikelski, a director at the Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior in Germany, whose work tracking bats and other animals was referenced in the grant application without his knowledge, also said it made him more open to the idea that the pandemic may have its roots in a lab. “The information in the proposal certainly changes my thoughts about a possible origin of SARS-CoV-2,” Wikelski told The Intercept. “In fact, a possible transmission chain is now logically consistent — which it was not before I read the proposal.”

But others insisted that the research posed little or no threat and pointed out that the proposal called for most of the genetic engineering work to be done in North Carolina rather than China. “Given that the work wasn’t funded and wasn’t proposed to take place in Wuhan anyway it’s hard to assess any bearing on the origin of SARS-CoV-2,” Stephen Goldstein, a scientist who studies the evolution of viral genes at the University of Utah, and an author of the recent Cell article, wrote in an email to The Intercept.

Other scientists contacted by The Intercept noted that there is published evidence that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was already engaged in some of the genetic engineering work described in the proposal and that viruses designed in North Carolina could easily be used in China. “The mail is filled with little envelopes with plasmid dried on to filter paper that scientists routinely send each other,” said Jack Nunberg, director of the Montana Biotechnology Center at the University of Montana.

NIH Documents Provide New Evidence U.S. Funded Gain-of-Function Research in Wuhan

Vincent Racaniello, a professor of microbiology and immunology at Columbia University, was adamant that the proposal did not change his opinion that the pandemic was caused by a natural spillover from animals to humans. “There are zero data to support a lab origin ‘notion,’” Racaniello wrote in an email. He said he believed that the research being proposed had the potential to fall in the category of gain-of-function research of concern, as did an experiment that was detailed in another grant proposal recently obtained by The Intercept. The government funds such research, in which scientists intentionally make viruses more pathogenic or transmissible in order to study them, only in a narrow range of circumstances . And DARPA rejected the proposal at least in part because of concerns that it involved such research.

While Racaniello acknowledged that the research in the DARPA proposal entailed some danger, he said “the benefits far, far outweigh the risk.” He also said the fact that the viruses described in the proposal were not known pathogens mitigated the concern. “This is not SARS,” he said, referring to SARS-CoV-1, the virus that caused a 2003 outbreak. “It’s SARS-related.”

But SARS-CoV-2 is not a direct descendant of that virus — it’s a relative.

In fact, the viruses described in the grant proposal, which was first posted online by the research group DRASTIC , were not known pathogens. And the authors of the grant proposal make the case that because the scientists would be using SARS-related bat viruses, as opposed to the SARS virus that was known to infect humans, the research was exempt from “gain-of-function concerns.” But according to several scientists interviewed by The Intercept, the viruses presented a threat nevertheless.

“The work describes generating full-length bat SARS-related coronaviruses that are thought to pose a risk of human spillover. And that’s the type of work that people could plausibly postulate could have led to a lab-associated origin of SARS-CoV-2,” said Jesse Bloom, a professor at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and director of the Bloom Lab, which studies the evolution of viruses. Bloom pointed out that the scientists acknowledge the risk to humans in their proposal. “It’s an explicit goal of the grant to identify the bat SARS-related coronaviruses that they think pose the highest risk.”

Stuart Newman, a professor of cell biology who directs the developmental biology laboratory at New York Medical College, also said the fact that the viruses weren’t known to be dangerous didn’t preclude the possibility that they might become so. “That’s really disingenuous,” Newman said of the argument. “The people that are claiming natural emergence say that it begins with a bat virus that evolved to be compatible with humans. If you use that logic, then this virus could be a threat because it could also make that transition.” Newman, a longtime critic of gain-of-function research and founder of the Council for Responsible Genetics, said that the proposal confirmed some of his worst fears. “This is not like slightly stepping over the line,” said Newman. “This is doing everything that people say is going to cause a pandemic if you do it.”

While the grant proposal does not provide the smoking gun that SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a lab, for some scientists it adds to the evidence that it might have. “Whether that particular study did or didn’t [lead to the pandemic], it certainly could have,” said Nunberg, of Montana Biotechnology Center. “Once you make an unnatural virus, you’re basically setting it up in an unstable evolutionary place. The virus is going to undergo a whole bunch of changes to try and cope with its imperfections. So who knows what will come of it.” The risks of such research are profound and irreversible, he said. “You can’t call back the virus once you release it into the environment.”

DARPA, a division of the Department of Defense, said regulations prevented it from confirming that it had reviewed the proposal. “Since EcoHealth Alliance may or may not be the direct source of the material in question, and we are precluded by Federal Acquisition Regulations from divulging bidders or any associated proposal details, we recommend that you reach out to them to confirm the document’s authenticity,” a DARPA spokesperson wrote in an email to The Intercept. The British Daily Telegraph reported that it had confirmed the document’s legitimacy with a former member of the Trump administration.

The Telegraph story erroneously reported that the scientists proposed to inoculate bats with live viruses. In fact, they hoped to inoculate them with chimeric S proteins, which were proposed to be developed through a subcontract in the grant in Ralph Baric’s lab at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, not in Wuhan. Baric did not respond to The Intercept’s request for comment.

Conflict of Interest

Many questions remain about the proposal, including whether any of the research described in it was completed. Even without the DARPA funding, there were many other potential ways to pay for the experiments. And scientists interviewed for this article agreed that often researchers do some of the science they describe in proposals before or after they submit them.

“This was a highly funded group of researchers that wouldn’t let one rejection halt their work,” said Chan, the “Viral” author.

Perhaps the most troubling question about the proposal is why, within the small group of scientists who have been searching for information that could shed light on the origins of the pandemic, there has apparently been so little awareness of the planned work until now. Peter Daszak and Linfa Wang, two of the researchers who submitted the proposal, did not previously acknowledge it.

Daszak, the EcoHealth Alliance president, has actively sought to quash interest in the idea that the novel coronavirus originated in a lab. In February 2020, as the pandemic began to grip major cities in the U.S., he began organizing scientists to write an open letter that was published in the Lancet addressing the origins of the virus. “The rapid, open, and transparent sharing of data on this outbreak is now being threatened by rumours and misinformation around its origins,” read the statement signed by Daszak and 26 co-authors. “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.”

Daszak directed and gathered signatures for the letter, all the while suggesting that he and his collaborators on the proposed DARPA project, Baric and Wang, distance themselves from the effort.

“I spoke with Linfa [Wang] last night about the statement we sent round. He thinks, and I agree with him, that you, me and him should not sign this statement, so it has some distance from us and therefore doesn’t work in a counterproductive way,” Daszak wrote to Baric in February 2020, just weeks before it appeared in the journal, according to an email surfaced a year later by public health investigative research group U.S. Right to Know. “We’ll then put it out in a way that doesn’t link it back to our collaboration so we maximize an independent voice.” Ultimately, Daszak did sign the letter.

“I also think this is a good decision,” Baric replied. “Otherwise it looks self-serving and we lose impact.”

Baric and Wang — a professor in the emerging infectious diseases program at Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore — did not respond to inquiries from The Intercept about their decision not to sign the letter in the Lancet.

Daszak was also a member of the joint team the World Health Organization sent to China in February 2020 to investigate the origins of the pandemic, which concluded that it was “extremely unlikely” that the virus had been released from a laboratory. (In March, WHO  called  for further investigation of the origins of the virus and stated that “all hypotheses remain open.”)

“I find it really disappointing that one of the members of the joint WHO-China team, which is essentially the group of scientists that were tasked as representatives of both the scientific community and the World Health Organization of investigating this, are actually on this proposal, knew that this line of research was at least under consideration, and didn’t mention it all,” said Bloom, of Fred Hutch. “Whatever information that relates to help people think about this just needs to be made transparently available and explained.”

Correction: September 24, 2021

A previous version of this article stated incorrectly that the EcoHealth Alliance proposal had been featured on Sky News Australia.

Correction: September 23, 2021, 3:30 p.m.

A previous version of this article stated incorrectly that Linfa Wang was a member of the WHO-China team.

Contact the author:

Additional credits:.

Additional Reporting: Mara Hvistendahl

New Details Emerge About Coronavirus Research at Chinese Lab

I Visited a Chinese Lab at the Center of a Biosafety Debate. What I Learned Helps Explain the Clash Over Covid-19’s Origins.

Latest stories.

A Prosecutor Asked Texas to Kill Melissa Lucio. Now He Says She Should Be Freed.

Liliana Segura, Jordan Smith

If the courts agree to vacate the conviction, Lucio will have spent 16 years on death row for a crime that never happened.

Israel’s War on Gaza

Columbia Law School Faculty Condemn Administration for Mass Arrests and Suspensions

Prem Thakker

The blanket suspension of student protesters casts “serious doubt on the University’s respect for the rule-of-law values that we teach,” 54 law professors wrote.

Israel Attack on Iran Is What World War III Looks Like

Ken Klippenstein, Daniel Boguslaw

Like countless other hostilities, the stealthy Israeli missile and drone strike on Iran doesn’t risk war. It is war.

Join Our Newsletter Original reporting. Fearless journalism. Delivered to you.

• --> Try Free Downloads
• Computer Science & Applications
• General Paper 1
• Human Resource Management
• Library And Information Science
• Political Science
• Biotechnology (BT)
• Biological Sciences (BL)
• Mathematical Statistics (MS)
• Mathematics (MA)
• Physics (PH)
• Geology (GG)
• Chemistry (CY)
• Economics (EN)
• Chemical Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Life Sciences
• Mathematical Sciences
• Physical Sciences
• General Aptitude
• JEE Advanced
• Computer Science And IT
• Electronics And Communication
• RRB Group D
• SSC GD Constable
• Choose Exam Goal
• About Eduncle
• Announcements

Speak With a Friendly Mentor.

• My Wishlist
• Subscribe Exams
• Try Free Downloads

•   Articles (93)
•   Products (166)
•   Reviews

   Top Resources

•    Why UGC NET?
•    Tips by Toppers
•    Syllabus
•    Eligibility
•    Question Papers
•    Answer Keys
•    Mock Test Download
•    Our Results & Toppers
•    Why Choose Eduncle?

Eduncle posted an Article

Ugc research project 2023 - general guidelines & grants.

Keeping the aspiration to become a University Teacher or an Assistant Professor and making every possible effort to actualize this dream, is the new career trend of millions of aspirants in India.

Every year, almost 10-11 lakhs applicants register for UGC NET . On the other hand, the CSIR NET Exam   authorities witness the registration of almost 3-4 lakh science students.

Apart from these major exams, there are many such competitive tests through which the teaching enthusiasts can meet their career goals.

Thanks to the University Grants Commission who holds the maintenance of higher education by providing recognition to Universities & a huge amount of fund to ease out their operations & functionalities.

Moreover, the UGC provides outstanding career benefits to University Teachers and motivate them to enhance their knowledge base by providing the funds and grants for the major researches.

If you’ve already qualified UGC NET/CSIR NET or aspiring to qualify any of these exams, you should be aware of the UGC grants for teachers as well as the guidelines to avail these grants for UGC Major Research Projects 2023.

Here in this blog, we’ll provide you an authentic information about the UGC Major Research Project & UGC Minor Research Project Eligibility Guidelines, Applying Procedures & Grants offered by the commission.

Available Grants for Faculties

Non-Recurring Grants

Recurring grants.

Who is Eligible for UGC Research Projects?

How to Apply for UGC Research Projects (Major & Minor)

General Instruction & Guidelines

Start your UGC NET Exam preparation with free study kit designed by Eduncle Experts. Download Now

Which Grants are Available for Faculties to Handle UGC Research Projects 2023?

Do you know what kind of grants are available to you after becoming a college or university faculty? If not! Then read the following information carefully.

All grants are given to the teachers would be based on the numerous requirements.

For the needs of teachers and their support, the commission will provide financial assistance for the items like books and journals, equipment, contingency, hiring services, chemical and consumables, fieldwork and travels.

The allowable grants to the university teachers are subdivided into two categories

Non – Recurring Grants

  Recurring Grants

These grants are the fixed expenses of university teachers. Let’s discuss in brief!

Also know about the Career Benefits after UGC NET Lectureship Exam .      

These are the expenses which are required by the teachers on daily basis and the grants can also be repeated again and again.

Following are the Non-Recurring Grants allowed by the commission

1. Equipment, Books & Journals –

  For a proposed research work, it's essential to have the equipment, books and Grants are provided to obtain these necessary journals, books and equipment.

  If there any necessity of increment in the cost of approved equipment that will be only met out of saving/re-appropriation from the Non-recurring head which will be approved by Principal/Registrar of the college/University under intimation to the commission.

  After the completion of Project, the books & journals and equipment should be submitted to University/College/Institution or in the departmental library or in central

I am an Assistant Professor of HR Management stream in Amity University Kolkata. I am interested to know about the types of minor projects that are funded by UGC. If some sample project titles are shared that would be highly appreciatable

• Likes ( 0 )

Dr.vinutha m

Myself DR.VINUTHA M ASSISTANT PROFESSOR in B.ed institution mysore I want more information about minor research project.

I am an assistant professor in Ranchi Women's College (autonomous unit) under Ranchi University on contractual basis. I want to know whether I am eligible for PI or not.

The format for online submission of a major project is of 2014-15, not 2018-19.So very confused please help me to clear my doubt.

sir/mam please let me know what is the last date of proposal submission .whether major research project have been closed for college teachers

Dear sir, Could you please tell me when is the last date for the submission of UGC major/minor project for 2018? I didn't find any announcement in this regard. Looking forward to hearing from you. with best regards vijay

When the project release please inform me

Do You Want Better RANK in Your Exam?

Start Your Preparations with Eduncle’s FREE Study Material

• Updated Syllabus, Paper Pattern & Full Exam Details
• Sample Theory of Most Important Topic
• Model Test Paper with Detailed Solutions
• Last 5 Years Question Papers & Answers

Sign Up to Download FREE Study Material Worth Rs. 500/-

I agree to the Terms and Conditions

I agree to receive exam notifications via WhatsApp.

Wait Wait Wait... !

We Have Something Special for YOU

Download FREE Study Material Designed by Subject Experts & Qualifiers

Want Enhanced Learning Experience For Exam Preparation?

• Ask Your Doubts and Get Them Answered by Exam Experts & Students' Community Members Across India
• Regular Guidance, Mentorship & Study Tips by Eduncle Experts
• Quality Content with More Than 300 Courses in Multiple Exams Curated by Experts

Enter your mobile number to get the download link.

Learning & Teaching App

Skyrocket Your Chances to RANK HIGHER in the Exam

 Time management is very much important in IIT JAM. The eduncle test series for IIT JAM Mathematical Statistics helped me a lot in this portion. I am very thankful to the test series I bought from eduncle.

 Eduncle served as my guiding light. It has a responsive doubt solving team which solves & provides good solutions for your queries within 24 hours. Eduncle Mentorship Services guides you step by step regarding your syllabus, books to be used to study a subject, weightage, important stuff, etc.

 The General Aptitude part of Eduncle study materials were very good and helpful. Chapters of the Earth Science were also very satisfactory.

 The study material of Eduncle helps me a lot. The unit wise questions and test series were helpful. It helped me to clear my doubts. When I could not understand a topic, the faculty support too was good. Thanks Eduncle.

 I recommend Eduncle study material & services are best to crack UGC-NET exam because the material is developed by subject experts. Eduncle material consists a good no. of ques with online test series & mock test papers.

 I am truly Statisfied with study material of Eduncle.com for English their practise test paper was really awsome because it helped me to crack GSET before NET. Thanks Team of eduncle.

Request a Call back

Let Our Mentors Help You With the Best Guidance

We have Received Your Query

Are you sure you want to Unfollow ?

How can we assist you?

Oops! You Can’t Unfollow Your Default Category.

Your profile has been successfully submitted

Kindly give us 1 - 3 week to review your profile. In case of any query, write to us at [email protected]