Difference between revisions of "Keck-phase-1-summary"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
Other science faculty (list names), which represents n% of the science faculty. For examples of how we collaborate see URL. Merck, HHMI. | Other science faculty (list names), which represents n% of the science faculty. For examples of how we collaborate see URL. Merck, HHMI. | ||
| − | =4. Budget:= Describe how funds requested from WMKF will be allocated among capital, personnel and equipment. Percentage | + | =4. Budget:= Describe how funds requested from WMKF will be allocated among capital, personnel and equipment. Percentage for each area. |
=5. Justification for WMKF support:= Explain why support from the W. M. Keck Foundation is essential for this project. | =5. Justification for WMKF support:= Explain why support from the W. M. Keck Foundation is essential for this project. | ||
Revision as of 11:07, 7 May 2006
1. Abstract [150 words]:
Provide an executive summary of the project, including overall goal, methodology and significance, for a lay audience.
2. Unique Aspects:
Describe unique or distinctive aspects of this project.
3. Key Personnel:
Name the key personnel, and describe their credentials, role in the proposed project, and any collaborations/partnerships.
- Chemistry
- Mike Diebel
- Corrine Deibel
- Geosciences
- Ron Parker
- Meg Streepey
- Biology
- David Matlack
- John Iverson
- Computer Science
- Charlie Peck
Other science faculty (list names), which represents n% of the science faculty. For examples of how we collaborate see URL. Merck, HHMI.
=4. Budget:= Describe how funds requested from WMKF will be allocated among capital, personnel and equipment. Percentage for each area.
=5. Justification for WMKF support:= Explain why support from the W. M. Keck Foundation is essential for this project.
