The Koning Foundation

Annual Report of Funded Projects

The Koning Foundation is pleased to report the list of funded proposals for the current academic year. The Foundation is grateful for the services of the reviewers for all of the proposals received this year. The Foundation is also grateful for the excellent work of the two panels of scientists that ranked the proposals. The Foundation Director was especially pleased with the more-detailed proposal reviews by Achille with honorable mention for reviews by Eaton, McGuiness, Overend, Rhinesmith, and Soto. Halidis gave some very practical, if brief, remarks.

You will notice that this project (grant proposal preparation, submission, and evaluation) was a suitable capstone for our semester of work together. The project reinforced what you had learned from previous writing assignments: Abstract, Presentation, Bibliography, Resume, In-class writing, Critique, Oral Argumentation. It also added two new dimensions: Proposing new research, and Preparing a budget. I hope you noticed all of these writing/communicating modes play important roles in this capstone project.

As we are not meeting again, permit me to say a few words on writing. In this project I am still seeing too many of you confusing "affect" and "effect" and too many number agreement errors. The page sequence was problematic in some need to read the instructions in the preparation guide more thoroughly...try to avoid this mistake with your income tax returns too! Also, several of you need to learn how to force a new page in Microsoft is under the Insert menubar item labeled Break...Page Break. Generally you want the cover page to be separate from the Project Description (Narrative). You w ant the bibliography, budget, and resume to be on their own separate pages.

To determine funding, the Director independently read all proposals, individual review, and panel reviews for all proposals. The Director independently ranked the proposals for each panel. The Director also checked all budgets. Having adjusted the budgets and reallocated the Bio Bucks for each panel grouping, awards were made for the following proposals:

CMB ProposerBioBucks ORG ProposerBioBucks
#1 Eaton60,000#1 Soto25,000
#2 Achille184,000#2 Miller50,000
#3 Overend206,000#3 McGuiness25,000

It is worthy to note that funding was granted was based upon quality of the proposal (rank ordered above). The amount of funding pertains to what was requested rather than to merit. Some proposals had to be cut in terms of number of years funded. Others needed to use existing lakes or existing local populations. The Foundation regrets not being able to fund all the projects, but the Foundation budget is insufficient to fund them all. We wish you all tremendous success with your science endeavors!


This page © Ross E. Koning 1994.

Go to the Course Schedule Page.

Go to the Plant Physiology Information Homepage.

Send comments and bug reports to Ross Koning at koningre∂gmail⋅com.