Assignment 1: Laboratory report | My Assignment Tutor

Submission DeadlineMarks and FeedbackBefore 10am on:20 working days after deadline (L4, 5 and 7)15 working days after deadline (L6)10 working days after deadline (block delivery)After four weeks Unit title & codeBHS005-6Assignment number and titleAssignment 1: Laboratory reportAssignment typeWritten practical reportWeighting of assignment30%Size or length of assessment2500 wordsUnit learning outcomesThis practical report assessment principally assesses core learning outcomes 1 and 2: Demonstrate a critical understanding of drug discovery and development and the various processes that underpin drug design, preclinical, clinical and post-licensing development of drugs. Critically analyse and evaluate the experimental data and relevant scientific literature to understand current research advancement in the area of drug discovery and development, present and argument information clearly and effectively in the written form. What am I required to do in this assignment?You will be given data for two laboratory practicals. Students are expected to submit a report based on provided laboratory practical data. Determination of Physiochemical properties of drugs: Partition Coefficient of Fluconazole Buffer Solutions 2. Determination of enzymatic activity of Glutathione – S – Transferase (GST) Following the instruction of practical manual, you are expected to produce a single laboratory report based on the 3 practical manuals. The lab report should be structured like a research article in a scientific journal. The word limit of the report is 2500, excluding references. Guidance on the content of this report is given below and will be further discussed in a tutorial in week 8 and 10.What do I need to do to pass? (Threshold Expectations from UIF)Demonstrate the skills necessary to generate, analyse and present laboratory data provided from a practical manual in the area of drug discovery and development. Produce a written report in the form of a scientific paper that discusses and provides critical analysis of the results of the practical manual according to expectations described in the assignment brief.How do I produce high quality work that merits a good grade?The report is a combined one and should be written based on the three experiments of the laboratory protocolDetermination of Physiochemical properties of drugs & Partition Coefficient of Fluconazole Buffer Solutions 2. Determination of enzymatic activity of Glutathione – S – Transferase (GST)Clarity of English language and presentation is essential throughout.Your report should include following sections for each part of the laboratory practical manual.Introduction (300-500 words) You should summarise the published background literature relevant to this study. You must explain what these experimental studies are about and place them in context of the previously published journal research articles and text books. Aims Briefly state what you are looking for in the experiment.Materials and Methods (~ 5-10% of report) You should briefly summarise the methods of laboratory protocol in the style of a journal. Methods should be written in the past tense and in paragraphs. They should contain sufficient detail to allow someone else to reproduce this experiment but avoid unnecessary detail. There is no need to restate the contents of the practical handout.Results These sections should typically represent approximately 30-40% of each part. Data may be presented in text, tables, graphs, diagrams, or photographs as appropriate for these studies. Figures and tables should be separately numbered, and be clearly labelled. You should include written text to explain what your findings are and what is shown in any figures and tables. Results should describe your findings/observations and may state brief conclusions.Discussion (800-1000 words) You should interpret your results, explaining what they indicate. You should evaluate the quality of your data and the reliability of the experimental technique. You should identify any problems with the technique or data (if any exist) and suggest possible solutions. You should compare your findings to previously published findings or your expected findings, and should place your results in the context of published scientific literature.References Refer to text books and research journals that you can find in the library or through the LRC electronic resources and use the UoB Harvard system of referencing available here: https://lrweb.beds.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/557568/UoBHarvard17_18.pdf. If you use an internet source, it must be from a university or medical web site and it should be authored, not from Wikipedia or other sites with unknown authors. Please ensure that your references relate to the relevant documents and their authors/publishers etc., NOT just the place where you found them.Submission: The completed report should include your student number, unit code and assessment number, and should be submitted via BREO. Failure to submit your report by the deadline, without approval from the mitigation team will result in a FAIL grade.How does this assignment relate to what we are doing in scheduled sessions?The assessment report will document the findings of three different practical sessions and communicate their significance. The assessment will provide you with the opportunity to demonstrate in-depth knowledge of determination of the physiochemical properties of drugs, understand principles of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in drug development covered in the relevant lectures of the unit. How will my assignment be marked?Your assignment will be marked according to the threshold expectations and the criteria on the following page.You can use them to evaluate your own work and consider your grade before you submit. Pass – 40-49%Pass – 50-59%Commendation – 60-69%Distinction– 70%+Quality of understanding and analysis of scientific principles and knowledge base (20%)Satisfactory levels of understanding of the scientific principles and knowledge base with some inaccuracies. Adequate review of relevant literature, though some omissions or tangents. Superficial attempt to relate work to broader context and explain aim and approach.Good understanding of the scientific principles and knowledge base. Sufficient review of relevant literature. A reasonable attempt to relate work to broader context and explain aim and approach.Commendable level of understanding of the scientific principles and knowledge base. Appropriate review of relevant literature. Highly competent attempt to relate work to the most relevant features of the broader context and define the experimental aim.A comprehensive understanding of the scientific principles and knowledge base. Detailed and focused review of previously published literature. Broader context of work clearly described. Experimental aim and approach accurately defined.Data handling and presentation (40%)Data analysis is mostly correct with few errors or omissions. Clarity and quality of presentation are barely sufficient. Some attempt is given to explain what is being presented.Data analysis is correct. Presentation is generally clear and appropriate. A reasonable attempt to explain what is being presented.Data analysis is correct and complete. Presentation is clear, appropriate and suitable for arguments. Well-structured explanations of what is presented.Data analysis is accurate, thorough and complete. Presentation is exemplary reflecting professional norms. Clear explanation of what is presented is given.Critical evaluation and discussion (30%)Acceptable evidence of reflection or evaluation of scientific approach though at times a little shallow. The work is largely descriptive with some but limited interpretation and critical evaluation of data. Demonstrates some ability to discuss links between the current scientific thought and the work in hand, but it is rather superficial.Evidence of reflection and evaluation of scientific problem and approach. Sound interpretation and critical evaluation of the data. Reasonable connections discussed between subject matter and current scientific thought.Evidence of high quality reflection and evaluation of scientific problem and approach. Appropriate interpretation and critical evaluation of the data. Plentiful connections discussed between subject matter and current scientific thought.Demonstrates a well-developed ability to evaluate scientific problems and to discuss clear evaluative links between the current scientific thought and the work in hand. Shows deep interpretation and critical evaluation of the data.Written expression and structure. (5%)Written expression uses simple syntax and contains some grammatical and spelling errors. Some parts of the work are disorganized.Written expression is generally clear and arguments can be followed without undue difficulty. The work is suitably structured.Written expression is clear and precise and supports well the development of the argument. The work is logically structured.Written expression is clear, precise and concise. Arguments are put forward succinctly and the structure of the report is well-planned, well-thought out and logical.Use of literature and referencing. (5%)Limited range of relevant reference sources, or limited range of literature cited. Use of UoB Harvard referencing format with a few errors. Omissions in citations within text of report.A reasonable range of literature accessed. In-text citations are used appropriately and UoB Harvard format is generally used correctly.A significant range of primary sources is accessed including important primary sources. Correct UoB Harvard formatting of citations.A wide range of primary sources is accessed. Correct UoB Harvard formatting of citations and reference list used throughout.

QUALITY: 100% ORIGINAL PAPER – NO PLAGIARISM – CUSTOM PAPER

Leave a Reply

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