Utilizing critical thinking skills to resolve an issue

Here is my response in 200-300 wrods

Please feel free to comment/critique. Thank you so much!

I have faced some of my toughest intellectual challenges while conducting my undergraduate research. When something goes awry in cell and molecular research, no clear-cut solution is available due to the intricate nature of the intracellular processes and interactions. This was the case when I had to optimize the conditions for my co-immunoprecipitation experiment, a procedure used to detect interaction of specific proteins in a cell, due to the repeatedly inconsistent and weak data.

My first logical step was to repeat the experiment with newly made reagents and fresh cells. When the results did not improve, the next plan was scrutinizing every step in the procedure to identify the problem. Because repeating the experiment to test each possible factor could take years, I had to utilize my reasoning skills to select the most promising few. First, I gathered information on the most common errors in co-immunoprecipitation by inquiring other researchers in the lab and investigating published papers and troubleshooting guides. I ran the experiment again paying special attention during the critical steps to see if human error was the cause of the inconsistency. Again, wrong guess. I then decided to evaluate the integrity of each DNA and protein sample but with more efficient and quick tests available. Sequencing each gene and different experiments to test the activity of each protein confirmed the intact functions of each biomaterial. I had hit a wall; it was time to think outside the box.

I began to question the protocols I was given for co-immunoprecipitation. The specific proteins I was studying had their unique characteristics; what if the protocols are not optimal for my proteins? Right away, I began brainstorming possible modifications to the protocols to better accommodate the proteins' biochemical traits and began designing experiments to test my ideas. After two failed trials, I had almost given up when the strong signals on my third set of data caught my eyes. Finally, I had found the key to the solution - a stronger detergent for a better yield in extracting my proteins from the cells.

While you've answered the question well - rightly conveying the bafflement you felt at not getting the desired result - I think the language was a bit too technical. I appreciate the fact that you need to use jargon to bring out the essense of what you want to write about, it's likely that admissions officers would not understand it at first read. Furthermore, it might even come across as equivocation. So I think you need to tone down the jargon a little, and then you'll be good.

Well, you obviously write well, and I don't see any errors. One idea I have for you is that you should invest a whole paragraph in that conclusion. When you discover that it is a stronger detergent that is the answer, that is something that deserves a paragraph of its own. Also, what are the implications of this finding? Do you think this improved your intuition about research?

:-) Most importantly, I always recommend that people should write as though they are acting according to a plan for their next 2 years, a very specific plan with several goals and deadlines for achieving them. That is how to impress a reader with this kind of essay.