Submission Deadline Marks and Feedback

Before 10am on: 20 working days after deadline (L4, 5 and 7)

15 working days after deadline (L6)
24/03/2023 10 working days after deadline (block delivery)

After four weeks

Unit title & code Drug Discovery and Development BHS005-6

Assignment number and title
Assignment type
Weighting of assignment
Size or length of assessment
Unit learning outcomes
Assignment 1: Determination of physiochemical properties of drug and enzymatic activity of
Glutathione – S – Transferase
Coursework - Portfolio
40%
3000 words
This practical report assessment principally assesses core learning outcomes 1 and 2:
1. 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.

2. 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?

Students are expected to submit a a portfolio (up to 3000 words) based on the practicals present laboratory data obtained from
a practical exercise.
1. Determination of Physiochemical properties of drugs:
a) Partition Coefficient of Fluconazole
b) Buffer Solutions
2. Determination of enzymatic activity of Glutathione – S – Transferase (GST)
Following the instruction of practical manual, you are expected to analyse and present laboratory data obtained from a practical
exercise, based on the 3 practical laboratories. The lab portfolio should be structured in the form of a scientific paper that
discusses and provides critical analysis of the results of the practical sessions. The word limit of the report is 3000, 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 portofolio-report is a combined one and should be written based on the three experiments of the laboratory protocols.

1. Determination of Physiochemical properties of drugs &

a) Partition Coefficient of Fluconazole
b) Buffer Solutions
2. Determination of enzymatic activity of Glutathione – S – Transferase (GST)

Clarity of English language and presentation is essential throughout.

Your Coursework – Portfolio (CW-PO) should include following sections for each part of the laboratory practical manual.

Introduction (500-600 words)

You should summarise the published background literature relevant to this study and present principles and applications 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. What are the objectives of these experiments.

Materials and Methods (~ 5-10%)

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 (~ 800-1000 words)

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 (1000-1200 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.

2
Conclusion
This should be your own conclusion in a small paragraph, based on all the finding that you have discussed in the previous
sections of the report and the literature that you have read. You don’t normally need to use references here.

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/a-guide-to-referencing.

The Harvard referencing style links now point to Cite Them Right Online, which the Library’s previous help pages were based
on. Please familiarise yourself with Cite Them Right Online if you have not previously used it, as this will now be the University’s
referencing standard for Harvard. Here is a training video you can watch to help you get started.

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 CW-PO 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%+

3
Quality of Satisfactory levels of
understanding understanding of the scientific
and analysis principles and knowledge base
of scientific with some inaccuracies.
principles and Adequate review of relevant
knowledge literature, though some
base (20%) omissions or tangents.
Superficial attempt to relate
work to broader context and
explain aim and approach.
Data handling Data analysis is mostly correct
and with few errors or omissions.
presentation Clarity and quality of
(35%) presentation are barely
sufficient. Some attempt is
given to explain what is being
presented.
Critical Acceptable evidence of
evaluation reflection or evaluation of
and scientific approach though at
discussion times a little shallow. The work
(35%) 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.
Written Written expression uses simple
expression syntax and contains some
and structure. grammatical and spelling
(5%) errors. Some parts of the work
are disorganized.
Use of Limited range of relevant
literature and reference sources, or limited
referencing. range of literature cited. Use of
(5%) UoB Harvard referencing
format with a few errors.
Omissions in citations within
text of report.
Good understanding of Commendable level of
the scientific principles understanding of the
and knowledge base. scientific principles and
Sufficient review of knowledge base.
relevant literature. A Appropriate review of
reasonable attempt to relevant literature. Highly
relate work to broader competent attempt to
context and explain aim relate work to the most
and approach. relevant features of the
broader context and define
the experimental aim.
Data analysis is correct. Data analysis is correct and
Presentation is generally complete. Presentation is
clear and appropriate. A clear, appropriate and
reasonable attempt to suitable for arguments.
explain what is being Well-structured
presented. explanations of what is
presented.
Evidence of reflection Evidence of high quality
and evaluation of reflection and evaluation of
scientific problem and scientific problem and
approach. Sound approach. Appropriate
interpretation and interpretation and critical
critical evaluation of the evaluation of the data.
data. Reasonable Plentiful connections
connections discussed discussed between subject
between subject matter matter and current scientific
and current scientific thought.
thought.
Written expression is Written expression is clear
generally clear and and precise and supports
arguments can be well the development of the
followed without undue argument. The work is
difficulty. The work is logically structured.
suitably structured.
A reasonable range of A significant range of
literature accessed. In- primary sources is accessed
text citations are used including important primary
appropriately and UoB sources. Correct UoB
Harvard format is Harvard formatting of
generally used correctly. citations.
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 analysis is
accurate, thorough and
complete. Presentation
is exemplary reflecting
professional norms.
Clear explanation of
what is presented is
given.
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 is
clear, precise and
concise. Arguments are
put forward succinctly
and the structure of
the report is well-
planned, well-thought
out and logical.
A wide range of
primary sources is
accessed. Correct UoB
Harvard formatting of
citations and reference
list used throughout.