View
215
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
The Ins and Outs of NSF Funding
Kevin Mandernack, PhD
Department of Earth SciencesIUPUI
• Basic Information on NSF• Who they serve• Recent budgets and funding rates• Merit review criteria• Overview of review process
• Tips on Writing a Successful Grant Application, do’s and don’t’s
• Contacting your Program Officer
• Interpreting proposal reviews
• What to do after you receive an NSF proposal• Leveraging your existing funds
• Non-conventional sources of NSF funding
• Some useful links to NSF
• Answer YOUR Questions
Today’s Agenda
NSF Considers Proposals for Research Support in any Field of Science
Astronomy Atmospheric
Sciences Biological Sciences Behavioral Sciences Chemistry Computer Science Earth Sciences
Engineering Information
Science Materials Research Mathematical
Sciences Oceanography Physics Social Sciences
Including but not limited to:
NSF-7
Who receives awards?
Universities and colleges Academic consortia Nonprofit institutions Small businesses University and industry collaborations
National research centers International research and education efforts NSF-14
Awards (Research): 6,636
Average annual award: $165,831
Median annual award: $125,171
Average duration (research): 2.89 years
NSF RESEARCHGRANT PROFILE
(FY 2012)
NSF Funding Profile
Recent NSF research budgets
2012: $5.7 billion
2013: $5.5 billion (sequester)
2014: $5.8 billion
NSB Recommendations:
Three Merit Review Principles
and
Five Review Elements
Three Merit Review Principles
1. All NSF projects should be of the highest quality and have the potential to advance, if not transform, the
frontiers of knowledge.
2. NSF projects, in the aggregate, should contribute more broadly to achieving societal goals. These “Broader
Impacts” may be accomplished through the research itself, through activities that are directly related to
specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project.
Three Merit Review Principles (continued)
3. Meaningful assessment and evaluation of NSF funded projects should be based on appropriate metrics,
keeping in mind the likely correlation between the effect of broader impacts and the resources provided to
implement projects. If the size of the activity is limited, evaluation of that activity in isolation is not likely to be meaningful. Thus, assessing the effectiveness of these
activities may best be done at a higher, more aggregated, level than the individual project.
Five Review Elements1.What is the potential for the proposed activity to:
a. advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields
(Intellectual Merit); b. benefit society or advance desired societal
outcomes (Broader Impacts)?
2. To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially
transformative concepts?
Review Elements (continued)
3. Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities well-reasoned, well-organized, and based on a sound rationale? Does the plan
incorporate a mechanism to assess success?
4. How well qualified is the individual, team, or institution to conduct the proposed activities?
5. Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home institution or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed
activities?
NSF Proposal & Award Process Timeline
NIH only gives you 2 shots, not so at NSF, but it is still good to follow this rule. Consult with Program officer regarding resubmittals.
Page limits impact getting your ideas and plans across to reviewers
Congress and economy are not being researcher-friendly
NSF:The Challenges
Be Informed & Efficient ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_
Do not be afraid to ask questions The more you know, the better you can
plan
Time is your most precious commodity It is crucial you make the most of it
Advice will vary Seek guidance from more than one
source
The key to success is persistence Learn from your mistakes, try again
Don’t put all your eggs in one basket Diversify your funding portfolio
Strategies for Success: Proposal ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_
1. Target programs with high success rates.
2. Target special programs you may qualify for
3. Run your own mini-review.
4. Suggest appropriate and available reviewers.
5. Learn from rejection.
6. Know how to interpret reviews/feedback.
7. Be persistent, but know when it’s time to move on.
Strategies for Success: Professional ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_
1. Write down ideas as soon as you get them.
2. Volunteer to be a reviewer.
3. Volunteer to be a panelist.
4. Arrange to meet and talk with agency Program Officers at national meetings.
5. Visit the agency and “do the walk”.
6. Attend and participate in agency sponsored “community workshops.
1. Address agency/program mission
2. Discuss size and scope of intellectual payoff
3. Hypothesis driven proposal, with tests
The Essential Requirements of a Successful Proposal
Must have novel ideas and show evidence of being transformative (not a simple extension of Ph.D. thesis or postdoc work)
Clearly stated hypotheses (no “fishing expeditions”)
Limit hypotheses to ~3, which capture the overarching goals of the entire proposal
The Essential Requirements of a Successful Proposal
Sell the “Big Picture” and global significance early
How your proposed work will significantly advance the “Big Picture” presented above
Hypotheses should come soon after both of the above (~page 3-4)
Address any external or negative issues directly.
Other Requirements of a successful Proposal
Periodically bring your reader back to the “big picture”
Summarize for the non-expert (panel member) the relevance and implications of the details/methods you presented
The above tips are particularly important for interdisciplinary proposals that necessitate diverse reviewers, and for any proposal receiving a panel review
Other Requirements of a successful Proposal
Broader Impacts need to be creative and original at many levels◦ Scientific impact◦ Societal impact, public outreach,
underrepresented groups◦ Educational impact, including creative approaches
that foster learning amongst diverse communities, different levels (K-12, teachers, undergrad., grad.), policy makers
◦ Utilize in-house facilities (eg., CTL, Signature Centers)
Other Requirements of a Successful Proposal
Simple as possible is best, but with all details and necessary methods included, at least briefly – convince panel you can do this
Panelists read stacks of proposals, the faster and easier they can see the idea and remember it the better; use frequent informative subheadings, flow charts, figures
Show good productivity from prior results (PAPERS!)
Requirements of a successful Proposal
Topic appropriate for intended program?◦ The “black holes” of NSF (eg., coastal processes
often do not get reviewed by NSF OCE)◦ Have a conversation with the Program Director
first
Final Thought for a Successful Proposal
1. “This proposal suggests a clear, elegant, well-documented approach to a problem that has plagued this field for decades.”
2. “This is certainly adventurous, and I frankly would have doubted it could be done. Yet the PI has proven the method in preliminary work AND had it accepted by a peer-reviewed journal!”
3. “The PI has a beautiful plan. Undergraduates or new graduate students can step right into this work, yet it solves a major problem and will be publishable in a first-rate journal.
4. “This reads like a dream. I have rarely seen a proposal, even from long-established investigators, that shows such careful thought and meticulous presentation.”
Common Reasons for High Ratings
Stuff not to do Include a picture of students doing something
without safety gear Leave out clearly visible hypotheses Scope of work not proportional to budget or
time requirements (don’t be overly ambitious) Not enough details of methodology/sampling Frequent typos, grammar mistakes, using
smaller font for added verbage Failure to reference previous & important
studies Oversell the value of what you are doing
The Program Officer: Your Secret Weapon ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_
• Answers questions
• Solicits proposal evaluations
• Runs merit review process
• Informs/makes funding recommendations
• Administers grant, revises budgets
• Helps you prepare competitive proposals
Seek their input, preferably in person
Program Officer: Not All Are Created Equal
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
• Some are permanent, some are rotators
• Some are activists, others more conservative
• Some more knowledgeable than others
• Some travel more than others
• Some more autonomous than others
Program Officer: Questions ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_
• Do you fund the kind of thing I want to do?
• Am I eligible? (if applicable)
• What is the review process and who makes the final recommendation?
• What is the projected success rate?
• How much money is for new initiatives?
• Are there special programs I qualify for?
Everyone Gets Bad Reviews! Reasons: 1. Flaw in idea, logic, or approach 2. Written in a way that allows that criticism 3. Reviewer wrong (if noted by more than one reviewer, you’ve got a
problem)
Strategy: Read review Blow off steam (in private, not to the program people) Read again, annotate trouble spots in proposal Now read pretending this is someone else’s proposal Think about what they are REALLY saying
How to Interpret a Review
Don’t be Fooled by High Marks!*
An Example: “An excellent proposal, but….” (Analysis: Not ready for prime time)
It is the content, not the score that matters!
*Note: People in the same subdiscipline always feel that work is very important. People who rank proposals across the scientific spectrum do not always agree with that view.
How to Interpret a Review (cont.)
Proposal Quality DistributionN
um
ber
of
Pro
posals
Poor
Goo
d
Fair
Out
stand
ing
Excell
ent
Very
Goo
d
Who Gets FundedN
um
ber
of
Pro
posals
Poor
Goo
d
Fair
Out
stand
ing
Excell
ent
Very
Goo
d
Almost Never funded
AlmostAlways funded
Typically funded
Grey Zone
After you receive your first NSF Award
• Supplemental funding• International travel funds
• Research Experience for Undergraduates (REUs)
• Other (early June is a good time to approach your PD for supplements, before fiscal year end, including “Careers”)• Approved up to 20% of original funded level at
sole discretion of PD (external review if > 20%)
• Give a seminar at NSF of results from your grant
NSF Proposal Resources
• Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) www.nsf.gov/pubsys/ods/getpub.cfm?gpg
• Early Concept Grants for Exploratory Research (EAGER), section II.D.2 of GPG
• RAPID Response Grants, section II.D.1 of GPG www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf11001/gpg_2.jsp#IID1
NSF Proposal Resources• RAPID Response Grants, section II.D.1
of GPG“proposals having a severe urgency with regard
to availability of, or access to data, facilities or specialized equipment, including quick-response research on natural or anthropogenic disasters and similar unanticipated events”
Contact relevant Program Officer first
3-5 page project description
up to $200k for one year, no external review
No-cost extension OK, supplemental funding possible, renewal possible with external review
NSF Proposal Resources• EAGER Grants, section II.D.2 of GPG
“to support exploratory work in its early stages on untested, but potentially transformative, research…"high risk-high payoff”…”
Contact relevant Program Officer first
5-8 page project description
up to $300k for two years, no external review
No-cost extension OK, supplemental funding possible, renewal possible with external review
NSF Proposal Resources
• Workshop proposals
• <$50K, only Program Director approval• >$50k but <$100k, internal review only• >$100K, external review
NSF Proposal ResourcesResources
• Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) www.nsf.gov/pubsys/ods/getpub.cfm?gpg
• NSF Publication on Broader Impacts
www.nsf.gov/pubs/2003/nsf032/bicexamples.pdf
• 2013 Report on NSF Merit Review system
www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/
• Recently Funded NSF Proposals
www.fastlane.nsf.gov/servlet/A6RecentWeeks
• NSF Program Announcements -- eligibility, goals, special requirements
41
Mathematical& PhysicalSciences
(MPS)
Geosciences(GEO)
Engineering(ENG)
Computer &Information
Science &Engineering
(CISE)
BiologicalSciences
(BIO)
Office of theInspector General
(OIG)
DirectorDeputy Director
National Science Board(NSB)
Office of Diversity & Inclusion
Office of the General Counsel
Office of International &Integrative Activities
Office of Legislative &Public Affairs
Social, Behavioral& Economic
Sciences(SBE)
Education & HumanResources
(EHR)
Budget, Finance & Award
Management(BFA)
Information& Resource Management
(IRM)
NSF Organizational Chart
42
DOD, $71.2
HHS (NIH)$32.0
NASA, $11.6
DOE, $12.7
NSF, $6.2
USDA, $2.5DOC, $2.7
All Other, $6.7
Total R&D =$144.2 billion
FY 2014 Request: Total R&D by AgencyBudget Authority in Billions of Dollars
Research & Related Activi-ties
($6,212 million)
Education & Human Resources
($880 million)Major Research
Equipment & Facilities Construction ($210 million)
Administrative AccountsAOAM ($304 million)
OIG ($14 million)NSB ($4 million)
FY 2014 Request by Account($7,626 million)
Totals may not add due to rounding.
NSF and STEM EducationDivision of Undergraduate Education
(DUE)Education and Human Resources
(EHR)
Kathy MarrsSchool of Science, IUPUI
NSF STEM Education and Workforce Priorities Prepare students to be leaders,
teachers, and innovators in emerging and rapidly changing STEM fields
Develop a scientifically literate populace
Both depend on the nature and quality of the undergraduate education experience
NSF InvestmentsResearch-based and research-generating approaches to: Understand/advance STEM learning Design, test, and study curricular change Widely disseminate and implement best
practices Broaden participation of individuals and
institutions in STEM fields
NSF Goals
Develop the STEM/STEM-related workforce
Advance science Broaden participation in STEM Educate a STEM-literate populace Build capacity in higher education Improve K-12 STEM education Encourage life-long learning
EHR Areas of Investment Experiential learning Assessment/metrics of learning and
practice Scholarships Foundational education research Professional development Institutional change Formal and informal learning
environments Undergraduate disciplinary research
Undergraduate Education (DUE) Active Funding Opportunities
NSF DUE website: https://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_list.jsp?org=DUE
Includes a variety of specific and cross-cutting programs: Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program March 5, 2014 STEM-C Partnerships: MSP (STEM-CP: MSP) March 18, 2014 Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) May 23, 2014 NSF Scholarships in Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (S-STEM) August 12, 2014
International Research Experiences for Students (IRES) August 19, 2014
Science of Learning Centers (SLC) (Accepted Anytime)
Replaces previous DUE programs: (TUES, WIDER, STEP)
NSF is seeking projects that: Broaden participation and student retention in
STEM Prepare students to participate in science for
tomorrow Improve students' STEM learning outcomes Generate knowledge on how students learn and
on effective practice in undergraduate classrooms
Improving Undergraduate STEM Education (IUSE)
IUSE Projects (cont.) In FY14, NSF is also accepting proposals
for developing “IDEAS Labs” in biology, engineering, and geosciences
Intent: bring together relevant disciplinary and education research expertise to produce research agendas that address discipline-specific workforce development needs
Note: 2/4/2014 deadline; watch for further opportunities
NSF Merit Review Criteria• Intellectual Merit – the potential to
advance knowledge.• Broader Impacts – the potential to
benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes.
Both criteria, Intellectual Merit and Broader Impact, will be given full consideration during the review and decision-making processes. Proposers must fully address both criteria.
Merit Review Considerations (also discussed by Kevin Mandernack)
What is the potential for the proposed activity to: Advance knowledge and understanding within
its own field or across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and
Benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader Impacts)?
To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative, original or potentially transformative concepts?
Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities well-reasoned, well-organized, and based on a sound rationale? Does the plan incorporate a mechanism to assess success?
Merit Review Considerations How well qualified is the individual, team, or organization to conduct the
proposed activities?
Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home
institution or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities?
Human Subjects: IRB exemption or approval documentation is required at the time of the
award - in order to receive FY 2014 funding Must plan for the timing necessary to obtain institutional IRB approval
Reviewers are also asked to review: Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources, Data Management Plan, and Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan
Questions?
NSF's FY 2014 budget request is $7.626 billion, an increase of $592.69 million (8.4%) over the 2012 level.
Classroom Resources: http://www.nsf.gov/news/classroom/
Kathy Marrs kmarrs@iupui.edu
How to Write a Good Summary
Jeff Watt
How to Write a Good Summary
The summary is the first thing the reviewers and NSF staff read!
It will determine who the project director selects as reviewers.
It must introduce the reviewer to the story that your proposal is going to tell.
It must be written clearly and concisely, stating:◦ the problem,◦ the objectives◦ the expected outcomes◦ the project activities, and◦ the audience to be addressed
NSF will publish the summary, if funded. Considerable effort and thought should be spent in
preparing a well-written summary.
How to Write a Good SummaryA well-written summary does the following: paints a picture or tells a story that sticks in the reviewer’s
head after reading 20 proposals; uses terms easily understood or known by various reviewers; is jargon free of local or specific institution vocabulary; describes the problem to be studied and why it should be
solved (importance); provides realistic numbers on size and scope of impact; communicates work already done or expertise of the
investigators, on which the proposal will be built; provides an overview of the activities funded by this
proposal; provides an overview of the expected outcomes; and describes how will the project be sustained after the grant
ends.
By Wesley Wright, Grant Services Manager
Indiana UniversityOffice of Research Administration
Understanding the ORA Proposal Process for Successful Proposal
Submission
ORA Process for Proposal Review
Before review begins a Kuali Coeus Proposal Development Document must be fully signed by all Responsibility Centers
A fully signed routing lets our office know there is a Proposal Development Document in the queue for assignment
The e-mail for Proposal Development Documents is monitored by Front Office Staff for assignment to a Grant Consultant
Once the Grant Consultant receives the Proposal Assignment an intro e-mail is sent to the Principal Investigator and Department Contact
The proposal is then reviewed for to ensure compliance with applicable guidelines
ORA Process for Proposal Review continued
As the Grant Consultant is reviewing any corrections that are needed are relayed to the appropriate contacts
An example of this is biosketches being limited to two pages.
Once any needed corrections are completed the proposal is then submitted based on agency guidelines
Ideally ORA likes to submit electronic proposals the day before the due date
For paper proposals it is ideal they are mailed 2 days before the due date.
With respect to NSF we encourage submission in Fastlane.
How ORA can help you
Intro e-mails going out to appropriate parties in a timely manner
Reviewing the proposal’s content for things such as page limits and keeping all parties in the loop of communication
Ensuring the budget categories follow any appropriate guidelines and ensuring they are calculated properly
We can also pre-review budgets upon request
How you can help us
Department contacts and Principal Investigators need to be available to facilitate needed proposal corrections
Contacting ORA when there are technical issues involving routings
Also when multiple Responsibility Centers are involved make sure they are in the communications loop about the need to approve
For agencies that require COI disclosures have them in place before proposal submission
Adherence to the ORA Deadline Policy
ORA Deadline Policy The Deadline Policy became effective in 2011
http://www.researchadmin.iu.edu/Policies/Internal_Submission_Policy_2011_01_04.pdf
It applies to all Sponsored Project submissions For electronic submissions the all pieces except the
technical proposal and cited literature are to be provided to ORA in final form 5 business days before agency deadline
This also includes a fully signed Proposal Development Document in Kuali Coeus
The narrative and cited literature are due 2 days prior to sponsor’s deadline
ORA Deadline Policy continued For paper proposals all pieces except the technical
proposal and cited literature are to be provided to ORA in final form 5 business days before agency deadline
The complete proposal in final form must be delivered to ORA within 3 days prior to sponsor’s submission deadline with the number of copies required by sponsor and one copy for Grant Services
Any violation of the above results in an e-mail being sent to Principal Investigator, Department Contact and Dean or Chair of the respective Center
Once the e-mail is received the Principal Investigator must respond as to why the proposal is late before submission consideration is given
Reminders
Be sure to give Sponsored Research Office (SRO) access so your proposal can be reviewed by ORA staff
Be mindful of spending as Grants Management Officers are monitoring income drawn down in the Award Cash Management System
NSF now requires COI disclosures be in place upon proposal submission this is for all Key Personnel. For Subcontracts a Non IU Conflict of Interest disclosure is required if the organization is not a member of the Federal Demonstration Partnership (FDP).
Reminders (continued)
Make sure Progress Reports are submitted in a timely manner in Research.gov as funding from NSF is now incremental.
Time is of the essence with things such as Proposal Updates, Letters of Intent, and No Cost Extension Requests
Voluntary Committed Cost Sharing is prohibited unless required by the solicitation
Be sure to include the current proposal being submitted in the Current and Pending Support section
Questions ?
Recommended