From no-go to go in three tries

NSF CAREER Workshop

April 4-5, 2011

Sean B. AnderssonMechanical EngineeringDivision of Systems EngineeringBoston Universitywww.bu.edu/anderssonlab

About me and my research

• Systems and control (dynamics in nanometer-scale systems)• CAREER from NSF-CMMI-Control Systems Program

Non-raster scanning in AFM

Tracking in confocal microscopy

Every CAREER starts with a good idea

• New direction: control in AFM and confocal microscopy• PhD: Geometric control theory

• Many months of• Idea development• Idea refinement• Idea scrap-ment/restart-ment• Preliminary work

Tracking in SPMTracking in SPM

High-speed AFM

High-speed AFM

Single particle tracking in confocal

Single particle tracking in confocal

Non-raster imagingNon-raster imaging Direct tracking of moleculesDirect tracking of molecules

Need to develop a five year PLAN

Preparing to write…and then writing

• Read MANY successful and unsuccessful CAREERs• Asked for examples from friends, colleagues• Sought common features to emulate and common mistakes to

avoid

• Spent significant time on outreach• Ensured it was tightly coupled to research program

• Drafted, edited refined…and then sent to colleagues• Re-edited, re-refined…and then sent to colleagues

• Ph.D advisor, postdoctoral advisor, friends, senior members in the department, junior members that recently won the CAREER

Four to five months on writing

So, how’d that work out for me?

• Scores: V, V, E, G• Fund if possible... But it wasn’t possible

• Proposal was well-written with good ideas but:• Ideas were too vague

• (But it’s a five year CAREER! How can they be??)

• Connection to program goals (control) were weak

• Note: outreach was well-received

• Lessons learned:• Have a tightly focused (but broad!) research program

• Provide sufficient detail

• Don’t use your first CAREER as your first proposal!!!

The second round – revising the ideas

• Received result in March – started again in June• Maintained overall structure, concepts, goals

• My response to reviews: add (a bit more) control• bit of nonlinear here, dash of adaptive there

• Read/reviewed by PhD advisor and departmental colleague• Only one round

• After all, first proposal was well-received, right?

So how did it work out?

• Scores: E, VG, VG/G, G, G• Fund if possible – but it wasn’t again

• Well-written with good blend of theory and experiments but…• Lack of technical details • Role of the advanced control material was not clear

• Why was it needed? Is it better than other methods? How will it be done?

• Lessons learned• This was the hardest; I was clearly my own undoing• Be sure to understand panels concerns – and address them• Be tightly focused in context of grander plan• Do not add vague ideas!!!

Taking it to the next level

• Talked to PM• Spent sufficient time to really understand panels concerns. New

things came out:• AFM work hard to fund, budget was a concern, lack of details was

the killer

• Discovered and attended this workshop• Came in uncertain what the workshop could really do

• Clearly I was a victim of randomness

• Left with:• Attitude change: I was in charge and there were clear deficiencies to

address

• New ideas on organization

Back to the drawing board

• Invested time in rethinking research plan• Narrowly focused, specific research objectives with details

• Nowhere for reader to ask how? why?

• Expressed focused problem in context of broader control research

• Coherent organization- for each topic (including education)• Intro – State of the art – My prior work – Research plan

• Sent to colleagues, edited, sent to colleagues• Foreshadow: most noticed third goal was not as well-described

or well-planned• My reaction: That’s in the fourth and fifth years so of course…

• Organized on-campus mock panel for further feedback

WROTE A SUBSTANTIALLY NEW PROPOSAL

So how did it work out?

• Scores: E, V, V, G• Fund if possible – Ack!

• Panel noted particularly• Some details (particularly on third goal!!!) were missing• Proposed approaches lacked some supporting theory• However, overall was strong proposal

• Even the G review was positive

• NOTE: had also submitted more focused proposal to standard program• More specific goals, more details on approach

• PM was going to fund it and then…

ARRA to the rescue!

Tips from experience: DON’T

• Rush

• Brush off/ignore advice

• Leave unanswered questions

• Forget it’s both a research proposal and CAREER plan

• Fret over stuff you cannot control

• Blame results on that stuff

Tips from experience: DOs

• Have a solid 5 year plan • shouldn’t you anyway?

• Read as many CAREER proposals as you can• both successful and unsuccessful

• Think carefully about organization• It doesn’t happen (well) holistically

• Get your draft done early so that you can…

• Get as many people to read it as you can• Use some new people after each round of edits

And one more don’t

• Don’t approach this as make it or break it• If successful – great!• If unsuccessful – you may not have a CAREER but you can still

have a career

Good luck!