NSF: Life in the Sausage Factory NSF: Where Science Policy Begins

NSF: So Many Good Ideas, So Little Discretionary Spending

NSF: Putting the Basic in Basic Research

NSF in a Nutshell

Dana E. Lehr and R. Scott Fisher, Program Directors Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences Division of Astronomical Sciences National Science Foundation rfisher@nsf.gov 09 December 2010

NSF Quick Facts

Independent Agency Supports basic research & education Uses grant mechanism FY10 Budget $6.9B

Discipline-based structure Cross-disciplinary mechanisms Use of Rotators/IPAs National Science Board

Other Sciences

Mathematics & ComputerSciences

Environmental Sciences

Engineering

Physical Sciences

Social Sciences &Psychology

All Life Sciences 4.7%

27.7%

35.5%

44.5%

50.3%

76.0%

39.1%

NSF Support for Basic Research at Academic Institutions

Share of Total Federal Support

NSF Vision Advancing discovery, innovation and education beyond the frontiers of current knowledge, and empowering future generations in science and engineering.

NSF-3

NSF Mission To promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity and welfare; to secure the national defense.

NSF Workforce

Consists of 1,200 career employees, 150 scientists from research institutions on temporary duty, 200 contract workers, and the staff of the NSB office and the Office of the Inspector General.

Unlike other agencies, NSF does not maintain its own research laboratories.

NSF Bread and Butter

NSF receives approximately 40,000 proposals each year for research, education and training projects, of which approximately 11,000 are funded

Supports national research centers, oceanographic research vessels, and multi-user facilities through cooperative agreements with managing organizations

National Science Foundation

Inspector General

National Science Board

Director Deputy Director

Staff Offices

Computer & Information

Science & Engineering

Engineering Geosciences Mathematical & Physical

Sciences

Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences

Education & Human Resources

Budget, Finance & Award

Management

Information Resource

Management

Biological Sciences

MPS at a Glance Largest NSF Directorate: over $1B budget Nearly half of NSF’s large facilities Science scope: Space: “from quarks to the cosmos” Time: “from the incredibly short to the

unimaginably long” Character: “from the very abstract to almost ready

for the marketplace”

Provides ~40% of university federal funding in the physical sciences

Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences

Assistant Director for Mathematical and Physical Sciences

Division of Chemistry

Division of Materials Research

Division of Mathematical

Sciences

Division of Physics

Division of Astronomical

Sciences

Office of Multidisciplinary Activities

Nat

iona

l Sci

ence

Fou

ndat

ion

Division of Astronomical Sciences

Modes of support include,

• single-investigator and collaborative awards, • funding for acquisition and development of astronomical

instrumentation, • technology development for future ground-based facilities, • educational projects that leverage the Division's research investments to

build research and workforce capacity and to increase scientific literacy. http://www.nsf.gov/astronomy

The NSF Division of Astronomical Sciences is the steward of ground-based astronomical research in the United States The Division supports research in all areas of astronomy and astrophysics and related multidisciplinary studies.

Nat

iona

l Sci

ence

Fou

ndat

ion

Division of Astronomical Sciences

• Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA) • Gemini Observatory • National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center (NAIC) (Arecibo) • National Optical Astronomy Observatory (NOAO) (KPNO & CTIO) • National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) (VLA, GBT, ALMA) • National Solar Observatory (NSO) (Tucson, Sac Peak, ATST) • NSF-funded University Radio Observatories (UROs) • Electromagnetic Spectrum Management (ESM)

Anyone may propose for observing time on NSF AST-funded facilities

Facilities

Nat

iona

l Sci

ence

Fou

ndat

ion

Division of Astronomical Sciences

• Astronomy and Astrophysics Research Grants (AAG) • Education & Special Programs (ESP) (CAREER, PAARE, and REU) • NSF Astronomy & Astrophysics Postdoctoral Fellowships (AAPF)

Individual Investigator Programs

Nigel Sharp: nsharp@nsf.gov

Scott Fisher: rfisher@nsf.gov

Dana Lehr: dlehr@nsf.gov

14

What’s a Program? A well-defined grant-giving function, usually with a well-defined budget Usually means an individual investigator grant program, but could also refer to a facilities program (especially in MPS)

NSF Programs for Specific Purposes ADVANCE: Increasing the Participation and Advancement of Women in Academic Science and Engineering Careers Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry (GOALI) Human and Social Dynamics (HSD) Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) NSF Graduate Teaching Fellows in K-12 Education Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) Research in Undergraduate Institutions (RUI) Faculty Early-CAREER Development

Nat

iona

l Sci

ence

Fou

ndat

ion Proposal Writing

Before You Place Pen to Paper II

• Goal of Program • Eligibility • Special proposal preparation and/or award

requirements • Deadlines/Target dates/ Submission

windows • Pre/Full proposal

In Program Announcement/Solicitation, look for:

Nat

iona

l Sci

ence

Fou

ndat

ion

Things to consider

• Why do it? • Why you and not someone else?

• Uniqueness of research, educational opportunities, available facilities...

• What are your strengths? • Capture the reviewers’ attention in the summary and

introduction. Make them want to read more.

• YOU must convince the reviewer you are worthy of funding

• Express yourself clearly • It’s not the reviewer’s job to figure out what you are

trying to accomplish and why

Nat

iona

l Sci

ence

Fou

ndat

ion

Sections of a Proposal

• Cover Sheet

• Project Summary

• Table of Contents

• Project Description: Research and Broader Impacts • References

• Biographical Sketches

• Budget

• Current and Pending Support

• Facilities, Equipment, and Other Resources

• Special Information and Supplementary Documentation: – Short letters of commitment to collaborate NOT Support – Post-Doc Mentoring

Nat

iona

l Sci

ence

Fou

ndat

ion

Merit Review Criteria 1. What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity? • How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and

understanding within its own field or across different fields? How well qualified is the proposer (individual or team) to conduct the project? (If appropriate, please comment on the quality of prior work.) To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts? How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity? Is there sufficient access to the necessary resources?

2. What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity? • How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while

promoting teaching, training, and learning? How well does the proposed activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)? To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships? Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding? What may be the benefits of the proposed activity to society? Post doc mentoring activities will be evaluated under B.I.

If Declined …

• Don’t lose heart but try again • Common Reasons for Declination

• “Trust-me” proposal, • “Incremental” contribution, • Weak educational component, • Expertise gaps, Insufficient fund / time request, • Not a good fit in the program, • Bad luck: Funding limitations, timing, program balance

• Read Reviews and Panel Summary consider comments (+ and -), suggestions • Talk to the Program Director • Revise proposal and submit again

• Try to express yourself more clearly the next time • Don’t assume same set of reviewers

Nat

iona

l Sci

ence

Fou

ndat

ion

If Awarded

• Celebrate, you are one of the few fortunate ones • FY 2009 OVERALL NSF Success Rate 32%

(Research 28%; Research, New PI: 20%) Includes ARRA funded projects

• FY 2008 OVERALL NSF Success Rate 25% (Research 21%; Research, New PI: 15%)

Two modes for Grants: “standard” – entire grant amount in year 1

“continuing” – yearly increments based on satisfactory annual reports

Scott Fisher Dana Lehr Paul Morris September 9th, 2010

Astro2010 Response Group Astronomy in Society (AiS)

Astro2010 Recommendations (paraphrased)

1) The community should encourage and support astronomers’ commitment to serving in service/policy positions at the relevant funding agencies.

2) The AAS and astronomy departments should make students aware of the wide variety of academic/non-academic career choices available to those that study astronomy

An AST Response to a Recommendation

Recommendation: The AAS and astronomy departments should make students aware of the wide variety of academic/non-academic career choices available to those that study astronomy Possible Action: We tweak PAARE to allow, emphasize, and promote partnerships that bring in students from other disciplines like ENG, CS, admin.