Statewide Professional Development and Grantsmanship Workshop for Louisiana Institutions

Statewide Professional Development and Grantsmanship Workshop

for Louisiana Institutions of Higher Education

“Learning & Teaching, Research and Service

Southern University at New Orleans

March 9, 2004

RESEARCH WORKSHOP

Email: [email protected]

Web page: http://www.cs.unc.edu/~quigg/

When did the

federal government

become involved

in funding

university research?

• Before WWII

History: External Support for University Research in U.S.

• Mainly internal sources

Agriculture• Notable exception –

• Morrill Act of 1862: Land-Grant Colleges

• 30,000 acres of federal land/congressional representative to each State


• Sold to provide a perpetual endowment fund for:

• “at least one college where the leading object shall be, without excluding other scientific and

classical studies and including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts…”

• Kentucky (50¢/acre) – Cornell ($5.50/acre)

History: External Support for University Research in U.S.• Second Morrill Act of 1890

• In order to get $, State had to show that race was not a criterion for admission to land-grant

institution or

• Designate a separate land-grant college for blacks

• “1890 land-grants” created all over the then-segregated South

History: External Support for University Research in U.S.• Hatch Act of 1887: Agriculture Experiment

Station• Annual appropriation – State match required

• Smith-Lever Act of 1914: Cooperative Extension Service

• Annual appropriation – State match required

• Current federal $ from various acts > $550 million annually

• During WWII


• University scientists mobilized to apply expertise to war effort

• National Defense Research Council

• Formed by FDR in June, 1940

• Forum for bringing university/industry/ government scientists together

• 18 month “head-start” on Pearl Harbor


• Office of Scientific Research and Defense (OSRD)

• May 1941

• Dr. Vannevar Bush, Director

• Mission “to explore a possible government role to

encourage future scientific progress.”

• Civilian, not military, control


• OSRD contracted work to other institutions

• Carnegie Institute of Technology – Large Rocket Lab

• MIT – Radiation Lab

• Western Electric and Bell Labs – Sound Amplification

• Emphasis on concentrated, massive rapid development

• Production from model to field e.g., Japanese torpedo jammer developed in one week


• Three critical secret projects pivotal to allied victory in WWII

• Atomic bomb (Manhattan project)

• Radar

• 1935 – NRL – ship radar

• 1942 – MIT – high-frequency, narrow-beam, high-resolution

• Manufactured by Sperry, Westinghouse, Philco (for aircraft)


• Prior to WWII – timed fuze or contact fuze

• Neither effective against highly maneuverable airplanes

• Section T – Applied Physics Lab at Johns Hopkins University assigned task of developing proximity

fuze for Navy’s 5” guns

• Proximity (variable time) fuze


• Fuze contains miniature radio transmitter-receiver

• Sends out signal

• When signal reflected back from target reaches a certain frequency (caused by proximity to target) a circuit closes firing a small charge which detonates projectile

• Theory


• Components – tiny glass vacuum tubes

• Force of 20,000 g’s when fired (2800 ft./sec. muzzle velocity)

• 25,000 revolutions/minute through rifling grooves

• Moisture

• Self-destruct feature for dudes

• Problems


• Importance to war effort

• James V. Forrestal, Secretary of the Navy said, “The proximity fuze has helped me blaze the trail to Japan. Without the protection this ingenious device has given the surface ships of the fleet, our westward push could not have been so swift and the cost in men and ships would have been immeasurably greater”

• Prime Minister, Winston S. Churchill was quoted with “These so-called proximity fuzes, made in the United States.., proved potent against the small unmanned aircraft (V-1) with which we were assailed in 1944.”

• And Commanding General of the Third Army, George S. Patton said, “The funny fuze won the Battle of the Bulge for us. I think that when all armies get this shell we will have to devise some new method of warfare.”


• Bush’s final report The Endless Frontier

• Two principles for expanding R & D in U.S. Universities

• Federal government as patron of science

• Government support should ensure a free rein of investigation by scientists into topics and methods of their choice


• This report lead to the establishment of National Science Foundation (NSF) in 1950

• Independent government agency

• National Science Board

• 24 members plus director

• Appointed by President


• Responsible for promoting science and engineering

• Six priority areas:

• Mathematical Sciences

• Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences

• Biocomplexity in the Environment

• Information Technology Research

• Nanoscale Science and Engineering

• Learning for the 21st Century Workforce

Sound bite Transcript:

"The value of our natural resources is constantly being increased by the progress of science. Research is finding new ways of using such natural assets as minerals, sea water, and plant life. In the peaceful development of atomic energy, particularly, we stand on the threshold of new wonders. The first experimental machines for producing useful power from atomic energy are now under construction. We have made truly the first beginnings in this field, but in the perspective of history, they may loom larger than the first airplane, or even the first tools that started man on the road to civilization.”

Excerpts from the State of the Union Address January 4, 1950

Harry S. Truman

KEY HISTORICAL DATES

APRIL 27, 1950

Final passage by House of Representatives of bill creating the National Science Foundation. House passed the original bill, H.R. 4846, on March 1 by 247-126 vote.

APRIL 28, 1950

Final passage of science bill by the Senate. Original Senate bill, S.247, was passed on March 18.

MAY 10, 1950

President Harry S. Truman signed the bill creating the National Science Foundation. Truman announced this signing in the morning from the rear platform of a train in Pocatello, Idaho.

SEPTEMBER 27, 1950

NSF's first budget of $225,000 was approved by President Truman.

NOVEMBER 2, 1950

President Truman announced his appointments to The National Science Board.

DECEMBER 12, 1950

The first meeting took place of the National Science Board in the White House.

NSF by the Numbers

• NSF annual budget: $4.789 billion (in Year 2002)

• NSF's share of total annual federal spending for R&D: 4%

• NSF's share of federal funding for all basic research done at academic institutions: 23%

• NSF's share of federal funding for basic academic research in: physical sciences (36%); environmental sciences

(49%); engineering (50%); mathematics (72%); computer science research (78%); and anthropology (100%).

• Number of organizations (colleges and universities, schools, nonprofit institutions, and small businesses) receiving

NSF funds each year: nearly 2,000

• Number of proposals that NSF competitively reviews each year: 32,000

• Approx. number of total awards funded each year: 20,000

• Approx. number of new awards funded each year: 10,000

• Number of reviewers (scientists and engineers) who evaluate proposals for NSF each year: 50,000

• Number of reviews done each year: 250,000

• Number of students supported through NSF's Graduate Research Fellowship Program since 1952: 36,000

• Number of people (teachers, students, researchers, post-doctorates and trainees) that NSF directly supports: nearly

200,000

“The Art of Grantsmanship”By: Jacob Kraicer

• “Good writing will not save bad ideas, but bad writing can kill good ones.”

• “Quality of science in applications 10% below cutoff for funding is not significantly

different from that in the 10% just above the cutoff.”

• “Grantsmanship is the art of acquiring peer-reviewed research funding.”

“Zen in the Art of Grantsmanship”By: L. Wade Black

“If you want to live with grants, you have to live

with rejection – over and over and over again. If

you equate rejection with failure, or if your belief in

your project is weak enough that a rejection can

shake your faith in it or in yourself, you’re going to

have an emotionally rough and rocky grant seeking

experience.”

“Zen in the Art of Grantsmanship”By: L. Wade Black

“When I’m on a grants panel, the first thing I

look at is the ‘one paragraph’ summary of the

project, then I look at the budget, then I look at

the individual’s (organization’s) history. These

three things strongly influence how I look at the

rest of the proposal. They aren’t all I consider,

but they’re very important!”

TNT

Tim’s Ten No-Nonsense Tips for

Successful Proposal Writing

TNT 1: Think, plan, think again, then write a description of your project

• Set first impression

• Used to route to appropriate reviewers

• Write them last

• In abstract• Hypothesis (es) to be tested• Describe how the proposal is directly related to the

agency’s mission/objectives• Tell why the proposal is unique, important, significant

and worth supporting• Briefly describe research plan

• Title and abstract

• Focused, original, novel, innovative and feasible• Balance (“sure” and “innovative/risky”)• State what is known, what is not known and why it is

essential to find out• Preliminary data/studies

• Proposed research

• Research design and methods• Put aims in logical/sequential order• Brief rationale for each aim• Outline the design/method to accomplish each aim

(Why was proposed approach chosen?)

• Explain process for data collection, analysis and interpretation

• Provide tentative sequence/timeline for project (use diagrams or tables where appropriate)

• Document collaboration arrangements• Letters – confirming specific roles (PI/Institution)• Biographic sketches

TNT 2: Learn as much as you can about the agency, the program and the program officer.

“A genius is a talented person who does his/her homework.”

Thomas Edison

• Search web sites, ask senior faculty, read• Be sensitive to “Agency Culture”

• Terminology• Accepted norms• Methods of communication• Different agencies interpret rules differently


• Communicate with Program Officer• Face-to-face is best (phone/e-mail is ok)• Always make an appointment

• Many federal buildings locked

• Good way to start meeting• Describe your project• Ask if it fits within goals/budget of the program

• If no, does it fit elsewhere?

• Seek feedback• Integrate feedback into proposal


GOAL: Target your proposal to agency objectives and put your face on it!

TNT 3: Prepare a written proposal development timeline and follow it.

“Goals are dreams with deadlines.”Diana Scharf Hunt

• Work backward from the required mail date

• Assume that things will go wrong• Key people go out of town• FastLane gets clogged and slows down• So – Build time for the inevitable disasters into your timeline

TNT 3: Prepare and follow a written proposal development timeline.

• Set deadlines for each component (budget, narrative)

• Assign responsibilities

• Be specific (who, what, when?)

• Pay special attention to items needed from outside your group

• Letters of support

• Subcontractor information


• Information needed from subcontractor• “Intent to participate” letter (co-signed by PI and

institution)• Work scope• Budget• Other (NICRA, current and pending support)

• Include subcontractor information in the package routed through your university


• Schedule on-campus review• Call ahead• Send complicated budgets for early review• Discuss any potential “pit-falls”

• Are you in FastLane?• Is cost-sharing documented?• Are there any non-standard university commitments?

“Everybody is ignorant only on different subjects.”Will Rogers

• If you are new (or old and need it) ask for help.

TNT 4: When dealing with the mechanics of developing a proposal, “think inside the

box.”

Scientists are taught to “think outside the box.” Right?

• Follow the rules for format, forms and presentation precisely

• If they ask for “project goals” don’t give them “research aims.”

“Think inside the box”

• Page limit

• Type size, font, spacing

• Don’t include appendices if not allowed

• Avoid abbreviations, acronyms and jargon

• Free of mechanical errors (spelling, typos, grammar)

• Follow instructions exactly:

• “If you can’t get the spelling right, how are you expected to get the research right.”

• “A sloppy application = a sloppy scientist!”

• Be creative with the science

• Be a “good bureaucrat” with the format of the proposal

“Think inside the box”

TNT 5: Agencies fund people, not just ideas.

“A man who qualifies himself well for his calling, never fails of employment.”

Thomas Jefferson

• Of course the science is important, but ultimately people fund people they know and trust

• Key personnel section is vital

• Highlight recent training/experience of team

• Be honest, but this is not the place to be modest

“I not only use all the brains I have, but all I can borrow.”

Woodrow Wilson

• If you are inexperienced, team up with more experienced faculty

• Be Co-PI

• “Tell me what company thou keepest, and I’ll tell you what thou art.”

Cervantes• Work to develop dynamic collaborations

• Warning – you may be a junior partner, but are still a partner, not an employee


• Work to become better known

• Professional organizations

• Publications in journals

• Serve as proposal reviewer

• Become known by the people doing the

“cutting edge” research• Letters of support

• Future collaborators – subcontracting opportunities


• Develop a reputation for doing what you said you would do

• Periodic and final reports

• But also with the conduct of your research

Example: Senior faculty – completed research obligation without funding before

submitting next proposal


Don’t let this be said of you:

“The President has kept all of the promises he intended to keep.”

Clinton aide George Stephanopolous

TNT 6: Quality Trumps Quantity Every Time

“He can compress the most words into the smallest idea of any man I know.”

Abraham Lincoln

• Don’t attach “filler information” not relevant to evaluation criteria

• Remember, some poor reviewer has to wade through it and• Many agencies now allow reviewers the option of

not looking at information in appendices

TNT 6: Quality Trumps Quantity Every Time

• Always consider the reviewer• Assume reviewer is in a somewhat related field, not an expert directly in your area• Often unpaid• Reviews are over and above normal job duties• Reviews done in “bits-and-pieces” (evenings, weekends, etc.)• Put yourself in the role of the reviewer• Make his/her job easier• Information should be where it is expected to be and in the expected format

TNT 7: Budget should be the “right size”, neither too large nor too small.

“Too much of a good thing is wonderful.” Mae West

• Agencies/Program officers want to use their funds wisely

(Except with proposal budgets)

• Budget novices may ask for:• Too little – believing that they have a better chance to be funded or • Too much – anticipating cuts by “padding”

• Both can (and often do) backfire!


• Reviewers expect realistic, well-documented budgets that relate directly to the “scope of work”

• Common mistake: many PI’s don’t pay enough attention to the budget justification!

• Allocable – related to the project and necessary to accomplish the work scope

• Allowable – permitted under the various rules governing this award


• Reviewers should never have to ask:

• Why are there five graduate students? What will they be doing?

• Why is the EE’s effort 20%?

• How does the travel budget relate to the project?

• What will they do with all that equipment?

• It’s the PI’s responsibility to answer the allocability question for all budget items and the

place for doing so is the budget justification!


• If the agency agrees to fund your project at a reduced level:

• The scope of work should be adjusted or• Either voluntary cost-sharing or clearly defined “other contributions” should be documented

• To do otherwise casts doubt on the accuracy/integrity of your original budget!

TNT 8: Criticism from the right sources can be helpful.

“The greatest of all faults is to be conscious of none.”

Thomas Carlyle

• Get colleagues to review and critique your proposal before it is submitted

• Build-in time for this on your proposal development timeline

• Value it but

• “Run it through your sifter”

• Decide whether/how to incorporate it

TNT 8: Criticism from the right sourcescan be helpful.

• Build positive relationships with departmental/university research administration staff

• Rely upon them to “catch” problems with• Forms• Formats• Allowability of cost• Budget accuracy

TNT 9: When the time comes to “push the button”, don’t be afraid even if the proposal isn’t

perfect.

“A good plan executed right now is far better than a perfect plan executed next week.”

George S. Patton

• If you wait to have children till you can afford them, you’ll never have them

• Likewise, if you wait till a proposal is perfect, you’ll never submit one

• And, if you never submit one – you dramatically reduce your chances of getting one funded!

TNT 9: When the time comes to “push the button”, don’t be afraid even if the proposal isn’t perfect.

• “Don’t push the river. It will flow by itself.”

• Be patient, many funding agencies take about six months to complete process

• It is considered inappropriate to contact the program officer while a proposal is under review

• However, if the time for decisions listed in the program announcement has passed, it is acceptable

to inquire to see if the timeline for review has been revised

TNT 9: When the time comes to “push the button”, don’t be afraid even if the proposal isn’t perfect.

• Rejections usually come by snail mail or e-mail

• Successful proposals usually get a call from the program officer

TNT 10: Treat every rejected proposal as an opportunity to learn.

“Failure is the opportunity to begin again, more intelligently.”

Henry Ford

• Many good, fundable proposals are not funded because the agency ran out of money – not because it was a poor proposal

• Request a copy of the reviewers comments (andnumeric score where applicable)


• Accept the comments as valuable input

• The reviewer may not have understood your point.

• Whose job is it to make them understand?

• Obviously it’s yours!

• How can you more clearly communicate your message?

• The reviewer may have found “holes” in your presentation - plug them!


Remember

Proposal writing is an iterative process.

Many successful proposals were not

funded on their first submission!

Don’t give up! Proposal writing is a learned skill.

“Life is like riding a bicycle. You don’t fall off unless you stop pedaling.”

Claude Pepper

Documents

Statewide Professional Development and Grantsmanship Workshop for Louisiana Institutions