nserc the case for grantsmanship
Post on 27-Jan-2016
43 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
1
Presented by: Presented by: Dr. René TinawiDr. René Tinawi
Dr. Greg NatererDr. Greg Naterer
August 6, 2008August 6, 2008
2
Plan of the presentationPlan of the presentation
About NSERCChanges to GSCEligibilityPreparing a Grant ApplicationPeer review process2007 Funding StatisticsFinal Advice
3
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
NSERC www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca
Suzanne Fortier President
4
Total: $920
NSERC Budget 2007-08(millions of dollars)
Excludes $37M increase from the 2007 Federal Budget.
5
Total: $399
Discovery Programs Budget 2007-08
1. Includes Canadian Light Source funding from NRC ($3M) and Budget 2004 ($6M). Excludes $37M increase from the 2007 Federal Budget..
(millions of dollars)
6
7
GSC Restructuring Restructuring of the Communications, Computer
and Components Engineering (GSC 334) and Electromagnetics / Electrical Systems Engineering (GSC 335) Grant Selection Committees
8
Grant Selection Committee (GSC) Structure Review Current discipline-based GSC structure may
have difficulties handling inter-disciplinary and new areas of research
To handle increasing workload, GSCs are sub-dividing and thus becoming more specialized, exacerbating the problem
Is there a better way? NSERC is reviewing the current system
9
11
12
Discovery GrantsObjectives:promoting and maintaining a diversified base of
high-quality research capability in natural sciences and engineering in Canadian universities
fostering research excellenceproviding a stimulating environment for research
training (HQP)
An essential grant to have!
13
Discovery Grants
• Supports ongoing programs of research, rather than projects
• Inherent flexibility in the research program
• Success rate: approximately 70%
• Average grant: $31K per year
14
Notification of Intent to Apply for a Discovery Grant (Form 180)
For Discovery Grants (DG), and University Faculty Award (UFA) applications
Facilitates selection of external referees
List contributions (2002-08) to avoid conflictsDeadline: August 1
Can have adverse consequences if not submitted
15
A Complete Discovery Grant Application Includes:
1. An Application for a Grant (Form 101) with supporting documentation
2. A Personal Data Form (Form 100) for applicant with appropriate appendices
3. Samples of research contributions (reprints, pre-prints, thesis chapters, manuscripts, etc.)
4. Environmental Assessment, if required
16
Merit of the proposal
FORM 101YOUR GRANT PROPOSAL
F100 (CV)YOUR RESEARCH PROFILE
Excellence of the Researcher
Training of HQP
Need for funds
Potential HQP Past HQP record
Budget justificationRelationship to other sources of funds
List of other sources of funds
17
Personal Data Form – an essential component
• List all sources of support (held or applied for) during the past four years
• Describe 5 most significant research contributions
• List other research contributions (2002-2008) in reverse chronological order (journal papers, conferences, books, etc.)
• Emphasize quality not just quantity
• Describe contributions to training of HQP (2002-2008)
• Give other evidence of impact of work (awards, honours, membership on scientific committees)
• Explain any delays in research activity (maternity)
FORM 100
18
Discovery Grant: Application tips
Please read the instructions: “Plug & Play” concept on-line does not work!
Write the summary in plain language
Provide a progress report (even for first time applicant, a must for renewals)
Position the research within the field (1page bibliography)
Articulate short and long-term objectives of your research program
Provide a detailed and focused methodology (2-3 pages)
Outline problems that you may encounter and their possible solutions
Describe plans for training of HQP (co-supervision in some cases)
Prepare a realistic budget (look at statistics)
First time applicants must seek guidance from ORS and colleagues
Discuss any relationship to other research support
Address previous GSC comments or external referee reports (if applicable)
FORM 101
19
Other tips - Discovery Grants Use the 2008 Web version of forms/guide Read all instructions VERY carefully Select the most appropriate GSC for your proposal Find out who was on your GSC last year (yearly committee renewal 1/3) Follow presentation standards for print size and page limitations (this will irritate committee
members and could have negative impact) Send the required number of papers or contributions Ensure completeness of application Read other (successful) proposals, if you can Ask colleagues for (negative) comments on your application First time applicant: Research program is essential Applicants renewing: Productivity and training of HQP is a must! + Research Program Allow several weeks to write your proposal and the possibility of iterating several times Proposals written 24h before the deadline are not appreciated by GSC In summary: your innovative research ideas and your CV no matter how outstanding they are,
must be “packaged” in a neat and clear way by respecting page limits, margins, font size, etc. Poorly prepared proposal will definitely be rejected.
Remember: money is scarce and any excuse to reject or reduce funding will be used by GSC.
Good news: You do this once every five years!
FORM 101
20
You don’t get rich working for NSERC!! Committee members are all volunteers. You will not believe your ears!!
I can’t understand how University X hired professor Y, applicant can’t even read the instructions!
Applicant is cheating: the font size is too small, it aggravates my eyes! Research proposal is too widespread, no focus! All the six papers in the CV are variations on the same theme: productivity is not
impressive! Publications: journals, conferences and book chapters are all mixed up and are not listed in
the required order! No mention or desire of HQP training: Applicant wants to attend conferences only! Applicant has other funds for the same research: double dipping! No time: it is evident this application was written 12 hours before the deadline! Applicant
will have no time to conduct the proposed research! No funding! The experimental program makes no sense at all: matchsticks inside a bucket of sand in a
laboratory are not representative of real pile foundations! Etc.
21
22
Research tools and instruments (RTI)Budget: $375M
Objectives: To foster and enhance the discovery, innovation and training capability of university researchers by supporting the purchase of research equipment and installations.
Categories:RTI – Category 1: $7,001 to $150,000; RTI – Category 2: $150,001 to $325,000; (Moratorium) RTI – Category 3: more than $325,000 (Moratorium).For categories 2 and 3, NSERC funding must be complemented from other sources such that NSERC requirement ≤ $150,000.
Advice:Apply for RTI at the same time as your DGInvolve other Faculty members, if possibleTry to obtain partial institutional or other supportOverall success rate is about 50% with an average grant of $49,000It is not advisable to apply for $149,900 RTI Grant
23
Research Tools and InstrumentsDeadline date – October 25
Ongoing moratorium on Categories 2 and 3
$150,000 or less available from NSERC
Must hold or have submitted an NSERC research grant (not necessarily a Discovery Grant)
A Grant Selection Committee’s RTI competition budget is based on the total amount applied for
24
Research Tools and Instruments Category 1What research will be performed with equipment?
Justify each item
Explain need and urgency of overall request
Suitability of proposed equipment for research program
Indicate impact on trainingGive alternate configurations and prices
FORM 100 RTI FORM 101 &
25
How your application is evaluated by the Grant Selection Committee
26
August 1 to mid-SeptemberForm 180 - Assignment of GSC and Referees
November 1Submission of Grant Application by ORS
November 25Chairs’ Meeting – Confirmation of GSC
November Mail-out DG to External Referees
Mid-DecemberMail-out to GSC Members
FebruaryGrants Competition
March – AprilAnnouncement of Results
27
Outline of evaluation
The Grant Selection Committee
How is your application evaluated
Discovery Grants (DG)
Research Tools and Instruments Grants (RTI)
28
Levels of ReviewGenerally, at least eight people will read your
proposal:
One primary reviewer on GSC One secondary reviewer on GSC Three readers One external reviewer (at least)
Total number depends on your
GSC
29
FORM 100 (CV)
& FORM 101
FORM 101
Selection Criteria for DG
Merit of the proposalExcellence of the researcherTraining of highly qualified personnel
(HQP)Need for funds
30
During February Competition
Chair
P.O.
1st Reviewer
ReaderReader
Rea
der
Reader Reader
2nd Reviewer
32,000$30,000$25,000$23,000$20,000$
00
Conflict?
31
Criterion1 - Excellence of ResearcherKnowledge, expertise and experienceContribution to researchImportance of contributions
Complementarity of expertise and synergy for group applications
32
Criterion 2 - Merit of the ProposalOriginality and innovationSignificance and expected contribution to researchClarity and scope of objectivesClarity and appropriateness of methodologyFeasibility of program
33
Criterion 3 - Training of HQP Quality and extent of past and potential
contributionsAppropriateness of proposed work for training
Training in collaborative or interdisciplinary environment
34
Name Type of HQP Training
Years Supervised or Co-supervised
Title of Project or
Thesis
Present Position
Consent obtained
Imadoc, Marie
Masters (completed)
Supervised
2003-2005
Isotope geochemistry in petroleum engineering
V-P (research), Earth Analytics Inc.,
Calgary, AB
Consent not obtained
(name withheld)
Masters (completed)
Supervised
2003-2005
Isotope geochemistry
Research executive in petroleum
industry – Western Canada
35
36
2007 Discovery Grants Results: All Disciplines
Disciplines
First-time Applicants Returning Applicants
No App.
Success(%)
Avg. Grant
($)
NoApp.
Success (%)
Avg. Grant
($)
Life Sciences 315 50.8 27,270 814 66.6 34,625
Physical Sciences 189 58.7 26,664 579 79.8 39,505
Math, Stats 84 69.4 14,356 218 76.1 18,570
Computer Science 57 72.3 18,764 297 81.8 25,311
Engineering 222 60.4 21,077 740 73.9 26,095
Subatomic Physics 12 91.7 42,591 21 85.7 48,361
Interdisciplinary 21 71.4 20,267 29 65.5 27,618
Total for all GSCs 900 58.9 23,615 2692 74.0 30,993
41
2007 Research Tools and Instruments (RTI-1)
All RTI RTI for FTAs
DisciplinesNo. App.
Success Rate (%)
Funding ($k)
No App.
Success Rate (%)
Life Sciences 456 56.4 11,709 87 47.1
Physical Sciences 487 48.3 17,359 81 56.8
Math, Stats 10 92.9 389 1 100.0
Computer Science 54 50.4 1,552 9 50.0
Engineering 512 44.7 17,827 71 40.8
Interdisciplinary 13 53.8 373 3 33.3
Total for all GSCs 1532 49.9 49,210 252 48.4
46
Why these statistics?
No grant application is guaranteed fundingDemand ($ of applicants) is > supply (available $)Committees can not exceed their allocated
budgetsAttitude of a GSC is to fund excellent applications
only: a magnifying glass is used to spot the most minute reason, as an excuse, not to fund some applicants
47
48
Final AdviceUse the 2008 Web version of the forms and Guide.
Read all instructions carefully and follow presentation standards.
Ensure completeness of application.
Remember that more than one audience reads your application.
Ask colleagues for comments on your application.
Read other successful proposals, if possible.
Read the Peer Review Manual (on the web)
Allow enough time for iterations
49
Thank you for Thank you for
your patience!your patience!
Questions?Questions?
top related