writing a proposal . . . that meets nsf’s review criteria . . . and may even result in an award

Writing a proposal . . .Writing a proposal . . .

that meets NSF’s review criteriathat meets NSF’s review criteria

. . . and may even result in an award. . . and may even result in an award

Guy G. GuthridgeGuy G. Guthridge Antarctic Information ProgramAntarctic Information Program

Office of Polar ProgramsOffice of Polar Programs

23 – 24 August 2004 U.S. Antarctic Program, New Investigators workshop

NSF support estimate for NSF support estimate for fiscal 2005fiscal 2005

Number of research grants 6,145Funding rate (success ratio)

23%Median annualized award size $104,150

Average duration 3 years

23 – 24 August 2004 U.S. Antarctic Program, New Investigators workshop

A Grue of Ice (1962)

“There is only one unexplored continent left,” he said. “That is Antarctica. It was discovered by individualists. It is the one continent left for man’s free spirit to break open. What happens?” He banged the papers again. “Government committees sit ten thousand miles away and decide its future.”

“It is not as bad as that,” I interjected.

23 – 24 August 2004 U.S. Antarctic Program, New Investigators workshop

To succeed, follow NSF’s rulesTo succeed, follow NSF’s rules

• Proposals missing the deadline are subject to return

• Proposals unresponsive to the solicitation go back

• Pay attention to section length, content, format, use of

appendixes, content of biographical sketches . . .

• Deviations must be authorized in advance by NSF

Read the Read the Grant Proposal GuideGrant Proposal Guide(NSF 04-23, on the NSF home page)(NSF 04-23, on the NSF home page)

• The NSF guide for writing and submitting a proposal

• Specifies process for deviations • Describes review process and criteria• Describes process for withdrawals, returns, and

declinations• Describes the award process and how to request

continued support• States grant administration highlights

Know and love the GPG!Use it with Antarctic Research (NSF 04-559)

Read Read Antarctic Research Antarctic Research (NSF 04-559)(NSF 04-559)

23 – 24 August 2004 U.S. Antarctic Program, New Investigators workshop

Use other NSF sourcesUse other NSF sources(one or two clicks from the NSF home page)(one or two clicks from the NSF home page)

Guide to Programs (NSF 04-009) Grant Policy Manual (NSF 02-151)Funding OpportunitiesCustom News ServiceNSF E-BulletinPolar Programs

Select a research topicSelect a research topic

• Your area of interest• Know the field

Top researchersResearch funding sourcesRecent advance/breakthroughsKey literatureFrontiers of knowledge

• Field-specific research agenda

Find the right programFind the right program

•Read program announcement/NSF web siteBe sure you are eligibleBe sure the program exists/has moneyDo not “force fit” topics into programsBe sure you can meet deadlinesLeave time to do a good job

•Call the NSF program director (before the due date) if you have questions

“We like to talk to you….we are here to help!”

23 – 24 August 2004 U.S. Antarctic Program, New Investigators workshop

Consider some questionsConsider some questions

1. What do you intend to do?

2. Why is the work important?

3. What has already been done?

4. How are you going to do the work?

23 – 24 August 2004 U.S. Antarctic Program, New Investigators workshop

Get support in proposal writingGet support in proposal writing

• Workshop reports• Program officers

– Incumbent– Former “rotators”

• Mentors on campus• Serve as reviewer• Sponsored research office• Successful proposals

23 – 24 August 2004 U.S. Antarctic Program, New Investigators workshop

Know what makes a good proposalKnow what makes a good proposal

“… a good proposal is a good idea, well

expressed, with a clear indication of

methods for pursuing the idea,

evaluating the findings, and making

them known to all who need to know.”

Fastlane Fastlane —— NSF’s online NSF’s online proposal systemproposal system

Format:• Conform to the required format• Write no more than 15 pages of narrative or your proposal

will be disqualified• Lines per inch and characters per inch are defined in the

guidelines• Do not include appendixes, unless specific instructions in

a solicitation say okayRemember: • Provide reviewers with a well organized, clearly defined

research proposal - clarity, brevity, completeness• Your proposal may state what you will do, but it shows

what you can do.

23 – 24 August 2004 U.S. Antarctic Program, New Investigators workshop

Your proposed budgetYour proposed budget

• Amount– Reasonable for work - realistic– Well justified - need established– In line with program guidelines– “Don’t inflate the budget.”

• Eligible costs– Personnel– Equipment– Travel (but not deployment airline tickets)– Other direct costs, subawards– Facilities & administrative costs– See Antarctic Research for field costs

23 – 24 August 2004 U.S. Antarctic Program, New Investigators workshop

The review processThe review process

• Process is mainly electronic now

• Fastlane receives proposals - proposal number is instantly assigned when submitted

• Proposal Processing Unit checks for conformance to Grant Proposal Guide

• A “jacket” (folder with one copy of the proposal) is sent to the program manager

• Program manager “sends proposal out” for review

23 – 24 August 2004 U.S. Antarctic Program, New Investigators workshop

NSF sources of reviewersNSF sources of reviewers

• Programs officer’s knowledge

• References listed in proposal

• Reviewer names on file

• Recent technical programs from professional societies

• Recent authors in technical journals

• Web-based search

• Reviewer recommendations

• Your suggestions (submitted with the proposal) both positive and negative

The review process (cont.)The review process (cont.)

• Panels are held in ABM, AGG & AG• Program manager reminds panelists that deliberations are confidential; discusses conflicts of interest• Panelists discuss, rate, and rank each proposal and write a panel summary• Panels are advisory to NSF•Program manager ultimately forwards a recommendation for funding or declination to the Section Head (in OPP)•An NSF award can be made only by a Grants Officer in the Division of Grants and Agreements (DGA)

23 – 24 August 2004 U.S. Antarctic Program, New Investigators workshop

What the program manager What the program manager considersconsiders

• Ad hoc (“mail”) reviews

• Panel’s recommendations and discussions

• Available funds in program (65% rule)

• Program balance

• Budget negotiation

• Shared funding from other NSF programs

23 – 24 August 2004 U.S. Antarctic Program, New Investigators workshop

What makes a proposal What makes a proposal competitive? competitive?

• Likely high impact• New and original ideas• Succinct, focused project plan• Knowledge of subject area or published, relevant work• Experience in essential methodology• Clarity concerning future direction• Sound scientific rationale• Realistic amount of work• Sufficient detail• Critical approach

23 – 24 August 2004 U.S. Antarctic Program, New Investigators workshop

Other considerationsOther considerations

• PI career point (tenured?/“established”/“young”) • Program portfolio• Other support the PI has• Impact on institution/state• Special programmatic considerations • Diversity issues• Educational impact• Broader impacts• Feasibility of fieldwork

Antarctic proposal timetableAntarctic proposal timetable

2 June 2005 Proposal deadline

2 June Operational Requirements Worksheets

June Ad hoc review begins

September Panels

October Operational, safety, and health review

November Environmental review

December Negotiation with proposers

January-June 2006 Awards/declines

October 2006 or +1 Begin deployments

23 – 24 August 2004 U.S. Antarctic Program, New Investigators workshop

Merit Review CriteriaMerit Review Criteria

Intellectual Merit: What is the intellectual

merit of the proposed activity?

Broader Impacts: What are the broader

impacts of the proposed activity?

23 – 24 August 2004 U.S. Antarctic Program, New Investigators workshop

Intellectual MeritIntellectual Merit

• 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? (Reviewers may comment on the quality of prior work.)

• To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative and original concepts?

• How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity?

• Is access to resources sufficient?

23 – 24 August 2004 U.S. Antarctic Program, New Investigators workshop

NSF’s proposal review criteriaNSF’s proposal review criteria

• What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity? (criterion 1)

• What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity? (criterion 2)

23 – 24 August 2004 U.S. Antarctic Program, New Investigators workshop

Developing the review criteria

• July 1997: NSF Important Notice 121– the new criteria are announced– proposals will be reviewed using them

• September 1999: NSF Important Notice 125– reminder about broader-impacts criterion– NSF to address both criteria in funding decisions

• July 2002: NSF Important Notice 127– NSF will return without review proposals that do not

address both merit review criteria

23 – 24 August 2004 U.S. Antarctic Program, New Investigators workshop

NSF will return, NSF will return, without review, any without review, any proposal that does proposal that does not discussnot discuss broader broader impactsimpacts

23 – 24 August 2004 U.S. Antarctic Program, New Investigators workshop

Grant Proposal GuideGrant Proposal Guide, NSF 04-23, NSF 04-23

• Proposals must address both review criteria– in the one-page Project Summary

– in the Project Description

• Full texts of the criteria are in chapter III

• Read further discussion of broader impacts at footnote #33, a document originated by the OPP Advisory Committee.

23 – 24 August 2004 U.S. Antarctic Program, New Investigators workshop

Broader impactsBroader impacts review criterionreview criterion

1. promote teaching, training, and learning

2. involve persons in underrepresented groups

3. enhance research/education infrastructure

4. disseminate results broadly

5. benefit society

23 – 24 August 2004 U.S. Antarctic Program, New Investigators workshop

1 Teach, train, learn1 Teach, train, learn Integrate research into teaching Integrate research into guest lectures, etc. Develop educational materials Partner with educators Mentoring students and technicians Graduates and postdocs teach undergraduates Links to programs such as REU Give presentations at museums, libraries, etc. Develop or adopt models and pedagogy

23 – 24 August 2004 U.S. Antarctic Program, New Investigators workshop

2 Help underrepresented groups2 Help underrepresented groups

• Partner at your institution or another • Lecture at colleges and universities • Partner with RUI and EPSCoR groups• Partner with community colleges• Mentor first-time NSF proposers• Document research in relevant terms • Develop connectivity to underserved• Participate in diversity activities

23 – 24 August 2004 U.S. Antarctic Program, New Investigators workshop

3 Enhance infrastructure3 Enhance infrastructure

• Develop next-generation shared platforms• Modernize shared tools • Upgrade computing infrastructure• Develop and upgrade new types of tools• Improve use of multi-user facilities• Collaborate among disciplines and institutions

23 – 24 August 2004 U.S. Antarctic Program, New Investigators workshop

4 Disseminate results4 Disseminate results

• Publish promptly in peer-reviewed literature • Share data in databases, other venues • Publish in diverse media • Present results in formats useful to Congress, etc.• Participate in conferences, workshops• Integrate research with education

23 – 24 August 2004 U.S. Antarctic Program, New Investigators workshop

5 Develop benefits to society5 Develop benefits to society

• Give examples of link between discovery and benefit

• Partner to integrate research into broader programs

• Partner to develop products • Analyze and synthesize results for nonscientists• Inform policy formulation by agencies

23 – 24 August 2004 U.S. Antarctic Program, New Investigators workshop

Proposers should:Proposers should:integrate research & educationintegrate research & education

• at academic and research institutions individuals concurrently can be researchers, educators, and students

• joint efforts can enrich – education with the excitement of discovery

– research with diverse learning perspectives

23 – 24 August 2004 U.S. Antarctic Program, New Investigators workshop

U.S. Commission on National U.S. Commission on National Security, March 2001Security, March 2001

“...the inadequacies of our systems of research and education pose a greater threat to U.S. national security over the next quarter century than any potential conventional war we might imagine.”

23 – 24 August 2004 U.S. Antarctic Program, New Investigators workshop

Public attitude towards sciencePublic attitude towards science

Rate of civic scientific literacy in the US is only now approaching 20 percent

Public believes strongly in value of scientific research for economic prosperity and quality of life.

Public consistently reconciles reservations about pace of change engendered by science, and relationship between science and faith, in favor of science.

Jon D. Miller, Northwestern U., 2004

News followed by U.S. publicNews followed by U.S. public

23 – 24 August 2004 U.S. Antarctic Program, New Investigators workshop

OPP education/outreach awards OPP education/outreach awards 2000-20022000-2002

• 11 for new courses and training• 2 for multimedia education• 11 for K-12 outreach• 3 for Alaskan outreach• 18 for conferences and workshops• 3 for doctoral research• 7 for undergraduate research• 16 for other education topics• Get, before you leave, a copy of Office of Polar

Programs education support, 2000-2002

23 – 24 August 2004 U.S. Antarctic Program, New Investigators workshop

Add a teacher to your Add a teacher to your research team?research team?

• TEA, 1992-2003, ~100 teachers arctic/antarctic• TEA winding down; joined Armada project 2004• http://www.armadaproject.org/index.htm (URI)• tea.rice.edu web site to continue -- Educational

Materials (in Related Links), Meet the Teachers (with field journals), and classroom Activities

• To propose adding a teacher - in absence of TEA - try Armada or use Research Experiences for Teachers solicitation (NSF 03-554) as a model

23 – 24 August 2004 U.S. Antarctic Program, New Investigators workshop

RISE: Resources for Involving RISE: Resources for Involving Scientists in EducationScientists in Education

• Roles for scientists and engineers in the schools

– Working directly with students

– Working with teachers

– Supporting systemic reform

– Helping to develop instructional materials

• http://www.nationalacademies.org/rise/

23 – 24 August 2004 U.S. Antarctic Program, New Investigators workshop

Proposers should:Proposers should:integrate diversity into projectsintegrate diversity into projects

• Participation of all citizens is essential to

the vitality of science and engineering

• This principle is central to the activities

NSF considers and supports

23 – 24 August 2004 U.S. Antarctic Program, New Investigators workshop

A reason to achieve diversityA reason to achieve diversity

Blacks, Asians, Native Americans, and Hispanics will

attain the U.S. majority shortly after the year 2050,

according to Census Bureau projections.

They already are a majority in New Mexico, Hawaii,

and many large cities.

These minority strongholds are the vanguard of a

demographic shift that will transform politics and

business over the next 50 years.

23 – 24 August 2004 U.S. Antarctic Program, New Investigators workshop

Senior science and Senior science and engineering faculty in 2000engineering faculty in 2000

12.5% are women women earned 36% of s&e PhDs in 2000

94% of full professors are white 90% of full professors are male Of the top 50 chemistry departments--

1,600 top faculty members of which 43 are minorities of the 43, 17 are African-American 0% African-American assistant professors

23 – 24 August 2004 U.S. Antarctic Program, New Investigators workshop

NSF is fundingNSF is fundingdiversity projects that workdiversity projects that work

Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation (LSAMP) 163 majority institutions, 257 minority and community institutions,

total of 420 U.S. institutions, growing every year 25,100 bachelor’s degrees in 2003 $35,000,000 per year of NSF funding, 100% matching LSAMP Bridge to the Doctorate program

Historically Black Colleges and Universities Program Tribal Colleges and Universities Program Lots more at the Division of Human Resource

Development: www.ehr.nsf.gov/hrd/

23 – 24 August 2004 U.S. Antarctic Program, New Investigators workshop

Budgeting for broader impacts Budgeting for broader impacts in in your your proposalproposal

• Intellectual merit and broader impacts are interwoven, and the budget is inseparable

• Broader-impacts budget is a fraction of the total

• Broader-impacts budget is substantial

• Focus of the proposal is education, diversification, or outreach

23 – 24 August 2004 U.S. Antarctic Program, New Investigators workshop

Broader-impact ideasBroader-impact ideasin existing NSF grantsin existing NSF grants

• On the NSF home page click “Search” at the top.• Select “Fielded search.”• You are in the NSF awards database.• In “Full Text Search,” type the words broader

impact.• Click “Search” at the bottom.• Result: 3,805 award abstracts that include

descriptions of their broader-impact activities.

23 – 24 August 2004 U.S. Antarctic Program, New Investigators workshop

Will your broader-impacts plan Will your broader-impacts plan influence NSF’s funding decision?influence NSF’s funding decision?

• Committee of Visitors report regarding NSF decisions for BE in 2001, 2002, and 2003:

• “no proposal rose to the top without high Intellectual Merit”

• “within this group of highly meritorious proposals, the quality of the ‘Broader Impacts’ played a distinct and defining role in making decisions” [emphasis added]