Funding Opportunities at NSFFunding Opportunities at NSF2010 Neuroeconomics Conference2010 Neuroeconomics Conference

Jonathan W. LelandDecision, Risk and Management ScienceDivision of Social and Economic Sciences

Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences

National Science Foundation

Where’s the money?Where’s the money?

Where’s the Money for Where’s the Money for Neuroecon?Neuroecon?

• 2 potential sources – Special solicitations (primarily CRCNS)– Unsolicited proposals to standing

programs (primarily in Social, Behavior and Economic Sciences directorate.)

4

Special Solicitations for Special Solicitations for NEsNEs

• Collaborative Research in Computational Neuroscience (CRCNS)

TENTATIVE• Objective - support collaborative activities

that advance the understanding of nervous system structure and function, mechanisms underlying nervous system disorders, and computational strategies used by the nervous system.

• Participating organizations – NSF, NIH, BMBF (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung)

More on CRCNSMore on CRCNS

• Research Proposals, US-German Research Proposals collaboratives, Data Sharing Proposals

• Supports collaborative research between biomedical, biological, behavioral/cognitive/social scientists and computer, mathematical, physical sciences/engineering.

Unsolicited proposal sources Unsolicited proposal sources – funding the old fashion way– funding the old fashion way• Sources

– SES and BCS with SBE– Funding from other NSF directorates.

Programs in SBEPrograms in SBEJanuary 18 & August 18

Decision, Risk, & Management Sciences

Economics Law and Social ScienceMethodology, Measurement &

Statistics Political ScienceSociology

February 1 & August 1Societal Dimensions of Eng.,

Science, & Tech.Science & Technology Studies

February 2Innovation and Organizational

Sciences

• December 1 & July 1• Archaeology & Archaeometry• Physical Anthropology

• January 1 & August 1• Cultural Anthropology•• January 15 & July 15• Cognitive Neuroscience• Developmental & Learning

Sciences• Perception, Action, &

Cognition Linguistics • Social Psychology•• January 15 & August 15• Geography & Regional

Science

Relevant Programs in SESRelevant Programs in SES

• Decision, Risk and Management Science (7 M)– research that explores fundamental issues in

judgment and decision making, risk analysis, management science, and organizational behavior

• Methodology, Measurement, and Statistics (4 M)– Statistical methodology/modeling directed towards

the social and behavioral sciences– Methodological aspects of procedures for data

collection

• Economics (25 M)– Empirical and theoretical economic analysis as well

as work on methods for rigorous research on economic behavior.

Relevant Programs In BCSRelevant Programs In BCS

• Cogntive Neuroscience (8 M)• how the human brain supports thought, perception,

affect, action, social processes, and other aspects of cognition and behavior

• Perception, Action and Cognition (7.3 M)• vision, audition, haptics, attention, memory, reasoning,

written and spoken discourse, motor control, and developmental issues in all topic areas.

• Development and Learning Science (6.6 M)• cognitive, linguistic, social, cultural, and biological

processes related to children's and adolescents' development and learning. 

• Social Psychology (6.7 m)• research on human social behavior, including cultural

differences and development over the life span. 

Other PossibilitiesOther Possibilities

• Mathematical Biology (bio directorate)

• Neural Systems (bio directorate)• Robust Intelligence (cise

directorate)• Biomedical engineering (eng

directorate)

Finding a Home(s) at NSFFinding a Home(s) at NSF

• Come to www.nsf.gov

• Click on Awards

Search the AbstractsSearch the Abstracts

• Click on the:– Search all Fields

tab

• Type in keywords:– Multiattribute

utility

Viola – Potential HomesViola – Potential Homes

• Welcome to your potential homes:– DRMS– SBIR (for applied

work with goal of commercialization

– Engineering Design and Innovation

– Magnetospheric Physics?

Once you have some leadsOnce you have some leads

• Send a 1-2 page e-mail to the relevant program director(s)– Research question(s)– Theory on which you build– Methods– Major citations (including journal

name)

So What is The ProcessSo What is The Process

• You work, work, work– Submit January or August 18th.

• I work, work, work– Perhaps request co-review if you didn’t– Send out requests for 6 external reviews– Assign proposal to 2 DRMS panelists for

review.– Convene panel to discuss proposals and

make funding recommendations

Then Then

• You experience – The thrill of victory (p approx. .25)– the agony of defeat (p approx. 75)

Silly Submitter TricksSilly Submitter Tricks

• Multiattribute Utility in an Emotional Space– “In this proposal I outline a series of

experiments which will demonstrate that Professor Lerner’s model of emotion-specific influences on judgment is not specific and is, if fact, just silly.”

A Savvy AlternativeA Savvy Alternative

• From the Grant Proposal Guide– c. List of Suggested Reviewers or

Reviewers Not to Include (optional)• Proposers may include a list of suggested

reviewers who they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal.

• Proposers also may designate persons they would prefer not review the proposal, indicating why.

Another Silly Submitter Another Silly Submitter TrickTrick

• From the Grant Proposal Guide– c. List of Suggested

Reviewers or Reviewers Not to Include (optional)

– Proposers may include a list of suggested reviewers who they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal.

– Proposers also may designate persons they would prefer not review the proposal, indicating why.

• Suggested Reviewers for “Multiattribute Utility in an Emotional Space”– Danny Kahneman – bet

the program director hasn’t heard of him!

– College roommate (alwayscrying@emot.com) was always pretty emotional

– John Coauthoredallmyother papers – (almostsameemailasme@ questionableu.edu) - very knowledgeable about my work.

Now, You might thinkNow, You might think

• It’s not worth wasting a lot of time writing the proposal

• After all, why would reviewers think that just because you wrote a sloppy proposal, you’d do sloppy research?

• Bad Idea

Now, You might thinkNow, You might think

• It’s not important to proofread your proposal carefully.

• After all, this isn’t grade school. It’s the quality of the ideas that count, not neatness.

• Bad Idea

Now, You might thinkNow, You might think

• You shouldn’t waste time making sure the project summary and abstract clearly and concisely outline the problem, the objectives, the project activities, and expected outcomes.

After all, reviewers can darn well study the full proposal if they want to get a clear idea about what you are proposing to do. Let them earn their understanding the old-fashioned way by slogging through your proposal page-by-page.

• Bad Idea

Now, You might thinkNow, You might think

• It’s not important to write clearly and succinctly.

After all, reviewers might not respect you if your proposal is too easy to understand.

Bad Idea

Now, You might thinkNow, You might think

• It’s not necessary to provide details about the specifics of your research plan – clearly stated hypotheses, a crisp summary of your research plan and procedures, and the other elements that make it clear exactly how you intend to go about answering your research questions.

• After all, the reviewers will not require all this extraneous detail in order to recognize the distinctively high quality of your work. A simple “trust-me” appeal should do the trick.

• Bad Idea

Now, You might thinkNow, You might think

• It’s not worth paying attention to the reviews of previous versions of your proposal.

Where do they find these ignoramuses anyway? They’re not even smart enough to understand your proposal or, if they do, they don’t understand why it’s important. Don’t bother trying to address their questions. Maybe you’ll get better reviewers next time.

• Bad Idea

Good Luck!Good Luck!