Randolph HallVice President for Research

University of Southern California

Funding Strategy Workshop

Why Funding?Enables researchAttracts Ph.D. studentsCan build collaborations, increase

exposureMeasure of qualityHelps school -- overhead and student

support, which provides growthCan help in promotionCan add to income through summer

salary, or can relieve teaching

Funding CautionsDevelop coherent research programDo not distract from publications or

other creative endeavorsContinuity of supportEffort should not be overwhelmingBetter to pass an opportunity, than to

embark on one with little chance of success

Be prepared for rejection

Creating the StrategySet your own vision: what do you want to

be known for 5 years from nowAssess your own capabilities and passions for

researchIdentify capabilities that you can leverage

here at USC -- do not become isolatedCreate milestones needed for tenure

More StrategyAssess the Market

Identify agencies and programs that fund related research

Determine how your vision can be crafted to match funding priorities

Create a proposal writing schedule

Next Steps in Securing Funding1. Identify relevant funding agencies2. Research the programs 3. Get to know the program officer 4. Write a responsive proposal5. Get feedback and revise

1. Identify relevant agenciesGoal: find the sources of fundingContact your peers, mentors, at USC and

elsewhereFind out where other universities get

funding in your areaAttend relevant conferencesSearch the web

2. Research the programsGoal: determine priorities and selection processRead material on the web

Program priorities, who has been funded and for what, review process; who decides and how peer review is conducted; total dollars; size and duration of awards; success rate

Contact program officerWhat is the real story on funding; obtain suggestions on

how to structure proposal; volunteer to be on review panelContact other people who have been funded

What did it take for them to get funded; get example of a funded proposal

Use Grant Forward: https://www.grantforward.com/index

3. Get to Know the Program OfficerGoal: Make your research a priority within

the programVisit and meet in person; present your

ideas and get feedback; find out what the program officer cares most about; find out & influence what will happen in future

Volunteer to serve on a review panelTry to connect to program officer

through conferences, professional meetings

Treat him or her like a customer

NIH Early Career Reviewer

4. Write a Responsive ProposalGoal: Be responsive, innovative and

communicate wellParse the solicitation; make sure that you

have addressed all requirementsWrite the proposal for the audience

(understand who are the reviewers)Create an appropriate budget and planExcel in all categories

4a. Develop ConceptUnderstand literature and needsBuild from your strengthsIdentify/develop partnersReaction from colleagues and peers

4b. Writing

Follow section format exactlyClear statement of benefits and

significance: in abstract, introduction, conclusions

Complete review of relevant literature Include clear schedule, and describe the

deliverablesJustify budget expendituresPresent your qualification

5. Get Feedback and ReviseGoal: Make sure you got it rightComplete proposal at least 3 weeks before

deadlineShow proposal to a peer who knows your

area of work wellShow proposal to a peer who is not a

specialist in your areaShow proposal to a non-researcher

Proposal WritingA good research proposal demonstrates

innovation and significance within its field of study

Myths of Proposal WritingTechnical and scientific merits alone

determine winnersProposals should always be written for the

top experts in your field Only peers pick proposalsDon’t ask your colleagues to review your

proposal -- they won’t appreciate it anyway

More MythsIt’s a good idea to submit the same

proposal to several agenciesFollow your own writing style -- reviewers

don’t care about the guidelinesDon’t worry about schedules and

deliverables -- this is research

RealityReviewers often do not read proposals

carefully, and they frequently look for the “big idea”

Reviewers also look for reasons to deny proposals -- there should be no holes

Reviewers are not always expertsManagers make the final decision, and

influence the process

What Peers WantInnovation and significanceResponsiveness to programCare in writing proposalCapability to accomplish objectives

What Managers WantProposals that fulfill programmatic prioritiesComplementary work (no duplication)Investigators who are good to work withNo black marks (always deliver on

promises)

SummaryBegin with innovation and significanceTreat programs like customers -- you need

to be responsiveGet as much feedback as possible -- avoid

risks -- you can raise the probability of being picked

ObjectiveThis announcement is to encourage chemists to

develop probes to aid basic research investigations and to identify new or better templates as lead compounds with potential for conducting SAR-function studies, including identification of new chemical entities with therapeutic potential.  This Program Announcement is not intended for developing medications to treat drug abuse and/or related disorders, although initial identification of ligands with potential is encouraged.  Researchers interested in medications development may refer to announcements focused on medications development. In addition, since this announcement is especially designed to attract chemists who have not previously been a PI on a prior NIH R01 grant, applicants are not required to submit preliminary data.  Nevertheless, appropriate theoretical justification and sound hypotheses (or equivalent) should be provided to engender confidence that the project is well thought and feasible.

Evaluation Criteria

Overall Impact Reviewers will provide an overall impact/priority score to reflect their assessment of the

likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence

Scored Review Criteria Significance.  Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier? Investigator(s).  Are the PD/PIs, collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the

project?  Innovation.  Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical

practice?  Approach.  Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and

appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project?  Environment.  Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the

probability of success? 

Additional Review Criteria  Protections for Human Subjects.   Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children.  Inclusion of minorities and members of

both genders, as well as the inclusion of children. Vertebrate Animals.  Biohazards.  Resubmission, Renewal and Revision Applications.  Budget and Period Support.  Reviewers will consider whether the budget and the requested

period of support are fully justified and reasonable in relation to the proposed research.

Summary Should do Exactly What is AskedProject Summary:Summarize the research and education

objectives, and plans for the integration of education and research activities. The Project Summary must clearly address in separate statements how the proposal meets both the Intellectual Merit and Broader Impact review criteria.

Project Description

The Project Description section should contain a well-argued and specific proposal for activities that will, over a 5-year period, build a firm foundation for a lifetime of contributions to research and education in the context of the PI's organization.

A description of the proposed research project, including preliminary supporting data where appropriate, specific objectives, methods and procedures to be used, and expected significance of the results;

A description of the proposed educational activities, including plans to evaluate their impact on students and other participants;

A description of how the research and educational activities are integrated with one another; and

Results of prior NSF support, if applicable.

NSF Career Proposal Outline Summary

Intellectual Merit Broader Impact

Project Description Introduction Research Plan

Objectives Review of prior research Supporting data Methods and procedures Expected results

Education Plan Activities Assessment Integration or Research and Education

Budget and Schedule Conclusions

When evaluating NSF proposals, reviewers should consider what the proposers want to do, why they want to do it, how they plan to do it, how they will know if they succeed, and what benefits would accrue if the project is successful. These issues apply both to the technical aspects of the proposal and the way in which the project may make broader contributions. To that end, reviewers are asked to evaluate all proposals against two criteria:

Intellectual Merit: The intellectual Merit criterion encompasses the potential to advance knowledge; and

Broader Impacts: The Broader Impacts criterion encompasses the potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes.

Five Review ElementsThe following elements should be considered in the review for both criteria:1. What is the potential for the proposed activity to:a. advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields (Intellectual Merit); andb. benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader Impacts)?

2. To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?

3. Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities well-reasoned, well-organized, and based on a sound rationale? Does the plan incorporate a mechanism to assess success?

4. How well qualified is the individual, team, or institution to conduct the proposed activities?

5. Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home institution or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities?

Integration of Research and EducationAll CAREER proposals must have an integrated research and education plan at their core. NSF recognizes that there is no single approach to an integrated research and education plan, but encourages all applicants to think creatively about how their research will impact their education goals and, conversely, how their education activities will feed back into their research. These plans should reflect both the proposer's own disciplinary and educational interests and goals, as well as the needs and context of his or her organization. Because there may be different expectations within different disciplinary fields and/or different organizations, a wide range of research and education activities may be appropriate for the CAREER program. Proposers are encouraged to communicate with the CAREER contact or cognizant Program Officer in the Division closest to their area of research to discuss the expectations and approaches that are most appropriate for that area (see http://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/career/contacts.jsp for a list of CAREER contacts by division).

Education ActivitiesProposed education activities may be in a broad range of areas and may be directed to any level: K-12 students, undergraduates, graduate students, and/or the general public, but should be related to the proposed research. Some examples are: designing innovative courses or curricula; supporting teacher preparation and enhancement; conducting outreach and mentoring activities to enhance scientific literacy or involve students from groups that have been traditionally underrepresented in science; researching students' learning and conceptual development in the discipline; incorporating research activities into undergraduate courses; providing mentored international research experiences for U.S. students; linking education activities to industrial, international, or cross-disciplinary work; and implementing innovative methods for evaluation and assessment.

Integrating Diversity/Broadening Participation

Broadening opportunities and enabling the participation of all citizens -- women and men, underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities -- is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports.