National Science Foundation

Up-dateNovember 2001

NSF

Independent Agency Supports basic research and

education Uses grant mechanism National Science Board is the

governing body

NSF Strategic Goals Every program falls under one of

the following strategic goals: People – a diverse,

internationally competitive and globally-engaged workforce

Ideas – Discovery across frontiers and connections in service to society

Tools – Accessible, state-of-the-art information bases and shared tools

What’s Happening… FY 2002 – up 8.2%

Budget Emphases Core Research – Math – increase not

approved Increase Graduate Fellowship Stipends

$20,500 Initiatives for National Priorities

Biocomplexity, Information Technology Research, Nanoscale S & E, Learning for the 21st Century Workforce

Information Technology Research Large-scale networking High-end computing Computational science and infrastructure High-confidence software and systems Human-computer interaction and

information management Software design and productivity Implications of IT

Nanoscale S. & E

Biosystems at the nanoscale Nanoscale structures and novel

phenomena Device and system architecture Nanoscale processes in the

environment Modeling and simulation at the

nanoscale.

Biocomplexity in the Environment Dynamics of coupled natural and human

systems Coupled biogeochemical cycles Genome-enabled environmental science

and engineering Instrumentation development for

environmental activities Materials use: science, engineering, and

society

Learning for the 21st Century Workforce

Multidisciplinary learning research IT-enabled tools for learning Link formal and informal education Centers for Learning and Teaching

Other Highlights Children’s Research Initiative

How children learn and how they learn in the surroundings in which they grow up

Plant Genome Research Science and Technology Centers H1-B Visa Program - $from HB-1 visas

fund NSF programs Graduate Teaching Fellowships for K-

12

Types of NSF Programs

Cross-cutting Directorate Solicited Unsolicited

Small Grants for Exploratory Research (SGER) Novel untested ideas; new research

areas; urgency Unorthodox, too new – might not have a

favorable review – Einstein would not have been funded outside of SGER

CALL Abbreviated proposal; limited amount Expedited review – very fast, program

officer reviews Hot topics – homeland security, anthrax

Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry

Goals: Catalyze industry-university

partnerships Encourage innovative application of

academe’s intellectual capabilities Bring industry’s perspective and

integrative skills to academe Promote high quality research and

broaden educational experiences in industrial settings

GOALI Guidelines Proposal Requirements

Co-PI from industry Statement describing the industrial R&D

contribution Specific plan for industry/university interaction

Fairly high success rate Cost-sharing by industry U. S. institutions of higher ed that confer degrees in

areas that NSF funds can submit proposals for full-time faculty

Only U.S. citizens or permanent residents are eligible

Research in Undergraduate Institutions (RUI) Vast majority of practicing scientists come from

undergraduate institutions No specific set asides Goals:

Support high quality research with active involvement of undergraduates

Strengthen the research environment in undergraduate institutions

Promote integration of research and education in undergraduate institutions

Proposal Types Regular research Multi-user instrumentation Research Opportunity Awards (ROA)

Good Science/Good Research Design

Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) - Sites Goals:

Initiate and conduct undergraduate research-participation projects

Create research environment with strong faculty-student interaction

Recruitment Significant percentage of students from

outside host institution Deadline: September 15 of each year

REU - Supplements Goal:

Attract undergraduates into science by providing an active research experience

Guidelines: Add one or two students to an active ongoing project Must be U.S. citizen or permanent resident No indirect costs (administrative allowance of 25% of

student stipend) Awards: 6K Ask program officer about due dates No set aside Can include travel costs to a conference Fairly quick turn around

CAREER Program Objectives Strongly encourage new faculty,

emphasizing planning of an integrated academic career

Develop faculty who are both highly productive researchers and dedicated, effective educators

Form partnership with college or university to encourage balanced career development of individual faculty

Increase participation of those traditionally underrepresented

CAREER

5 years, minimum $500,000 Deadline, undefined, generally mid-

July Review process varies by directorate Eligibility: 1st 4 years of first tenure-

track position Include letter of support or

endorsement from department chair

CAREER Development Plan Should include:

The objectives and significance of the proposed integrated research and education activities; Emphasis on integrated

The relation of the research to the current state of knowledge in the field an of the education activities to the current state of knowledge of effective teaching and learning in one’s field of study;

An outline of the plan of work, describing the methods and procedures to be used, including evaluation of the education activities;

The relation of the plan to the PI’s career goals and job responsibilities and the goals of his/her institution; and

A summary of prior research and education accomplishments

The education plan should not be something you would do anyway

ADVANCE The representation of women

drops as you go up – inequities in space allocation time and rank

Goal: Increase the representation and

advancement of women in academic S&E careers. Thereby contributing to the development of a more diverse S&E workforce

ADVANCE Three Types of Awards

Institutional Transformation – address institutional climate, ways to assist transition from tenure track-tenure such as workshops for faculty development

EX: UW Center for Institutional Change – mentoring and faculty development

Leadership – small Recognize contributions by individuals and institutions,

and enable further progress Fellows – 3 years

Enable promising individuals to establish or re-establish full-time independent academic careers after:

An extended postdoc, an extended interruption for family, or a spouse relocates

Major Research Instrumentation Goal – to increase access to scientific and

engineering equipment in US Instrument acquisition or development 3 proposals/institution one must be for

development; if consortium, must exist before the proposal

Award size: $100,000 - $2million – SBE could be lower

Cost share for us – nothing on first $100,000, 30% after that, on equipment only

Can upgrade components in a system Due January 24, 2002

Types of Proposal Submission No deadlines – submit anytime Deadlines – submit before or on Target dates – could submit after date

and still be reviewed if not too late Submission windows – submit

between two dates Preliminary proposals – short, cuts out

the things they aren’t interested in

Merit Review Process

Merit Review Criteria

Intellectual Merit Criterion Broader Impacts Criterion

Should address these directly in the proposal

Intellectual Merit- Prove it without the Adjectives How important is the a proposed activity to

advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields?

How well qualified is the proposer- reviewer may comment on quality or 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 there sufficient access to resources?

Broader Impacts How well does the activity advance discovery and

understanding while promoting teaching, training and learning?

How well does the activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups?

To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks and partnerships?

Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding?

What may be the benefits of the proposed activity to society?

Who Reviews? References listed in proposal Program Officer’s knowledge of who’s doing what Reviewer files Technical programs from professional societies Recent Authors in Scientific and Engineering

journals S & E abstracts by computer search Reviewer recommendations Investigator’s suggestions

You can suggest names who are well qualified You can names you would prefer not to review the

proposal

Role of the Review Panel

Review board reviews and scores Program director recommends who

gets funded – looks at balancing priorities, risks, budget constraints, quality

Program director really calls the shots

Important to get to know them

Funding decisions

Feedback to PI Informal notification Formal notification Scope of work and budget

discussions

Reasons for denying NSF proposals Lack of a new or original idea Diffuse, superficial, or unfocused project plan Lack of knowledge or published, relevant work Lack of experience in essential methodology Uncertainty concerning future direction Questionable reasoning in experimental approach Absence of acceptable scientific rationale Unrealistically large amount of work Lack of sufficient detail Uncritical approach Lack of funds Good Proposal; just not a “competitive proposal”

A True Story Once upon a time there was an NSF

reviewer who asked a colleague, who was familiar with the area, to look at the grant he was reviewing and give him his opinion. The colleague copied the grant and in the next submission turned it in as his own. On his review panel was the author of the original grant. What do you think happened?

Answer

While the colleague was guilty of plagiarism, the original reviewer was also cited for divulging a confidential grant application to someone outside the review panel.

THE END