10/5/2015 applying for an nsf grant: tips for success melanie roberts, ph.d. university of colorado,...
TRANSCRIPT
04/19/23
Applying for an NSF grant:Tips for success
Melanie Roberts, Ph.D.
University of Colorado, Boulder
TIGER presentation, April 9, 2009
Visiting Research Fellow, Center for Science and Technology Policy Research
(Formerly: AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellow, National Science Foundation)
Outline
Basics of the National Science Foundation
Identifying Opportunities
Procedures
Separating Awards from Declinations
Tips
NSF in a Nutshell
Government agency
Supports basic research and education
Low overhead; highly automated
Discipline-based structure
Cross-disciplinary mechanisms
Use of Rotators
Funds investigator-initiated ideas
National Science Board
CU gets more than its share of NSF funding
CU
$48 M (17%)
$54.3M (19%)
Schizophrenic Mission:“Basic” vs “Applied” Research
As defined by Vannevar Bush in The Endless Frontier, 1945: Basic research is performed without thought of practical ends. It results in general
knowledge and an understanding of nature and its laws. This general knowledge provides the means of answering a large number of important practical problems, though it may not give a complete specific answer to any one of them. The function of applied research is to provide such complete answers.
From National Science Foundation Strategic Plan, 2007-11
Today’s research requires globally-engaged investigators working collaboratively across agencies and international organizations to apply the results of basic research to long-standing global challenges such as epidemics, natural disasters and the search for alternative energy sources.
Where to Start?
www.nsf.gov
Check awards by program, keyword, etc. (www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/)
Sign up for “National Science Foundation Update”
Read instructions carefully Read Grant Proposal Guide before beginning
If questions, call NSF program officer
Funding Opportunities - overview Unsolicited proposals to programs
Program announcements & solicitations
Dear Colleague Letter (no new money)
Doctoral dissertation improvement grants
Rapid response research (RAPID)
Early concept grants for exploratory research (EAGER)
Identifying the appropriate program Directorate -> Division -> Program -> Solicitation
Program instructions
Solicitations would be listed here
Interdisciplinary projects
Check “cross-cutting” programs & solicitations
Otherwise, you can submit to more than one program First listed will be lead Call both program officers Co-reviewed proposals have slightly higher funding rate
Get collaborators with appropriate expertise Careful about weak collaborations!
Funding for grad students & postdocs
• Graduate Research Fellowships
• Doctoral dissertation improvement grants
• Postdoctoral Research Fellowships
American Investment & Recovery Act $3B on top of an annual budget of $6.5B
No new solicitations (probably) Fund some previous declines
Increase funding rates
May ask for up to 5 years of funding
Priorities: New investigators, high risk research
Most awards will be made by Sept 30, 2009. Average time of review = 5.6 months
Broader impacts for communities & economy?
What if you don’t have a proposal
ready to go?
Rapid Response Research (RAPID) Severe urgency with regard to availability of or
access to data, facilities or specialized equipment, including quick-response research on natural or anthropogenic disasters and similar unanticipated events.
Internal peer review $200,000 maximum for 1 year
May request extension Two to five page project description Must contact program officer first
Early-concept grants for exploratory research (EAGER) Exploratory work on untested, potentially
transformative ideas
High-risk, high-potential payoff
Internal review only
$300,000 maximum; 2 years May request extension
Five to eight page project description
Must contact program officer first
Research & Education Communities
NSF Proposal
GeneratingDocument
ProgramOfficer
Analysis&
Recom-mendation
Proposal Process
DivisionDirectorConcur
Organization submits
viaFastLane
Minimum of 3
ReviewsRequired
Ad hoc
Panel
Both
Proposal Processing
Unit
NSF Program Officer
Returned as Inappropriate/Withdrawn
Organization
Award via DGA
Decline
4 months 30 days
Proposal Preparation Time
Proposal received by NSF Div. Dir. Concur Award
Review of Proposal P.O. Recommend
DGA Review & Processing of Award
Funding Decisions
Peer reviewers provide recommendations
Program Officer decision
Feedback to PI
Scope of work and budget discussions
24% funding rate, but varies by program New programs are tricky
What to include in your proposal? Two Merit Review Criteria
Intellectual meritMust be outstanding
Broader impactsHelps put some proposals over top
Project timeline & outputs Specific roles for all participants Biosketch – specific format Equipment & facilities Prior funding & results Budget & justification
Fifteen pages
Intellectual 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? (If appropriate, the reviewer will comment on the quality of prior work.)
To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?
How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity? Is there sufficient access to resources?
Broader Impacts
Promote teaching, training and learning
Broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)\
Enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks and partnerships
Disseminate results broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding
Benefit society
Writing Tips
Generalizable knowledge
Well-grounded in the literature
Read carefully! Follow all instructions!
If in doubt, leave it out
Project summary is the most important piece
Suggest reviewers
Letters of support from collaborators
Buzz words = transformative, interdisciplinary
No typos!!!
Reasons for Declinations
Bad fit for program “Trust-me” proposal Not grounded in literature Not feasible
Expertise gaps Insufficient funding Too ambitious
Incremental contribution – “ho hum” proposals Bad luck
NSF vs. NIH
NSF tends to be smaller
NSF stresses basic research
In NIH, reviewers come up with numerical score, and proposals are funded down list until money runs out
In NSF peer reviewers provide recommendations and program officers make decisions More flexibility on “high-risk” research
Balance portfolio
NSF uses “revise & resubmit” loosely
Human Subjects
No award for a project involving human subjects can be made without prior Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval of the research activity.
IRB approval is not needed at the time of proposal submission.
Budget Tips
Amounts Reasonable for work -- Realistic Well Justified -- Need established In-line with program guidelines
Eligible costs Personnel Equipment Travel Other Direct Costs, Subawards Facilities & Administrative Costs Broader impacts – discuss with PO
Final Words of Advice
Subject your grant to peer review before you submit it
Collaborate! The right names help…
E-mail or call Program Officer with specific questions Ask for a copy of a successful proposal
If at first you don’t succeed… try again! This time, with expert reviews to help you out.
NSF Sources of Reviewers
Program Officer’s knowledge
References listed in the proposal
Community of Science and other databases
Reviewer’s recommendations
Investigator’s suggestions