This Thursday (November 30, 2006)

• You will individually select an agency where you actually would like to send your proposal.

• Read their instructions and find out in what way the submission will be prepared differently than the NSF.

• Write some major differences between the agency of your choice and NSF’ philosophies and proposal submission procedures (one page maximum) and discuss those with your peers

• Submit your one page write up at the end of the class.• You will evaluate this class. Please bring #2 pencil and

you will do this in the last 15 minutes.

Review Process

Who decides the fate of your proposal?How?

Checklist

• Cover page• Table of content• Summary• Project description• References cited• Biographical sketches• Budget and budget justification• Current and pending support• Facilities and equipment

Put summary, PD and references together in the same sequence in a single file, paginate it and convert it into a pdf file. Email me one pdf file with your last name as file name by November 28th 2006

Now, you have submitted the proposal via Fastlane through your SRO

Who looks at it and how deep?

• Administrative assistants• Format compliance• eligibility• Complete set of documents• Assign to area/manager as you requested• Prepare list of individuals that are in conflict with you

• Program manager (also a Professor at some U)– Reads title and abstract– Confirms the program to which your proposal is

assigned or shifts to other programs– Decides upon the panel manager/panel members

Panel manager

• Who is the panel manager? (Roll of dice)– Well-established, successful senior professor at some

renowned University– Works for one-two years in a row– Is happy with his/her own career, well connected– Has vision for the future research in the topic– Reads ALL abstracts and first pages of ALL proposals

(at least).

• Decides in consultation with program manager who could be panel members and ad hoc reviewers

Panel members

• Based on the topics of proposals submitted to a program, 10-12 panel members are invited.

• Some are the same as last year’s panel• Mostly they do not compete for funding in the

same year or have to leave discussion if any direct conflict of interest exists.

• Primary and secondary panel members• Each reads about 10-12 proposals in depth and

prepares reports for panel.• Gets input from ad hoc reviewers

Ad hoc reviewers• About 6-10 specialists are

invited to review your proposal.

• They should have no direct conflict of interest.

• Done electronically via fastlane

• Use two major criteria– Intellectual merit– Broader impact

• They rate the proposal

Next step…

• Not every ad hoc reviewer responds on time (~2 months)• May have personal bias against or for you or too busy• May be harsh or too mild (where are they on the ladder?)• They may be jealous of your success too• About 3-9 reviews get in and put in excel spread sheet• Panel member has to submit review first then they can see the rest• All such reviews are seen by the primary reviewer who makes up

his/her mind about fate of your proposal• Defends or destroys your proposal in the panel meeting• Secondary panel member keeps a check on primary member and

takes notes of panel discussions• Open process on hidden agendas!

After about 3 months after proposal submission

• Panel meets at Washington D.C. for 2 days• Each proposal gets less than ~15 minutes of discussion.• Someone has to passionately defend you!• “Wow” science goes at the top• Each proposal gets a rating (or other grades)

– Outstanding, highly meritorious, meritorious, non-competitive

• If your name is on the outstanding side, your chances of success are high and very low if you are in the fourth pile

• Next day or so, panel members go back read proposals again and change ratings, if necessary

Horror stories

• Simple methodology omitted and proposal tanked.• No publications from last grant, proposal tanked!• Panel members had bad experiences with the PI• The PI (postdoc of another well-funded researcher)

almost lost a grant but saved at the last minute by his fax declaring change of job

• Supporting evidence submitted just before the panel meeting did save a dying proposal

• Catch-22 situation! First, asked for preliminary data and then asked why you need more money?

• No clear broader impact statements and proof• Fan club reviewers so not funded

Program manager

• Decides the final ranking of proposals• Two more visiting program managers help• Has some freedom to move within the ranks• Decides how much money can be given• Calls or communicates with the PI• Negotiates what needs to be done and for how

much support $?• Sends declination letters and reviews• Answers your questions

What if you get a grant?

• Do Party but not forever!• You are among the top 5-10% researchers in

your field• Hire people and deliver the goods promised on

time• Publish profusely in high quality journals• Write more grants! Why?

– funding does not last for ever– 10% success rate– distribution of wealth principle

What if you do not get a grant?

• don't cry (OK, cry a little if you feel better)• pick up the pieces of your failed proposal

and restart your “grants writing” engine• get reviewer’s comments, read and get

angry then keep them in a drawer away from your view for a while..

• come back and read reviews again• talk to PM and your mentor/well wishers• resubmit until you succeed