Upload
nina-blackwell
View
35
Download
3
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Office of Integrative Activities National Science Foundation. NSF Proposal Process March 28, 2007. Dr. Joan M. Frye, Staff Associate [email protected] ~ 703-292-8040. What to look for in Program Solicitation. Goals of program Eligibility Specific proposal review criteria - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007
NSF Proposal ProcessMarch 28, 2007
Office of Integrative ActivitiesOffice of Integrative ActivitiesNational Science FoundationNational Science Foundation
Dr. Joan M. Frye, Staff [email protected] ~ 703-292-8040
What to look for in Program Solicitation
•Goals of program
•Eligibility
•Specific proposal review criteria
•Special proposal preparation and/or award requirements
Types of Proposal Submission
•No deadlines
•Deadlines
•Target dates
•Submission Windows
•Preliminary proposals
Commandments for Writing Competitive NSF Proposals
“Thou shalt propose a brilliant idea.”
“Thou shalt read Grant Proposal Guide & Program Solicitation.”
“Thou shalt get help with proposal writing.”
“Thou shalt write for the right audience.”
“Thou shalt not irritate the reviewers.”
"Thou shalt not steal."
DO YOUR HOMEWORK!
So You Need Outside Support
Before You Write That Proposal
• Determine– What you want to do– Other efforts related to yours– The appropriate agency and program
Getting Support in Proposal Writing
• NSF Publications
– Program Announcements/
Solicitations
– Grant Proposal Guide
– Web Pages
– Funded Project Abstracts
– Reports, Special
Publications
• Program Officers– Incumbent– Former “Rotators”
• Mentors on Campus
• Previous Panelists
• Serve As Reviewer
• Sponsored Research Office
• Successful Proposals
Sections of an NSF Proposal
•Cover Sheet•Project Summary•Table of Contents•Project Description•References Cited•Biographical Sketch(es)•Budget•Current & Pending Support•Facilities, Equipment & Other Resources•Special Information & Supplementary Documentation
Proposal Development
• Key Questions for Prospective Investigator1. What do you intend to do?2. Why is the work important?3. What has already been done?4. How are you going to do the work?
Proposal Development Strategies Individual Investigator
• Determine your long-term research/education goals• Develop your idea
–Survey the literature–Contact Investigators working on topic–Prepare a brief concept paper–Discuss with colleagues/mentors
• Prepare to do the project–Determine available resources–Realistically assess needs–Develop preliminary data–Present to colleagues/mentors/students
Proposal Development Strategies – Funding Sources
• Determine possible funding sources
• Ascertain overall scope and mission–Read carefully solicitation instructions–Determine where your project fits–Ascertain evaluation procedures and criteria
Proposal Development Strategies – Funding Sources
• Talk with NSF Program Officer:–Your proposed project–Specific program requirements/limitations–Current program patterns
• Coordinate with your organization’s sponsored projects office
Budgetary Guidelines
• Amounts–Reasonable for work - Realistic–Well justified - Needs established–In-line with program guidelines
• Eligible costs–Personnel–Equipment–Travel–Participant Support–Other Direct Costs (including subawards, consultant services, computer services, publication costs)
Budgetary Guidelines (cont’d)
• General Suggestions
• All funding sources noted in Current and Pending Support
• Help from Sponsored Projects Office
• Special Note: No cost sharing required
Reviewer Selection
• Identifying reviewers:
– PI reviewer suggestions– Program Officer’s knowledge of what is being done and
who’s doing what in the research area
– References listed in proposal
– Recent technical programs from professional societies
– Recent authors in Scientific and Engineering journals
– S&E Abstracts by computer search
– Reviewer recommendations
Research & Education
Communities
Proposal Preparation Time
Org.submits
viaFastLane
N S FN S FNSF
Program.Office
NSFProgram.
Office
ProgramOffice
Analysis&
Recomm.
ProgramOffice
Analysis&
Recomm.
DDConcur
DDConcur
ViaDGA
ViaDGA
OrganizationOrganization
Min. 3
Revs.Req.
DGA Review & Processingof Award
Proposal Receipt to DivisionDirector Concurrence of Program
Officer Recommendation
GPGAnnouncement
Solicitation
GPGAnnouncement
Solicitation
NSF AnnouncesOpportunity
Returned Without Review/Withdrawn
MailMail
PanelPanel
BothBoth
Award
NSF Proposal & Award Process & Timeline
Decline
90 Days 6 Months 30 Days
Proposal Receiptat NSF DD Concur Award
NSF Merit Review Criteria
• NSB Approved Criteria include:–Intellectual Merit
–Broader Impacts
• Additional Criteria as listed in Solicitation (if any)
Reasons For Funding A Competitive Proposal
• Likely high impact
• PI Career Point (tenured?/“established”/ “young”)
• Place in Program Portfolio
• Other Support for PI
• Impact on Institution/State
What is the intellectual merit?
Potential Considerations:
– Will the proposed activity advance 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 explore creative and original concepts?
– How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity?
– Is there sufficient access to resources?
What are the broader impacts?
Potential Considerations:
– 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 (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)?
– To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks and partnerships?
What are the broader impacts?
• Potential Considerations (continued):
– Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding?
– What are the potential benefits of the proposed activity to society?
Role of the Review Panel
• Peer review
Taking Risks
• Budget Constraints
Balancing Priorities
Reasons For Funding A Competitive Proposal
A good proposal is a good idea, well expressed, with a clear indication of
methods for pursuing the idea, evaluating the findings, making them known to all who need to know, and indicating the
broader impacts of the activity.
Funding Decisions
• Program Officer decision
• Feedback to PI
• Informal and formal notification
• Scope of work and budget discussions
Some Reasons for Proposal Declines
• Lack of evidence the PI is aware of the relevant literature and is building upon it
• Diffuse, superficial and unfocused plan
• Lack of sufficient detail
• Lack of requisite expertise or experience of the PI
• Lack of a clear plan to document and evaluate activities and outcomes
Myths about NSF
• Only funds researchers from elite institutions
• Once declined…always declined
• Only funds “normal” science
• Advisory committees make funding decisions
Advice
• Learn to love rejection
• Contact the program officer with specific questions
• Revise and resubmit
• Collaboration is good, if appropriate
• Discover alternative funding sources
NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007
Major Research Instrumentation
Office of Integrative ActivitiesOffice of Integrative ActivitiesNational Science FoundationNational Science Foundation
Dr. Joan M. Frye, Staff [email protected] ~ 703-292-8040
http://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/programs/mri
NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007
Major Research Instrumentation
• MRI solicitation (NSF 07-510) published electronically on the NSF website; other MRI resources:– FAQ’s
– lists of MRI awards (1997-2006)
– MRI presentations
• Proposals required to be submitted electronically using FastLane or Grants.gov;
• At time of submission, PI should identify NSF division to review proposal.
NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007
Purpose
• The MRI program– is designed to increase access to scientific and engineering
equipment for research and research training in U.S. academic institutions.
– seeks to improve the quality and expand the scope of research and research training in science and engineering, and to foster the integration of research and education by providing instrumentation for research-intensive learning environments.
– encourages the development and acquisition of research instrumentation for shared use across academic departments, among research institutions, and in concert with private sector partners.
NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007
Goals
• Support the acquisition or development, of major state-of-the-art instrumentation for research, research training, and integrated research/education activities at U.S. Institutions;
• Improve access to and increase use of modern research and research training instrumentation by scientists, engineers, and graduate and undergraduate students;
• Enable academic departments or cross-departmental units to create well-equipped learning environments that integrate research and education;
• Foster the development of the next generation of instrumentation for research and research training; and
• Promote partnerships between academic researchers and private sector instrument developers.
NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007
Eligible Institutions
• Ph.D. granting organizations
– academic organizations that have produced more than 20 Ph.D.s or D. Sci’s in all NSF-supported fields during the previous two academic years
• Non-Ph.D. granting organizations
– two and four year colleges and universities that have produced 20 or fewer Ph.D.s or D.Sci’s in all NSF-supported fields during the previous two academic years
• Non-degree granting organizations
– independent non-profit research organizations, research museums, and consortia of eligible institutions
NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007
2007 Overview
• Instrumentation Acquisition or Development• Two proposals for acquisition or development; a third for
development; an institution may be part of a consortium• Award size--$100,000 to $2 million
– (lower limits for undergraduate institutions and for mathematical, social, behavioral and economic sciences)
• Cost sharing—None required• Deadline for proposal submission: 4th Thursday in January
NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007
Evaluation Criteria
• Intellectual merit• Broader impacts of the proposed activity• Additional Review Criteria:
– For both acquisition and development proposals:
• Plans for using the new or enhanced research capability in teaching, training or learning.
• Management Plan.
– For instrument development proposals
• Rationale for development of a new instrument.
NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007
Strengths of Funded MRI Proposals
• “…This is an excellent proposal from a high quality liberal arts college. They have a healthy and vigorous incorporation of collaborative student-faculty research, both externally funded and leading to publication in peer-reviewed research journals. There is no doubt that the requested NMR spectrometer will be well cared for and put to good use for research and research training….”
• “... all institutions have made a commitment to operation & maintenance ...”
NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007
Strengths....
• “... most colleges ... have large number of women and minority students ... proposal will have a positive effect on the education of minority scientists.”
• “The panel noted that this was a resubmission (according to two reviewers) and improvements in the proposal were noted.”
• “... the hardware requested is essential for the research objectives to be accomplished. “
• “... the group is highly qualified based on research records and history of UG research.”
NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007
Weaknesses of Declined MRI Proposals
• “…it is unclear how the lack of the proposed 300 MHz instrument will be detrimental to the proposed research.”
• “…the proposal lacks any comment on how the proposed instrument will be involved in university outreach and teaching.”
• “…the low funding level of current faculty researchers, the lack of student researchers, and lack of publications involved in the proposed activities is problematic.”
• “…the PI's should explicitly make clear how NMR has been used in the past by each of the users...”
• “There were several issues with the science. The research proposals were not well developed... work is of relatively low-impact ... there is no broad-based science or distribution in crystal structure determination. It was not clear that the CCD instrument was well justified.”
• “It is not clear why (institution) is not involved in the cost sharing or the upkeep of the instrument. The program needs more personnel .... The projected output of structures is minimal ....”
• “... significant number of typographical errors ... suggest care was not given to its preparation....”
NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007
Strategies for Success
• Student involvement: co-authors on papers & presentations.• Aggressive search for research funding• Strong maintenance of existing equipment and plans for
requested equipment• Involvement of under-represented groups• Innovative and important research• Wide use• Demonstrated need, e.g., # samples• Preliminary results/measurements• Primary use is research• Equipment, including bells and whistles, is essential
NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007
2006 Proposal and Award Snapshot
• Number of Proposals Submitted: 769• Dollars Requested: $437,403,458• Number of Awards: 233• MRI Dollars Awarded: $88,308,325• NSF Dollars Awarded: $96,962,197• Success Rate: 30.3%• MRI Average Award: $379,006• NSF Average Award: $416,147• Number of Institutions that Participated: 413 • Number of Institutions Awarded: 194
NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007
Non-Ph.D. Granting InstitutionsNon-Ph.D. Granting Institutions
• FY 2006• Number of Proposals
Submitted: 270
• Dollars Requested: $94,409,449
• Number of Awards: 92
• MRI Dollars Awarded: $19,478,024
• NSF Dollars Awarded: $20,669,110
• Success Rate: 34.1%
• Average MRI Award: $211,718
• Average NSF Award: $224,664
• Number of States
Represented: 39*
• Number of Institutions Represented: 192
• FY 2005• Number of Proposals
Submitted: 281
• Dollars Requested: $97,697,185
• Number of Awards: 109
• MRI Dollars Awarded: $25,829,731
• NSF Dollars Awarded: $26,422,103
• Success Rate: 38.8%
• Average MRI Award: $236,970
• Average NSF Award: $242,405
• Number of States
Represented: 43*
• Number of Institutions Represented: 206
*includes Puerto Rico
NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007
Minority Serving InstitutionsMinority Serving Institutions
• FY 2006• Number of Proposals
Submitted: 66
• Dollars Requested: $23,211,136
• Number of Awards: 24
• MRI Dollars Awarded: $4,823,738
• NSF Dollars Awarded: $5,564,581
• Success Rate: 36.4%
• Average MRI Award: $200,989
• Average NSF Award: $231,858
• Number of States
Represented: 15^
• Number of Institutions Represented: 41
• FY 2005• Number of Proposals
Submitted: 79
• Dollars Requested: $41,065,845
• Number of Awards: 26
• MRI Dollars Awarded: $9,203,854
• NSF Dollars Awarded: $9,241,854
• Success Rate: 32.9%
• Average MRI Award: $353,994
• Average NSF Award: $355,456
• Number of States
Represented: 21*
• Number of Institutions Represented: 52
* includes Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico ^ includes Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and
U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI)
NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007
Summer Scholars Internship Program
National Science Foundation
NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007
2006 Interns Meeting NSF’s Director and Deputy Director
NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007
SSIP: Mission
• Develop undergraduate and graduate student potential through exposure to:– relevant science and engineering policy– funding programs– research and education issues
• Promote graduate education• Increase growth of STEM workforce
NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007
SSIP: Mission (cont.)
• Helps NSF to fill one of its strategic outcome goals:– Learning: Cultivate a world-class, broadly inclusive science and
engineering workforce, and expand the scientific literacy of all citizens
NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007
SSIP: Components
• Work assignment completed under the guidance of a mentor
• Participation in enrichment and professional development activities
• Final report• Formal oral presentation
NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007
SSIP: Summer Assignment
• Duration: 9-10 weeks• Mentors and interns create work plans for
the summer• Interns work on issues involving science
administration, program evaluation, STEM education policy, and on various research projects
NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007
Intern Testimonial
My experience at NSF has been incredible, and I now have a much better understanding of the entire astronomy research process, from traveling to Kitt Peak and being able to take part in data collection, to data reduction and analysis, and finally the paper submission process
Alexis CornishClass of 2005
and presentation at the AAS meeting. I can look back and say that a lot of progress has been made, as the final accepted paper has come a long way since the first draft. I am truly grateful for the opportunities provided by NSF and HACU, and Sherrie Green’s willingness to assist me in this transition to graduate studies. Your mentorship is greatly appreciated!
NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007
Summer Activities
• To complement their work assignments, interns participate in group activities that have included:– White House and Capitol tours– Congressional hearings– Coalition for National Science
Funding events– Graduate school and student
funding seminars
NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007
Summer Activities (cont.)
– Visits to American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)
– UMBC Summer Horizons– Guided museum
tours– Diversity training– Distinguished lectures
NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007
SSIP: Opportunities
• Some interns have opportunities to travel:– site visits– professional conferences– seminars
• Networking and interacting with diverse STEM professionals and educators
NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007
Participating Organizations
• Students are recruited by four current partner originations:– AESIS: American Indian Science and Engineering Society (http://
www.aises.org/)– HACU: Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities (http://
www.hacu.net/)– QEM: Quality Education for Minorities Network (http://qemnetwork.qem.org/)
– WINS: Washington Internships for Native Students (http://www.american.edu/wins/)
NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007
Participating Organizations (cont.)
• Strive to increase participation in STEM fields among underrepresented minorities
• Students can only apply for a SSIP internship through these organizations
NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007
Selection Process
1. Students must meet sponsoring organizations eligibly criteria2. Three-tier review process3. Final offer of internship placement made by sponsor
organization
NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007
Interns’ Home Institutions
NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007
Status of Interns Upon Entry
83% 85%82%
94%
81%
77%
71%
81%
17% 15%18%
6%
19%
23%
29%
19%
200018 Interns
200126 Interns
200222 Interns
200318 Interns
200427 Interns
200526 Interns
200624 Interns
2000-2006161 Interns
Undergraduate Students Some Graduate School
NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007
Promoting Graduate Education
• Interns learn about the graduate school application process and funding opportunities, and attend Summer Horizons at UMBC
• Former interns are currently pursuing PhDs at schools such as Emory, Purdue, Howard, Virginia, Syracuse, Missouri, and Maryland
NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007
Promoting Graduate Education (cont.)
• Many interns have attended graduate school following their summer experience at NSF, at schools including:
Arizona State Charles Drew De Paul Georgetown
Harvard Illinois-Chicago Iowa Johns Hopkins
Kansas Miami-Law Michigan Mississippi State
Missouri-Medicine NC State NYU Oklahoma State
Stanford SUNY-Bingham Texas-Austin Texas-HSC
UNC Washington William & Mary Yale
• Other interns have joined the STEM workforce:
3M Boston Scientific Dean Whitter Deloitte & Touche
IBM Intel Proctor & Gamble Raytheon
NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
200018 Interns
200126 Interns
200222 Interns
200318 Interns
200427 Interns
200526 Interns
200624 Interns
Total161 Interns
Incomplete Information Bachelor's Degree Only Undergraduates Attended/Attending Graduate School Achieved Advanced Degree
Current Status of Interns
(based on self reporting of interns, as of 2/20/2007)
NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007
Internship Summit
• In 2005, more than 60 former interns returned to NSF to participate in a two-day internship summit
• NSF learned about the impact of SSIP on interns’ careers• Speakers talked about graduate school and career opportunities
NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007
Intern Testimonials
• At the summit, interns reflected on how their time at NSF affected their career paths:
Working at NSF was definitely a life changing experience. Unaware of the endless possibilities available to African American engineers in academia and in the industrial arena, this experience broadened my horizons, giving me a true vision of what I could become. Today I work at Nissan as an industrial engineer. With two degrees under my belt from Oakwood College and the University of Alabama in Huntsville, I now walk with confidence knowing that I am more than capable of accomplishing anything that I put my mind to achieving. Keisha Wallace
Class of 2001
NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007
Intern Testimonials (cont.)
The summer internship reassured me that I could move to a new place, meet new people, and learn how to function in a new environment far from my home. I gained the self-confidence that has propelled me to take on new opportunities in my life, such as continuing other summer internships in college and pursuing graduate school. Working for a government agency provided me with an understanding of how scientific funding works. I was able to work with a mentor that provided me guidance and advice in pursuing a field in the environmental sciences. I have now finished my master’s degree from the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.
Jaqueline Guzman
Class of 2001
NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007
Intern Testimonials (cont.)
During the summer, the opportunity to meet with mentors, advisors, and professionals opened my eyes and allowed me to see the diverse career opportunities available to individuals with graduate education. Additionally, the personal support gained through networking with other students cannot be measured. During rough times in my graduate program, during exams and busy weeks, knowing that I was only an email away from other students in my similar position helped carry me through. I hope to influence and give advice to younger students who are beginning their journey in graduate school. I enjoy sharing my experiences, good and bad, in the hope that I can show others that being young, black, and gifted is not a rare thing. Jennifer James
Class of 2002
NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007
Intern Testimonials (cont.)
Working in the chemistry division at NSF, I created a database of minority chemists. I learned that NSF wanted to diversify chemistry panels. The division sought to leave a lasting impression by perfecting the panel to the last detail. I learned that things can always be made a little better if we care enough to go the extra mile. I took this philosophy with me as I left NSF. With this new attitude, my mentors encouraged me to apply to the Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) Program. I obtained an REU position at the University of Puerto Rico - Río Piedras. Before my REU experience, I was a die-hard pre-medicine student on my way to medical school, but my life took off in a new direction as I applied to graduate school in chemistry. All of the graduate schools to which I applied accepted me, and I currently attend Emory University.
Ronald HunterClass of 2002
NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007
Intern Testimonials (cont.)
My internship at NSF opened the door to opportunities that I had not previously considered. This internship afforded me access to and understanding of the value of research that has contributed to shaping my academic path. At NSF I witnessed first-hand the impacts of research on people’s daily lives. My exposure to NSF contributed to my decision to pursue a master’s degree in Disability and Human Development. Most recently, I have been appointed as a research specialist for the National Center for Capacity Building on Minorities with Disability Research. In this capacity I provide technical assistance on program evaluation to agencies offering services to minorities with disabilities. My NSF experience is a common denominator in many of my accomplishments as well as my decision to pursue a PhD in Disability Studies.
Alberto GuzmanClass of 2002/2003
NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007
Contact
• Internship CoordinatorSherrie Green
Program Manager
Office of Integrative Activities
• http://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/activities/interns