Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Recent Changes to the Grant Proposal Guide (GPG)
A presenta*on developed by the Office of Research
NSF Grant Proposal Guide
The NSF Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) is the informa=on source for preparing grant applica=ons.
Note: New GPG, NSF 16-‐1, becomes effec;ve January 25, 2016.
Proposal Submission at ODU
• SubmiEed electronically through Fastlane by the ODU Research Founda;on (ODURF)
• Five-‐working-‐day period before deadlines • Register in the NSF PI Database by ODURF; send a request to [email protected]
• AUer deciding to apply for a specific opportunity, no;fy [email protected] and request that a Grant Contract Administrator (GCA) be assigned to you.
Note: The same process applies if you are a non-‐lead organiza;on in a collabora;ve proposal.
Presenta=on Contents
1. Summary of Changes A. Biosketch B. Results from Prior NSF Support C. Current and Pending Support D. List of Suggested Reviewers E. Repor=ng F. Cer=fica=on Regarding Dual Use Research of Concern
2. Proposal Submission Moderniza=on 3. Successful Proposal Prepara=on
A. NSF Proposal Sec=ons B. Collabora=ve NSF Proposals C. NSF Merit Review Criteria
A. Biosketch • Include loca=on of undergraduate, graduate, and post-‐doc
• Collaborators and Other Affilia=ons is now a separate document
B. Results from Prior NSF Support, the following info must be provided • NSF award number, amount, and period of support
• Title of the project
• Summary of results in two separate sec=ons: Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts
• Lis=ng of publica=ons, with complete bibliographic informa=on
• Evidence of research products and availability
• IF the proposal is for renewed support, a descrip=on of the rela=on of the completed work to the proposed work
• IF more than one award per PI or co-‐PI only report one award most closely related to the proposal
C. Current and Pending Support • Must include ALL current support, including internal funding
D. List of Suggested Reviewers • Must include e-‐mail and ins=tu=onal affilia=on
E. Repor=ng • Annual project should be submiXed no later than 90 days prior to the end of the current budget
• Final Technical and Financial reports should be submiXed 120 days following expira=on of the grant
F. Cer=fica=on Regarding Dual Use Research of Concern • New sec=on in the GPG, to be in compliance with the US Government Policy for Ins=tu=onal Oversight of Life Sciences Dual
Use Research of Concern
Summary of Changes
1. In the Professional Prepara=on sec=on… • The loca=on of the individual’s undergraduate, graduate,
and postdoctoral ins=tu=on(s) must be provided
2. Collaborators and Other Affilia=ons is now a separate single-‐copy document
• The new format no longer requires iden=fica=on of the total number of collaborators and other affilia=ons
Biosketch
Instituto Tecnológico de Chihuahua
Chihuahua, Mexico
Chemical Engineering B.S. 2001
University of Texas at El Paso El Paso, TX Mechanical Engineering M.S. 2004 University of Texas at El Paso El Paso, TX Materials Science and
Engineering Ph.D. 2008
University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI Biostatistics Postdoc 03/09 – 12/10
A. Professional Preparation
§ If any PI or co-‐PI iden=fied on the proposal has received NSF funding in the past five years (including any current funding and no cost extensions), informa=on on the award is required for each PI and co-‐PI, regardless of whether the support was directly related to the proposal or not.
§ The 2016 GPG has a clarifica=on about the defini=on of in the past five years, it means projects with a start date in the past five years.
§ The following info must be provided for all PIs and co-‐PIs: • NSF award number, amount, and period of support
• Title of the project • Summary of results in two separate sec=ons: Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts • Lis=ng of publica=ons, with complete bibliographic informa=on • Evidence of research products and availability (including DMP) • IF the proposal is for renewed support, a descrip=on of the rela=on of the completed
work to the proposed work • IF more than one award per PI or co-‐PI only report one award most closely related to
the proposal • IF no awards, state it “Dr. John Doe does not have NSF funding in the previous five
years to report.”
• Report also on the results from the DMP
Results from Prior NSF Support
Must include ALL current support, including internal funding
Current and Pending Support
What is the defini=on of "person-‐months"? The term "person-‐months" refers to the effort (amount of *me) that PI(s), faculty and other senior personnel will devote to a specific project. The effort is based on the organiza*on's regular academic-‐year, summer or calendar-‐year. For example, if the regular schedule is 10 months and 30% effort will be devoted to the project, the input would be 0.9 months for summer and 2.7 months for academic year effort. How do I calculate the person-‐months per year commiXed to the project for comple=on of the current and pending support sec=on of the proposal? Mul*ply the percentage of your effort associated with the project *mes the number of months of your appointment (i.e. 10% of a 9 month AY appointment equals .9 person months; 10% of a 12 month calendar appointment equals 1.2 months). Your employer may have internal policies and procedures that relate specifically to the type of appointment under which you are employed. You should, therefore, confirm with your Sponsored Projects Office that this simplified methodology is consistent with the policy at your organiza*on. Person months shown in the current and pending support sec*on should usually equal the number of months on the NSF proposal budget.
Remember
When submifng a list of suggested reviewers, PIs
should include the e-‐mail and ins=tu=onal affilia=on
of persons they believe are well qualified to review
the proposal.
List of Suggested Reviewers
• Annual project should be submiXed no later than
90 days prior to the end of the current budget
• Final Technical and Financial reports should be submiXed 120 days following expira=on of the
grant
Repor=ng
• No future funding • No PI changes or no-‐cost extensions • No changes ager final report approval by PO • PO can return final report up to 30 days ager approval date
• Report status can’t be re-‐set for annual reports
Consequences of Overdue Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR)
New sec=on in the GPG, to be in compliance with the US Government Policy for Ins=tu=onal Oversight of Life Sciences Dual Use Research of Concern
US Government Defini=on of DURC:
Cer=fica=on Regarding Dual Use Research of Concern
Life sciences research that, based on current understanding, can be reasonably an;cipated to provide knowledge, informa;on, products, or technologies that could be directly misapplied to pose a significant threat with broad poten;al consequences to public health and safety, agricultural crops and other plants, animals, the environment, materiel, or na;onal security.
Does research involve one or more of the 15 agents or toxins listed in the Policy?
Does research aim to produce one of seven listed experimental effects?
Does research meet the defini=on of DURC?
Research that directly involves any of the following 15 agents and toxins*: • Avian influenza virus (highly pathogenic) • Bacillus anthracis • Botulinum neurotoxin (in any quan=ty) • Burkholderia mallei • Burkholderia pseudomallei • Ebola virus • Foot-‐and-‐mouth disease virus • Francisella tularensis • Marburg virus • Reconstructed 1918 Influenza virus • Rinderpest virus • Toxin-‐producing strains of Clostridium botulinum • Variola major virus • Variola minor virus • Yersinia pes;s
*Except aXenuated strains of the agents that are excluded from the select agent list and inac=ve forms of botulinum neurotoxin
Research Subject to DURC
Research with the following experimental effects:
• Enhances the harmful consequences of the agent or toxin • Disrupts immunity or the effec=veness of an immuniza=on against the agent or toxin without clinical and/or agricultural jus=fica=on
• Confers to the agent or toxin resistance to clinically and/or agriculturally useful prophylac=c or therapeu=c interven=ons against that agent or toxin or facilitates their ability to evade detec=on methodologies
• Increases the stability, transmissibility, or the ability to disseminate the agent or toxin
• Alters the host range or tropism of the agent or toxin • Enhances the suscep=bility of a host popula=on to the agent or toxin
• Generates or recons=tutes an eradicated or ex=nct agent or toxin listed in the policy
Research Subject to DURC
• PSM is a mul=-‐year ini=a=ve to modernize the proposal submission capabili=es currently in FastLane and implement new capabili=es in Research.gov.
• Currently has automa=c compliance checking. • Recent survey results indicate strong interest and support in the
following areas: – Pre-‐popula=ng proposals with exis=ng data; – Allowing certain documents or approvals (e.g. data management plan, detailed budgets, Ins=tu=onal Review Board approval) to be submiXed ager proposal submission; – Revising the format of NSF solicita=ons to iden=fy the difference between solicita=on-‐specific requirements and standard NSF proposal requirements; – Tailoring the proposal interface to reflect the requirements of a given funding opportunity; – Publishing and enforcing a NSF-‐wide list of proposal compliance requirements.
Proposal Submission Moderniza=on (PSM)
Finding NSF Funding Opportuni=es
Online: NSF/Funding/Search Funding Opportuni=es
• Program Areas Crosscufng and NSF-‐wide Biological Sciences Computer & Informa=on Science & Engineering Educa=on and Human Resources Engineering Environmental Research & Educa=on Geosciences Integra=ve Ac=vi=es Interna=onal Science & Engineering Mathema=cal & Physical Sciences Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences
• See Program Announcements • Go to Program home pages for Program Descrip=ons
Types of Funding Opportuni=es Program Descrip=ons (unsolicited) • Posted on Directorate/Division websites • Semi-‐permanent
Program Announcements • Formal publica=ons (issued 90 days before deadlines) • Usually annually recurring
Program Solicita=ons • Formal publica=ons (issued 90 days before deadlines)
Tips: Learn likely opportuni=es 1 year in advance of deadlines. Get e-‐mail no=fica=ons of upcoming opportuni=es.
Proposal Development Timeline • Determine that project idea fits a funding opportunity • Gather informa*on – What has NSF funded? Requires? • Formulate project plan • Talk to an NSF Program Officer • Establish team • Develop project plan • Proposal wri*ng (2 months prior to Deadline) • Budget development (with ODU RF GCA) • Procedural requirements (Chair, Dean approvals) • Review –Peers (2 weeks prior to Deadline) • Submit to ODU RF (5 working days prior to Deadline)
NSF Award Search
Online: NSF/Awards/Search • PI Lookup • Organiza=on Lookup • List of Program Awards -‐ Award Abstracts
Note: Award Abstracts (for the public) are not the same as proposal Project Summaries (for the reviewers).
Communicate with Program Officers
Why? • Make sure you are on the right track. • Let the PO know who you are and what you are working on.
• Get poten=ally useful informa=on and advice. • Establish a collegial rela=onship.
Communicate with Program Officers
How? 1) Homework: Understand program goals and requirements.
2) Prepare one-‐page project concept paper. 3) E-‐mail the PO and request feed-‐back. 4) Follow-‐up on any feedback received.
NSF Merit Review Principles
NSF projects should: 1) Be of the highest quality and have the
poten=al to advance if not transform the fron=ers of knowledge;
2) Contribute to achieve societal goals;
3) Be assessed or evaluated based on appropriate metrics.
NSF Merit Review Criteria
1) Intellectual Merit
Poten=al to advance knowledge 2) Broader Impacts
Poten=al to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of desired societal outcomes
Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts Elements
1) Importance for advancing knowledge 2) Crea=ve, original concepts 3) Well conceived, organized approach 4) Well qualified 5) Sufficient resources Note:
Cover all these points for both Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts.
Broader Impacts Criteria New (since 2013) NSF Criteria: • Evaluate Broader Impacts in the same way that Intellectual Merit is evaluated
• “what they 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 could accrue if the project is successful”
Note:
Broader Impacts results are to be reported. Explicitly plan how to achieve Broader Impacts.
Broader Impacts Planning • Review NSF Award Abstracts and funded proposals for Broader Impacts.
• Get involved in local Broader Impacts ac=vi=es.
• Plan how to address Broader Impacts ahead of proposal wri=ng.
• Include previous Broader Impact ac=vi=es in NSF Biographical Sketch Synergis=c Ac=vi=es.
NSF Proposal Sec=ons for Uploading to Fastlane
Project Summary [1 page limit] Project Descrip=on [15 page limit] References Cited Biographical Sketches [2 page limit] Budget and Budget Jus=fica=on [3 page limit] Current and Pending Support Facili=es, Equipment, and Other Resources Special Informa=on and Supplementary Documenta=on:
Data Management Plan [2 page limit] LeXers of Commitment Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan [1 page limit]
Single-‐Copy Documents: Collaborators and Other Affilia=ons List of Suggested Reviewers and/or Reviewers Not to Include (op*onal)
Project Summary Three separate sec=ons are required (4,600 characters with spaces). Overview • Clearly state goals and objec=ves • Briefly summarize methods to be used
Intellectual Merit • Importance for advancing knowledge • Crea=ve, original concepts
Broader Impacts • Benefits to society Tips:
Write the Project Summary last. Write to engage reviewer interest.
Project Descrip=on “what they 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 could accrue if the project is successful” • Broader Impacts sec=on is required and must be labeled “Broader
Impacts of the Proposed Work” • Results of Prior NSF Support sec=on is required. Tips: • Elaborate on Intellectual Merit. • Iden=fy educa=onal goals and objec=ves. • Include mentoring plan for student par=cipants. • Address project management if more than one PI. • Include assessing objec=ves: measures of success.
NSF Budget Direct Cost Categories A. Senior Personnel (salaries; fringe benefits; *me commitments) B. Other Personnel (salaries, s*pends, wages; *me commitments for Students, Post-‐docs, Technical Support personnel) C. Fringe Benefits D. Equipment (Items exceeding $5,000) E. Travel F. Par=cipant Support G. Other Direct Costs
Materials and Supplies Publica*on/Documenta*on/Dissemina*on Consultant Services Computer Services Sub-‐awards
Note: Sub-‐award budgets for external organiza=ons are confirmed by the GCA.
Budget Development and Jus=fica=on
The ODU Research Founda=on Grant Contract Administrator (GCA) is officially responsible for the final budget and jus=fica=on.
Go over the budget with the GCA early and ogen as it develops.
Inform the GCA at the outset if there are personnel outside of ODU.
Verify that the Budget Jus=fica=on is consistent with any related statements that are made in the Project Descrip=on.
Biographical Sketches
A. Professional Prepara=on B. Appointments C. Products (up to 5 closely related, plus up to 5 addi*onal) D. Synergis=c Ac=vi=es (up to 5) Note:
Sketches provide evidence to evaluate the “Well Qualified” merit review criteria. Include Collaborators & Other Affilia=ons in a separate Single Copy Document.
Synergis=c Ac=vi=es Up to five examples that demonstrate the broader impact of one’s professional and scholarly ac=vi=es that focuses on the integra=on and transfer of knowledge as well as its crea=on; such as: • innova=ons in teaching and training (e.g., development of curricular materials and pedagogical methods);
• contribu=ons to the science of learning; • development and/or refinement of research tools, computa=on methodologies and algorithms for problem-‐solving;
• development of databases to support research and educa=on; • broadening the par=cipa=on of groups underrepresented in STEM; • service to the scien=fic and engineering community outside of the one’s immediate organiza=on.
Data Management Plan
Contains (2-‐page limit):
• Types of data and other materials to be produced • Standards to be used for data and metadata format and content
• Policies for access and sharing • Provisions for re-‐use, re-‐distribu=on, and produc=on of deriva=ves • Plans for archiving data and other products
Data management requirements and plans specific to the NSF units are available at: hXp://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/dmp.jsp. ODU website-‐ hXp://guides.lib.odu.edu/datamanagementplan
Collabora=ve Proposals
Collabora=ve proposals with two or more organiza=ons may be submiXed as either 1) a single proposal, in which a single award is being
requested, with sub-‐awards administered by the lead; or, 2) by simultaneous submission of proposals from different
organiza=ons, with each organiza=on reques=ng a separate award.
Note: The choice is up to the lead PI. Simultaneous submission requires coordina=on between different organiza=on grant administra=on officials.
Ques=ons?
Upcoming Office of Research Programming
2/4 – Research Seed Funding Program Presenta*ons
2/25 – Improving Your Grant Proposals through Beier Project Evalua*on
3/15 – Strategies for Planning, Developing, and Wri*ng Large Team Grants -‐ Part 1: Strategic Planning & Proposal Planning
3/24 – Strategies for Planning, Developing, and Wri*ng Large Team Grants – Part 2: Wri*ng a Successful Narra*ve and Other Grant Components; Red Team Reviews and Wri*ng for Reviewers
4/14 – Partnering With Your Program Officer
