Transcript Slide 1
Welcome
and thanks for coming
Before we get started
Please be sure to sign in,
electronically!
About NSF
NSF is not a “mission agency”
Our goal is to promote and enable
high quality in education,
particularly in the higher education
system, and particularly in the
sciences and engineering
In the research divisions, our
mechanism is the research grant
Proposal Review
NSF received 55,559 proposals in
FY2010 (40,075 in ’03; 31,942 in ’01),
45,218 in 2009 with 14,642 awards
96 percent of these proposals are
subject to external merit review
Your assistance in this review process is
crucial to the success of NSF, and we
recognize that it is a lot of work
NSF is a Government Agency
NSF spends taxpayer’s money
We seek fair and unbiased reviews
We are required to avoid both actual
conflicts of interest and the appearance
of conflicts
Typical Conflicts
Close friend or relative
Same institution
Student/advisor relationship
Collaboration in the past 48 months
(research, proposal, paper)
Co-edit book, journal in the past 24 months
Financial interest at stake
PI ran over spouse’s cat
Typical Conflicts
Close friend or relative
Same institution
Student/advisor relationship
Collaboration in the past 48 months
(research, proposal, paper)
Co-edit book, journal in the past 24 months
Financial interest at stake
PI ran over spouse’s cat
Appearance of a Conflict
We must avoid even the appearance of a
conflict
Persons with conflicts must recuse
themselves from all discussions relating
to proposals with which they have a
conflict
It is necessary that you declare all
conflicts at the beginning of each panel
meeting
Before you begin your panel
session, we must have a signed
Conflict of interest form
Please note what you are signing—
You must be aware of conflicts
You may not use “insider”
information for personal gain
You must maintain confidentiality of
the panel and its recommendations
Reviewer Duties
By the end of the meeting, we must
have for every proposal
– At least three reviews entered into FastLane
– A summary of the panel discussion for every
proposal discussed by the panel
– Proposals placed into one of three categories
Primary consideration (PC)
Secondary consideration (SC)
Do not consider (DNC)
– All proposals in the PC and SC categories
must be ranked
Written Reviews
Sent verbatim to PIs
Comprise the major form of feedback to
PIs
Please make sure your comments are
constructive, informative and noninflammatory
Please be sure to substantively address
both review criteria - Intellectual Merit
and Broader Impact
Review Criteria
What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity?
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?
What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?
How well does the activity advance discovery and
understanding while promoting teaching, training, and learning?
How well does the proposed 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? Will the results be
disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological
understanding? What may be the benefits of the proposed
activity to society?
Transformative Research
Transformative research is research that
generates ideas, discoveries, or tools that
radically change our understanding of an
important exisiting scientific or engineering
concept or lead to the creation of a new
paradigm or field of science or engineering.
Such research is characterized by its
challenge to current understanding or its
pathway to new frontiers.
Ethics
Remember your obligations to maintain
the confidentiality of the proposals and
the panel recommendations
Do not save the proposals
Do not plagiarize from proposals (or any
other source)
Plagiarizing from a declined proposal
constitutes breach of confidentiality
Anonymity and Propriety
Reviewers are anonymous; we won’t tell,
you must not tell
Your recommendations are advisory and
confidential; do not inform PIs of their
status
Awarded proposals go into the public
domain
Declined proposals are not in the public
domain; don’t distribute, use or quote
them
This is Your Meeting
We hope that you will feel free to
express your opinions and make the best
technical judgments that you can
You may wish to choose a chair for your
panel to expedite the process—who has
the earliest flight out?
Good News/Bad News
The good news—you will get reimbursed
for your attendance and participation on
the panel
The bad news—we can’t use money;
Federal law requires the use of electronic
funds transfer (we need your bank
account number)
If you don’t see your reimbursement
within four weeks, please let me know
H1B visa holders, be sure to declare your
status
We’re from the government, and
we’re here to help
And thanks for coming!
We wish you a pleasant flight home!