Transcript An overview of fifty years of development for the Canadian

Presented by:
Dr. René Tinawi
Dr. Greg Naterer
August 6, 2008
1
Plan of the presentation







About NSERC
Changes to GSC
Eligibility
Preparing a Grant Application
Peer review process
2007 Funding Statistics
Final Advice
2
Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council of Canada
NSERC
www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca
Suzanne Fortier
President
3
NSERC Budget 2007-08
(millions of dollars)
Total: $920
Excludes $37M increase from the 2007 Federal Budget.
4
Discovery Programs Budget 2007-08
(millions of dollars)
Total: $399
1. Includes Canadian Light Source funding from NRC ($3M) and Budget 2004
($6M). Excludes $37M increase from the 2007 Federal Budget..
5
6
GSC Restructuring
 Restructuring of the Communications, Computer
and Components Engineering (GSC 334)
and Electromagnetics / Electrical Systems
Engineering (GSC 335) Grant Selection
Committees
7
Grant Selection Committee (GSC) Structure
Review
 Current discipline-based GSC structure may
have difficulties handling inter-disciplinary and
new areas of research
 To handle increasing workload, GSCs are subdividing and thus becoming more specialized,
exacerbating the problem
 Is there a better way? NSERC is reviewing the
current system
8
9
11
Discovery Grants
Objectives:
 promoting and maintaining a diversified base of
high-quality research capability in natural
sciences and engineering in Canadian
universities
 fostering research excellence
 providing a stimulating environment for research
training (HQP)
An essential grant to have!
12
Discovery Grants
• Supports ongoing programs of research, rather than
projects
• Inherent flexibility in the research program
• Success rate: approximately 70%
• Average grant: $31K per year
13
Notification of Intent to Apply for a Discovery
Grant (Form 180)
 For Discovery Grants (DG), and University
Faculty Award (UFA) applications
 Facilitates selection of external referees
 List contributions (2002-08) to avoid conflicts
 Deadline: August 1
 Can have adverse consequences if not submitted
14
A Complete Discovery Grant Application
Includes:
1. An Application for a Grant (Form 101) with
supporting documentation
2. A Personal Data Form (Form 100) for applicant
with appropriate appendices
3. Samples of research contributions (reprints,
pre-prints, thesis chapters, manuscripts, etc.)
4. Environmental Assessment, if required
15
FORM 101
YOUR GRANT PROPOSAL
F100 (CV)
YOUR RESEARCH PROFILE
Merit of the proposal
Excellence of the Researcher
Training of HQP
Potential HQP
Past HQP record
Need for funds
Budget justification
Relationship to other sources of funds
List of other sources of funds
16
FORM 100
Personal Data Form – an essential
component
• List all sources of support (held or applied for) during the
past four years
• Describe 5 most significant research contributions
• List other research contributions (2002-2008) in reverse
chronological order (journal papers, conferences, books, etc.)
• Emphasize quality not just quantity
• Describe contributions to training of HQP (2002-2008)
• Give other evidence of impact of work (awards, honours,
membership on scientific committees)
• Explain any delays in research activity (maternity)
17
FORM 101
Discovery Grant: Application tips

Please read the instructions: “Plug & Play” concept on-line does not work!

Write the summary in plain language

Provide a progress report (even for first time applicant, a must for renewals)

Position the research within the field (1page bibliography)

Articulate short and long-term objectives of your research program

Provide a detailed and focused methodology (2-3 pages)

Outline problems that you may encounter and their possible solutions

Describe plans for training of HQP (co-supervision in some cases)

Prepare a realistic budget (look at statistics)

First time applicants must seek guidance from ORS and colleagues

Discuss any relationship to other research support

Address previous GSC comments or external referee reports (if applicable)
18
FORM 101
Other tips - Discovery Grants















Use the 2008 Web version of forms/guide
Read all instructions VERY carefully
Select the most appropriate GSC for your proposal
Find out who was on your GSC last year (yearly committee renewal 1/3)
Follow presentation standards for print size and page limitations (this will irritate committee
members and could have negative impact)
Send the required number of papers or contributions
Ensure completeness of application
Read other (successful) proposals, if you can
Ask colleagues for (negative) comments on your application
First time applicant: Research program is essential
Applicants renewing: Productivity and training of HQP is a must! + Research Program
Allow several weeks to write your proposal and the possibility of iterating several times
Proposals written 24h before the deadline are not appreciated by GSC
In summary: your innovative research ideas and your CV no matter how outstanding they
are, must be “packaged” in a neat and clear way by respecting page limits, margins, font
size, etc. Poorly prepared proposal will definitely be rejected.
Remember: money is scarce and any excuse to reject or reduce funding will be used by
GSC.
Good news: You do this once every five years!
19
You don’t get rich working for NSERC!!
Committee members are all volunteers.
You will not believe your ears!!
 I can’t understand how University X hired professor Y, applicant can’t even read the
instructions!
 Applicant is cheating: the font size is too small, it aggravates my eyes!
 Research proposal is too widespread, no focus!
 All the six papers in the CV are variations on the same theme: productivity is not
impressive!
 Publications: journals, conferences and book chapters are all mixed up and are not listed in
the required order!
 No mention or desire of HQP training: Applicant wants to attend conferences only!
 Applicant has other funds for the same research: double dipping!
 No time: it is evident this application was written 12 hours before the deadline! Applicant
will have no time to conduct the proposed research! No funding!
 The experimental program makes no sense at all: matchsticks inside a bucket of sand in
a laboratory are not representative of real pile foundations!
 Etc.
20
21
Research tools and instruments (RTI)
Budget: $375M
Objectives:
To foster and enhance the discovery, innovation and training capability of university
researchers by supporting the purchase of research equipment and installations.
Categories:
RTI – Category 1: $7,001 to $150,000;
RTI – Category 2: $150,001 to $325,000; (Moratorium)
RTI – Category 3: more than $325,000 (Moratorium).
For categories 2 and 3, NSERC funding must be complemented from other sources such
that NSERC requirement ≤ $150,000.
Advice:
Apply for RTI at the same time as your DG
Involve other Faculty members, if possible
Try to obtain partial institutional or other support
Overall success rate is about 50% with an average grant of $49,000
It is not advisable to apply for $149,900 RTI Grant
22
Research Tools and Instruments
 Deadline date – October 25
 Ongoing moratorium on Categories 2 and 3
 $150,000 or less available from NSERC
 Must hold or have submitted an NSERC
research grant (not necessarily a Discovery
Grant)
 A Grant Selection Committee’s RTI competition
budget is based on the total amount applied for
23
RTI FORM 101
&
FORM 100
Research Tools and Instruments Category 1
 What research will be performed with equipment?
 Justify each item
 Explain need and urgency of overall request
 Suitability of proposed equipment for research program
 Indicate impact on training
 Give alternate configurations and prices
24
How your application is evaluated
by the Grant Selection Committee
25
Life Cycle of a DG Application
August 1 to mid-September
Form 180 - Assignment of GSC and Referees
November 1
Submission of Grant Application by ORS
November 25
Chairs’ Meeting – Confirmation of GSC
November
Mail-out DG to External Referees
Mid-December
Mail-out to GSC Members
February
Grants Competition
March – April
Announcement of Results
26
Outline of evaluation
 The Grant Selection Committee
 How is your application evaluated

Discovery Grants (DG)

Research Tools and Instruments Grants (RTI)
27
Levels of Review
Generally, at least eight people will read your
proposal:
One primary reviewer on GSC
 One secondary reviewer on GSC
 Three readers
 One external reviewer (at least)

Total number
depends on your
GSC
28
Selection Criteria for DG
 Merit of the proposal
FORM 101
 Excellence of the researcher
 Training of highly qualified personnel (HQP)
 Need for funds
FORM 100 (CV)
& FORM 101
29
During February Competition
2nd Reviewer
Reader
Reader
32,000$
30,000$
25,000$
23,000$
20,000$
0
0
Reader
Conflict
?
P.O.
Chair
Reader
Reader
1st Reviewer
30
Criterion1 - Excellence of Researcher
 Knowledge, expertise and experience
 Contribution to research
 Importance of contributions
 Complementarity of expertise and synergy for
group applications
31
Criterion 2 - Merit of the Proposal
 Originality and innovation
 Significance and expected contribution to research
 Clarity and scope of objectives
 Clarity and appropriateness of methodology
 Feasibility of program
32
Criterion 3 - Training of HQP
 Quality and extent of past and potential
contributions
 Appropriateness of proposed work for training
 Training in collaborative or interdisciplinary
environment
33
Reporting HQP
Name
Type of HQP
Training
Years
Supervised or
Co-supervised
Title of
Project or
Thesis
Present Position
Consent obtained
Imadoc,
Marie
Masters
(completed)
Supervised
2003-2005
Isotope
V-P (research),
geochemistry Earth Analytics Inc.,
in petroleum
Calgary, AB
engineering
Consent not obtained
(name
withheld)
Masters
(completed)
Supervised
2003-2005
Isotope
Research executive
geochemistry
in petroleum
industry – Western
Canada
34
35
2007 Discovery Grants Results: All Disciplines
First-time Applicants
Returning Applicants
No
App.
Success
(%)
Avg.
Grant
($)
No
App.
Success
(%)
Avg.
Grant
($)
Life Sciences
315
50.8
27,270
814
66.6
34,625
Physical Sciences
189
58.7
26,664
579
79.8
39,505
Math, Stats
84
69.4
14,356
218
76.1
18,570
Computer Science
57
72.3
18,764
297
81.8
25,311
Engineering
222
60.4
21,077
740
73.9
26,095
Subatomic Physics
12
91.7
42,591
21
85.7
48,361
Interdisciplinary
21
71.4
20,267
29
65.5
27,618
Total for all GSCs
900
58.9
23,615
2692
74.0
30,993
Disciplines
36
2007 Research Tools and Instruments (RTI-1)
All RTI
RTI for FTAs
No. App.
Success
Rate (%)
Funding
($k)
No
App.
Success
Rate (%)
Life Sciences
456
56.4
11,709
87
47.1
Physical Sciences
487
48.3
17,359
81
56.8
Math, Stats
10
92.9
389
1
100.0
Computer Science
54
50.4
1,552
9
50.0
Engineering
512
44.7
17,827
71
40.8
Interdisciplinary
13
53.8
373
3
33.3
1532
49.9
49,210
252
48.4
Disciplines
Total for all GSCs
41
Why these statistics?
 No grant application is guaranteed funding
 Demand ($ of applicants) is > supply (available $)
 Committees can not exceed their allocated
budgets
 Attitude of a GSC is to fund excellent applications
only: a magnifying glass is used to spot the most
minute reason, as an excuse, not to fund some
applicants
46
47
Final Advice
 Use the 2008 Web version of the forms and Guide.
 Read all instructions carefully and follow presentation standards.
 Ensure completeness of application.
 Remember that more than one audience reads your application.
 Ask colleagues for comments on your application.
 Read other successful proposals, if possible.
 Read the Peer Review Manual (on the web)
 Allow enough time for iterations
48
Thank you for
your patience!
Questions?
49