Transcript Outline - Homepage | College of Forestry

McDonnell’s Ideas on How to
Write a Successful NSF or
USDA Proposal
Ideas on FE research as we move to OSU 2007
and more integration across campus
Hey John, I wonder if I can
get off campus rates on our
next NSF proposal
The facts
NSF Hydrological Sciences
program receives about 120
proposals per round—of these
they fund 10-15!
USDA NRI odds are better—
perhaps double
It is a difficult thing to write a
proposal that gets funded.
Nevertheless, we must do it!
Like many things, it gets easier
with practice and a bit
of instruction
Outline of this talk
• How NSF and USDA
“work” in terms of their
rfp’s, reviews, panels
• How to map your
research interests against
the program manager’s
expectation
• How to structure the
proposal
• The most important bits
• General philosophy on
curiosity-based research
How I think NSF defines
research
Research is to see what
everyone has seen and think
what no one else has thought
..
Albert Szent Gyorgyi
This is different to applied research
How you should view research
that you propose to NSF or USDA
Research must be fundable,
laudable and achievable. All
three together define
success.
How the NSF process
works
• You submit a proposal in June
• It goes out for review June-Aug (5 reviews solicited buy
usually 3 received)
• The Panel meets in September—each panelist handles 20
or so proposals
– They come to the meeting to lobby on behalf of a few
in their keep
• Panel ranks proposals based on review strengths and
their own perspective
• Panel recommends 15-20 proposals and Program
Manager selects top dozen or so
• Almost always a budget negotiation with the Program
Administrator
• Process repeats itself in December
The USDA NRI Process
Essentially the same process as NSF:
• Submit Nov 1 deadline
• Out for 5 reviews
• Panelist sent 20 or so proposals each to handle
• Each panel member “lobbies” for a sub-set of his or her
proposals
• Panel meets in late March or early April
• Excellent and Very Good necessary for next step
• Some discretion among panel members
• Ranked list to Program Manager
• Telephone call in early May (this week!!! I’m
waiting…)
The Panel
• 2-3 days in Washington
• 10-15 minutes per
proposal at the Panel
• Will have 20-25 to
shepherd through the
system
• Will rely on reviews and
the Summary Statement
– The most important part of
the proposal!
Example of a (successful) Summary Statement
PROJECT SUMMARY
Although knowledge of the hydrologic flowpaths is critical to the
preservation of public water supplies and the understanding of the
transport of point and non-point source pollutants, we have not been
able to model the linkages between hydrologic flux and geochemical
flux. This is a result of the fact that models and field studies generally
are not well linked in hydrological investigations in catchments.
Furthermore, attempts to introduce such field observations into
models have faced the inevitable compromise between the value of
additional data and the identifiability of parameters required to take
account of the data. New research on runoff flowpaths has shown that
spatially-distributed models (but not conventional lumped approaches)
are required to capture the key hydrological and geochemical
processes operating in the watershed that affect water quality.
Therefore, funding is requested to develop a new synergistically
linked hydrologic/geochemical model based on the realization that:
(1) waters evolve chemically and isotopically along the different
flowpaths in the catchment, and that (2) these specific flowpaths may
produce distinctive water "signatures" related to the topographic
Example of a (successful) Summary Statement
Uncertainty analysis procedures will be used as a means to assess
uncertainty associated with the model parameters. Our objectives are: (i) to
develop a hydrogeochemical model within which the dynamics of stream
chemistry and flowpaths can be assessed and directly related to data from the
fieldwork campaigns, (ii) to realistically assess model structure/parameter
uncertainties and to use this assessment to effectively identify fieldwork strategies
to reduce such uncertainties, (iii) to make spatially-distributed measurements in
the field to validate spatially-distributed estimates of soil moisture, water table
elevations, isotope and solute concentrations, (iv) to examine the controls on
geochemical/isotopic evolution along flowpaths during events and on betweenstorm residence times by using physical characteristics and responses of the
catchment, and (v) to use the new model as a tool for testing specific hypotheses
of hydrologic flowpaths and mixing in the catchment.
Overall, the expected results and significance are two fold; (i) this study
represents an innovative attempt to link a evolutionary reaction-path model
constrained by both solute isotope and geochemical data within a topographicallydriven hydrologic model developed at the hillslope scale (hence the development
of new fieldwork techniques and insight); and (ii) a new type of
hydrogeochemical model will be developed, in a form that is constrained by the
interaction of the field campaign and the assessment of model uncertainty (hence
new calibration strategies, model development techniques and, of course, a new
model), that attempts to resolve some of the problems of lumped and fully
distributed models and can be readily applied to other study areas.
The Reviewer
• A busy scientist with too many
demands on her/his time.
• Will compare yours with the 2
or 3 others that they have been
asked to review
• Will read it in 60 min or less
• Will compose her review in less
than 30 min
Therefore, the proposal must be extraordinarily well written
NSF is not risk tolerant
• Use seed money to show proof of concept
• Show a key graph or table demonstrating
some chance of success
• Go big or stay home….
– Challenge some top model or some top
procedures and involve the creators (See
Schoenholtz seminar on how to build
relationships next)
Within NSF
It’s NOT an old boys club
• Big names get rejected just as often as new
comers (I’ve seen this when I have sat on
panels)
• Having had an NSF proposal has no
bearing on your new proposal
– Except that if you repeat the winning
formula, your chances are much higher
…well, not an old boy’s club in that
way…most do have white skin, gray hair
and male anatomy…with CoF we have
VERY successful women role models in
the area: Barb Bond; Bev Law and others
The Guts of an NSF Proposal
• You need a new idea
• The solution should lead to
new understanding outside
the field site per say—
transfer value
• You are asking for money—
always remember this! Why
does your idea merit
anyone giving you money?
The Guts of a USDA Proposal
• You need a real problem
• The solution should lead
to new understanding
outside the field site per
say—transfer value
• You are asking for
money—always remember
this! Why does your idea
merit anyone giving you
money?
A Quote from an NSF Research
Program Manager
• “90% of the grant’s likelihood of
success is based on how novel
your questions are—ideally
they are ones that have not ever
been thought of or posed
before”.
The idea
• Formulate as null
hypotheses that can be
rejected if at all possible
• What will be the lasting
contribution of the
work?
– A new model
– A new analysis technique
– A new conceptualization
The Proposal Title
The hydrology of the Santiam River
watershed
Photo: G. Grant
The role of rainfall thresholds for
activating hillslope contributions to
Cascade stream channels.
Photo: G. Grant
The Scientific INTRODUCTION
• Needs a “snappy” lead sentence to catch the
reader’s attention. This is CRITICAL to the
proposal.
• Includes literature background pertinent to the
PROBLEM, not the field site chosen to address
the problem.
• Includes discussion why previous studies have
been insufficient to resolve the problem
• Near end indicates why the field site chosen (or
experiment etc.) was chosen for the study.
• Ends with specific HYPOTHESES to be tested.
• Ease of writing: Very difficult.
From Don Siegel
Key Things for Clarity
Questions (a few)
• Hypotheses stemming from the questions
(many)
• Methods that relate directly to how
hypotheses will be tested
• What will be the contribution: new model,
new understanding (if so, how will it be
delivered?)
On references
• If you have good papers
on the topic in the top
journals, then cite heavily
• If not, do not cite your
papers from conf proc and
lowly ranked journals—
rather cite key papers from
others from Forest
Science, CJFR, etc.
Don’t sweat the budget
• I would argue that the budget amount and details
(unless unusual) do not make much difference
• Average grant size in Hydrological Sciences is
$90/yr for 3 years
• Find out what these figures are for the program
to which you will apply and get into that ball
park
• Put in 1 mo of salary per year even if you are on
a 12-mo appointment
– Then lobby Steve/Hal to release an
equivalent amount to you to help build
your program
• USGS, USFS can be co-PI
• Indirect on first $25K of subcontract
If you find that a topic just doesn’t
want to get funded
• Try something else
• Don’t beat your head
against a wall
• There are lots of
problems to explore
• Work different angles
• Try another agency
One strategy
• On a grant, create a team
to cover the key bases.
• Team up with high fliers.
• Increasingly,
multidisciplinary
research projects are
funded over single
disciplinary projects.
Bring together sub-fields not yet
integrated
A new approach to quantifying landuse change in watersheds
CPlan
AVHRR
DHSVM
ln a/tanB
Propose a new way forward on a
problem where field is stuck
• Spectral analysis
• Isotope analysis
• Analytical Hierarchy
Model
• Visualization
• New geophysical tool
• Data mining
• Portable weather
radar
Expected Results and Significance
• Demonstrate how you have
thought about how your
findings will be used
• How findings will influence
other fields
• How findings will challenge
existing paradigm
• How findings will challenge
existing model
Example of a (successful) Expected Results and
Significance section
D. Expected Results and Significance
Our proposed research will result in a spatially distributed model of geochemical
flux, driven by topography. The principal benefit of our work to the hydrologic
community will be an improved understanding of the linkages between hydrologic
flux and geochemical flux in small catchments. For improving hydrological
understanding, reactive solute isotopes will provide new insights into flowpaths that
are not discernable with δ18O and tensiometry (i.e., identifying flowpaths labelled
by chemical reactions). In terms of improving geochemical understanding, the
development of a physically realistic hydrologic model structure to approximate
flowpaths, semi-distributed to account for spatial variability in water chemistry
controlled by residence time (as a function of topographic convergence) and soil
properties that evolve along flowpaths (catena), will be a major step forward in
understanding catchment geochemistry.
We will attempt to quantify the uncertainty in geochemical predictions at the
catchment scale and to evaluate the value of different types of data in identification
of model parameter value distributions. This is an important "next step" from the
optimal parameters developed by Beven and Binley (1992). Secondly, we will use
the model as a tool for testing identifiable hypotheses, for example the new water
mixing problem of Robson et al. (1992), or the McDonnell (1990) hypothesis that
macropore flows are old water. If such a tool can be used and verified at Panola, it
would have allow other researchers to determine the minimal data set required apply
the model in other watersheds.
Example of a (successful) Expected Results and
Significance section ‘cont
Overall, the expected results and significance are two fold: (i) this is
the first study to attempt to model evolutionary reactive-soluteisotope data combined with geochemical reaction-path data (within
NETPATH) on the hillslope scale (hence the development of new
fieldwork techniques and insight), and (ii) a new type of
hydrogeochemical model will be developed, in a form that is
constrained by the field work and uncertainty principles (hence new
calibration strategies, model development techniques and, of
course, a new model), that attempts to resolve some of the problems
of lumped and fully distributed models and should be readily
applied to other study areas. In short, models which are developed
interactively with field measurements are very rare. Most modelers
stop after fitting the parameters to match reality; they don't USE the
model as a tool for developing testable hypotheses, which can then
be verified/refuted with field measurements. We plan to make
model development and field work inextricably linked throughout
the three years of proposed funding.
The Politics of Scientific Proposals
How NSF Proposals are Scored:
1. Excellent = Fund it!
2. Very good = Fund it if there is money
3. Good = Don’t fund it; proposal needs work
4. Fair = Proposal is really bad. Furthermore, I
think this researcher is inept.
5. Poor = I personally want to destroy the career
of the person who proposed this shit or she/he
is walking on my turf.
From Don Siegel
Once you have the $$ in hand
• Leverage, leverage, leverage
• Cite it, cite it, cite it
– Papers, presentations, web
• Publish, publish, publish
• Develop a rapport with the
program manager
• Write related proposals to
NSF, USDA, EPA, BLM,
USGS, CALFED, etc
• Submit future NSF proposals
that build on the outcome and
the format
Conclusions
• Go for it, it’s not that bad
• NSF and USDA money is prestigious
• At most universities it is expected for a
positive tenure decision
• It shows that work is peer reviewed up
front…this has a cascading effect on the
success link: publish-proposal-grad
students; publish-proposal-grad
students………
• It will force you into a mode of
research that will benefit all that you
do—just look at Barb Bond, Bev Law
and Mark Harmon!