National Science Foundation

Up-date November 2001

NSF

    Independent Agency Supports basic research and education Uses grant mechanism National Science Board is the governing body

NSF Strategic Goals

 Every program falls under one of the following strategic goals:  People – a diverse, internationally competitive and globally-engaged workforce   Ideas – Discovery across frontiers and connections in service to society Tools – Accessible, state-of-the-art information bases and shared tools

What’s Happening…

 FY 2002 – up 8.2% Budget Emphases  Core Research – Math – increase not approved   Increase Graduate Fellowship Stipends  $20,500 Initiatives for National Priorities  Biocomplexity, Information Technology Research, Nanoscale S & E, Learning for the 21 st Century Workforce

Information Technology Research

       Large-scale networking High-end computing Computational science and infrastructure High-confidence software and systems Human-computer interaction and information management Software design and productivity Implications of IT

Nanoscale S. & E

     Biosystems at the nanoscale Nanoscale structures and novel phenomena Device and system architecture Nanoscale processes in the environment Modeling and simulation at the nanoscale.

Biocomplexity in the Environment

     Dynamics of coupled natural and human systems Coupled biogeochemical cycles Genome-enabled environmental science and engineering Instrumentation development for environmental activities Materials use: science, engineering, and society

Learning for the 21

st

Workforce Century

    Multidisciplinary learning research IT-enabled tools for learning Link formal and informal education Centers for Learning and Teaching

Other Highlights

     Children’s Research Initiative  How children learn and how they learn in the surroundings in which they grow up Plant Genome Research Science and Technology Centers H1-B Visa Program - $from HB-1 visas fund NSF programs Graduate Teaching Fellowships for K-12

Types of NSF Programs

    Cross-cutting Directorate Solicited Unsolicited

Small Grants for Exploratory Research (SGER)

      Novel untested ideas; new research areas; urgency Unorthodox, too new – might not have a favorable review – Einstein would not have been funded outside of SGER CALL Abbreviated proposal; limited amount Expedited review – very fast, program officer reviews Hot topics – homeland security, anthrax

Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry

 Goals:  Catalyze industry-university partnerships    Encourage innovative application of academe’s intellectual capabilities Bring industry’s perspective and integrative skills to academe Promote high quality research and broaden educational experiences in industrial settings

GOALI Guidelines

     Proposal Requirements   Co-PI from industry Statement describing the industrial R&D contribution  Specific plan for industry/university interaction Fairly high success rate Cost-sharing by industry U. S. institutions of higher ed that confer degrees in areas that NSF funds can submit proposals for full time faculty Only U.S. citizens or permanent residents are eligible

Research in Undergraduate Institutions (RUI)

     Vast majority of practicing scientists come from undergraduate institutions No specific set asides Goals:  Support high quality research with active involvement of undergraduates   Strengthen the research environment in undergraduate institutions Promote integration of research and education in undergraduate institutions Proposal Types    Regular research Multi-user instrumentation Research Opportunity Awards (ROA) Good Science/Good Research Design

Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) - Sites

   Goals:  Initiate and conduct undergraduate research participation projects  Create research environment with strong faculty student interaction Recruitment  Significant percentage of students from outside host institution Deadline: September 15 of each year

REU - Supplements

  Goal:  Attract undergraduates into science by providing an active research experience Guidelines:         Add one or two students to an active ongoing project Must be U.S. citizen or permanent resident No indirect costs (administrative allowance of 25% of student stipend) Awards: 6K Ask program officer about due dates No set aside Can include travel costs to a conference Fairly quick turn around

CAREER Program Objectives

    Strongly encourage new faculty, emphasizing planning of an integrated academic career Develop faculty who are both highly productive researchers and dedicated, effective educators Form partnership with college or university to encourage balanced career development of individual faculty Increase participation of those traditionally underrepresented

CAREER

     5 years, minimum $500,000 Deadline, undefined, generally mid-July Review process varies by directorate Eligibility: 1 st track position 4 years of first tenure Include letter of support or endorsement from department chair

CAREER Development Plan

 Should include:       The objectives and significance of the proposed integrated research and education activities; Emphasis on integrated The relation of the research to the current state of knowledge in the field an of the education activities to the current state of knowledge of effective teaching and learning in one’s field of study; An outline of the plan of work, describing the methods and procedures to be used, including evaluation of the education activities; The relation of the plan to the PI’s career goals and job responsibilities and the goals of his/her institution; and A summary of prior research and education accomplishments The education plan should not be something you would do anyway

ADVANCE

  The representation of women drops as you go up – inequities in space allocation time and rank Goal:  Increase the representation and advancement of women in academic S&E careers. Thereby contributing to the development of a more diverse S&E workforce

ADVANCE

 Three Types of Awards    Institutional Transformation – address institutional climate, ways to assist transition from tenure track-tenure such as workshops for faculty development  EX: UW Center for Institutional Change – mentoring and faculty development Leadership – small  Recognize contributions by individuals and institutions, and enable further progress Fellows – 3 years  Enable promising individuals to establish or re-establish full time independent academic careers after:  An extended postdoc, an extended interruption for family, or a spouse relocates

Major Research Instrumentation

       Goal – to increase access to scientific and engineering equipment in US Instrument acquisition or development 3 proposals/institution one must be for development; if consortium, must exist before the proposal Award size: $100,000 - $2million – SBE could be lower Cost share for us – nothing on first $100,000, 30% after that, on equipment only Can upgrade components in a system Due January 24, 2002

Types of Proposal Submission

     No deadlines – submit anytime Deadlines – submit before or on Target dates – could submit after date and still be reviewed if not too late Submission windows – submit between two dates Preliminary proposals – short, cuts out the things they aren’t interested in

Merit Review Process

 Merit Review Criteria   Intellectual Merit Criterion Broader Impacts Criterion  Should address these directly in the proposal

Intellectual Merit- Prove it without the Adjectives

     How important is the a proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields?

How well qualified is the proposer- reviewer may comment on quality or prior work To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative and original concepts?

How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity?

Is there sufficient access to resources?

Broader Impacts

     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?

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?

Who Reviews?

        References listed in proposal Program Officer’s knowledge of who’s doing what Reviewer files Technical programs from professional societies Recent Authors in Scientific and Engineering journals S & E abstracts by computer search Reviewer recommendations Investigator’s suggestions   You can suggest names who are well qualified You can names you would prefer not to review the proposal

Role of the Review Panel

    Review board reviews and scores Program director recommends who gets funded – looks at balancing priorities, risks, budget constraints, quality Program director really calls the shots Important to get to know them

Funding decisions

    Feedback to PI Informal notification Formal notification Scope of work and budget discussions

Reasons for denying NSF proposals

            Lack of a new or original idea Diffuse, superficial, or unfocused project plan Lack of knowledge or published, relevant work Lack of experience in essential methodology Uncertainty concerning future direction Questionable reasoning in experimental approach Absence of acceptable scientific rationale Unrealistically large amount of work Lack of sufficient detail Uncritical approach Lack of funds Good Proposal; just not a “competitive proposal”

A True Story

 Once upon a time there was an NSF reviewer who asked a colleague, who was familiar with the area, to look at the grant he was reviewing and give him his opinion. The colleague copied the grant and in the next submission turned it in as his own. On his review panel was the author of the original grant. What do you think happened?

Answer

 While the colleague was guilty of plagiarism, the original reviewer was also cited for divulging a confidential grant application to someone outside the review panel.

THE END