How to obtain an NSF grant

1
How to obtain an NSF grant
Jeff McDonnell Dept. Forest Engineering,
Resources and Mgmt. Oregon State University
2
A quick recap of previous comments on grants

• Its critical for your PT success
• Misc. other things weve discussed
• The grant-publishing-grad loop
• Spinning off curiosity-driven research from
  applied work
• Using summer salary as slush funds in your
  program
• How to balance federal and non-federal funds
• Pitfalls of multiple small projects
• Indirect costs
• How they trickle down through the university
• How to leverage grant success

3
A quote from an NSF Research Program Manager

• 90 of the grants likelihood of success is
  based on how novel your questions areideally
  they are ones that have not ever been thought of
  or posed before.

4
A quote from a famous Hungarian to remember

• 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
5
A quote from a non-famous hydrologist to remember

• Research must be fundable, laudable and
  achievable. All three together define success.

6
Outline

• How NSF works
• How to write an NSF grant
• Reviews and reviewing
• Other sources of funding

7
NSFs Mission

• To promote the progress of science to advance the
  National health, prosperity, and welfare to
  secure the National defense and for other
  purposes

8
NSF Act of 1950 (Public Law 810507) authorizes
and directs NSF to initiate and support

• Basic scientific research fundamental to the
  engineering process
• Programs to strengthen scientific and engineering
  research potential
• Science and engineering education programs at all
  levels and in all fields of science and
  engineering
• An information base on science and engineering
  appropriate for the development of national and
  international policy
• Over time, the following were added
• Foster the interchange of scientific and
  engineering information nationally and
  internationally
• Support the development of computer and other
  methodologies
• Maintain facilities in the Antarctic and promote
  the US presence through research conducted there
• Address issues of equal opportunity in science
  and engineering

9
One Division EAR

• Surface Earth Processes Section
• Geobiology and Low Temperature Geochemistry
• Geomorphology and Landuse Dynamics (GLD)
• Hydrologic Sciences (HS)
• Sedimentary Geology and Paleobiology (SGP)
• Funding in 2007
• 4,982 Geo
• 3,166 GLD
• 10,704 HS
• 5,662 SGP

10
2007 Funding rates in HS

• Number of proposals
• 277
• Awards 56 (20)
• Declines 221 (80)
• For new PIs
• 18 82
• For prior PIs
• 22 78
• Average size and duration
• Number of awards 41
• Average annual dollars 104,137
• Average award duration 2.7
• Average dwell time
• Awards 7.3 months
• Declines 6.3 months

11
How a program manager co-funds

• 18 different programs from 9 different divisions
• 2007 HS average number of reviews per proposal
• Average number of reviews
• Awards 5.5
• Declines 6.5
• Average of average score
• Awards 4.1
• Declines 3.4

12
HS review process

• Mail
• Solicit 6-10 reviews/proposalaim for 3 reviews
• Panel (9 panelists)
• Panelists receive reviews prior to meeting
• One leader and two readers for each proposal
• Entire panel discusses proposal led by
  leader/readers
• Leader and readers score proposal
• Preliminary ranking External panel score
  during oanel
• Leader and readers submit summaries within 2
  weeks of panel for thorough and thoughtful
  analysis
• Program Officers (Doug James and Richard
  Cuenca)
• Final decisions / work together

13
Types of Grants

• Regular core program submissions
• Workshop proposals
• SGER grants
• CAREER grants
• Educational!
• International!

14
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!

15
Panel summary decline
The panel discussion on this proposal reflected
the wide range of outside reviews, from Fair to
Excellent. The PI has proposed a high risk/high
reward strategy that could be transformative and
a major advance in our understanding. Although
the panel supports the general thrust of the
research, the explanations and proposed work were
vague. A more developed and detailed work plan is
needed for the panel to see how the research will
answer the questions posed. There is essentially
no information on how the ideas will be tested.
Indeed, as one reviewer pointed out ?No
specifics on the approach is provided. Overall,
in terms of the intellectual merit, funding this
proposal looks like giving a blank check...?
Although that reviewer thought that a blank check
was justified based on the credibility of the
research team, the review panel believes that
senior researchers must be held to the same
standard as junior researchers in the clarity,
completeness and quality of their proposals. Some
reviewers are quite skeptical as to whether the
proposal will work. This skepticism need not be
considered the kiss of death for the proposal.
The panel will seriously consider high risk/high
reward projects with skeptical reviews when the
project description adequately shows how either
proving or falsifying a hypothesis will advance
science. The PI?s should address how their
experiments could be designed to falsify
Constructal Theory.
16
What are reviewers asked?

• 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,
  please comment on the quality of 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 the necessary
  resources?

17
cont

• What are the broader impacts of the proposed
  activity?
• Potential considerations 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, geography, 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?

18
A negative reviewto read at your leisure
2.0 The proposal presents the old platitude
that watershed dynamics are controlled by
topography, soils and climate instead of a
research hypothesis, and then provides no
credible means to test it. The PIs mention
'predictive capability' but offer no model for
prediction. They propose to 'develop a
theory-based modeling tool' but present no
theory, no offer to test new results against
existing models, and no cognizance of the
predictive capabilities of existing models. They
would 'predict hydrologic response over a range
of space-time scales' but would examine only two
catchments. The authors 'hypothesize that
catchment-water residence time' is an important
watershed control but demonstrate no awareness of
the numerous existing models, some very
successful and some dating back to the 1960s
based on copious tritium measurements, that have
been developed to determine this quantity. They
would use isotope measurements to constrain
watershed dynamics, but they are not isotope
specialists and demonstrate no awareness of the
many detailed studies, review papers, and books
that have thoughtfully treated this subject.
Scientific progress requires building on past
work. As an aside, the budget contains nearly
100,000 in 'subawards' that are not explained in
the budget justification. To provide a good
learning experience for students, the project
needs a novel hypothesis and a credible
methodology to test it. The authors need to build
on prior research on rainfall-runoff modeling,
residence time, and isotope hydrology.
19
A positive review to read at your leisure
4.5 - The project focus on prediction of
hydrologic response of catchments to rainfall
events has been extensively studied. The novelty
of what is proposed is the attempt to link
hydrologic response to landscape characteristics
specified by dimensionless numbers. The PIs would
verify this theoretical model by comparisons with
measurements at two experimental sites
representing humid and semi-arid conditions. The
work would extend previous research on hillslope
and catchment scale hydrology where the PIs are
well published in leading peer-reviewed
hydrologic journals. The experienced PIs address
both theoretical and experimental issues with a
research plan that is well outlined to build on
previous studies. The work should significantly
enhance our understanding of the influence of
landscape factors on the hydrodynamic processes
in catchments in various climatic zones and
contribute to improving predictive capabilities
for ungauged catchments. The results would be
widely published in developing countries where
applications would most benefit underrepresented
groups. The research includes undergraduate and
postgraduate students and is integrated with
teaching. The proposal is well prepared to
address a vital scientific problem and should be
supported.
20
What did they say?

• This is a well-written proposal addressing
  important cutting-edge issues., but..
• XXXX and associates offer a platitude instead of
  a research hypothesis, and then provide no
  credible means to test it. but.
• The proposal includes both theoretical and
  experimental elements, which increases its
  scientific value. The research plan is well
  outlined and the objectives and relation to
  previous research are clearly stated. but
• A major component of the proposed work is to use
  isotope measurements to constrain watershed
  dynamics. None of the authors are isotope
  specialists, and worse, they demonstrate no
  awareness of the thousands of detailed studies,
  nor even of relevant review papers and books,
  that have thoughtfully treated this subject. This
  is not the way to make scientific progress.

21
Big question

• How did the panel deal with these diverse views?
• How did the program manager deal with these
  diverse views?
• I recognize that some reviews include statements
  that suggest that they did not read your proposal
  carefully, but the reality is that such
  miscommunications point out a need for clearer
  presentation. People vary in meanings they
  attach to wording. In many cases, the work was
  considered worthy but the proposal was just not
  rated highly enough to be
  funded in the present intense
  competition.

22
Responding to reviews

• Can you respond to these reviews?
• Should you re-work and re-submit?
• Should you look elsewhere to fund this work?
• Do reviewers reveal their identity?
• Do panel members reveal their identity?

23
Proposal writing

• Hypothesis testing and theory development
• Go after fundamental challenges in the field
• Forge new frontiers of hydrological science
• On writing
• Make it EASY to find
• Make it EASY to read!
• Make it EASY to follow!
• How long will it take to write
• 2-3 weeks full time if with a collaborator
• 5-6 weeks full time if solo from scratch
• Pilot work very important
• Key words important new paradigm,
  frontiers, key words from your field

24
Proposal Parts
Cover Sheet for Proposal to the National Science
Foundation Project Summary (not to exceed 1
page) Table of Contents Project Description
(Including Results from Prior NSF Support) (not
to exceed 15 pages) References
Cited Biographical Sketches (Not to exceed 2
pages each) Budget (Plus up to 3 pages of budget
justification) Current and Pending
Support Facilities, Equipment and Other
Resources Special Information/Supplementary Docn
25
The guts of the proposalGreat advice from S.
Finger
From http//www.cs.cmu.edu/sfinger/advice/advice.
html

• 2. Project Description (15 pages!)
• 2.1 Objectives and Expected Significance
• What are the main scientific challenges?
  Emphasize what the new ideas are. Briefly
  describe the project's major goals and their
  impact on the state of the art. Clearly state the
  question you will address
• Why is it important? What makes something
  important varies with the field. For some fields,
  the intellectual challenge should be emphasized,
  for others the practical applications should be
  emphasized.
• Why is it an interesting/difficult/challenging
  question? It must be neither trivial nor
  impossible.
• 2.2 Background and Technical Need
• What long-term technical goals will this work
  serve?
• What are the main barriers to progress? What has
  led to success so far and what limitations
  remain? What is the missing knowledge?
• What aspects of the current state-of-the-art lead
  to this proposal? Why are these the right issues
  to be addressing now?
• What lessons from past and current research
  motivate your work. What value will your research
  provide? What is it that your results will make
  possible?
• What is the relation to the present state of
  knowledge, to current work here elsewhere? Cite
  those whose work you're building on (and whom you
  would like to have review your proposal). Don't
  insult anyone. For example, don't say their work
  is "inadequate" rather, identify the issues they
  didn't address.

26
The guts of the proposalGreat advice from S.
Finger
From http//www.cs.cmu.edu/sfinger/advice/advice.
html

• 2.3 Research Description
• Broad technical description of research plan
  activities, methods, data, and theory. This
  should be equivalent to a PhD thesis proposal for
  the big leagues. Write to convince the best
  person in your field that your idea deserves
  funding. Simultaneously, you must convince
  someone who is very smart but has no background
  in your sub-area. The goal of your proposal is to
  persuade the reviewers that your ideas are so
  important that they will take money out of the
  taxpayers' pockets and hand it to you.
• This the part that counts. WHAT will you do? Why
  is your strategy an appropriate one to pursue?
  What is the key idea that makes it possible for
  to answer this question? HOW will you achieve
  your goals? Concisely and coherently, this
  section should complete the arguments developed
  earlier and present your initial pass on how to
  solve the problems posed. Avoid repetitions and
  digressions.
• In general, NSF is more interested in ideas than
  in deliverables. The question is What will we
  know when you're done that we don't know now? The
  question is not What will we have that we don't
  have now? That is, rather than saying that you
  will develop a system that will do X, Y and Z,
  instead say why it is important to be able to do
  X, Y and Z why X, Y and Z can't be done now how
  you are going to go about making Z, Y and Z
  possible and, by the way, you will demonstrate
  X, Y and Z in a system.
• Right now, NSF is more open to application-oriente
  d research. They need to show Congress that the
  money spent on research benefits the US economy.
  Some years ago, the word "applied" was a bad word
  at NSF. Now it's a good word. The pendulum
  between focussing on basic or applied research
  has about a 20 year periodicity. You always need
  to check to find out where it is at the moment.
  Check with the program director and knowledgeable
  colleagues.

27
The guts of the proposalGreat advice from S.
Finger
From http//www.cs.cmu.edu/sfinger/advice/advice.
html

• 2.4 Education and Human Resources
• What are your potential contributions to
  developing human resources in science
  engineering at postdoc, graduate, and undergrad
  levels? In the last few years, NSF has started to
  take educational goals much more seriously. This
  section used to be boilerplate it can't be any
  more. You need to think about what impact your
  research will have on education. Be specific but
  don't overstate.
• 2.5 Plan of work
• Present a plan for how you will go about
  addressing/attacking/solving the questions you
  have raised. Discuss expected results and your
  plan for evaluating the results. How will you
  measure progress?
• Include a discussion of milestones and expected
  dates of completion. (Six months is the about the
  smallest time chunk you should include in an NSF
  proposal.) You are not committed to following
  this plan - but you must present a FEASIBLE plan
  to convince the reviewers that you know how to go
  about getting research results.
• For new PIs, this is often the hardest section to
  write. You don't have to write the plan that you
  will follow no matter what. Think of it instead
  as presenting a possible path from where you are
  now to where you want to be at the end of the
  research. Give as much detail as you can. (You
  will always have at least one reviewer who is a
  stickler for details.)

28
The budget
A. SENIOR PERSONNEL PI/PD, Co-PIs, Faculty and
Other Senior Associates (List each separately
with title, A.7. show number in brackets) CAL
ACAD SUMR B. OTHER PERSONNEL (SHOW NUMBERS IN
BRACKETS) POST DOCTORAL SCHOLARS OTHER
PROFESSIONALS (TECHNICIAN, PROGRAMMER,
ETC.) GRADUATE STUDENTS UNDERGRADUATE
STUDENTS SECRETARIAL - CLERICAL (IF CHARGED
DIRECTLY) TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES (A B) C.
FRINGE BENEFITS (IF CHARGED AS DIRECT
COSTS) TOTAL SALARIES, WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS
(A B C) D. EQUIPMENT (LIST ITEM AND DOLLAR
AMOUNT FOR EACH ITEM EXCEEDING 5,000.) TOTAL
EQUIPMENT E. TRAVEL 1. DOMESTIC (INCL. CANADA,
MEXICO AND U.S. POSSESSIONS) 2. FOREIGN F.
PARTICIPANT SUPPORT COSTS 1. STIPENDS 2.
TRAVEL 3. SUBSISTENCE 4. OTHER TOTAL NUMBER OF
PARTICIPANTS ( ) TOTAL PARTICIPANT COSTS G. OTHER
DIRECT COSTS 1. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES 2.
PUBLICATION COSTS/DOCUMENTATION/DISSEMINATION 3.
CONSULTANT SERVICES 4. COMPUTER SERVICES 5.
SUBAWARDS 6. OTHER TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS H.
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS (A THROUGH G) I. INDIRECT
COSTS (FA)(SPECIFY RATE AND BASE) J. TOTAL
DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS (H I)
29
The budget

• Its boutique funding!
• Put in one month of summer salary
• Often not even viable for project completion
• A huge chunk goes to Indirect cost
• But still critically important

30
My experiences

• My NSF attempts (since the inception of HS in
  1991)
• A few (of my first) that got funded first try
• A few that have required a second attempt
• A few that have outright failed
• A few that have been non-traditional
• Workshops
• Conferences
• International add-ons
• What I have learned
• Proposal NOT a paper just like an interview
  seminar NOT like an AGU talk
• Re-submissions in no way a slam dunk (even when
  doing everything reviewers ask for)
• Some programs equally weight intellectual merit
  and outreach
• Use seed money to show proof of concept
• Show a key graph or table demonstrating some
  chance of success
• Go big or stay home.

31
More NSF thoughts

• Its NOT an old boys club
• Big names get rejected just as often as new
  comers (Ive 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
• You need a new idea
• The solution should lead to new understanding
  outside the field site per saytransfer value
• You are asking for moneyalways remember this!
  Why does your idea merit anyone giving you money?
  

32
Other Hydrology funding

• USDA NRI
• EPA
• USGS 104 and 105 programs
• NASA
• DOE
• USFS
• State
• Fish and Wildlife
• CalFed

33
Conclusions 1

• Go for it, its not that bad
• NSF money is prestigious
• At most universities it is expected for a
  positive tenure decision
• It shows that work is peer reviewed up frontthis
  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 dojust look at Barb
  Bond, Bev Law and Mark Harmon!

34
Conclusions 2Once 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