NSF Proposal Process March 28, 2007

NSF Office of Integrative Activities Chicago State U March 2007

NSF Proposal ProcessMarch 28, 2007

Office of Integrative ActivitiesOffice of Integrative ActivitiesNational Science FoundationNational Science Foundation

Dr. Joan M. Frye, Staff [email protected] ~ 703-292-8040

mailto:[email protected]

What to look for in Program Solicitation

•Goals of program

•Eligibility

•Specific proposal review criteria

•Special proposal preparation and/or award requirements

Types of Proposal Submission

•No deadlines

•Deadlines

•Target dates

•Submission Windows

•Preliminary proposals

Commandments for Writing Competitive NSF Proposals

“Thou shalt propose a brilliant idea.”

“Thou shalt read Grant Proposal Guide & Program Solicitation.”

“Thou shalt get help with proposal writing.”

“Thou shalt write for the right audience.”

“Thou shalt not irritate the reviewers.”

"Thou shalt not steal."

DO YOUR HOMEWORK!

So You Need Outside Support

Before You Write That Proposal

• Determine– What you want to do– Other efforts related to yours– The appropriate agency and program

Getting Support in Proposal Writing

• NSF Publications

– Program Announcements/

Solicitations

– Grant Proposal Guide

– Web Pages

– Funded Project Abstracts

– Reports, Special

Publications

• Program Officers– Incumbent– Former “Rotators”

• Mentors on Campus

• Previous Panelists

• Serve As Reviewer

• Sponsored Research Office

• Successful Proposals

Sections of an NSF Proposal

•Cover Sheet•Project Summary•Table of Contents•Project Description•References Cited•Biographical Sketch(es)•Budget•Current & Pending Support•Facilities, Equipment & Other Resources•Special Information & Supplementary Documentation

Proposal Development

• Key Questions for Prospective Investigator1. What do you intend to do?2. Why is the work important?3. What has already been done?4. How are you going to do the work?

Proposal Development Strategies Individual Investigator

• Determine your long-term research/education goals• Develop your idea

–Survey the literature–Contact Investigators working on topic–Prepare a brief concept paper–Discuss with colleagues/mentors

• Prepare to do the project–Determine available resources–Realistically assess needs–Develop preliminary data–Present to colleagues/mentors/students

Proposal Development Strategies – Funding Sources

• Determine possible funding sources

• Ascertain overall scope and mission–Read carefully solicitation instructions–Determine where your project fits–Ascertain evaluation procedures and criteria

Proposal Development Strategies – Funding Sources

• Talk with NSF Program Officer:–Your proposed project–Specific program requirements/limitations–Current program patterns

• Coordinate with your organization’s sponsored projects office

Budgetary Guidelines

• Amounts–Reasonable for work - Realistic–Well justified - Needs established–In-line with program guidelines

• Eligible costs–Personnel–Equipment–Travel–Participant Support–Other Direct Costs (including subawards, consultant services, computer services, publication costs)

Budgetary Guidelines (cont’d)

• General Suggestions

• All funding sources noted in Current and Pending Support

• Help from Sponsored Projects Office

• Special Note: No cost sharing required

Reviewer Selection

• Identifying reviewers:

– PI reviewer suggestions– Program Officer’s knowledge of what is being done and

who’s doing what in the research area

– References listed in proposal

– Recent technical programs from professional societies

– Recent authors in Scientific and Engineering journals

– S&E Abstracts by computer search

– Reviewer recommendations

Research & Education

Communities

Proposal Preparation Time

Org.submits

viaFastLane

N S FN S FNSF

Program.Office

NSFProgram.

Office

ProgramOffice

Analysis&

Recomm.

ProgramOffice

Analysis&

Recomm.

DDConcur

DDConcur

ViaDGA

ViaDGA

OrganizationOrganization

Min. 3

Revs.Req.

DGA Review & Processingof Award

Proposal Receipt to DivisionDirector Concurrence of Program

Officer Recommendation

GPGAnnouncement

Solicitation

GPGAnnouncement

Solicitation

NSF AnnouncesOpportunity

Returned Without Review/Withdrawn

MailMail

PanelPanel

BothBoth

Award

NSF Proposal & Award Process & Timeline

Decline

90 Days 6 Months 30 Days

Proposal Receiptat NSF DD Concur Award

NSF Merit Review Criteria

• NSB Approved Criteria include:–Intellectual Merit

–Broader Impacts

• Additional Criteria as listed in Solicitation (if any)

Reasons For Funding A Competitive Proposal

• Likely high impact

• PI Career Point (tenured?/“established”/ “young”)

• Place in Program Portfolio

• Other Support for PI

• Impact on Institution/State

What is the intellectual merit?

Potential Considerations:

– Will the proposed activity advance 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 explore creative and original concepts?

– How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity?

– Is there sufficient access to resources?

What are the broader impacts?

Potential Considerations:

– 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 (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?

What are the broader impacts?

• Potential Considerations (continued):

– Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding?

– What are the potential benefits of the proposed activity to society?

Role of the Review Panel

• Peer review

Taking Risks

• Budget Constraints

Balancing Priorities

Reasons For Funding A Competitive Proposal

A good proposal is a good idea, well expressed, with a clear indication of

methods for pursuing the idea, evaluating the findings, making them known to all who need to know, and indicating the

broader impacts of the activity.

Funding Decisions

• Program Officer decision

• Feedback to PI

• Informal and formal notification

• Scope of work and budget discussions

Some Reasons for Proposal Declines

• Lack of evidence the PI is aware of the relevant literature and is building upon it

• Diffuse, superficial and unfocused plan

• Lack of sufficient detail

• Lack of requisite expertise or experience of the PI

• Lack of a clear plan to document and evaluate activities and outcomes

Myths about NSF

• Only funds researchers from elite institutions

• Once declined…always declined

• Only funds “normal” science

• Advisory committees make funding decisions

Advice

• Learn to love rejection

• Contact the program officer with specific questions

• Revise and resubmit

• Collaboration is good, if appropriate

• Discover alternative funding sources


Major Research Instrumentation

Office of Integrative ActivitiesOffice of Integrative ActivitiesNational Science FoundationNational Science Foundation

Dr. Joan M. Frye, Staff [email protected] ~ 703-292-8040

http://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/programs/mri


Major Research Instrumentation

• MRI solicitation (NSF 07-510) published electronically on the NSF website; other MRI resources:– FAQ’s

– lists of MRI awards (1997-2006)

– MRI presentations

• Proposals required to be submitted electronically using FastLane or Grants.gov;

• At time of submission, PI should identify NSF division to review proposal.


Purpose

• The MRI program– is designed to increase access to scientific and engineering

equipment for research and research training in U.S. academic institutions.

– seeks to improve the quality and expand the scope of research and research training in science and engineering, and to foster the integration of research and education by providing instrumentation for research-intensive learning environments.

– encourages the development and acquisition of research instrumentation for shared use across academic departments, among research institutions, and in concert with private sector partners.


Goals

• Support the acquisition or development, of major state-of-the-art instrumentation for research, research training, and integrated research/education activities at U.S. Institutions;

• Improve access to and increase use of modern research and research training instrumentation by scientists, engineers, and graduate and undergraduate students;

• Enable academic departments or cross-departmental units to create well-equipped learning environments that integrate research and education;

• Foster the development of the next generation of instrumentation for research and research training; and

• Promote partnerships between academic researchers and private sector instrument developers.


Eligible Institutions

• Ph.D. granting organizations

– academic organizations that have produced more than 20 Ph.D.s or D. Sci’s in all NSF-supported fields during the previous two academic years

• Non-Ph.D. granting organizations

– two and four year colleges and universities that have produced 20 or fewer Ph.D.s or D.Sci’s in all NSF-supported fields during the previous two academic years

• Non-degree granting organizations

– independent non-profit research organizations, research museums, and consortia of eligible institutions


2007 Overview

• Instrumentation Acquisition or Development• Two proposals for acquisition or development; a third for

development; an institution may be part of a consortium• Award size--$100,000 to $2 million

– (lower limits for undergraduate institutions and for mathematical, social, behavioral and economic sciences)

• Cost sharing—None required• Deadline for proposal submission: 4th Thursday in January


Evaluation Criteria

• Intellectual merit• Broader impacts of the proposed activity• Additional Review Criteria:

– For both acquisition and development proposals:

• Plans for using the new or enhanced research capability in teaching, training or learning.

• Management Plan.

– For instrument development proposals

• Rationale for development of a new instrument.


Strengths of Funded MRI Proposals

• “…This is an excellent proposal from a high quality liberal arts college. They have a healthy and vigorous incorporation of collaborative student-faculty research, both externally funded and leading to publication in peer-reviewed research journals. There is no doubt that the requested NMR spectrometer will be well cared for and put to good use for research and research training….”

• “... all institutions have made a commitment to operation & maintenance ...”


Strengths....

• “... most colleges ... have large number of women and minority students ... proposal will have a positive effect on the education of minority scientists.”

• “The panel noted that this was a resubmission (according to two reviewers) and improvements in the proposal were noted.”

• “... the hardware requested is essential for the research objectives to be accomplished. “

• “... the group is highly qualified based on research records and history of UG research.”


Weaknesses of Declined MRI Proposals

• “…it is unclear how the lack of the proposed 300 MHz instrument will be detrimental to the proposed research.”

• “…the proposal lacks any comment on how the proposed instrument will be involved in university outreach and teaching.”

• “…the low funding level of current faculty researchers, the lack of student researchers, and lack of publications involved in the proposed activities is problematic.”

• “…the PI's should explicitly make clear how NMR has been used in the past by each of the users...”

• “There were several issues with the science. The research proposals were not well developed... work is of relatively low-impact ... there is no broad-based science or distribution in crystal structure determination. It was not clear that the CCD instrument was well justified.”

• “It is not clear why (institution) is not involved in the cost sharing or the upkeep of the instrument. The program needs more personnel .... The projected output of structures is minimal ....”

• “... significant number of typographical errors ... suggest care was not given to its preparation....”


Strategies for Success

• Student involvement: co-authors on papers & presentations.• Aggressive search for research funding• Strong maintenance of existing equipment and plans for

requested equipment• Involvement of under-represented groups• Innovative and important research• Wide use• Demonstrated need, e.g., # samples• Preliminary results/measurements• Primary use is research• Equipment, including bells and whistles, is essential


2006 Proposal and Award Snapshot

• Number of Proposals Submitted: 769• Dollars Requested: $437,403,458• Number of Awards: 233• MRI Dollars Awarded: $88,308,325• NSF Dollars Awarded: $96,962,197• Success Rate: 30.3%• MRI Average Award: $379,006• NSF Average Award: $416,147• Number of Institutions that Participated: 413 • Number of Institutions Awarded: 194


Non-Ph.D. Granting InstitutionsNon-Ph.D. Granting Institutions

• FY 2006• Number of Proposals

Submitted: 270

• Dollars Requested: $94,409,449

• Number of Awards: 92

• MRI Dollars Awarded: $19,478,024

• NSF Dollars Awarded: $20,669,110

• Success Rate: 34.1%

• Average MRI Award: $211,718

• Average NSF Award: $224,664

• Number of States

Represented: 39*

• Number of Institutions Represented: 192


Submitted: 281









Represented: 43*


*includes Puerto Rico


Minority Serving InstitutionsMinority Serving Institutions


Submitted: 66









Represented: 15^



Submitted: 79









Represented: 21*


* includes Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico ^ includes Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and

U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI)


Summer Scholars Internship Program

National Science Foundation


2006 Interns Meeting NSF’s Director and Deputy Director


SSIP: Mission

• Develop undergraduate and graduate student potential through exposure to:– relevant science and engineering policy– funding programs– research and education issues

• Promote graduate education• Increase growth of STEM workforce


SSIP: Mission (cont.)

• Helps NSF to fill one of its strategic outcome goals:– Learning: Cultivate a world-class, broadly inclusive science and

engineering workforce, and expand the scientific literacy of all citizens


SSIP: Components

• Work assignment completed under the guidance of a mentor

• Participation in enrichment and professional development activities

• Final report• Formal oral presentation


SSIP: Summer Assignment

• Duration: 9-10 weeks• Mentors and interns create work plans for

the summer• Interns work on issues involving science

administration, program evaluation, STEM education policy, and on various research projects


Intern Testimonial

My experience at NSF has been incredible, and I now have a much better understanding of the entire astronomy research process, from traveling to Kitt Peak and being able to take part in data collection, to data reduction and analysis, and finally the paper submission process

Alexis CornishClass of 2005

and presentation at the AAS meeting. I can look back and say that a lot of progress has been made, as the final accepted paper has come a long way since the first draft. I am truly grateful for the opportunities provided by NSF and HACU, and Sherrie Green’s willingness to assist me in this transition to graduate studies. Your mentorship is greatly appreciated!


Summer Activities

• To complement their work assignments, interns participate in group activities that have included:– White House and Capitol tours– Congressional hearings– Coalition for National Science

Funding events– Graduate school and student

funding seminars


Summer Activities (cont.)

– Visits to American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)

– UMBC Summer Horizons– Guided museum

tours– Diversity training– Distinguished lectures


SSIP: Opportunities

• Some interns have opportunities to travel:– site visits– professional conferences– seminars

• Networking and interacting with diverse STEM professionals and educators


Participating Organizations

• Students are recruited by four current partner originations:– AESIS: American Indian Science and Engineering Society (http://

www.aises.org/)– HACU: Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities (http://

www.hacu.net/)– QEM: Quality Education for Minorities Network (http://qemnetwork.qem.org/)

– WINS: Washington Internships for Native Students (http://www.american.edu/wins/)


Participating Organizations (cont.)

• Strive to increase participation in STEM fields among underrepresented minorities

• Students can only apply for a SSIP internship through these organizations


Selection Process

1. Students must meet sponsoring organizations eligibly criteria2. Three-tier review process3. Final offer of internship placement made by sponsor

organization


Interns’ Home Institutions


Status of Interns Upon Entry

83% 85%82%

94%

81%

77%

71%

81%

17% 15%18%

6%

19%

23%

29%

19%

200018 Interns

200126 Interns

200222 Interns

200318 Interns

200427 Interns

200526 Interns

200624 Interns

2000-2006161 Interns

Undergraduate Students Some Graduate School


Promoting Graduate Education

• Interns learn about the graduate school application process and funding opportunities, and attend Summer Horizons at UMBC

• Former interns are currently pursuing PhDs at schools such as Emory, Purdue, Howard, Virginia, Syracuse, Missouri, and Maryland


Promoting Graduate Education (cont.)

• Many interns have attended graduate school following their summer experience at NSF, at schools including:

Arizona State Charles Drew De Paul Georgetown

Harvard Illinois-Chicago Iowa Johns Hopkins

Kansas Miami-Law Michigan Mississippi State

Missouri-Medicine NC State NYU Oklahoma State

Stanford SUNY-Bingham Texas-Austin Texas-HSC

UNC Washington William & Mary Yale

• Other interns have joined the STEM workforce:

3M Boston Scientific Dean Whitter Deloitte & Touche

IBM Intel Proctor & Gamble Raytheon


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

200018 Interns

200126 Interns

200222 Interns

200318 Interns

200427 Interns

200526 Interns

200624 Interns

Total161 Interns

Incomplete Information Bachelor's Degree Only Undergraduates Attended/Attending Graduate School Achieved Advanced Degree

Current Status of Interns

(based on self reporting of interns, as of 2/20/2007)


Internship Summit

• In 2005, more than 60 former interns returned to NSF to participate in a two-day internship summit

• NSF learned about the impact of SSIP on interns’ careers• Speakers talked about graduate school and career opportunities


Intern Testimonials

• At the summit, interns reflected on how their time at NSF affected their career paths:

Working at NSF was definitely a life changing experience. Unaware of the endless possibilities available to African American engineers in academia and in the industrial arena, this experience broadened my horizons, giving me a true vision of what I could become. Today I work at Nissan as an industrial engineer. With two degrees under my belt from Oakwood College and the University of Alabama in Huntsville, I now walk with confidence knowing that I am more than capable of accomplishing anything that I put my mind to achieving. Keisha Wallace

Class of 2001


Intern Testimonials (cont.)

The summer internship reassured me that I could move to a new place, meet new people, and learn how to function in a new environment far from my home. I gained the self-confidence that has propelled me to take on new opportunities in my life, such as continuing other summer internships in college and pursuing graduate school. Working for a government agency provided me with an understanding of how scientific funding works. I was able to work with a mentor that provided me guidance and advice in pursuing a field in the environmental sciences. I have now finished my master’s degree from the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.

Jaqueline Guzman

Class of 2001



During the summer, the opportunity to meet with mentors, advisors, and professionals opened my eyes and allowed me to see the diverse career opportunities available to individuals with graduate education. Additionally, the personal support gained through networking with other students cannot be measured. During rough times in my graduate program, during exams and busy weeks, knowing that I was only an email away from other students in my similar position helped carry me through. I hope to influence and give advice to younger students who are beginning their journey in graduate school. I enjoy sharing my experiences, good and bad, in the hope that I can show others that being young, black, and gifted is not a rare thing. Jennifer James

Class of 2002



Working in the chemistry division at NSF, I created a database of minority chemists. I learned that NSF wanted to diversify chemistry panels. The division sought to leave a lasting impression by perfecting the panel to the last detail. I learned that things can always be made a little better if we care enough to go the extra mile. I took this philosophy with me as I left NSF. With this new attitude, my mentors encouraged me to apply to the Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) Program. I obtained an REU position at the University of Puerto Rico - Río Piedras. Before my REU experience, I was a die-hard pre-medicine student on my way to medical school, but my life took off in a new direction as I applied to graduate school in chemistry. All of the graduate schools to which I applied accepted me, and I currently attend Emory University.

Ronald HunterClass of 2002



My internship at NSF opened the door to opportunities that I had not previously considered. This internship afforded me access to and understanding of the value of research that has contributed to shaping my academic path. At NSF I witnessed first-hand the impacts of research on people’s daily lives. My exposure to NSF contributed to my decision to pursue a master’s degree in Disability and Human Development. Most recently, I have been appointed as a research specialist for the National Center for Capacity Building on Minorities with Disability Research. In this capacity I provide technical assistance on program evaluation to agencies offering services to minorities with disabilities. My NSF experience is a common denominator in many of my accomplishments as well as my decision to pursue a PhD in Disability Studies.

Alberto GuzmanClass of 2002/2003


Contact

• Internship CoordinatorSherrie Green

Program Manager

Office of Integrative Activities

[email protected]

• http://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/activities/interns

Documents

NSF Proposal Process March 28, 2007