Why NSF $ should matter to you Getting into a good grad school good grades, GREs, etc. Getting a good job strong publications (helps to have $ from

Why NSF $ should matter to you

• Getting into a good grad school good grades, GREs, etc.

• Getting a good job strong publications (helps to have $ from NSF to do this…)

• Keeping a good job (= tenure) $ from NSF + publications

3 common types of NSF grants

• NSF graduate fellowships (3 years of living large); can apply as senior or 1st/2nd year of Ph.D. program

• NSF Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant (DDIG) ~$10,000, after advanced to candidacy + have preliminary data (1-2 years of support)

• Regular grant (usually 3-5 years; typically $100,000--1,000,000; $250,000 for 3 years is common size)

How NSF reviews a proposal

(regular proposal)

• Proposals are submitted to a given program

• Program officer decides which panel will review the proposal (e.g., ecology, evolutionary ecology, systematics)

• Proposal also sent to ~3-9 outside reviewers

• Panel meets and recommends proposals for funding and recommends different priorities for funding

• Program officer makes quasi-final decision on funding

How NSF reviews a proposal

(DDIG style)

• Reviewed by 3 panelists ONLY (no outside reviews)

• Panelists make recommendation to Program Officer

• Program Officer makes quasi-final decision

The bottom line:

• The panel recommendation is the key step in deciding the fate of your grant proposal

• How does the panel work?

The Panel

• Usually 15-20 scientists (chosen to maximize diversity; junior/senior, male/female, different organisms, conceptual areas, and approaches theory/experimental/comparative)

• Meet for ~3 days at NSF

• Each panelist given 15-20 proposals to review

• Each proposal reviewed by 3 panelists PRIOR to the panel meeting (reviews by panel members are initially independent)

At the Panel

• Panelists read the other panelist reviews and outside reviews just before the panel begins

• All 15-20 panelists sit around a big table with 3-4 program officers

• Each proposal gets its turn--reviewed for anywhere from 30 seconds to 30 minutes (typically 10-15 minutes)

The Panel Review-1

(your proposal’s 15 minutes of fame or infamy)

• It begins: the Program Officer to whom the proposal is assigned asks something like: “so, what do you think?”

• Lead panelist gives summary of reviews and his opinion

• 2 secondary panelists give their opinion

• 3 panelists discuss briefly and arrive at consensus (~90% of the time) or agree to disagree and discuss in the hallway

The Panel Review-2


• It ends: the Program Officer asks “so, what is your recommendation?”

• The options are basically

--do not fund

--fund if possible (low priority)

--fund if possible (low priority)

--fund (low priority)

--fund (high priority)

The Panel Review-3


• The options--TRANSLATIONS

--do not fund--YOU’RE DEAD

--fund if possible (low priority)--YOU’RE ALMOST CERTAINLY DEAD

--fund if possible (low priority)--YOU’RE PROBABLY DEAD

--fund (low priority)--YOU’RE POSSIBLY FUNDED

--fund (high priority)--YOU’RE ALMOST CERTAINLY FUNDED

How does the panel decide what they like or don’t like?-1

• In theory decide based on “Intellectual Merit” and “Broader Impacts”

• Intellectual merit = good science

• Broader impacts = minority or female participation, educational program, outreach to local schools, capacity building, infrastructure, conservation implications, etc.

How does the panel decide what they like or don’t like?-2

• In reality most proposals get killed because they fail in terms of intellectual merit

• Most proposals with good science typically have good broader impacts

• Good broader impacts will help a proposal with good science, but will not save a proposal with bad science

What you (the proposal submitter)

get in the end from NSF

• Individual reviews (3 reviews from the 3 panelists, plus any outside reviews)

• “Panel summary” written summary of the panel’s opinion, including justification for their decision

--written by lead panelist after panelists have conferred

--reviewed and signed by all three panelists

--very important but often brief and written in haste

3 key ingredients of a successful proposal

• Asking a big question

• “Closing the loop”

• Demonstrating that you can actually do it.


Asking a big question:

• Many proposals killed because the question is of limited general interest (e.g., population structure of endangered species X)

• Should tackle general conceptual question in a field (i.e., ecology, evolution)

• Many of the strongest proposals combine general conceptual question with strongly applied question


Asking a big question:

• Program Officer quote: “I ask myself, where will this research be published? I expect NSF to be funding research that could be published in Science or Nature”

• Previously publishing in Science and Nature is not a requirement for getting funded by NSF

Examples of big questions

• How does sexual selection influence diversification rates?

• How does a parasite’s (disease) virulence co-evolve with host defense among populations across the geographic range of each species?

• How does a hormonal stress response influence survival in the face of environmental change?


Closing the loop:

• You can ask the big question, but is your project designed in a way that can actually answer it?

• Many proposals start off with great question, but never identify how exactly they will answer it

• If possible, you should identify specific statistical test that will give you the final answer to the big question!


Can you do it?

• Need to demonstrate or convincingly argue for the feasibility of every part of your project

• Don’t assume anything

• Should have preliminary data for every part of project and every type of data to be gathered

• If possible, do power analyses to demonstrate that design can give statistical significance


Can you do it?

• Have timeline to show that you can do everything in the allotted time; detailed budget justification

• Should have letters of support from everyone who is involved with the project who is not a PI on the proposal

• Try to anticipate all possible objections from the reviewers

• Publication record helps!

Lessons from the panel review system

• The fate of your proposal is often decided by people who do not know anything about your subject area

• You need to be doing something that is important and general enough that people will be excited about it no matter what they work on...


• Panelists usually have 20 other proposals to review and may not be paying close attention--you need to get them excited, make everything easy to understand, and strongly emphasize your most important points


• The panel changes every time it meets (example: 85% turnover between panels)

• Responding to panel criticisms in a resubmission is necessary but guarantees nothing; the only thing that matters is whether the panel presently reviewing it likes it.


• Resubmissions don’t get special priority (some proposals get turned down again and again and again)

• May be better to wait and submit very strong proposal than to put in hasty proposal and see what the reviewers say (“luck” is mostly relevant for good proposals…)

• Getting “recommended for funding” doesn’t mean that much

• Outside reviews may be completely ignored by the panel


• Funding rate is around 10--20% (funded proposals/submitted proposals)

• Half the proposals are shoddy, uninteresting, and otherwise obviously flawed and not going to be funded

• Many people have multiple grants at the same time

Documents

Why NSF $ should matter to you Getting into a good grad school good grades, GREs, etc. Getting a good job strong publications (helps to have $ from