national science foundation up-date november 2001
TRANSCRIPT
National Science Foundation
Up-dateNovember 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 21st 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 21st Century Workforce
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: 1st 4 years of first tenure-
track position 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