Fund Your Science!!!

1. Fund Your Science!!! Barbara Ransom, PhD Program Director National Science Foundation Presently in Marine Geology and Geophysics Formerly: Program Director for both Materials Science and Geosciences at the ACS Petroleum Research Fund Formerly: Full-time soft money researcher at University of California, San Diego 2006

2. Expectations: Myth vs. Realty The Cup: Half Full • Success rates (NSF overall average - 20%). —1 in 5 funded! • A learning experience, a honing of scientific ideas and communication skills The Cup: Half Empty • 80% chance of failure • 4 of 5 proposals not funded • Self doubt, anxiety, frustration, paralysis

3. Proposal Quality Distribution

4. Who Gets Funded In gray zone, you need “value added”--describe in broader impacts

5. Who Gets Fundedactual results

6. Common Reasons for Low Ratings • No well defined hypotheses or tests of same. • Scope of the work is out of proportion to the budget and amount of time needed to do the work. (be realistic) • Much important information on experimental and sampling procedures is omitted. “I really can’t tell what is going to be done and how.” 4. The work can certainly be carried out, but it doesn’t address any topic of broad current interest. “I would probably not read a paper describing the results.”

7. Low Ratings (cont’d) • PI failed to refer to important studies published in the last 2-3 years. • Grammatical mistakes, poor logical structure, missing references, etc. 7. For new faculty: Work simple extension of PhD or postdoctoral work.

8. Common Reasons for High Ratings 1. “This proposal suggests a clear, elegant, well-documented approach to a problem that has plagued this field for decades.” 2. “This is certainly adventurous, and I frankly would have doubted it could be done. Yet the PI has proven the method in preliminary work AND had it accepted by a peer-reviewed journal!” 3. “The PI has a beautiful plan. Undergraduates or new graduate students can step right into this work, yet it solves a major problem and will be publishable in a first-rate journal.” 4. “This reads like a dream. I have rarely seen a proposal, even from long-established investigators, that shows such careful thought and meticulous presentation.”

9. Science vs. Psychology • Proposals are 60% science, 40% psychology so you need to sell your proposal through your prose. • Think “mind control” of the reader. • Let no question fester for more than a microsecond. • 80-85% of proposal narrative under “Research Plan”. • Salesmanship up front where it won’t be missed. • Address any external or negative issues directly. • Think of your proposal as 40 in a stack of 50. • Err on the side of readability. • Make it so clear, reader understands in one reading. • What is the BIG QUESTION? How will you address it.

10. Strategic Formatting TipsMake Them WANT to Read It 1. Make your proposal look inviting (i.e., easy on the eyes. 2. Use open formatting, 1” margins, left justified with a ragged right. No column formats. 3. Double or 1.5 space if you can, put blank lines between paragraphs. 4. Use frequent, meaningful, bold headings. 5. Use figures, tables, and flow charts to your advantage. 6. Double space reference section, use font size 12, use standard indentation rules (Chicago Manual of Style). 7. Never show a figure with data you cannot fully explain.

11. Strategic Content TipsLeave Nothing to the Imagination 1. Address agency/program/solicitation mission up front. 2. Discuss size and scope of intellectual payoff (be explicit, not subtle). 3. Hypothesis driven proposal, with tests. 4. Use plain, simple English. 5. Leave no questions unanswered. 6. Include brief, clearly written budget justification (not another table). 7. Put teeth (i.e., specifics) in the methods section. 8. Use tables, figures, and flow charts to save words. 9. Do not include any extra stuff.

12. The Two Types of Proposals Hypothesis-Driven “Voyage of Discovery” How to Identify Them: • Clearly stated hypothesis • Clearly related tests • Clearly described methods by which to make tests • Everything justified • Talked about in terms of: specifics, samples, impacts, boundary conditions, uncertainties, methods. (words with specific meanings) • “Edisonian” approaches • Discovery based • Questions, not hypotheses • Lots of analyses/data collection • Talked about in terms of: understanding, investigating, characterizing, synthesizing, exploring, studying. (words with vague or unintelligible meanings)

13. The Narrative: Introduction Luring them into new territory Do’s and Don’ts 1. Excite and draw the reader in. Do NOT repeat the abstract. Its function is different. 2. Keep it short. Proposals should focus on what you want to do, not what other people or you have already done. 3. Be careful to stay on track and remain focused. Do NOT ramble. 4. Make a good title and abstract (what, how, why).

14. Narrative Intro: (cont’d) The Set-Up: Classique • Lay out the scientific landscape. (the “big question” everyone cares about). • State the meaty hypothesis(es) • Specify tests of the hypotheses • Tell how tests will be carried out • Specify the realistic impact of the expected results on the “big question”.

15. The Meaty Hypothesis: How to Write it • Think of the title of the Science or Nature paper that will come out of the work. • Write your hypothesis to “invoke” that title in your reader’s mind. Note: Do not actually put down the title. Just use words that will make it LEAP into the reader’s mind. REMEMBER: • Not all hypotheses are created equal. • Too many hypotheses spoil the soup. • Some work is a hobby, not fundable research.

16. Turgid Prose: The Enemy of Clarity How to eliminate it: 1. Use plain English. 2. Use single syllable words, if possible. 3. Minimize jargon and made-up abbreviations. 4. Talk in specifics. Classic examples: • Use vs. utilizes • Single-layer silicate module vs SLSM • The reaction will be measured from 250-475 K. vs. The reaction will be measured at a range of temperatures.

17. 1. We will characterize the microstructural deformation of layers of Pt nanoparticles intercalated inside the polymeric material in order to correlate spatial and temporal patterns. 2. We will use microstructures in Pt nanoparticle layers in the polymer composite to track deformation in time and space. 1. = 24 words 2. = 19 words 58 syllables 35 syllables 20% word savings 40% syllable reduction, 1 line saved increased clarity

18. 1. Determinations of the heat capacity, illustrated in Figure 3, demonstrated that this property is controlled, for the most part, by the concentration of defects oriented along the [001] axis of the material. 2. Heat capacity data (Fig. 3) are a strong function of defect density on the [001] axis. 1. = 34 words 2. = 18 words 63 syllables 27 syllables 48% word savings 58% syllable reduction, 3 lines saved vastly increased clarity

19. Some Common Substitutions: OriginalShorterSyllables Determination Measure 3 Necessity Need 3 Associated Linked 4 Linkages Ties 2 Information Data 3 Characteristics Traits 4 Utilization Use 4 Terminated Stopped 3 Illuminated Lit 4 Demonstrated Showed 3

20. The Narrative: Broader Impacts Why broader impacts are important 1. Provides important added value. 2. Addresses the funder’s larger missions. 3. Tells others why they should care. 4. Allows funders to pick your proposal over others, all else being equal* 5. Makes YOU think! *Warning: This is a moving target. What was “strong” last year, might be “standard” next year.

21. Strategies for Success: Proposal 1. Target programs with high success rates. 2. Run your own mini-review. 3. Suggest appropriate and available reviewers. 4. Beat deadlines by 2 weeks or more. 5. Learn from rejection. 6. Know how to interpret reviews/feedback. 7. Be persistent, but know when it’s time to move on.

22. Strategies for Success: Professional 1. Write down ideas as soon as you get them. 2. Volunteer to be a reviewer. 3. Volunteer to be a panelist. 4. Arrange to meet and talk with agency Program Officers at national meetings. 5. Visit the agency and “do the walk”. 6. Attend and participate in agency sponsored “community workshops”.

23. Knowledge is Power • Don’t be afraid to ask questions. The more you know, the better you can plan. • Time is your most precious commodity. It is crucial you make the most of it. • Not everyone’s advice is created equal. Seek guidance from more than one source. • The key to success is persistence. Learn from mistakes and try again, but know when to move on. • Don’t put all your eggs in one basket. Diversify your funding portfolio.

24. Proposal Writing Resources Books Blackburn, Thomas (2003) Getting Science Grants: Effective Strategies for Funding Success. Jossey-Bass. A Wiley Co. publication. Friedland and Folt (2000) Writing Successful Science Proposals. Yale U. Press. Lock, Spirduso, Silverman (2000) Grants that Work: A Guide for Planning Dissertations and Grant Proposals. 4th Edition. Sage Publications. Reif-Lehrer (1995) Grant Applications Writer’s Handbook. Jones and Barnett (mainly NIH oriented). Websites University of Michigan’s Proposal Writers’ Guide www.drda.umich.edu/proposals/pwg/pwgcontents.html Columbia University Medical Science Grants Tips cpmcnet.columbia.edu/research/writing.htm Listing of US Government Grants www.grants.gov/

25. NSF Proposal Resources Resources Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) www.nsf.gov/pubsys/ods/getpub.cfm?gpg NSF Publication on Broader Impacts www.nsf.gov/pubs/2003/nsf032/bicexamples.pdf 2004 Report on NSF Merit Review System http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/landing/nsb0512.jsp Recently Funded NSF Proposals www.fastlane.nsf.gov/servlet/A6RecentWeeks NSF Program Announcements -- eligibility, goals, special requirements