Applying for an NSF grant: Tips for success

1. Applying for an NSF grant:Tips for success Melanie Roberts, Ph.D. University of Colorado, Boulder TIGER presentation, April 9, 2009 Visiting Research Fellow, Center for Science and Technology Policy Research (Formerly: AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellow, National Science Foundation)

2. Outline • Basics of the National Science Foundation • Identifying Opportunities • Procedures • Separating Awards from Declinations • Tips

3. Government agency Supports basic research and education Low overhead; highly automated Discipline-based structure Cross-disciplinary mechanisms Use of Rotators Funds investigator-initiated ideas National Science Board NSF in a Nutshell

4. CU $54.3M (19%) $48 M (17%) CU gets more than its share of NSF funding

5. Schizophrenic Mission:“Basic” vs “Applied” Research • As defined by Vannevar Bush in The Endless Frontier, 1945: Basic research is performed without thought of practical ends. It results in general knowledge and an understanding of nature and its laws. This general knowledge provides the means of answering a large number of important practical problems, though it may not give a complete specific answer to any one of them. The function of applied research is to provide such complete answers. • From National Science Foundation Strategic Plan, 2007-11 Today’s research requires globally-engaged investigators working collaboratively across agencies and international organizations to apply the results of basic research to long-standing global challenges such as epidemics, natural disasters and the search for alternative energy sources.

7. Where to Start? • www.nsf.gov • Check awards by program, keyword, etc. (www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/) • Sign up for “National Science Foundation Update” • Read instructions carefully • Read Grant Proposal Guide before beginning • If questions, call NSF program officer

8. Funding Opportunities - overview • Unsolicited proposals to programs • Program announcements & solicitations • Dear Colleague Letter (no new money) • Doctoral dissertation improvement grants • Rapid response research (RAPID) • Early concept grants for exploratory research (EAGER)

9. Identifying the appropriate program • Directorate -> Division -> Program -> Solicitation

11. Program instructions Solicitations would be listed here

12. Interdisciplinary projects • Check “cross-cutting” programs & solicitations • Otherwise, you can submit to more than one program • First listed will be lead • Call both program officers • Co-reviewed proposals have slightly higher funding rate • Get collaborators with appropriate expertise • Careful about weak collaborations!

13. Funding for grad students & postdocs • Graduate Research Fellowships • Doctoral dissertation improvement grants • Postdoctoral Research Fellowships

14. American Investment & Recovery Act • $3B on top of an annual budget of $6.5B • No new solicitations (probably) • Fund some previous declines • Increase funding rates • May ask for up to 5 years of funding • Priorities: New investigators, high risk research • Most awards will be made by Sept 30, 2009. • Average time of review = 5.6 months • Broader impacts for communities & economy?

15. What if you don’t have a proposal ready to go?

16. Rapid Response Research (RAPID) • Severe urgency with regard to availability of or access to data, facilities or specialized equipment, including quick-response research on natural or anthropogenic disasters and similar unanticipated events. • Internal peer review • $200,000 maximum for 1 year • May request extension • Two to five page project description • Must contact program officer first

17. Early-concept grants for exploratory research (EAGER) • Exploratory work on untested, potentially transformative ideas • High-risk, high-potential payoff • Internal review only • $300,000 maximum; 2 years • May request extension • Five to eight page project description • Must contact program officer first

18. NSF Proposal Generating Document Minimum of 3 Reviews Required Organization submits via FastLane Program Officer Analysis & Recom- mendation Ad hoc Division Director Concur Panel Both Research & Education Communities Proposal Process Returned as Inappropriate/Withdrawn Award via DGA Proposal Processing Unit NSF Program Officer Decline Organization Proposal received by NSF Div. Dir. Concur Award 4 months 30 days DGA Review & Processing of Award Proposal Preparation Time Review of Proposal P.O. Recommend

19. Funding Decisions • Peer reviewers provide recommendations • Program Officer decision • Feedback to PI • Scope of work and budget discussions • 24% funding rate, but varies by program • New programs are tricky

20. What to include in your proposal? • Two Merit Review Criteria • Intellectual merit Must be outstanding • Broader impacts Helps put some proposals over top • Project timeline & outputs • Specific roles for all participants • Biosketch – specific format • Equipment & facilities • Prior funding & results • Budget & justification • Fifteen pages

21. Intellectual Merit • 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, the reviewer will comment on the quality of prior work.) • To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts? • How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity? • Is there sufficient access to resources?

22. Broader Impacts • Promote teaching, training and learning • Broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)\ • Enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks and partnerships • Disseminate results broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding • Benefit society

23. Writing Tips • Generalizable knowledge • Well-grounded in the literature • Read carefully! Follow all instructions! • If in doubt, leave it out • Project summary is the most important piece • Suggest reviewers • Letters of support from collaborators • Buzz words = transformative, interdisciplinary • No typos!!!

24. Reasons for Declinations • Bad fit for program • “Trust-me” proposal • Not grounded in literature • Not feasible • Expertise gaps • Insufficient funding • Too ambitious • Incremental contribution – “ho hum” proposals • Bad luck

25. NSF vs. NIH • NSF tends to be smaller • NSF stresses basic research • In NIH, reviewers come up with numerical score, and proposals are funded down list until money runs out • In NSF peer reviewers provide recommendations and program officers make decisions • More flexibility on “high-risk” research • Balance portfolio • NSF uses “revise & resubmit” loosely

26. Human Subjects • No award for a project involving human subjects can be made without prior Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval of the research activity. • IRB approval is not needed at the time of proposal submission.

27. Budget Tips • Amounts • Reasonable for work -- Realistic • Well Justified -- Need established • In-line with program guidelines • Eligible costs • Personnel • Equipment • Travel • Other Direct Costs, Subawards • Facilities & Administrative Costs • Broader impacts – discuss with PO

28. Final Words of Advice • Subject your grant to peer review before you submit it • Collaborate! The right names help… • E-mail or call Program Officer with specific questions • Ask for a copy of a successful proposal • If at first you don’t succeed… try again! • This time, with expert reviews to help you out.

29. The End melanie.r.roberts@colorado.edu

30. NSF Sources of Reviewers • Program Officer’s knowledge • References listed in the proposal • Google • Community of Science and other databases • Reviewer’s recommendations • Investigator’s suggestions