NSF Proposal Process March 28, 2007

1. Office of Integrative Activities National Science Foundation NSF Proposal ProcessMarch 28, 2007 Dr. Joan M. Frye, Staff Associatejfrye@nsf.gov~ 703-292-8040

2. What to look for in Program Solicitation • Goals of program • Eligibility • Specific proposal review criteria • Special proposal preparation and/or award requirements

3. Types of Proposal Submission • No deadlines • Deadlines • Target dates • Submission Windows • Preliminary proposals

4. 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."

5. 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 DO YOUR HOMEWORK!

6. 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 Getting Support in Proposal Writing

7. 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

8. Proposal Development • Key Questions for Prospective Investigator • 1. 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?

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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)

13. 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

14. 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

15. NSF Proposal & Award Process & Timeline NSF Announces Opportunity Returned Without Review/Withdrawn GPG Announcement Solicitation Min. 3 Revs. Req. Award Via DGA N S F NSF Program. Office Program Office Analysis & Recomm. Org. submits via FastLane Mail DD Concur Panel Both Organization Research & Education Communities Decline Proposal Receipt at NSF Award DD Concur 90 Days 6 Months 30 Days Proposal Receipt to Division Director Concurrence of Program Officer Recommendation DGA Review & Processing of Award Proposal Preparation Time

16. NSF Merit Review Criteria • NSB Approved Criteria include: • Intellectual Merit • Broader Impacts • Additional Criteria as listed in Solicitation (if any)

17. 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

18. 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?

19. 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?

20. 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?

21. Role of the Review Panel • Peer review • Taking Risks • Budget Constraints • Balancing Priorities

22. 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.

23. Funding Decisions • Program Officer decision • Feedback to PI • Informal and formal notification • Scope of work and budget discussions

24. 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

25. Myths about NSF • Only funds researchers from elite institutions • Once declined…always declined • Only funds “normal” science • Advisory committees make funding decisions

26. Advice • Learn to love rejection • Contact the program officer with specific questions • Revise and resubmit • Collaboration is good, if appropriate • Discover alternative funding sources

27. Office of Integrative Activities National Science Foundation Major Research Instrumentation Dr. Joan M. Frye, Staff Associatejfrye@nsf.gov~ 703-292-8040http://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/programs/mri

28. 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.

29. 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.

30. 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.

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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.

34. 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 ...”

35. 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.”

36. 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 ofstudent 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....”

37. 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

38. 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

39. 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 FY 2005 Number of Proposals Submitted: 281 Dollars Requested: $97,697,185 Number of Awards: 109 MRI Dollars Awarded: $25,829,731 NSF Dollars Awarded: $26,422,103 Success Rate: 38.8% Average MRI Award: $236,970 Average NSF Award: $242,405 Number of States Represented: 43* Number of Institutions Represented: 206 Non-Ph.D. Granting Institutions *includes Puerto Rico

40. FY 2006 Number of Proposals Submitted: 66 Dollars Requested: $23,211,136 Number of Awards: 24 MRI Dollars Awarded: $4,823,738 NSF Dollars Awarded: $5,564,581 Success Rate: 36.4% Average MRI Award: $200,989 Average NSF Award: $231,858 Number of States Represented: 15^ Number of Institutions Represented: 41 FY 2005 Number of Proposals Submitted: 79 Dollars Requested: $41,065,845 Number of Awards: 26 MRI Dollars Awarded: $9,203,854 NSF Dollars Awarded: $9,241,854 Success Rate: 32.9% Average MRI Award: $353,994 Average NSF Award: $355,456 Number of States Represented: 21* Number of Institutions Represented: 52 Minority Serving Institutions ^ includes Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) * includes Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico

41. Summer Scholars Internship Program National Science Foundation

42. 2006 Interns Meeting NSF’s Director and Deputy Director

43. 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

44. 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

45. SSIP: Components • Work assignment completed under the guidance of a mentor • Participation in enrichment and professional development activities • Final report • Formal oral presentation

46. 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

47. 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 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! Alexis CornishClass of 2005

48. 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

49. Summer Activities (cont.) • Visits to American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) • UMBC Summer Horizons • Guided museumtours • Diversity training • Distinguished lectures

50. SSIP: Opportunities • Some interns have opportunities to travel: • site visits • professional conferences • seminars • Networking and interacting with diverse STEM professionals and educators