nsf program manager n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
NSF Program manager PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
NSF Program manager

NSF Program manager

141 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

NSF Program manager

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. NSF Program manager • Decides the final rankings of the proposals • Two more visiting program managers help • Has some freedom to move within the ranks • Decides how much money can be given • Calls or communicates with the PI • Negotiates what needs to be done and for how much support $? • Sends declination letters and reviews • Answers your questions

  2. What if you get a grant? • Do Party but not forever! • You are among the top 5-10% researchers in your field • Hire good people and deliver the goods you promised on time • Publish profusely in high quality journals • Write more grants! Why? • funding does not last for ever • 10% success rate • distribution of wealth principle

  3. What if you do not get a grant? • don't cry (OK, cry a little if you feel better) • pick up the pieces of your failed proposal and restart your “grants writing” engine • get reviewer’s comments, read and get angry then keep them in a drawer away from your view for a while.. • come back and read reviews again • talk to PM and your mentor/well wishers • resubmit until you succeed

  4. Top ten reasons why funding is normally not awarded 1. Lack of new or original ideas. 2. Diffuse, superficial, or unfocused research plan. 3. Lack of knowledge of published relevant work. 4. Lack of experience in the essential methodology. 5. Uncertainty concerning future directions. 6. Questionable reasoning in experimental approach. 7. Absence of an acceptable rationale. 8. Unrealistically large/small amount of work. 9. Lack of sufficient experimental detail. 10. Uncritical approach.

  5. How your proposals will be evaluated for this FW5850 class? • All of you have already submitted a single pdf file of your proposal to me by email. • It has been mailed to your peers and professors • Now, you will change your role. You will review (as an ad hoc reviewer) all the proposals from your group except your own. • You will prepare reviews for each proposal in your group in the prescribed format (already emailed to you) • Bring two hard copies of your reviews to class on December 12th, 2006. • Your advisors and I will review them too! • All reviews given to PI will be anonymous

  6. Evaluation Criteria • Intellectual merit • How important this proposal is for advancement of knowledge? • Qualification of PI and quality of proposal? • Creative and original concepts? • How well conceived and organized is this activity? • Sufficient resources available for this research? • Broader impacts • Advance discovery and understanding • Can promote teaching and research integration • Diversity (gender, ethnicity, disability, geographical), if any * • Infrastructure development* • Dissemination of information obtained • What is the benefit to society? ALL CRITERIA MAY NOT APPLY FOR EACH PROPOSAL! Focus more on the contents (summary, description) than the format! * Not important for your evaluation

  7. Panel meeting on December 12 and 14, 2006 • You change your role again. Now, you are a panel member. • There will be five panels = 5 peer groups • On December 12th, we will meet in the atrium area. • There will be five separate tables for panel meeting, one per group • Each proposal will get 15 minutes discussion (a bell will ring every 15 minutes) • You will go to the other table when your own proposal is being discussed as shown in the next slide.

  8. Wild life Ecologists ENGINEERS Foresters FMGB

  9. Panel reviews • Each panel member will first state their ratings and then discuss each proposal based on their own written reviews. • Panel will prepare a one page report using three major categories: summary, strength, weakness (2-3 lines each) (see next slide). • The panel will also give the final rating as Excellent, very good, good, fair, poor • The panel report will be given to me at the end of your discussion and you will select a panel leader from the members within your own group to read the summary to whole class on December 14th, the last day of this class.

  10. Panel evaluation • What is the main research topic of the proposal? (One-two sentences) • What is the major strength of this proposal? • What is the major weakness of this proposal (if any)? • Summary statement (one or two lines)

  11. Panel presentation (December 14th 2006) • You will select one leader from your group who will read all reports from your group after panel meeting to the whole class • Each proposal will get ~two minutes • Each report will have a specific final rating. • Then you will enjoy your Xmas vacation!

  12. Any questions?










  22. MPS Math Phys Sci EHR Edu, human Resources GEO Geological Sci CSIE Comp Info Sci and Eng Bio Biological Sci ENG Engineering SBE Social, behavior, Eco Sci

  23. NSF major divisions • Biological Sciences • Molecular and Cellular BiosciencesIntegrative Organismal BiologyEnvironmental BiologyBiological InfrastructureEmerging FrontiersPlant Genome ResearchComputer and Information Science and Engineering • Computing and Communication FoundationsComputer and Network SystemsInformation and Intelligent SystemsInformation Technology ResearchEngineering • Chemical, Biological, Environmental and Transport Systems Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing InnovationElectrical, Communications and Cyber Systems Industrial Innovation and PartnershipsEngineering Education and CentersEmerging Frontiers in Research and InnovationGeosciences • Atmospheric SciencesEarth SciencesInnovative and Collaborative Education and ResearchOcean SciencesMathematical and Physical Sciences • Astronomical SciencesChemistryMaterials ResearchMathematical SciencesPhysicsMultidisciplinary ActivitiesSocial, Behavioral and Economic Sciences • Social and Economic SciencesBehavioral and Cognitive SciencesScience Resources StatisticsOffice of Cyberinfrastructure

  24. Where to go to see information on funding agencies • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) • Department of Energy, Office of Energy Research (DOE) • Department of Transportation (DOT) • Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) • Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) • National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) • National Science Foundation (NSF) • National Institutes of Health (NIH) • National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST) • USDA Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (USDA CSREES) (this link is active)

  25. USDA-NRI Focus areas: • Agricultural & Food Biosecurity • Agricultural Systems • Animals & Animal Products • Biotechnology & Genomics • Economics & Commerce • Families, Youth & Communities • Food, Nutrition & Health • Natural Resources & Environment • Pest Management • Plants & Plant Products • Technology & Engineering

  26. FY2007 RFA • • Program Opportunities • Program Code - Program Name • 20.2 - Plant Biosecurity • 23.1 - Managed Ecosystems • 28.0 - Air Quality • 31.0 - Bioactive Food Components for Optimal Health • 31.5 - Human Nutrition and Obesity • 32.1 - Epidemiological Approaches for Food Safety • 41.0 - Animal Reproduction • 42.0 - Animal Growth and Nutrient Utilization • 43.0 - Animal Genome (A): Applied Animal Genomics • 44.0 - Animal Protection and Biosecurity (B): Animal Well-Being • 44.0 - Animal Protection and Biosecurity (C): Animal Biosecurity Coordinated Agricultural Projects (CAP) • 51.9 - Biology of Weedy and Invasive Species in Agroecosystems • 52.1 - Plant Genome (D): Applied Plant Genomics Coordinated Agricultural Project (CAP) • 56.0 - Plant Biology (A): Gene Expression and Genetic Diversity • 56.0 - Plant Biology (B): Environmental Stress • 66.0 - Agricultural Prosperity for Small and Medium-Sized Farms • 71.1 - Improving Food Quality and Value

  27. Purpose and Priorities • The purpose of the USDA-NRI Program is to support research, extension, and education grants that address key problems of national, regional, and multistate importance in sustaining all components of agriculture (farming, ranching, forestry including urban and agroforestry, aquaculture, rural communities, human nutrition, processing, etc.). $180 million

  28. Type of applicationsgrant size: $5,000 to $1,500,000success rate: 17 % • New • Resubmitted • Renewal • Resubmitted renewal • Research grant • Conference • AREA (Agricultural Research Enhancement awards) • Postdoctoral • New Investigator • Strengthening Awards • Small institutions • Limited success • Sabbatical • seed grants • Equipment grants

  29. USDA has a number of programs • 56.0 Plant Biology (C): Biochemistry • Investigators are encouraged to contact National Program Leader Dr. Gail McLean (202-401-6060 or regarding questions about suitability of research topics for this program element. • Proposed budget requests must not exceed $400,000 (including indirect costs) for research projects for project periods of 2-4 years. Requests for funding above $400,000 will be returned to the applicant without review. • The total amount of support available for the Biochemistry program element will be approximately $4.2 million. • Note: This program requires a letter of intent by December 6, 2006 (5:00pm ET) prior to application submission. Applications submitted without an approved letter of intent will not be reviewed. • Program Deadline: Electronic submissions for invited applications must be submitted by 5:00 P.M., Eastern Time, February 14, 2007. THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE….

  30. A bunch of forms to be filled and 15 copies to be mailed • Proposal Cover Page (Form CSREES-2002) • Table of Contents • Project Summary (Form CSREES-2003) • Response to Previous Review (if applicable) • Project Description (see instructions for page limitations) 18 pages • References to Project Description • Facilities and Equipment • Key Personnel (vitae and publications list) • Collaborative Arrangements (including letters of support) • Conflict-of-Interest List (Form CSREES-2007) • Results from Prior NRI Support (if applicable) • Budget (Form CSREES-2004) • Budget Narrative • Matching (if required) • Current and Pending Support (Form CSREES-2005) • Assurance Statement (s) (Form CSREES-2008) • Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (Form CSREES-2006) • Appendices to Project Description • Personal Data on Project Director (s) (Page B of Form CSREES-2002) Now electronic by

  31. Evaluation criteria 1. Scientific merit of the application for research, extension and/or education 2. Qualifications of proposed project personnel and adequacy of facilities 3. Planning and administration of the proposed project 4. Relevance of the proposal to improvements in and sustainability of U.S. agriculture

  32. Scientific merit • novelty, uniqueness, and originality • conceptual adequacy of hypothesis or research question • clarity and delineation of objectives • adequacy of description of the undertaking • suitability and feasibility of methodology • demonstration of feasibility through preliminary data • probability of success of project

  33. Qualifications Qualifications of proposed project personnel and adequacy of facilities: 1. training and awareness of previous and alternative approaches, performance record and/or potential for future accomplishments2. time allotted for systematic attainment of objectives3. Institutional experience and competence in subject area4. adequacy of available or obtainable support personnel, facilities and instrumentation

  34. Relevance? Relevance of the project to long-range improvements in and sustainability of U.S. agriculture 1. documentation that the research is directed towards a current or likely future problem in U.S. agriculture2. development of basic research ideas towards practical application

  35. Rating Each reviewer is asked to rate each proposal overall as either: • excellent • very good • good • fair • poor

  36. Panel recommendations The following categories are generally used to rank proposals by the Panel: • Outstanding *** • High priority for funding ** • Medium priority for funding • Low priority for funding • Some scientific merit • Do not fund Proposals are also ranked in each category (mainly in first two-three only) Success rate 20-25% actual 17% last year as per new info