Research Funding at the National Science Foundation Karen Cone, PhD Program Director Division of Molecular and Cellular Biosciences October 19, 2011

Outline Overview of NSF Identifying Appropriate NSF Programs: Case Studies and Resources Building Capacity & Broadening Participation Proposal Review at NSF Getting Funded: Myths and Tips

NSF Overview Independent federal agency Supports basic research and education via grants Discipline-based structure Cross-disciplinary programs Rotators and permanent staff Annual budget ~$6.9 billion >55,000 proposals; ~13,000 new awards per year supporting ~200,000 scientists, educators and students

Subra SureshCora Marrett

Evolutionary Processes Evolutionary Processes Directorate of Biological Sciences (BIO) Directorate of Biological Sciences (BIO) Division of Environmental Biology (DEB) Division of Environmental Biology (DEB) Population and Community Ecology Population and Community Ecology Ecosystem Science Ecosystem Science Division of Integrative Organismal Systems (IOS) Division of Integrative Organismal Systems (IOS) Behavioral Systems Developmental Systems Developmental Systems Neural Systems Research Resources Research Resources Human Resources Division of Biological Infrastructure (DBI) Division of Biological Infrastructure (DBI) Division of Molecular and Cellular Biosciences (MCB ) Division of Molecular and Cellular Biosciences (MCB ) Biomolecular Dynamics, Structure and Function Biomolecular Dynamics, Structure and Function Cellular Processes Genetic Mechanisms Emerging Frontiers (EF) Plant Genome Research Program Plant Genome Research Program Systematic Biology & Biodiversity Inventories Physiological & Structural Systems Physiological & Structural Systems Networks and Regulation Networks and Regulation John Wingfield Assistant Director

Research aimed at understanding life processes at the molecular, subcellular and cellular levels –Biomolecular Dynamics, Structure and Function –Cellular Processes –Genetic Mechanisms –Networks and Regulation Molecular and Cellular Biosciences (MCB) 6

Research aimed at understanding the individual organism --plant, animal, microbe -- as a unit of biological organization –Behavioral Systems –Developmental Systems –Neural Systems –Physiological and Structural Systems –Plant Genome Research Program Integrative Organismal Systems (IOS) 7

Environmental Biology (DEB) Research on populations, species, communities, and ecosystems, including evolutionary and ecological patterns and processes at all spatial and temporal scales –Ecosystem science –Evolutionary Processes –Population and Community Ecology –Systematics and Biodiversity Science

9 Biological Infrastructure (DBI) Research Resources –Biological Informatics –Biological Research Collections –Biological Field Stations and Marine Labs –Instrument Development –Living Stocks Human Resources –Undergraduate Mentoring –Research Experiences for Undergraduates –Postdoctoral Research Fellowships

What do I want to do? What resources do I need? Where do I look for funding? Identifying Appropriate NSF Programs: Two Case Studies

#1. Peggy West, Department of Biology Serramonte College Peggy’s goals: –Build a competitive research program to identify the gene networks involved in mediating a response to Phytophthora ramorum, the pathogen responsible for Sudden Oak Death –Offer hands-on training for under- graduate students who want to work in her group

Peggy needs: Research funds, including major equipment Support for one or two undergraduate students in the summer and perhaps also during the year Travel funds to attend an upcoming meeting on plant pathogens

Where can Peggy find support? Her research and travel could be supported by Integrative Organismal Systems (IOS) –Physiological and Structural Systems Symbiosis, Defense, and Self-Recognition program –Plant Genome Research Program Once she receives an award, additional students may be supported through a Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) supplement, NSF

#2. Michael Smith, Department of Environmental Biology, Vermont State U. Michael’s goals: –Develop a research program in biogeochemical cycling and ecosystem dynamics in northeastern watersheds –Train graduate and undergraduate students and mentor a postdoctoral researcher –Develop collaborations with ecosystem scientists in Northern Europe

Michael needs: Research support in ecosystem dynamics Support for undergraduate, graduate and postdoctoral training Support for developing new collaborations with foreign researchers

Where can Michael find support? Core programs in the Division of Environmental Biology (DEB) can provide support for his research area Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grants (NSF ) Postdoctoral Research Fellowships in Biology (NSF ) Catalyzing New International Collaborations (NSF )

Finding Funding Opportunities NSF Updates Now on Twitter!

Solicitations

Dear Colleague Letters

Building Capacity and Broadening Participation Undergraduate students Graduate students Postdoctoral researchers Early career faculty High school teachers and students

Undergraduate Students Research at Undergraduate Institutions (RUI) NSF Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) Sites NSF

Graduate Students Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP) NSF –Education and Human Resource Directorate –NSF-wide program Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grants (DDIG) NSF –Only accepted by DEB and IOS/Behavioral Systems Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeships (IGERT) NSF –By invitation only through the Education and Human Resources Directorate –NSF-wide program

Postdoctoral Researchers Postdoctoral Research Fellowships in Biology (PRFB), NSF –Three emphasis areas for 2011 Broadening Participation in Biology Intersections of Biology and Mathematical and Physical Sciences National Plant Genome Initiative Postdoctoral Research Fellowships International Research Fellowship Program (IRFP), NSF –Supports international research collaborations for post-doctoral researchers

Early Career Faculty Faculty Early Career Development Program (CAREER) NSF –To prepare the next generation of scientist educators –For untenured assistant professors seeking to integrate research and teaching in innovative ways

Research Opportunity Awards (ROA): enable faculty who cannot normally engage in research to pursue research as visiting scientists with NSF-supported investigators at other institutions. Research Experience for Teachers (RET): enable K-12 science educators to participate in funded projects. Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) ~$7,000 each summer to support an undergraduate student researcher. Research Assistantships to High School Students (RAHSS): ~$6,000 per student up to one year. Supplements to Build Capacity in Other Groups

What do I want to do? What resources do I need? Where do I look for funding? How can I be competitive for funding?

1. Intellectual Merit 2. Broader Impacts The National Science Board has established and approved two criteria for review: NSF Merit Review Criteria

Intellectual Merit Potential to advance knowledge and understanding within and across fields Creativity and originality Qualifications of investigators Conceptualization and organization Access to resources

Broader Impacts Advance discovery while promoting teaching, training, and learning Broaden the participation of under- represented groups Enhance infrastructure for research and education Make data or results readily available Provide potential benefits to society Present a convincing plan for the proposed activities

The Proposal Cycle The IDEA Preliminary Results Proposal Preparation Merit Review An AWARD! A Decline

The Proposal Review Process How will your proposal be evaluated? Who will evaluate it? What feedback will you receive?

TIME DEADLINE Proposal submitted PO evaluates, assigns to Program Advisory Panel chosen Advisory Panel meets, makes recommendations Program Officers prepare funding portfolio Proposal is declined DGA makes award 3.5 – 4 months later 70% proposals processed within 6 months of receipt Compliance? Ad hoc reviews solicited Division Director approves Steps and Timeline for Review GPG, Solicitation

Two Kinds of Reviews Ad hoc Reviews –Experts in the specific subject –Evaluate both criteria –Text is more important than the score –Note comparative, as ad hoc reviewers review only one or two proposals Panel Reviews –Likely NOT experts in the specific subject –Evaluate both criteria –Text is more important than score –Compare across all proposals in the panel

Types of Feedback You Receive Individual reviews from ad hoc reviewers and panelists Panel summary –Results of discussion of all the reviews among panelists –Compares your proposal against all others –May contradict one or more individual reviews –Summarizes key strengths and weaknesses Discussion with your program director –Can provide insights into how to interpret the reviews –Can help you decide how to proceed with resubmission

How to secure research support Tips Myths and truths

Present a strong conceptual framework Describe the “big picture” Link goals of the research to questions of fundamental or broad significance in biology Describe how the results will make a significant advance in general theory or concept in an area of broad interest.

Conceptual / Theoretical Framework General Hypotheses Your study ‘system’ Specifics: Questions, Experiments, Design Data

Hypotheses and Data State hypotheses, alternate hypotheses, and predictions –The hypotheses should be testable –The data should test hypotheses and predictions –The results should distinguish among competing hypotheses Include preliminary data –Convince reviewers that the work is important and feasible –Establish that a phenomenon or pattern exists and is worth pursuing

Your study system Justify the system, species, response variables chosen for study –Articulate why the (few) species to be used are the best choice –Describe how the data you collect are appropriate for testing your idea Convince your peers that this study should be done by you!

Identify Your Audience Identify the right program for your proposal Identify the scientific community that will care most about the results of your study Write for that audience Suggest appropriate reviewers (submit as a single-copy document to the program)

Broader Impacts Present reasonable plans Convince reviewers that you will carry out the proposed activities and that they will have the intended impacts Do not simply state your past success

Most Common Flaws in Proposals No conceptual framework (no big picture) Results will not advance current understanding Study is too ambitious (proposes too much for the time-frame) or too narrow in scope (lacks generality, e.g., too taxon- or site-specific) Emphasis is on (new) methods, not questions Lack of familiarity with latest advances in field Lack of detail on data analysis, modeling, or interpretation Results will not address the stated hypotheses

Myths and Truths

Reviewers Myth –NSF will automatically know the best reviewers for your proposal. Truth –Suggest several reviewers. –Provide full contact information. –Don’t suggest your collaborators or friends.

Collaborators Myth: –Having a lot of collaborators is good, because it means you are important. Truth: – Who are your true collaborators? –Having someone for a collaborator means that he/she cannot review your proposal; you may be removing your best reviewers.

How Many Proposals to Submit? Myth –The more proposals you submit at one time, the better your chances of being funded. Truth –Funding is not a lottery. –Quality always trumps quantity. –Program directors talk to each other; we know when you have submitted proposals to other programs.

Chances of Getting Funded Myth –A proposal is never funded on its first try. Truth –Many proposals are not funded on the first try, but… –Don’t submit a proposal until it has been properly vetted by advisor, mentor, colleague. –The right audience can make a difference.

Crafting Your Resubmission Myth –For a resubmission, you should respond to every single concern. Truth –Focus on the major problems. –Maintain the integrity of your project. –There is no guarantee you will be funded if you respond to every concern!

When to Resubmit Myth –The best strategy is to resubmit a declined proposal immediately. Truth –There are very few “quick fixes”. – Proposals often improve with re-submission. –Take the time needed to respond to major concerns in a thorough and thoughtful way.

Does Experience Matter? Myth –Senior or well-known researchers have the best chance of getting funded. Truth –Senior researchers are frequently experienced grant- writers, which can be an advantage. –But…experience alone does not guarantee a great idea and a convincing research plan. –Reviewers are sympathetic towards young investigators.

Writing Style Myth –More text is better. Truth –Do not use condensed font. –Do not use > 6 lines per inch. –Do not reduce your text by including endless acronyms and abbreviations. –No tricks will substitute for clear writing.

Broader Impacts Myth –No one really pays attention to Broader Impacts. Truth –High priority proposals are outstanding in both intellectual merit and broader impacts. –Present a solid, convincing plan for broader impacts, not a laundry list. –Describe broader impacts of the proposed research, not solely your past record. –Ask for money if you need it.

Talk to a Program Director? Myth –It’s a waste of time to talk to a program director, because I can learn everything I need to know from the NSF website. Truth –Before you submit a proposal, talking to a program director can help you find a program that is the best fit for your research idea. –If your proposal is declined, talking to a program director can help you interpret the reviews. –If your proposal is funded, staying in touch with your program director can ensure you are aware of new funding opportunities for you and your students.

Questions? Karen Cone (703)