Why NSF $ should matter to you Getting into a good grad school  good grades, GREs, etc. Getting a good job  strong publications (helps to have $ from NSF to do this…) Keeping a good job (= tenure)  $ from NSF + publications

3 common types of NSF grants NSF graduate fellowships (3 years of living large); can apply as senior or 1st/2nd year of Ph.D. program NSF Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant (DDIG) ~$10,000, after advanced to candidacy + have preliminary data (1-2 years of support) Regular grant (usually 3-5 years; typically $100, ,000,000; $250,000 for 3 years is common size)

How NSF reviews a proposal (regular proposal) Proposals are submitted to a given program Program officer decides which panel will review the proposal (e.g., ecology, evolutionary ecology, systematics) Proposal also sent to ~3-9 outside reviewers Panel meets and recommends proposals for funding and recommends different priorities for funding Program officer makes quasi-final decision on funding

How NSF reviews a proposal (DDIG style) Reviewed by 3 panelists ONLY (no outside reviews) Panelists make recommendation to Program Officer Program Officer makes quasi-final decision

The bottom line: The panel recommendation is the key step in deciding the fate of your grant proposal How does the panel work?

The Panel Usually scientists (chosen to maximize diversity; junior/senior, male/female, different organisms, conceptual areas, and approaches theory/experimental/comparative) Meet for ~3 days at NSF Each panelist given proposals to review Each proposal reviewed by 3 panelists PRIOR to the panel meeting (reviews by panel members are initially independent)

At the Panel Panelists read the other panelist reviews and outside reviews just before the panel begins All panelists sit around a big table with 3-4 program officers Each proposal gets its turn--reviewed for anywhere from 30 seconds to 30 minutes (typically minutes)

The Panel Review-1 (your proposal’s 15 minutes of fame or infamy) It begins: the Program Officer to whom the proposal is assigned asks something like: “so, what do you think?” Lead panelist gives summary of reviews and his opinion 2 secondary panelists give their opinion 3 panelists discuss briefly and arrive at consensus (~90% of the time) or agree to disagree and discuss in the hallway

The Panel Review-2 (your proposal’s 15 minutes of fame or infamy) It ends: the Program Officer asks “so, what is your recommendation?” The options are basically --do not fund --fund if possible (low priority) --fund (low priority) --fund (high priority)

The Panel Review-3 (your proposal’s 15 minutes of fame or infamy) The options--TRANSLATIONS --do not fund--YOU’RE DEAD --fund if possible (low priority)--YOU’RE ALMOST CERTAINLY DEAD --fund if possible (low priority)--YOU’RE PROBABLY DEAD --fund (low priority)--YOU’RE POSSIBLY FUNDED --fund (high priority)--YOU’RE ALMOST CERTAINLY FUNDED

How does the panel decide what they like or don’t like?-1 In theory decide based on “Intellectual Merit” and “Broader Impacts” Intellectual merit = good science Broader impacts = minority or female participation, educational program, outreach to local schools, capacity building, infrastructure, conservation implications, etc.

How does the panel decide what they like or don’t like?-2 In reality most proposals get killed because they fail in terms of intellectual merit Most proposals with good science typically have good broader impacts Good broader impacts will help a proposal with good science, but will not save a proposal with bad science

What you (the proposal submitter) get in the end from NSF Individual reviews (3 reviews from the 3 panelists, plus any outside reviews) “Panel summary” written summary of the panel’s opinion, including justification for their decision --written by lead panelist after panelists have conferred --reviewed and signed by all three panelists --very important but often brief and written in haste

3 key ingredients of a successful proposal Asking a big question “Closing the loop” Demonstrating that you can actually do it.

3 key ingredients of a successful proposal Asking a big question: Many proposals killed because the question is of limited general interest (e.g., population structure of endangered species X) Should tackle general conceptual question in a field (i.e., ecology, evolution) Many of the strongest proposals combine general conceptual question with strongly applied question

3 key ingredients of a successful proposal Asking a big question: Program Officer quote: “I ask myself, where will this research be published? I expect NSF to be funding research that could be published in Science or Nature” Previously publishing in Science and Nature is not a requirement for getting funded by NSF

Examples of big questions How does sexual selection influence diversification rates? How does a parasite’s (disease) virulence co-evolve with host defense among populations across the geographic range of each species? How does a hormonal stress response influence survival in the face of environmental change?

3 key ingredients of a successful proposal Closing the loop: You can ask the big question, but is your project designed in a way that can actually answer it? Many proposals start off with great question, but never identify how exactly they will answer it If possible, you should identify specific statistical test that will give you the final answer to the big question!

3 key ingredients of a successful proposal Can you do it? Need to demonstrate or convincingly argue for the feasibility of every part of your project Don’t assume anything Should have preliminary data for every part of project and every type of data to be gathered If possible, do power analyses to demonstrate that design can give statistical significance

3 key ingredients of a successful proposal Can you do it? Have timeline to show that you can do everything in the allotted time; detailed budget justification Should have letters of support from everyone who is involved with the project who is not a PI on the proposal Try to anticipate all possible objections from the reviewers Publication record helps!

Lessons from the panel review system The fate of your proposal is often decided by people who do not know anything about your subject area You need to be doing something that is important and general enough that people will be excited about it no matter what they work on...

Lessons from the panel review system Panelists usually have 20 other proposals to review and may not be paying close attention--you need to get them excited, make everything easy to understand, and strongly emphasize your most important points

Lessons from the panel review system The panel changes every time it meets (example: 85% turnover between panels) Responding to panel criticisms in a resubmission is necessary but guarantees nothing; the only thing that matters is whether the panel presently reviewing it likes it.

Lessons from the panel review system Resubmissions don’t get special priority (some proposals get turned down again and again and again) May be better to wait and submit very strong proposal than to put in hasty proposal and see what the reviewers say (“luck” is mostly relevant for good proposals…) Getting “recommended for funding” doesn’t mean that much Outside reviews may be completely ignored by the panel

Lessons from the panel review system Funding rate is around % (funded proposals/submitted proposals) Half the proposals are shoddy, uninteresting, and otherwise obviously flawed and not going to be funded Many people have multiple grants at the same time