1. Strengths of Funded & Weaknesses of Unfunded MRI Proposals
Helen Hansma
Joan Frye, Sally O’Connor, Angela Klaus, Mark Farmer, and others
NSF

2. Call Your Program Director Ask Us Early, Ask Us Often!!

3. Strong Proposals have:
healthy and vigorous research
student-faculty research collaborations
externally funded research
published in peer-reviewed research journals
no doubt that the requested instrument will be
well cared for and
put to good use for
research and research training

4. Weak Proposals raise Lots of Questions:
Is the requested instrument is actually needed for the proposed research??
Will the instrument be involved in outreach and teaching??
How have each of the PIs used this instrument in the past??
What about the
low funding level of current faculty researchers,
lack of undergraduate and graduate student researchers,
lack of publications ??

5. Strong Proposals have:
Several users with a clear need for the instrument
Preliminary data
Research descriptions start with need for instrument
Integration of research and education

6. In Strong Proposals: PIs have a past history of outreach activities
Broader Impacts - strong
Possible problems - anticipated & addressed
Many women and underrepresented minority students

7. Weak Proposals:
“If we get the instrument, users will come” = a recipe for failure
Users describe their research and say at the end, “And if we had [the new instrument], we could do [something more].”

8. Weaknesses.... Weak science:
Research proposals not well developed
Research is of relatively low-impact
Not clear that the instrument was well justified.
Typographical errors = careless preparation??
Few / poor references

9. “I always wondered what it felt like to get an NSF award!”
Strong Proposals
“Walks on water”
Each investigator includes a training component in his / her research description
“I always wondered what it felt like to get an NSF award!”
-a new awardee, upon receiving her award phone call

10. Weak Proposals Vague generalizations
Figures & images are poor or lacking
Double spaced text
The reviewers say:
“It’s a sad little proposal.”
“It’s like reading a proposal by Charlie Brown’s teacher – it’s just noise”
“Instrumentation without a Cause”

11. A Weak Figure:
As this image shows, our current microscope needs to be replaced.
Image is too dark! è

12. A Strong Figure:
Figure 1. Images with our current Costco microscope [left] and with the Zeus Alive! Microscope that we propose to buy [right].
Image is lighter here è

13. Proposals MUST have:
Intellectual Merit AND Broader Impacts in the Project Summary
15 pages or fewer of Project Description
Large enough font sizes and margins
Research - NOT medical

14. Proposal Title should be:
“Acquisition of _______ “

15. Weaknesses: Budget
Instrument has too many / too few features for proposed research
Instruments not related
Too many instruments requested
“We figured we’d ask for TWO of the same instrument, and they’d give us ONE.”
-an unsuccessful PI
“A Ferrari isn’t good in traffic.”
-a reviewer

16. A Solid Management Plan describes:
Maintenance plans for the instrument(s)
How costs of instrument use and maintenance will be covered (user fees or ??)
The available expertise in use of the equipment
How new users will be trained
How user time will be allocated (if necessary)

17. Pitfalls to Watch out for...
Follow guidelines carefully!
Request the appropriate instruments (e.g. Is high throughput really needed? How does the instrument relate to the research?)
Emphasize research – not only teaching !
Do not request a “laundry list” of items

18. Strategies for Success
Student involvement: co-authors on papers & presentations.
Strong maintenance of existing equipment and plans for requested equipment
Involvement of under-represented groups

19. Strategies.... Wide use of instrument
Demonstrated need, e.g., # samples
Preliminary results/measurements

20. Most proposals are NOT funded!
Resubmissions
Most proposals are NOT funded!

21. Weak Resubmissions Whining or angry responses to reviewers’ comments
Project description starts with responses to reviewers’ comments
Proposal has few changes

22. Strong Resubmissions:
Good responses to reviewers’ comments – can be incorporated into the revised proposal without mentioning the reviewers’ comments
Significant improvements in the proposal

23. Evaluating Proposals

24. Evaluating Proposals: NSF Merit Review Criteria
Intellectual Merit
Broader Impacts of the Proposed Effort

25. MRI-Specific Criteria: Instrument Acquisition
shared use of the instruments for research and/or research training
availability of technical expertise
management & maintenance plan
effective instrument use

26. Summary of Review Criteria
Merit Review Criteria:
Intellectual merit
Broader impacts
Integration of research and education
Integrating diversity into the proposed activities
Additional MRI Review Criteria:
for instrument acquisition - the management plan;
for instrument development - the rationale for development of a new instrument.

27. Proposal Preparation

28. Your “Holy Books”: The MRI Program Announcement:
NSF
2. The Grant Proposal Guide – GPG:
NSF 04-23

29. To Do: NSF Fastlane – start using it Early!
Other Senior Personnel – give them an early deadline for finishing their parts of the proposal.

30. Summary Start early – give yourself enough time
Read the MRI PA and the GPG, and follow their rules
Get feedback on your proposal from your colleagues
Proposals should be clear, appropriate, and justified
Anticipate some frustration
Study reviews carefully
If declined - Call your Program Director after reading your reviews (take some time to think about them)
If awarded - follow up on reporting and find out about supplemental funding (stay in touch with PD)