1. Internet2 Day @ Marquette University March 5, 2004 Douglas Gatchell NSF Overview

2. Today’s Talk  Overview of NSF  Proposal Process  Career Opportunities  Funding Opportunities  CyberInfrastructure

3. Enabling the nation’s future through discovery, learning and innovation. NSF-3 NSF Vision

4. NSF in a Nutshell  Independent Agency  Supports basic research & education  Uses grant mechanism  Low overhead; highly automated  Discipline-based structure  Cross-disciplinary mechanisms  Use of Rotators/IPAs  National Science Board

5. National Science Board (NSB)  24 members + Director; President appoints; Senate confirms  6 year terms; rotation every 2 years at May NSB meeting  Authority to make awards delegated through NSB to Director and flows down to grant and contract officers

6. Inspector General National Science Board Staff Offices Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences Budget, Finance & Award Management Budget, Finance & Award Management Information Resource Management Information Resource Management National Science Foundation Director Deputy Director Engineering Geosciences Mathematical & Physical Sciences Education & Human Resources Biological Sciences Computer, Information Science & Engineering

7.  Polar Programs  U.S. Antarctic Program  Science Resources Statistics  Data collection and analysis  Science and Engineering Indicators  International NSF: Special Responsibilities NSF-8

8. NSF Strategic Outcome Goals  People - Developing “a diverse, internationally competitive and globally engaged workforce of scientists, engineers, and well-prepared citizens.”  Ideas - Enabling “discoveries across the frontier of science and engineering, connected to learning, innovation, and service to society.”  Tools - Providing “broadly accessible, state-of-the-art shared research and education tools.”

9. The NSF FY 2005 Budget

10. Total Federal Distribution ($000) NSF Share of Total Federal Computer sciences Mathematics Social sciences Environmental sciences Engineering Other Sciences Physical sciences Biological sciences (non-medical) Psychology Medical sciences Federal Obligations for Basic Research at Academic Institutions, FY 2002

11. FY’98 FY’99 FY’00 FY’01 FY’02 FY’03 FY’04 FY’05 Millions of dollars Total Growth FY 98 – FY 04: $2.15 billion (68%) 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 $5,745 (Request) Appropriations for the National Science Foundation FY 1998 - 2004

12. NSF FY 2005 Request by Account (Dollars in Millions)

13. NSF FY 2005 Budget Request Priority Areas (Dollars in Millions)

14.  Microbial genome sequencing  Ecology of infectious diseases  Dynamics of coupled natural and human systems  Coupled biogeochemical cycles  Genome-enabled environmental sciences and engineering  Instrumentation development or environmental activities  Materials use: science, engineering and society

15.  Agents of change  Dynamics of human behavior  Decision making under uncertainty  Spatial social science  Modeling human and social dynamics  Instrumentation and data resource development

16.  Fundamental mathematical and statistical sciences  Advancing interdisciplinary science and engineering  Mathematical and statistical challenges posed by large data sets  Managing and modeling uncertainty  Modeling complex nonlinear systems  Advancing mathematical sciences education

17.  Fundamental research and education:  Grand challenges  Centers and networks of excellence  Infrastructure  Societal and educational implications

18.  Integrated science and engineering education investment  K-16 faculty preparation and development  Focus on broadening participation  Research on effective learning paths

19. Current Proposal, Award and Funding Trends

20. 250% 200% 150% 100% 50% 0% -50% Percentage Change 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 Comparison of NSF Budget, Staff, and Competitive Proposal Submission

21. National Science Foundation Proposal Statistics  40,073 proposal actions  207,411 reviews  54,000 reviewers  10,844 awards  27.0% funding rate (Fiscal Year 2003) NSF-9

22. NSF Research Grant Profile  Competitive awards: 10,844  Average annual award: $147,208  Median annual award: $99,200  Average duration: 2.55 years NSF-10 (Fiscal Year 2003)

23. NSF Project Funding Profile Administration & Management 5% Education & Training 18% Research Projects 52% Research Facilities 19% Research Centers 6%

25. Key Documents  FY 2004 Federal Budget  http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/ http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/  FY 2004 NSF Budget Request  http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/bud/fy2004/toc.htm http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/bud/fy2004/toc.htm  Grant Proposal Guide (NSF 04-2)  http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/getpub?gpg http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/getpub?gpg  Science and Engineering Indicators  http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind02/start.htm http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind02/start.htm  When in doubt – www.nsf.govwww.nsf.gov

26. Proposal Preparation

27. Grant Proposal Guide (GPG)  Provides guidance for preparation of proposals  Specifies process for deviations including:  individual program announcements; and  by written approval of cognizant AD or designee  Describes process -- and criteria -- by which proposals will be reviewed  Describes process for withdrawals, returns & declinations  Describes the award process and procedures for requesting continued support  Identifies significant grant administrative highlights

28. What to Look for in a Program Announcement/Solicitation  Goal of program  Eligibility  Special proposal preparation and/or award requirements

29. Types of Proposal Submission  No deadlines  Deadlines  Target dates  Submission Windows  Preliminary proposals

30. 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

31. A Good 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.

32. 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? (USPHS)

33. Proposal Development Strategies Individual Investigator  Determine your long-term research/education goals or plan  Develop your bright idea  Survey the literature  Contact Investigators working on topic  Prepare a brief concept paper  Discuss with colleagues/mentors

34. Proposal Development Strategies Individual Investigator (cont’d)  Prepare to do the project  Determine available resources  Realistically assess needs  Develop preliminary data  Present to colleagues/mentors/students  Determine possible funding sources  Understand the ground rules

35. Proposal Development Strategies Individual Investigator (cont’d)  Ascertain overall scope and mission  Read carefully solicitation instructions  Determine where your project fits  Ascertain evaluation procedures and criteria  Talk with NSF Program Officer:  Your proposed project  Specific program requirements/limitations  Current program patterns  Coordinate with your organization’s sponsored projects office

36. Budgetary Guidelines  Amounts  Reasonable for work - Realistic  Well Justified - Need established  In-line with program guidelines  Eligible costs  Personnel  Equipment  Travel  Participant Support  Other Direct Costs (including subawards, consultant services, computer services, publication costs)

37. Cost Sharing  Unless a program solicitation specifies otherwise, do not:  include cost sharing amounts on Line M of the proposal budget; or  exceed the cost sharing level or amount specified in the solicitation.

38. Budgetary Guidelines (cont’d)  General Suggestions  All funding sources noted in Current and Pending Support  Help from Sponsored Projects Office

39. Getting Support in Proposal Writing  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

40. Merit Review

41. Research & Education Communities Proposal Preparation Time Org. submits via FastLane N S F Program. Office NSF Program. Office Program Office Analysis & Recomm. Program Office Analysis & Recomm. DD Concur DD Concur Via DGA Via DGA Organization Min. 3 Revs. Req. DGA Review & Processing of Award Proposal Receipt to Division Director Concurrence of Program Officer Recommendation GPG Announcement Solicitation GPG Announcement Solicitation NSF Announces Opportunity Returned Without Review/Withdrawn Mail Panel Both Award NSF Proposal & Award Process & Timeline Decline 90 Days6 Months 30 Days Proposal Receipt at NSF DD Concur Award

42.  is inappropriate for funding by the National Science Foundation  is submitted with insufficient lead-time before the activity is scheduled to begin;  is a full proposal that was submitted by a proposer that has received a "not invited" response to the submission of a preliminary proposal;  is a duplicate of, or substantially similar to, a proposal already under consideration by NSF from the same submitter; Return Without Review The Proposal:

43. Return Without Review  does not meet NSF proposal preparation requirements, such as page limitations, formatting instructions, and electronic submission, as specified in the Grant Proposal Guide or program solicitation;)  is not responsive to the GPG or program announcement/solicitation;  does not meet an announced proposal deadline date (and time, where specified); or  was previously reviewed and declined and has not been substantially revised. The Proposal:

44. Return Without Review  Per Important Notice 127, “Implementation of new Grant Proposal Guide Requirements related to the Broader Impacts Criterion” --  Proposals that do not separately address both criteria within the one-page Project Summary will be returned without review.

45. NSF Merit Review Criteria  NSB Approved Criteria include:  Intellectual Merit  Broader Impacts of the Proposed Effort

46. What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity?  Potential Considerations:  How important is the proposed activity to advancing 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 suggest and explore creative and original concepts?  How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity?  Is there sufficient access to resources?

47. What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity? 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?

48. What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?  Potential Considerations (continued):  Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding?  What may be the benefits of the proposed activity to society?

49. Reviewer Selection  Identifying reviewers  PI reviewer suggestions

50. NSF Sources of Reviewers  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  Investigator’s suggestions  (Letter to Program Officer)

51. Investigator Input  Proposers are invited to either suggest names of persons they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal or identify persons they would prefer not to review the proposal.

52. Role of the Review Panel  Quality Control  Budget Constraints  Balancing Priorities  Taking Risks

53. Funding Decisions  Feedback to PI  Informal and formal notification  Scope of work and budget discussions

54. 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  Special Programmatic Considerations (CAREER/RUI/EPSCoR)  Diversity Issues  Educational Impact  “Launching” versus “Maintaining”

55. NSF Reconsideration Process  Explanation from Program Officer  Written request for reconsideration to Assistant Director within 90 days of decline  Request from organization to Deputy Director

56. CAREER Program Objectives  Strongly encourage new faculty, emphasizing planning of an integrated academic career  Develop faculty who are both highly productive researchers and dedicated, effective educators  Form partnership with college or university to encourage balanced career development of individual faculty  Increase participation of those traditionally underrepresented in technical disciplines

57. CAREER Guidelines  Review process varies by Directorate, and may be by mail, panel, or combination  Normal indirect cost rate applies  5 year duration  Minimum Award: $400K over 5 years

58. CAREER Development Plan Should include:  The objectives and significance of the proposed integrated research and education activities;  The relation of the research to the current state of knowledge in the field and of the education activities to the current state of knowledge on effective teaching and learning in one’s field of study;  An outline of the plan of work, describing the methods and procedures to be used, including evaluation of the education activities;  The relation of the plan to the PI’s career goals and job responsibilities and the goals of his/her institution; and  A summary of prior research and education accomplishments

59. http://www.communitytechnology.org/nsf_ci_report/ Revolutionizing Science and Engineering through Cyberinfrastructure  Ubiquitous, digital knowledge environments that are both interactive and functionally complete  Revolutionize and accelerate the processes of discovery, learning and innovation across the science and engineering frontier. Atkins Report

60. Cyberinfrastructure Characteristics  Community-Focused  virtual organizations  distributed,  collaborative  Scale and Scope  Multidisciplinary  International  Supporting data- and compute-intensive applications  High-end to desktop  Heterogeneous  Common Technology & Policy Platform(s)  Interoperability  Supports characteristics above

61. Hardware Integrated CI System meeting the needs of a community of communities Grid Services & Middleware Development Tools & Libraries Applications Environmental Science High Energy Physics Proteomics/Genomics … Domain- specific Cybertools (software) Shared Cybertools (software) Distributed Resources (computation, communication storage, etc.) Education and Training Discovery & Innovation

62. The Computing Continuum Loosely Coupled Tightly Coupled Clusters SMPs “Grids” “SETI” Regional and National Networks Global Networks Wireless Networks Micro-sensor Networks (‘smart dust”) The Networking Continuum

63. Douglas Gatchell International Networking Program Director NSF: National Science Foundation CISE: Directorate for Computer Information and Science and Engineering SCI: Division of Shared Cyberinfrastructure dgatchell@nsf.gov www.cise.nsf.gov