1. 1 CHE 594 Lecture 11 The proposal Process

2. Proposal Planning & Writing Identifying sources of funds Needs Assessment Capitalize on your differences Case Statement Advocates

3. Sponsor Giving Sponsors are concerned about specific problems, injustices, or inequities Sponsors see a gap between “what is” and “what ought to be” Their mission is to close this gap and with regard to Federal Agencies – serve the public good

4. Agency Missions NSF – build scientific manpower, help the economy DOE – maintain national labs, contribute to defense, help the energy industries NIH – advance human health DARPA – prevent technological surprise NASA – advance spacecraft & rocketry, explore the universe

5. Keys To A Great Proposal Great research idea Advance the goals of the agency Feasible within the time frame an financial constraints of the program Compelling Presentation Organized to make it easier for the reviewer Demonstrated skills of the principle investigator (PI) Great publication record Up to date literature review Preliminary data

6. 6 The Hourglass Picture Of Research Adapted From William M.K. Trochim Cornell Start with an important big question Focus to solvable question Observe Analyze data Reach conclusions Generalize back to big problem

7. 7 Example A Problem That Professor Masel Is Thinking About Now Big Question: Biofuels (Cellulosic ethanol) presently too expensive. Can we reduce the cost? Solvable question: Can tethered sulfuric acid (polyelectrolyte brush) be used in place of sulfuric acid to reduce cost? Measure kinetics of polyelectrolyte catalyzed cellulose conversion as a function of polyelectrolyte structure Analyze data Conclusions: kinetics, structural functional relationships Generalize: Economic analysis to determine whether these catalysts reduce the cost of cellulosic ethanol Wyman Paper: Pretreatment has largest potential for cost reduction

8. 8 Finding The Solvable Question Key Adapted From William M.K. Trochim Cornell Start with an important big question Focus to solvable question Observe Analyze data Reach conclusions Generalize back to big problem Need to convince reviewers it is solvable Limits problems to ones the reviewers think they can solve

9. Persuasive Proposals In today’s competitive grants environment, “good” proposals seldom get funded; “excellent” proposals get funded Excellent proposals reflect the values of the sponsor. Proposal are persuasive when they address sponsor’s goals and objectives

10. General Proposal Process Agency issues proposal call (or solicitation window) Researchers prepare proposals and send them in. Agencies get at least 5 times as many proposals as they can fund Review process starts First decision triage in all agencies except NSF chem – is proposal worth reviewing (~50% of proposals lost) Remaining proposals ranked based largely only on info in proposal

11. Successful Proposals Proposals are funded when they express the priorities shared by the sponsor Make a convincing case to the reviewer Varies with the review panel Your job is to answer all of the questions in the proposal so they have no reason not to fund your project

12. Questions That a Proposal Must Answer Does the proposal: Show sufficient understanding of sponsor guidelines and priorities? Address well-documented problems? Show a good approach to the problem? Establish organizational/individual credibility?

13. Questions to Answer Does the proposal: Have an efficient time table? Indicate probable outcomes? Propose a reasonable budget? Identify the benefits of the project?

14. Fundable Proposals Must Make a Case In all Areas! Only 20% or less of new proposals funded. Reviewers are trying to find reasons to throw out proposals – you cannot give them one.

15. Timeline In theory…Grantwriting experts say it takes three years for a new grantwriter (including taking preliminary data) Solicitation issued 6 months to 1 year in advance Standing solicitation Proposal Submitted Review may take 6- 12 months Awards announced Typical Federal initial award 10/01

16. The Proposal Review Process Who will be reviewing? How will proposals be reviewed? How are proposals evaluated?

17. The Proposal Review Process Types of Reviews: Foundation Board Site Visit Program Staff Agency Staff Field Readers Panel Review Peer Review

18. How will Proposals be Reviewed? How much time did they have to read the application? Did you have a mail, panel or electronic review? Was a reviewer’s evaluation form used? Was a particular point scoring system used? Any special “red flags” to watch for? Was there a staff review after the peer review?

19. How Are Proposals Evaluated? Scored independently against the guidelines? Ranked against each other? Prioritized within sponsor funding categories? First come, first funded? On the basis of special criteria, e.g., geography?

20. Example Proposals that are reviewed by a committee Numeric values may be applied with a scoring tool The total score is 100 and sections are scored Description of need: 20 points Project Design: 25 points Feasibility: 20 points Community Involvement:10 points Portability: 5 points Subjective Evaluation: 20 points

21. NSF Review Mail review (chem) or panel review (chem eng) Typical reviewers 1 senior scientist in a related area Industrial representative Many assistant professors (want to learn the review process, impress the grant officer) Diversity representatives Women or minorities People from Epscor states People from smaller universities Different reviewers every review cycle

22. Typical DOE review Mail review or panel review Reviewers One older scientist One senior scientist in your area Two national lab scientists Senior scientist in related area 50% new reviewers every review cycle

23. NIH review Scored by a panel at Center for Scientific Review Panel membership posted and remains the same year to year http://www.drg.nih.gov/Roster_proto/sectionI.asphttp://www.drg.nih.gov/Roster_proto/sectionI.asp For chemistry or engineering proposals ½ chemists or engineers ½ physicians/medical researchers Traige – ignore 50% of the proposal Scores then compared to get funding decision If you are scored, panel will recommend changes, and you can resubmit

24. DARPA Review Panel Review Program Officer Often scientist from ranked school or national lab on leave Scientists from Military Labs Usually one of your competitors High level consultants (Usually NAE or NAS) Once panel selects proposals, head of DARPA still needs to say yes or no

25. Common Rejection Reasons Bad choice of problem The problem is of insufficient importance or is unlikely to produce any new or useful information The proposed research is based on a hypothesis that rests on insufficient evidence, is doubtful, or is unsound. The problem is more complex than the investigator appears to realize. Approach The proposed tests, or methods, or scientific procedures are unsuited to the stated objective. The description of the approach is too nebulous, diffuse, and lacking in clarity to permit adequate evaluation. Investigators The investigator does not have adequate experience or training, or both, for this research. The investigator appears to be unfamiliar with recent pertinent literature or methods, or both Source: Ernest M. Allen “Why Are Research Grant Applications Disapproved?” 132, 960 1532-1534.

26. Remember…. Value isn’t what you think it is. It’s what the reviewers perceive it to be. Successful grant writers understand the sponsor’s values and express that view in the proposal.

27. Example: Masel’s Left Handed Molecules What critical things would I need to include in the proposal to convince NSF, DOE, NIH, DARPA to fund the proposal

28. 28 Questions?