NSERC University Information Session Simon Fraser University

1
(No Transcript)
2
NSERC University Information Session Simon Fraser
University

• Sandra OConnor, Team Leader, Research Grants,
  NSERC
• Stephen Holdcroft, Analytical Physical
  Chemistry GSC, NSERC
• Department of Chemistry, Simon Fraser University
• September 29, 2009

3
Agenda

• NSERC Updates
• Strategic Review
• Program Updates
• Discovery Grants
• New Evaluation Process
• Conference Model
• How to prepare a grant application
• Important news from your grants office

4
NSERC Updates - Regional Offices

• Ensure a visible presence in the regions and
  bring NSERC closer to students, researchers and
  industry
• Raise awareness of NSERCs activities and promote
  participation in the programs
• Create links between academic and private sectors
• Promote science and math education

Ontario Regional Office (Opening soon) Suite
250 2655 North Sheridan Way Mississauga, ON L5K
2P8
5
NSERC Updates - Strategic Review

• Annual process each year ¼ of federal
  organizations are involved
• In 2008, 21 organizations participated
• Principles
• Review need and impact of program on the
  community it serves
• Federal role and fit to NSERCs mandate
• Alignment with the governments ST strategy
• Value for money (efficiency and effectiveness),
  management performance and accountability
• Results announced in Budget 2009

6
Strategic Review Outcome for NSERC

• Programs to be terminated
• Centres for Research in Youth, Science Teaching
  and Learning (CRYSTAL)
• University Faculty Awards (UFA)
• Research Capacity Development (RCD) program
• Special Research Opportunity (SRO) program
• Intellectual Property Mobilization (IPM) program
• Programs to be reduced
• Postgraduate Scholarships program PGS-M limited
  to 1 year
• Major Resources Support (MRS) program
• Indirect Costs Program

7
Federal Budget 2009 ST Expenditures

• Further Developing a Highly Skilled Workforce
• Canada Graduate Scholarship (Temporary Increase)
  87.5 million / 3 yrs
• NSERC 35 mil. CIHR 35 mil. SSHRC
  17.5 mil.
• Industrial RD Internships 3.5 million / 2 yrs
• Helping Small Medium Sized Companies Innovate
• Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP)
  200 million / 2 yrs
• A More Sustainable Environment
• Clean Energy Technologies 1 billion / 5 yrs
• Atomic Energy of Canada 351 million

8
NSERC Budget 2009-10(millions of dollars)
Total 1,054
9
Discovery Programs Budget 2009-10(millions of
dollars)
Total 402.6
10
Program Updates - Collaborative Research And
Training Experience (CREATE)

• Support the training of teams of outstanding
  students and PDF through innovative training
  programs that
• encourage collaborative and integrative
  approaches, and address significant scientific
  challenges and
• facilitate the transition of new researchers from
  trainees to productive employees in the Canadian
  workforce.
• Encourage one or more of the following
• acquisition and development of important
  professional skills (complement their
  qualifications and technical skills)
• student mobility between Canadian universities
  or internationally as appropriate and
• interdisciplinary research.

11
CREATE Competition Whats New for 2009/10

• Two stage process LOI and Full Application
• Quotas of LOIs that can be submitted to NSERC
• 6 LOIs from large universities
• 4 LOIs from medium universities
• 2 LOIs from small universities
• External peer review on full applications only
• One university letter of support (instead of 3)

12
Program Updates - Vanier Scholarships Program
Description

• To attract retain world-class doctoral
  students.
• Tri-Agency program supporting students who
  achieved outstanding success in their studies and
  who will pursue a doctoral program in a Canadian
  University
• 50,000 / yr for 24 or 36 months
• Open to Canadian citizens, permanent residents of
  Canada, and international students
• For more information, please visit
  www.vanier.gc.ca

13
Michael Smith Foreign Study Supplements

• For those holding an active CGS (M or D) award
• To spend a research period abroad (3-6 months)
• Up to 6,000 to offset the costs, including
  travel and accommodation
• NSERCs share 80 (out of 250)
• Universities to be allocated a set number of
  supplements
• Two application deadlines per year
• June 10 and October 10

14
NSERC Postgraduate Scholarships Program (PGS)

• PGS program will be aligned with CGS program to a
  duration of one year support at the Masters
  level
• Focus on PhD level to increase PhD graduates in
  Canadas workforce

15
The Discovery Grants (DG) Program

• Excellence of Discovery Grants Program validated
  in two major independent reviews
• Strong support for existing program criteria to
  measure excellence
• Recommendations for enhancement
• New rating principles and measures to allow the
  peer review system to respond more dynamically
  to applicants performance
• New committee structure to give all applicants a
  higher quality, more focused, review (in 2010)

16
New Evaluation Process - Principles

• Two-step process separating merit review and
  funding recommendations
• Merit assessment based on the same criteria as in
  the past
• Excellence of the Researcher
• Merit of the Proposal
• Contributions to the Training of HQP
• Funding recommendations - comparable funding for
  those with similar overall ratings within a group
• Greater consistency in process between Evaluation
  Groups and between competition years

17
Discovery Grant Indicators
18
Two-Step Review Process
19
Comparing 2009 and 2008 CompetitionsChange in
Grant Amount
2009
2008
20
All DG Program Strengths Retained

• The merit evaluation criteria are unchanged
• Supports a program of research, giving researcher
  freedom to pursue most promising directions
• Continuity of funding for highest performers
• Continued commitment to support meritorious
  early-career researchers
• Overall program budget is stable

21
GSC Structure Review Towards the FutureThe
Conference Model
22
The Conference Model

• Current 28 GSCs replaced by 12 Evaluation Groups
  (EG)
• The conference model has been previously
  implemented by some Grant Selection Committees
  (GSCs)
• It is similar to a scientific conference, where
  several sessions are occurring in parallel
  streams
• Members assigned to various sections on basis of
  match between members expertise and the subject
  matter
• Members may participate in reviews in several EGs
  
• Some sections may be at the interface between two
  Evaluation Groups and reviewed by an appropriate
  combination of members from both groups

23
New Evaluation Groups

• Genes, Cells and Molecules (1501)
• Biological Systems and Functions (1502)
• Evolution and Ecology (1503)
• Chemistry (1504)
• Physics (1505)
• Geosciences (1506)
• Computer Science (1507)
• Mathematics and Statistics (1508)
• Civil, Industrial and Systems Engineering (1509)
• Electrical and Computer Engineering (1510)
• Materials and Chemical Engineering (1511)
• Mechanical Engineering (1512)

24
How Does the Conference Model Work?
25
Sections Units Related by Subject Matter and
Member Expertise
A4 Research Topic Keywords Subject
areas Something else Keyword Buzzword
A3 Research Topic Keywords Subject
areas Something else Keyword Buzzword
Section A3-1
A1 Research Topic Keywords Subject
areas Something else Keyword Buzzword
A5 Research Topic Keywords Subject
areas Something else Keyword Buzzword
A2 Research Topic Keywords Subject
areas Something else Keyword Buzzword
Section A2-1
Section A1
A6 Research Topic Keywords Subject
areas Something else Keyword Buzzword
A9 Research Topic Keywords Subject
areas Something else Keyword Buzzword
A10 Research Topic Keywords Subject
areas Something else Keyword Buzzword
A11 Research Topic Keywords Subject
areas Something else Keyword
A8 Research Topic Keywords Subject
areas Something else Keyword Buzzword
Section A2-2
A12 Research Topic Keywords Subject
areas Something else Keyword Buzzword
A16 Research Topic Keywords Subject
areas Something else Keyword Buzzword
A15 Research Topic Keywords Subject
areas Something else Keyword
A13 Research Topic Keywords Subject
areas Something else Keyword Buzzword
26
Advantages of the Conference Model

• Provides a system with increased flexibility to
  ensure that applications have the best possible
  review
• Reduces/eliminates the need for written
  consultations between two groups such
  applications can be reviewed by a joint section
  and benefit from a larger pool of expertise than
  in the current system
• Enables "traditional" disciplines or well-defined
  areas to remain together

27
Applying to the Discovery Grants Program
28
To Be Eligible, You Must

• Hold, or have a firm offer of, an academic
  appointment at a Canadian institution (minimum
  three-year term position) as of September 1, 2010
• Be in a position that requires independent
  research and allows supervision of Highly
  Qualified Personnel (HQP)
• Spend a minimum of six months per year at an
  eligible Canadian institution (if holding a
  position outside Canada)
• Guidelines can be found on NSERCs website

29
Eligibility of Subject Matter

• Discovery Grants support
• Research programs in the natural sciences and
  engineering (NSE)
• Interdisciplinary research that is predominantly
  in NSE
• Significance, impact, advancement of knowledge or
  practical application in NSE
• Eligibility Guidelines can be found on NSERCs
  website for
• Health Research
• Interdisciplinary Research

30
Notification of Intent (NOI) to Apply for a
Discovery Grant (Form 180)

• Deadline August 1
• Can have adverse consequences if not submitted
• NOI includes
• Form 180, listing up to 5 Research Topics
• List of Contributions (2003-2009)
• List of Co-Applicants and their Contributions
  (for Team Grants)
• Facilitates preliminary assignment to an
  Evaluation Group and selection of external
  referees

31
Life Cycle of a DG Application
August 1 Submission of Form 180
Mid-September Assignment to Evaluation Group and
Referees
November 1 Submission of Grant Application
Mid-November Mail-out to External Referees
Early-December Group Members receive applications
February Grants Competition
March April Announcement of Results
32
Evaluation of Discovery Grant Applications

• Stephen Holdcroft, Chemistry Evaluation Group
• Analytical Physical Chemistry GSC, since July
  2006
• Department of Chemistry, Simon Fraser University

33
At the Meeting
Reader
2nd Internal
Conflicts?
Reader
Excellence Exceptional Outstanding Outstanding Out
standing Very Strong
Merit Outstanding Very Strong Very Strong Very
Strong Strong
HQP Outstanding Outstanding Outstanding Very
Strong Strong
P.O.
COR Factor H H N N L
Chair
1st Internal
Reader
34
Levels of Review

• External Reviewers
• GSC members rank order five external referees
• NSERC contacts first three on the list if cannot
  get positive response, will proceed to subsequent
  name
• At least one from applicants list on Form 180
• At least one not from applicants list
• Recent contributions used to ensure no conflict
  exists with external referees

35
Levels of Review

• Generally, at least five to seven GSC members
  will read each proposal
• One primary reviewer
• One secondary reviewer
• Three to five additional readers
• All GSC members have an equal vote
• MOST of them will not be experts in the field!
• 10 minutes to discuss each proposal!

36
Discovery Grant Evaluation Criteria

• Scientific or engineering excellence of the
  researcher(s)
• Merit of the proposal
• Contribution to the training of highly qualified
  personnel (HQP)
• 6 evaluation indicators for each component
• Exceptional
• Outstanding
• Very Strong
• Strong
• Moderate
• Insufficient

This past competition, each of three assessments
had equal weight. All proposals binned. 16
bins EEE was top III was lowest
37
Assigned Ratings, All GSCs - 2009 DG Competition
38
Scientific or Engineering Excellence of the
Researcher(s)

• Knowledge, expertise and experience
• Contribution to research
• Importance of contributions
• Complementarity of expertise and synergy (for
  team applications)

39
Merit of the Proposal

• Originality and innovation
• Significance and expected contribution to
  research
• Clarity and scope of objectives
• Clarity and appropriateness of methodology
• Feasibility
• Extent to which the proposal addresses all
  relevant issues
• Relationship to other sources of funding.

40
Contributions to the Training of HQP

• Quality and extent of contributions during the
  last six years
• Appropriateness of the proposal for the training
  of HQP
• Enhancement of training arising from a
  collaborative or interdisciplinary environment
  (where appropriate)
• Read the Policy and Guidelines on the Assessment
  of Contributions to Research and Training

41
Reporting HQP
42
FORM 101 YOUR GRANT PROPOSAL
F100 YOUR RESEARCH PROFILE
Merit of the proposal
Excellence of the Researcher
Training of HQP
Need for funds
43
Relative Cost of Research

• Assessing the Relative Cost of Research within
  the Evaluation Group
• Low, Normal or High
• Factors considered include Salaries and
  benefits Equipment and/or facilities Materials
  and supplies Travel Dissemination
• Appropriateness of and justification for the
  budget
• Relationship to other sources of funding

44
Special Considerations

• All applications are evaluated against the same
  expectations in terms of the quality of the
  contributions that have been (during the past 6
  years) or will be produced
• Special circumstances that Evaluation Groups may
  consider
• Delays in Research and Dissemination of Research
  Results
• Researchers from Small Institutions and/or
  Different Provincial Research Support
  Environments
• Adjunct and Emeritus Professors

45
Grant Proposal Tips

• GSC members reading between 60 to 100 proposals
  between December 20 and February 1 (DGs and
  RTIs)
• 10 minutes of discussion per proposal during
  discussion week
• First and second readers assigned based on
  self-identified high or moderate comfort ratings
  based on Form 180
• Speak to the nonspecialist readers of your
  proposal
• Divide proposal into labelled sections
• Ensure figures are sufficiently large to be
  legible
• Do not assume that readers will get colour/high
  resolution figures in their copies of your grant
  proposal!

46
Grant Proposal Tips
Form 101

• Free format component
• 5 pages for proposal 1 page for references
• Extra pages will be removed!
• Some grant writers save space by using different
  symbols to direct readers to citations in Form
  100
• Proposals with vision excitement that take
  research into new directions will be ranked
  higher than modest logical extensions of the
  grantees previous work
• distinction between v. strong and higher versus
  strong moderate for Merit of Proposal

47
Grant Proposal Tips
Form 101

• Write summary in plain language
• Provide a progress report on related research
• 2 pages max!
• Position the research within the field
• Articulate short- and long-term objectives
• Proposal must describe a program of research not
  simple projects
• Provide a detailed methodology
• Speaks to applicants expertise to carry out
  proposal AND to access to required resources as
  well as to suitability of methodology to address
  fundamental questions
• Proposal should encompass a minimum of 3 pages
• Indicate roles for HQP in various aspects of
  proposal
• speaks to appropriateness for HQP training at
  various levels)

48
Grant Proposal Tips
Form 101

• Describe plans for quality HQP training
• embed in proposal itself who will do what
  component
• Prepare realistic budget
• Discuss relationships to other research support
• e.g. CHIR very important if you have substantial
  from other sources address in detail
• Consider recent evaluation comments/
  recommendations (previous Messages to Applicant)
• GSC members do not have previous NSERC proposals
  on hand BUT Program Officer will read out
  previous Messages to Applicant upon request
• Best proposals addressed previous criticisms
  upfront

49
Personal Data Form Tips
Form 100

• List all sources of support
• Describe five most significant research
  contributions
• Can be individual papers or groups of papers
• List all other research contributions (2003-09)
• Describe contributions to HQP training (2003-09)
• Describe nature of HQP studies (graduate/undergrad
  uate/postdoc/technician)
• Highlight exceptional students/postdocs
• Clearly define your role in any collaborative
  research and joint HQP training
• Give other evidence of impact of work
• Explain any delays in research activity or
  particular circumstances that might have affected
  productivity or contributions to HQP training

50
Personal Data Form Tips
Form 100

• BOLD names of HQP who are co-authors in
  publications
• Clearly identify NSERC-supported HQP/publications
  if you have funding from other sources (e.g.
  CHIR)
• Make certain that your sample contributions are
  NSERC-funded if possible
• Make certain that number of HQP listed in matrix
  on page 1 tallies with explicit reporting of HQP
• Undergraduate students ARE important HQP
  include them in the explicit reporting of HQP!

51
Personal Data Form Tips
Form 100

• Include invited seminars and conference
  attendance as well as awards (goes towards
  Excellence of Researcher and demonstrating Impact
  of Work)
• Include participation in outreach programs (goes
  towards Excellence of Researcher)

52
A Complete Discovery Grant Application Includes

• An Application for a Grant (Form 101) with
  supporting documentation
• A Personal Data Form (Form 100) for applicant and
  all co-applicants
• Include samples of Research Contributions
  (reprints, pre-prints, thesis chapters,
  manuscripts, patents, technical reports, etc.)
• - These go to external reviewers and to first and
  second internal readers
• Be sure to include all required Appendices

53
Research Tools and Instruments (RTI) - Category 1

• Deadline date October 25
• Ongoing moratorium on Categories 2 and 3
• NSERC will accept requests up to 150,000
  (equipment value can be up to 250,000)
• Must already hold or be submitting an application
  for an NSERC research grant (not necessarily a
  Discovery Grant)
• RTIs evaluated by a subcommittee of GSC
• Evaluators provide a forced ranking of proposals
  to program officers in early January
• Review outcome of ranked RTIs at end of
  competition week

54
RTI Evaluation Criteria

• Describe the research that will be done with the
  equipment
• Explain the need and urgency of the request
• Justify each item
• Illustrate the suitability of the proposed
  equipment for research program
• Indicate the impact on HQP training
• Give alternative configurations and pricing
  options

55
Final Advice

• Use the 2009 Web version of the forms and Guide
• Read How to Prepare a Winning DG Proposal
• Consult the Peer Review Manual (Chapter 6)
• Read all instructions carefully and follow
  presentation standards
• Remember that more than one audience reads your
  application
• Ask colleagues and/or your Research Grants Office
  for comments on your application
• Read other successful proposals
• Ensure completeness of application

56
NSERC Contacts
57
Finally

• You can help us help yousend us your success
  stories
• Upcoming cover publications
• International awards

58
News from the Research Grants Office