National Science Foundation

1
National Science Foundation

• Up-date
• November 2001

2
NSF

• Independent Agency
• Supports basic research and education
• Uses grant mechanism
• National Science Board is the governing body

3
NSF Strategic Goals

• Every program falls under one of the following
  strategic goals
• People a diverse, internationally competitive
  and globally-engaged workforce
• Ideas Discovery across frontiers and
  connections in service to society
• Tools Accessible, state-of-the-art information
  bases and shared tools

4
Whats Happening

• FY 2002 up 8.2Budget Emphases
• Core Research Math increase not approved
• Increase Graduate Fellowship Stipends
• 20,500
• Initiatives for National Priorities
• Biocomplexity, Information Technology Research,
  Nanoscale S E, Learning for the 21st Century
  Workforce

5
Information Technology Research

• Large-scale networking
• High-end computing
• Computational science and infrastructure
• High-confidence software and systems
• Human-computer interaction and information
  management
• Software design and productivity
• Implications of IT

6
Nanoscale S. E

• Biosystems at the nanoscale
• Nanoscale structures and novel phenomena
• Device and system architecture
• Nanoscale processes in the environment
• Modeling and simulation at the nanoscale.

7
Biocomplexity in the Environment

• Dynamics of coupled natural and human systems
• Coupled biogeochemical cycles
• Genome-enabled environmental science and
  engineering
• Instrumentation development for environmental
  activities
• Materials use science, engineering, and society

8
Learning for the 21st Century Workforce

• Multidisciplinary learning research
• IT-enabled tools for learning
• Link formal and informal education
• Centers for Learning and Teaching

9
Other Highlights

• Childrens Research Initiative
• How children learn and how they learn in the
  surroundings in which they grow up
• Plant Genome Research
• Science and Technology Centers
• H1-B Visa Program - from HB-1 visas fund NSF
  programs
• Graduate Teaching Fellowships for K-12

10
Types of NSF Programs

• Cross-cutting
• Directorate
• Solicited
• Unsolicited

11
Small Grants for Exploratory Research (SGER)

• Novel untested ideas new research areas urgency
• Unorthodox, too new might not have a favorable
  review Einstein would not have been funded
  outside of SGER
• CALL
• Abbreviated proposal limited amount
• Expedited review very fast, program officer
  reviews
• Hot topics homeland security, anthrax

12
Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with
Industry

• Goals
• Catalyze industry-university partnerships
• Encourage innovative application of academes
  intellectual capabilities
• Bring industrys perspective and integrative
  skills to academe
• Promote high quality research and broaden
  educational experiences in industrial settings

13
GOALI Guidelines

• Proposal Requirements
• Co-PI from industry
• Statement describing the industrial RD
  contribution
• Specific plan for industry/university interaction
• Fairly high success rate
• Cost-sharing by industry
• U. S. institutions of higher ed that confer
  degrees in areas that NSF funds can submit
  proposals for full-time faculty
• Only U.S. citizens or permanent residents are
  eligible

14
Research in Undergraduate Institutions (RUI)

• Vast majority of practicing scientists come from
  undergraduate institutions
• No specific set asides
• Goals
• Support high quality research with active
  involvement of undergraduates
• Strengthen the research environment in
  undergraduate institutions
• Promote integration of research and education in
  undergraduate institutions
• Proposal Types
• Regular research
• Multi-user instrumentation
• Research Opportunity Awards (ROA)
• Good Science/Good Research Design

15
Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) -
Sites

• Goals
• Initiate and conduct undergraduate
  research-participation projects
• Create research environment with strong
  faculty-student interaction
• Recruitment
• Significant percentage of students from outside
  host institution
• Deadline September 15 of each year

16
REU - Supplements

• Goal
• Attract undergraduates into science by providing
  an active research experience
• Guidelines
• Add one or two students to an active ongoing
  project
• Must be U.S. citizen or permanent resident
• No indirect costs (administrative allowance of
  25 of student stipend)
• Awards 6K
• Ask program officer about due dates
• No set aside
• Can include travel costs to a conference
• Fairly quick turn around

17
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

18
CAREER

• 5 years, minimum 500,000
• Deadline, undefined, generally mid-July
• Review process varies by directorate
• Eligibility 1st 4 years of first tenure-track
  position
• Include letter of support or endorsement from
  department chair

19
CAREER Development Plan

• Should include
• The objectives and significance of the proposed
  integrated research and education activities
  Emphasis on integrated
• The relation of the research to the current state
  of knowledge in the field an of the education
  activities to the current state of knowledge of
  effective teaching and learning in ones 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 PIs career goals
  and job responsibilities and the goals of his/her
  institution and
• A summary of prior research and education
  accomplishments
• The education plan should not be something you
  would do anyway

20
ADVANCE

• The representation of women drops as you go up
  inequities in space allocation time and rank
• Goal
• Increase the representation and advancement of
  women in academic SE careers. Thereby
  contributing to the development of a more diverse
  SE workforce

21
ADVANCE

• Three Types of Awards
• Institutional Transformation address
  institutional climate, ways to assist transition
  from tenure track-tenure such as workshops for
  faculty development
• EX UW Center for Institutional Change
  mentoring and faculty development
• Leadership small
• Recognize contributions by individuals and
  institutions, and enable further progress
• Fellows 3 years
• Enable promising individuals to establish or
  re-establish full-time independent academic
  careers after
• An extended postdoc, an extended interruption for
  family, or a spouse relocates

22
Major Research Instrumentation

• Goal to increase access to scientific and
  engineering equipment in US
• Instrument acquisition or development
• 3 proposals/institution one must be for
  development if consortium, must exist before the
  proposal
• Award size 100,000 - 2million SBE could be
  lower
• Cost share for us nothing on first 100,000,
  30 after that, on equipment only
• Can upgrade components in a system
• Due January 24, 2002

23
Types of Proposal Submission

• No deadlines submit anytime
• Deadlines submit before or on
• Target dates could submit after date and still
  be reviewed if not too late
• Submission windows submit between two dates
• Preliminary proposals short, cuts out the
  things they arent interested in

24
Merit Review Process

• Merit Review Criteria
• Intellectual Merit Criterion
• Broader Impacts Criterion
• Should address these directly in the proposal

25
Intellectual Merit- Prove it without the
Adjectives

• How important is the a proposed activity to
  advancing knowledge and understanding within its
  own field or across different fields?
• How well qualified is the proposer- reviewer may
  comment on quality or 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?

26
Broader Impacts

• 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?
• To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure
  for research and education, such as facilities,
  instrumentation, networks and partnerships?
• Will the results be disseminated broadly to
  enhance scientific and technological
  understanding?
• What may be the benefits of the proposed activity
  to society?

27
Who Reviews?

• References listed in proposal
• Program Officers knowledge of whos doing what
• Reviewer files
• Technical programs from professional societies
• Recent Authors in Scientific and Engineering
  journals
• S E abstracts by computer search
• Reviewer recommendations
• Investigators suggestions
• You can suggest names who are well qualified
• You can names you would prefer not to review the
  proposal

28
Role of the Review Panel

• Review board reviews and scores
• Program director recommends who gets funded
  looks at balancing priorities, risks, budget
  constraints, quality
• Program director really calls the shots
• Important to get to know them

29
Funding decisions

• Feedback to PI
• Informal notification
• Formal notification
• Scope of work and budget discussions

30
Reasons for denying NSF proposals

• Lack of a new or original idea
• Diffuse, superficial, or unfocused project plan
• Lack of knowledge or published, relevant work
• Lack of experience in essential methodology
• Uncertainty concerning future direction
• Questionable reasoning in experimental approach
• Absence of acceptable scientific rationale
• Unrealistically large amount of work
• Lack of sufficient detail
• Uncritical approach
• Lack of funds
• Good Proposal just not a competitive proposal

31
A True Story

• Once upon a time there was an NSF reviewer who
  asked a colleague, who was familiar with the
  area, to look at the grant he was reviewing and
  give him his opinion. The colleague copied the
  grant and in the next submission turned it in as
  his own. On his review panel was the author of
  the original grant. What do you think happened?

32
Answer

• While the colleague was guilty of plagiarism, the
  original reviewer was also cited for divulging a
  confidential grant application to someone outside
  the review panel.
• THE END