Statewide Professional Development and Grantsmanship Workshop

1
Statewide Professional Development and
Grantsmanship Workshop for Louisiana
Institutions of Higher Education
Learning Teaching, Research and Service
Southern University at New Orleans March 9,
2004 RESEARCH WORKSHOP
2
(No Transcript)
3
Email quigg_at_cs.unc.edu
Web page http//www.cs.unc.edu/quigg/
4
When did the federal government
become involved in
funding university research?
5
History External Support for University
Research in U.S.

• Before WWII

• Mainly internal sources

Agriculture

• Notable exception

• Morrill Act of 1862 Land-Grant Colleges
• 30,000 acres of federal land/congressional
  representative to each State

6
History External Support for University
Research in U.S.

• Sold to provide a perpetual endowment fund for

• at least one college where the leading object
  shall be, without excluding other scientific and
  classical studies and including military
  tactics, to teach such branches of learning as
  are related to agriculture and the mechanic
  arts

• Kentucky (50/acre) Cornell (5.50/acre)

7
History External Support for University
Research in U.S.

• Second Morrill Act of 1890

• In order to get , State had to show that race
  was not a criterion for admission to land-grant
  institution or
• Designate a separate land-grant college for
  blacks
• 1890 land-grants created all over the
  then- segregated South

8
(No Transcript)
9
(No Transcript)
10
History External Support for University
Research in U.S.

• Hatch Act of 1887 Agriculture Experiment
  Station
• Annual appropriation State match required

• Smith-Lever Act of 1914 Cooperative
  Extension Service
• Annual appropriation State match required
• Current federal from various acts gt 550
  million annually

11
History External Support for University
Research in U.S.

• During WWII

• University scientists mobilized to apply
  expertise to war effort

• National Defense Research Council
• Formed by FDR in June, 1940
• Forum for bringing university/industry/
  government scientists together
• 18 month head-start on Pearl Harbor

12
History External Support for University
Research in U.S.

• Office of Scientific Research and Defense
  (OSRD)
• May 1941
• Dr. Vannevar Bush, Director

• Mission to explore a possible government role
  to encourage future scientific progress.
• Civilian, not military, control

13
History External Support for University
Research in U.S.

• OSRD contracted work to other institutions
• Carnegie Institute of Technology Large Rocket
  Lab
• MIT Radiation Lab
• Western Electric and Bell Labs Sound
  Amplification

• Emphasis on concentrated, massive rapid
  development
• Production from model to field e.g., Japanese
  torpedo jammer developed in one week

14
History External Support for University
Research in U.S.

• Three critical secret projects pivotal to
  allied victory in WWII

• Atomic bomb (Manhattan project)
• Radar
• 1935 NRL ship radar
• 1942 MIT high-frequency, narrow-beam,
  high-resolution
• Manufactured by Sperry, Westinghouse, Philco
  (for aircraft)

15
History External Support for University
Research in U.S.

• Proximity (variable time) fuze

• Prior to WWII timed fuze or contact fuze
• Neither effective against highly maneuverable
  airplanes
• Section T Applied Physics Lab at Johns
  Hopkins University assigned task of developing
  proximity fuze for Navys 5 guns

16
History External Support for University
Research in U.S.

• Theory

• Fuze contains miniature radio
  transmitter-receiver
• Sends out signal
• When signal reflected back from target reaches
  a certain frequency (caused by proximity to
  target) a circuit closes firing a small charge
  which detonates projectile

17
History External Support for University
Research in U.S.

• Problems

• Components tiny glass vacuum tubes
• Force of 20,000 gs when fired (2800 ft./sec.
  muzzle velocity)
• 25,000 revolutions/minute through rifling
  grooves
• Moisture
• Self-destruct feature for dudes

18
History External Support for University
Research in U.S.

• Importance to war effort

• James V. Forrestal, Secretary of the Navy
  said, The proximity fuze has helped me blaze
  the trail to Japan. Without the protection this
  ingenious device has given the surface ships of
  the fleet, our westward push could not have been
  so swift and the cost in men and ships would
  have been immeasurably greater
• Prime Minister, Winston S. Churchill was
  quoted with These so- called proximity fuzes,
  made in the United States.., proved potent
  against the small unmanned aircraft (V-1) with
  which we were assailed in 1944.
• And Commanding General of the Third Army,
  George S. Patton said, The funny fuze won the
  Battle of the Bulge for us. I think that when
  all armies get this shell we will have to devise
  some new method of warfare.

19
History External Support for University
Research in U.S.

• Bushs final report The Endless Frontier
• Two principles for expanding R D in U.S.
  Universities
• Federal government as patron of science
• Government support should ensure a free rein of
  investigation by scientists into topics and
  methods of their choice

20
History External Support for University
Research in U.S.

• This report lead to the establishment of
  National Science Foundation (NSF) in 1950
• Independent government agency
• National Science Board
• 24 members plus director
• Appointed by President

21
History External Support for University
Research in U.S.

• Responsible for promoting science and
  engineering
• Six priority areas
• Mathematical Sciences
• Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences
• Biocomplexity in the Environment
• Information Technology Research
• Nanoscale Science and Engineering
• Learning for the 21st Century Workforce

22
Excerpts from the State of the Union Address
January 4, 1950
Sound bite Transcript "The value of our natural
resources is constantly being increased by the
progress of science. Research is finding new ways
of using such natural assets as minerals, sea
water, and plant life. In the peaceful
development of atomic energy, particularly, we
stand on the threshold of new wonders. The first
experimental machines for producing useful power
from atomic energy are now under construction. We
have made truly the first beginnings in this
field, but in the perspective of history, they
may loom larger than the first airplane, or even
the first tools that started man on the road to
civilization.
Harry S. Truman
23
KEY HISTORICAL DATES APRIL 27, 1950 Final
passage by House of Representatives of bill
creating the National Science Foundation. House
passed the original bill, H.R. 4846, on March 1
by 247-126 vote. APRIL 28, 1950 Final passage
of science bill by the Senate. Original Senate
bill, S.247, was passed on March 18. MAY 10,
1950 President Harry S. Truman signed the bill
creating the National Science Foundation. Truman
announced this signing in the morning from the
rear platform of a train in Pocatello,
Idaho. SEPTEMBER 27, 1950 NSF's first budget of
225,000 was approved by President
Truman. NOVEMBER 2, 1950 President Truman
announced his appointments to The National
Science Board. DECEMBER 12, 1950 The first
meeting took place of the National Science Board
in the White House.
24

• NSF by the Numbers
• NSF annual budget 4.789 billion (in Year
  2002)
• NSF's share of total annual federal spending
  for RD 4
• NSF's share of federal funding for all basic
  research done at academic institutions 23
• NSF's share of federal funding for basic
  academic research in physical sciences (36)
  environmental sciences (49) engineering (50)
  mathematics (72) computer science research
  (78) and anthropology (100).
• Number of organizations (colleges and
  universities, schools, nonprofit institutions,
  and small businesses) receiving NSF funds each
  year nearly 2,000
• Number of proposals that NSF competitively
  reviews each year 32,000
• Approx. number of total awards funded each
  year 20,000
• Approx. number of new awards funded each year
  10,000
• Number of reviewers (scientists and engineers)
  who evaluate proposals for NSF each year 50,000
• Number of reviews done each year 250,000
• Number of students supported through NSF's
  Graduate Research Fellowship Program since 1952
  36,000
• Number of people (teachers, students,
  researchers, post-doctorates and trainees) that
  NSF directly supports nearly 200,000

25
The Art of Grantsmanship By Jacob Kraicer

• Grantsmanship is the art of acquiring
  peer- reviewed research funding.

• Good writing will not save bad ideas, but bad
  writing can kill good ones.
• Quality of science in applications 10 below
  cutoff for funding is not significantly
  different from that in the 10 just above the
  cutoff.

26
Zen in the Art of Grantsmanship By L. Wade
Black
If you want to live with grants, you have to
live with rejection over and over and over
again. If you equate rejection with failure, or
if your belief in your project is weak enough
that a rejection can shake your faith in it or in
yourself, youre going to have an emotionally
rough and rocky grant seeking experience.
27
Zen in the Art of Grantsmanship By L. Wade
Black
When Im on a grants panel, the first thing I
look at is the one paragraph summary of the
project, then I look at the budget, then I look
at the individuals (organizations) history.
These three things strongly influence how I look
at the rest of the proposal. They arent all I
consider, but theyre very important!
28
TNT
Tims Ten No-Nonsense Tips for Successful
Proposal Writing
29
TNT 1 Think, plan, think again, then write a
description of your project

• Title and abstract

• Set first impression
• Used to route to appropriate reviewers
• Write them last
• In abstract
• Hypothesis (es) to be tested
• Describe how the proposal is directly related to
  the agencys mission/objectives
• Tell why the proposal is unique, important,
  significant and worth supporting
• Briefly describe research plan

30

• Proposed research

• Focused, original, novel, innovative and feasible
• Balance (sure and innovative/risky)
• State what is known, what is not known and why it
  is essential to find out
• Preliminary data/studies

• Research design and methods
• Put aims in logical/sequential order
• Brief rationale for each aim
• Outline the design/method to accomplish each aim
  (Why was proposed approach chosen?)
• Explain process for data collection, analysis and
  interpretation

31

• Provide tentative sequence/timeline for project
  (use diagrams or tables where appropriate)
• Document collaboration arrangements
• Letters confirming specific roles
  (PI/Institution)
• Biographic sketches

32
TNT 2 Learn as much as you can about the
agency, the program and the program officer.

• Search web sites, ask senior faculty, read

• Be sensitive to Agency Culture
• Terminology
• Accepted norms
• Methods of communication
• Different agencies interpret rules differently

33
TNT 2 Learn as much as you can about the
agency, the program and the program officer.

• Communicate with Program Officer
• Face-to-face is best (phone/e-mail is ok)
• Always make an appointment
• Many federal buildings locked

• Good way to start meeting
• Describe your project
• Ask if it fits within goals/budget of the
  program
• If no, does it fit elsewhere?
• Seek feedback
• Integrate feedback into proposal

34
TNT 2 Learn as much as you can about the
agency, the program and the program officer.

• GOAL Target your proposal to agency objectives
  and put your face on it!

35
TNT 3 Prepare a written proposal development
timeline and follow it.

• Work backward from the required mail date

• Assume that things will go wrong
• Key people go out of town
• FastLane gets clogged and slows down
• So Build time for the inevitable disasters
  into your timeline

36
TNT 3 Prepare and follow a written proposal
development timeline.

• Set deadlines for each component (budget,
  narrative)
• Assign responsibilities
• Be specific (who, what, when?)

• Pay special attention to items needed from
  outside your group
• Letters of support
• Subcontractor information

37
TNT 3 Prepare and follow a written proposal
development timeline.

• Information needed from subcontractor
• Intent to participate letter (co-signed by PI
  and institution)
• Work scope
• Budget
• Other (NICRA, current and pending support)

• Include subcontractor information in the
  package routed through your university

38
TNT 3 Prepare and follow a written proposal
development timeline.

• Schedule on-campus review
• Call ahead
• Send complicated budgets for early review
• Discuss any potential pit-falls
• Are you in FastLane?
• Is cost-sharing documented?
• Are there any non-standard university
  commitments?

• If you are new (or old and need it) ask for
  help.

39
TNT 4 When dealing with the mechanics of
developing a proposal, think inside the box.

• Follow the rules for format, forms and
  presentation precisely
• If they ask for project goals dont give
  them research aims.

40
Think inside the box

• Follow instructions exactly

• Page limit
• Type size, font, spacing
• Dont include appendices if not allowed
• Avoid abbreviations, acronyms and jargon
• Free of mechanical errors (spelling, typos,
  grammar)

• If you cant get the spelling right, how are you
  expected to get the research right.

• A sloppy application a sloppy scientist!

41
Think inside the box

• Be creative with the science
• Be a good bureaucrat with the format of the
  proposal

42
TNT 5 Agencies fund people, not just ideas.

• Of course the science is important, but
  ultimately people fund people they know and trust

• Key personnel section is vital
• Highlight recent training/experience of team
• Be honest, but this is not the place to be
  modest

43

• If you are inexperienced, team up with more
  experienced faculty
• Be Co-PI
• Tell me what company thou keepest, and Ill
  tell you what thou art. Cervantes

• Work to develop dynamic collaborations
• Warning you may be a junior partner, but are
  still a partner, not an employee

44
TNT 5 Agencies fund people, not just ideas.

• Work to become better known
• Professional organizations
• Publications in journals
• Serve as proposal reviewer
• Become known by the people doing the cutting
  edge research
• Letters of support
• Future collaborators subcontracting
  opportunities

45
TNT 5 Agencies fund people, not just ideas.

• Develop a reputation for doing what you said
  you would do
• Periodic and final reports

• But also with the conduct of your research
• Example Senior faculty completed research
  obligation without funding before submitting
  next proposal

46
TNT 5 Agencies fund people, not just ideas.
Dont let this be said of you The President
has kept all of the promises he intended to
keep. Clinton aide George Stephanopolous
47
TNT 6 Quality Trumps Quantity Every Time

• Dont attach filler information not relevant
  to evaluation criteria
• Remember, some poor reviewer has to wade
  through it and
• Many agencies now allow reviewers the option of
  not looking at information in appendices

48
TNT 6 Quality Trumps Quantity Every Time

• Always consider the reviewer
• Assume reviewer is in a somewhat related field,
  not an expert directly in your area
• Often unpaid
• Reviews are over and above normal job duties
• Reviews done in bits-and-pieces (evenings,
  weekends, etc.)
• Put yourself in the role of the reviewer
• Make his/her job easier
• Information should be where it is expected to
  be and in the expected format

49
(Except with proposal budgets)
TNT 7 Budget should be the right size,
neither too large nor too small.

• Agencies/Program officers want to use their
  funds wisely

• Budget novices may ask for
• Too little believing that they have a better
  chance to be funded or
• Too much anticipating cuts by padding

• Both can (and often do) backfire!

50
TNT 7 Budget should be the right size,
neither too large nor too small.

• Reviewers expect realistic, well-documented
  budgets that relate directly to the scope of
  work

• Common mistake many PIs dont pay enough
  attention to the budget justification!
• Allocable related to the project and
  necessary to accomplish the work scope
• Allowable permitted under the various rules
  governing this award

51
TNT 7 Budget should be the right size,
neither too large nor too small.

• Reviewers should never have to ask
• Why are there five graduate students? What
  will they be doing?
• Why is the EEs effort 20?
• How does the travel budget relate to the
  project?
• What will they do with all that equipment?

• Its the PIs responsibility to answer the
  allocability question for all budget items and
  the place for doing so is the budget
  justification!

52
TNT 7 Budget should be the right size,
neither too large nor too small.

• If the agency agrees to fund your project at a
  reduced level
• The scope of work should be adjusted or
• Either voluntary cost-sharing or clearly
  defined other contributions should be
  documented

• To do otherwise casts doubt on the
  accuracy/integrity of your original budget!

53
TNT 8 Criticism from the right sources can be
helpful.

• Get colleagues to review and critique your
  proposal before it is submitted
• Build-in time for this on your proposal
  development timeline
• Value it but
• Run it through your sifter
• Decide whether/how to incorporate it

54
TNT 8 Criticism from the right sources can be
helpful.

• Build positive relationships with
  departmental/university research administration
  staff

• Rely upon them to catch problems with
• Forms
• Formats
• Allowability of cost
• Budget accuracy

55
TNT 9 When the time comes to push the button,
dont be afraid even if the proposal isnt
perfect.

• If you wait to have children till you can
  afford them, youll never have them
• Likewise, if you wait till a proposal is
  perfect, youll never submit one
• And, if you never submit one you dramatically
  reduce your chances of getting one funded!

56
TNT 9 When the time comes to push the button,
dont be afraid even if the proposal isnt
perfect.

• Dont push the river. It will flow by itself.

• Be patient, many funding agencies take about
  six months to complete process
• It is considered inappropriate to contact the
  program officer while a proposal is under review
• However, if the time for decisions listed in
  the program announcement has passed, it is
  acceptable to inquire to see if the timeline for
  review has been revised

57
TNT 9 When the time comes to push the button,
dont be afraid even if the proposal isnt
perfect.

• Successful proposals usually get a call from
  the program officer

• Rejections usually come by snail mail or e-mail

58
TNT 10 Treat every rejected proposal as an
opportunity to learn.

• Many good, fundable proposals are not funded
  because the agency ran out of money not
  because it was a poor proposal
• Request a copy of the reviewers comments
  (and numeric score where applicable)

59
TNT 10 Treat every rejected proposal as an
opportunity to learn.

• Accept the comments as valuable input
• The reviewer may not have understood your
  point.
• Whose job is it to make them understand?
• Obviously its yours!
• How can you more clearly communicate your
  message?
• The reviewer may have found holes in your
  presentation - plug them!

60
TNT 10 Treat every rejected proposal as an
opportunity to learn.
Remember Proposal writing is an iterative
process. Many successful proposals were not
funded on their first submission!
61
Dont give up! Proposal writing is a learned
skill.