The National Science Foundation: Supporting Basic Science Research in the United States for over 50

1
The National Science Foundation Supporting Basic
Science Research in the United States for over 50
years
Sonia Esperança, Ph. D. Program Director,
Division of Earth Sciences
2
Historical Notes

• July 1945 President Roosevelt and Dr. Vannevar
  Bush exchanged letters
• Science The Endless Frontier - document that
  makes the recommendation to start a new agency to
  fund basic science
• Act of 1947 Bill introduced to Congress to
  create new agency vetoed by President Truman
• 1947-1950 some erosion of the ambitious vision
  proposed in Science - The Endless Frontier
• Act of 1950 - established the National Science
  Foundation to promote the progress of science to
  advance the national health, prosperity, and
  welfare to secure the national defense and for
  other purposes. The President approved the act on
  May 10, 1950.

Dr. Vannevar Bush
3
What NSF Does

• With an annual budget of about 5.92 billion, we
  are the funding source for approximately 20
  percent of all federally supported basic research
  conducted by America's colleges and universities.
  In many fields such as mathematics, computer
  science and the social sciences, NSF is the major
  source of federal backing.

4
NSFs Organization

• NSF leadership has two major components
• a director who oversees NSF staff and management
  responsible for program creation and
  administration, merit review, planning, budget
  and day-to-day operations
• a 24-member National Science Board (NSB) of
  eminent individuals that meets six times a year
  to establish the overall policies of the
  foundation. The director and all Board members
  serve six year terms. Each of them, as well as
  the NSF deputy director, is appointed by the
  President of the United States and confirmed by
  the U.S. Senate.
• NSF workforce - 1,200 career employees, 150
  scientists from research institutions on
  temporary duty, 200 contract workers and the
  staff of the NSB office and the Office of the
  Inspector General. Unlike other agencies, NSF
  does not maintain their own research laboratories.

5
Growth of NSF

• 1950 - NSF starts with a budget of U151,000
• In 1952, the NSF had the resources to fund only
  28 research grants - budget of 3.5 million
  dollars
• In 2007 the Foundation funded more than 11,400
  new research grants (of 44,500 research grant
  requests)

The budget request for Fiscal Year 2008 is U6.43
billion.
6
How are decisions made and who makes them?
7
NSFs Merit Review Process

• The great majority of NSF proposals are
  peer-reviewed either by ad hoc mail reviewers
  (10), panel committee (50) or both (32).
• Program Directors make a recommendation to award
  or decline based on the input from the peer
  reviewers.
• Division Directors agree or not with this
  recommendation.
• Financial Officers make the official award
  recommendation.
• Committee of Visitors looks at the details of the
  Program process and outcomes and makes
  recommendations for improvement if needed.

8
NSFs Merit Review Process
9
Proposal Preparation and Submission

• Program Solicitations are prepared by Program
  Officers (scientific staff)
• Published in the Website at least 3-months in
  advance of deadline
• Proposals are submitted by Organizations on
  behalf of the Investigators before due date

10
Proposal Review and Processing

• Program Directors and Division Directors are
  government employees or temporary academics that
  have scientific background
• Program Directors have autonomy. They select
  reviewers, panel members and they are responsible
  for balancing input from all sources

11
NSFs Merit Review Criteria

• What is the intellectual merit of the proposed
  activity?
• 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,
  original, or potentially transformative concepts?
  
• How well conceived and organized is the proposed
  activity?
• Is there sufficient access to resources?

12
NSFs Merit Review Criteria

• What are the broader impacts of the proposed
  activity?
• How well does the activity advance discovery and
  understanding while promoting teaching, training,
  and learning?
• How well does the proposed 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?
• Will the results be disseminated broadly to
  enhance scientific and technological
  understanding?
• What may be the benefits of the proposed activity
  to society?

13
Types of Reviews

• Ad hoc Mail Review only
• Panel Review plus Ad hoc Review
• Panel Review only
• Internal Review Only by NSF Program Officers
  (e.g. Small Grants for Exploratory Research)

14
Reviewer Selection

• Types of reviewers recruited
• Reviewers with specific content expertise
• Reviewers with general science or education
  expertise
• Sources of reviewers
• Program Officers knowledge of the research area
• References listed in proposal
• Recent professional society programs
• Computer searches of SE journal articles related
  to the proposal
• Reviewer recommendations included in proposal or
  sent by email - proposers are invited to either
• Suggest persons they believe are especially well
  qualified to review the proposal.
• Identify persons they would prefer not review the
  proposal.

15
Role of the Peer Reviewer

• Review all proposal materials and consider
• The two NSF merit review criteria and any program
  specific criteria.
• The adequacy of the proposed project plan
  including the budget, resources, timeline.
• The priorities of the NSF program in the field.
• The potential risks and benefits of the project.
• Make independent written comments on the quality
  of the proposal content.
• Each reviewed proposal gets at least three
  individual peer reviews

16
Role of the Peer Review Panel

• Discuss the merits of the proposal with other
  panelists who reviewed the proposal.
• Write a summary proposal review based on
  discussion.
• Some panels may be supplemented with ad hoc
  reviewers if additional expertise is needed.

17
Avoiding Conflicts of Interest

• Primary purpose is to remove or limit the
  influence of ties to an applicant institution or
  investigator that could affect reviewer advice
• Second purpose is to preserve the trust of the
  scientific community, Congress, and the general
  public in the integrity, effectiveness, and
  evenhandedness of NSFs peer review process
• Examples
• Institution no reviewers from the same
  institution (even adjunct appointments)
• Collaboration last four years as co-authors or
  two years as co-editors
• Personal Relationships conflicts of your spouse
  apply to yourself
• Employment Opportunities if considering
  employment at the investigators institution

18
Program Portfolio Considerations

• Integration of Research and Education
• Integrating Diversity into NSF Programs,
  Projects, and Activities
• Increasing the Geographic Distribution of Awards
• Diversification of Institution Types (i.e.
  undergraduate only institutions)
• Stages in Career Development of Investigator
  (i.e., new investigators or those coming up for
  tenure)

19
Funding Decisions

• The peer reviewer comments and the panel summary
  provide input to the NSF Program Officers
• NSF Program Officers make funding recommendations
  guided by program goals and portfolio
  considerations.
• NSF Division Directors either concur or reject
  the program officers funding recommendations.
• NSFs grants and agreements officers make the
  official award - as longs as
• The institution has an adequate grant management
  capacity.
• The PI/CO-PIs do not have overdue annual or final
  reports.
• There are no other outstanding issues with the
  institution or PI.

20
Business Review and Award

• NSF awards are made by a Financial Officer
  (Division of Grants and Agreements)
• Institutions (Organizations) are responsible for
  the financial management of the award.
  Investigators are responsible for the scientific
  research
• Oversight of the award finances and outcomes
  conducted by NSF

21
Feedback to InvestigatorsInformation from Merit
Review

• Verbatim copies of all mail reviews including the
  reviewer ratings
• Panel Summary of Discussion Highlights
• Short analysis of how well proposal addresses
  both review criteria
• Proposal strengths and weaknesses
• Reasons for a declination
• Context Statement an explanation of the review
  process for all competing proposals in the round

22
Oversight of Process The Committee of Visitors
(CoV)

• A Committee of Visitors (CoV) meets once every
  three years to evaluate the review process in the
  Program and the research outcomes from the awards
  made in the last three years.
• Findings of the CoV are publicly available after
  it has been presented to the Advisory Committee
  at a higher level in the Directorate
• Changes that are recommended are incorporated in
  future processes
• Same Conflict of Interest rules apply to the CoV

23
Office of the Inspector General

• The Office of the Inspector General was created
  in 1989 to promote economy, efficiency, and
  effectiveness in administering NSF programs and
  operations prevent and detect fraud, waste,
  abuse, and mismanagement in NSF programs and
  operations and prevent, detect, and handle cases
  involving misconduct in science.

24
NSFs authorization is broad

• A. Initiate and support, scientific and
  engineering research and programs to strengthen
  scientific and engineering research potential,
  and education programs at all levels, and
  appraise the impact of research upon industrial
  development and the general welfare.
• B. Award graduate fellowships in the sciences and
  in engineering.
• C. Foster the interchange of scientific
  information among scientists and engineers in the
  United States and foreign countries.
• D. Foster and support the development and use of
  computers and other scientific methods and
  technologies, primarily for research and
  education in the sciences.
• E. Evaluate the status and needs of the various
  sciences and engineering and take into
  consideration the results of this evaluation in
  correlating our research and educational programs
  with other federal and non-federal programs.
• F. Provide a central clearinghouse for the
  collection, interpretation and analysis of data
  on scientific and technical resources in the
  United States, and provide a source of
  information for policy formulation by other
  federal agencies.
• G. Determine the total amount of federal money
  received by universities and appropriate
  organizations for the conduct of scientific and
  engineering research, including both basic and
  applied, and construction of facilities where
  such research is conducted, but excluding
  development, and report annually thereon to the
  President and the Congress.
• H. Initiate and support specific scientific and
  engineering activities in connection with matters
  relating to international cooperation, national
  security and the effects of scientific and
  technological applications upon society.
• I. Initiate and support scientific and
  engineering research, including applied research,
  at academic and other nonprofit institutions and,
  at the direction of the President, support
  applied research at other organizations.
• J. Recommend and encourage the pursuit of
  national policies for the promotion of basic
  research and education in the sciences and
  engineering. Strengthen research and education
  innovation in the sciences and engineering,
  including independent research by individuals,
  throughout the United States.
• K. Support activities designed to increase the
  participation of women and minorities and others
  underrepresented in science and technology.

25
Programs for Specific Groups/Purposes

• ADVANCE Increasing the Participation and
  Advancement of Women in Academic Science and
  Engineering Careers
• Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with
  Industry (GOALI)
• Human and Social Dynamics (HSD)
• Major Research Instrumentation (MRI)
• NSF Graduate Teaching Fellows in K-12 Education
• Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU)
• Research in Undergraduate Institutions (RUI)
• Faculty Early-CAREER Development

26
ADVANCE Increasing the Participation and
Advancement of Women in Academic Science and
Engineering Careers

• Program Goal To develop systemic approaches to
  increase the representation and advancement of
  women in academic science and engineering
  careers, thereby contributing to the development
  of a more diverse science and engineering
  workforce.

27
Human and Social Dynamics (HSD)

• Goal Aims to stimulate and support growth in
  knowledge about human action and development as
  well as organizational, cultural and societal
  adaptation and change
• Fourth Year Emphases
• Agents of Change (AOC)
• Dynamics of Human Behavior (DHB)
• Decision Making, Risk, and Uncertainty (DRU)

28
Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with
Industry (GOALI)

• Program Goals
• synergize university-industry partnerships by
  making project funds or fellowships/traineeships
  available to support an eclectic mix of
  industry-university linkages.
• This solicitation targets high-risk/high-gain
  research with a focus on fundamental topics, new
  approaches to solving generic problems,
  development of innovative collaborative
  industry-university educational programs, and
  direct transfer of new knowledge between academe
  and industry. .
• Seeks to fund research that lies beyond that
  which industry would normally fund by themselves.

29
Major Research Instrumentation (MRI)

• Program Goals
• Increase access to scientific and engineering
  equipment for research and research training in
  our Nation's organizations of higher education,
  research museums and non-profit research
  organizations.
• Improve the quality and expand the scope of
  research and research training in science and
  engineering, and to foster the integration of
  research and education by providing
  instrumentation for research-intensive learning
  environments.

30
NSF Graduate Teaching Fellows in K-12 Education
(GK-12)

• Program Goals
• Provides funding to graduate students in NSF-
  supported science, technology, engineering, and
  mathematics (STEM) disciplines to acquire
  additional skills that will broadly prepare them
  for professional and scientific careers in the
  21st century.
• Expected outcomes include improved communication,
  teaching and team building skills for the
  fellows professional development opportunities
  for K-12 teachers enriched learning for K-12
  students and strengthened partnerships between
  institutions of higher education and local school
  districts.

31
Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU)

• REU Sites
• Program Goals
• Initiate and conduct projects that engage a
  number of undergraduate students in research.
• Involve students in research who might not
  otherwise have the opportunity, particularly
  those from academic institutions where research
  programs are limited.
• Recruitment
• Significant percentage of students from outside
  host institution

32
Research in Undergraduate Institutions (RUI)

• Program 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
• Eligibility Information
• Institutions that award an average of 10 or fewer
  Ph.D. or D.Sc. degrees per year in all
  NSF-supportable disciplines