Strengths of Funded

1
Strengths of Funded Weaknesses of UnfundedMRI
Proposals

• Helen Hansma
• hhansma_at_nsf.gov
• Joan Frye, Sally OConnor, Angela Klaus, Mark
  Farmer, and others
• NSF

2
Call Your Program Director Ask Us Early, Ask Us
Often!!
3
Strong Proposals have

• healthy and vigorous research
• student-faculty research collaborations
• externally funded research
• published in peer-reviewed research journals
• no doubt that the requested instrument will be
• well cared for and
• put to good use for
• research and research training

4
Weak Proposals raise Lots of Questions

• Is the requested instrument is actually needed
  for the proposed research??
• Will the instrument be involved in outreach and
  teaching??
• How have each of the PIs used this instrument in
  the past??
• What about the
• low funding level of current faculty researchers,
  
• lack of undergraduate and graduate student
  researchers,
• lack of publications ??

5
Strong Proposals have

• Several users with a clear need for the
  instrument
• Preliminary data
• Research descriptions start with need for
  instrument
• Integration of research and education

6
In Strong Proposals

• PIs have a past history of outreach activities
• Broader Impacts - strong
• Possible problems - anticipated addressed
• Many women and underrepresented minority students

7
Weak Proposals

• If we get the instrument, users will come a
  recipe for failure
• Users describe their research and say at the end,
  And if we had the new instrument, we could do
  something more.

8
Weaknesses....

• Weak science
• Research proposals not well developed
• Research is of relatively low-impact
• Not clear that the instrument was well justified.
• Typographical errors careless preparation??
• Few / poor references

9
Strong Proposals Walks on water

• Each investigator includes a training component
  in his / her research description

I always wondered what it felt like to get an
NSF award! -a new awardee, upon receiving her
award phone call
10
Weak Proposals

• Vague generalizations
• Figures images are poor or lacking
• Double spaced text
• The reviewers say
• Its a sad little proposal.
• Its like reading a proposal by Charlie Browns
  teacher its just noise
• Instrumentation without a Cause

11
A Weak Figure

• As this image shows, our current microscope
  needs to be replaced.

Image is too dark! è
12
A Strong Figure

• Figure 1. Images with our current Costco
  microscope left and with the Zeus Alive!
  Microscope that we propose to buy right.

Image is lighter here è
13
Proposals MUST have

• Intellectual Merit AND Broader Impacts in the
  Project Summary
• 15 pages or fewer of Project Description
• Large enough font sizes and margins
• Research - NOT medical

14
Proposal Titleshould be

• Acquisition of _______

15
Weaknesses Budget

• Instrument has too many / too few features for
  proposed research
• Instruments not related
• Too many instruments requested

We figured wed ask for TWO of the same
instrument, and theyd give us ONE. -an
unsuccessful PI
A Ferrari isnt good in traffic. -a reviewer
16

• A Solid Management Plan describes
• Maintenance plans for the instrument(s)
• How costs of instrument use and maintenance will
  be covered (user fees or ??)
• The available expertise in use of the equipment
• How new users will be trained
• How user time will be allocated (if necessary)

17
Pitfalls to Watch out for...

• Follow guidelines carefully!
• Request the appropriate instruments (e.g. Is high
  throughput really needed? How does the
  instrument relate to the research?)
• Emphasize research not only teaching !
• Do not request a laundry list of items

18
Strategies for Success

• Student involvement co-authors on papers
  presentations.
• Strong maintenance of existing equipment and
  plans for requested equipment
• Involvement of under-represented groups

19
Strategies....

• Wide use of instrument
• Demonstrated need, e.g., samples
• Preliminary results/measurements

20
Resubmissions

• Most proposals are NOT funded!

21
Weak Resubmissions

• Whining or angry responses to reviewers comments
• Project description starts with responses to
  reviewers comments
• Proposal has few changes

22
Strong Resubmissions

• Good responses to reviewers comments can be
  incorporated into the revised proposal without
  mentioning the reviewers comments
• Significant improvements in the proposal

23
Evaluating Proposals
24
Evaluating ProposalsNSF Merit Review Criteria

• Intellectual Merit
• Broader Impacts of the Proposed Effort

25
MRI-Specific Criteria Instrument Acquisition

• shared use of the instruments for research and/or
  research training
• availability of technical expertise
• management maintenance plan
• effective instrument use

26

• Summary of Review Criteria
• Merit Review Criteria
• Intellectual merit
• Broader impacts
• Integration of research and education
• Integrating diversity into the proposed
  activities
• Additional MRI Review Criteria
• for instrument acquisition - the management plan
  
• for instrument development - the rationale for
  development of a new instrument.

27
Proposal Preparation

28
Your Holy Books

• The MRI Program Announcement
• NSF 05-515 http//www.nsf.gov/od/oia/programs/mri
  /
• 2. The Grant Proposal Guide GPG
• NSF 04-23
• http//www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_
  keygpg

29
To Do

• NSF Fastlane start using it Early!
• Other Senior Personnel give them an early
  deadline for finishing their parts of the
  proposal.

30
Summary

• Start early give yourself enough time
• Read the MRI PA and the GPG, and follow their
  rules
• Get feedback on your proposal from your
  colleagues
• Proposals should be clear, appropriate, and
  justified
• Anticipate some frustration
• Study reviews carefully
• If declined - Call your Program Director after
  reading your reviews (take some time to think
  about them)
• If awarded - follow up on reporting and find out
  about supplemental funding (stay in touch with PD)