NSF Program manager

1
NSF Program manager

• Decides the final rankings of the proposals
• Two more visiting program managers help
• Has some freedom to move within the ranks
• Decides how much money can be given
• Calls or communicates with the PI
• Negotiates what needs to be done and for how much
  support ?
• Sends declination letters and reviews
• Answers your questions

2
What if you get a grant?

• Do Party but not forever!
• You are among the top 5-10 researchers in your
  field
• Hire good people and deliver the goods you
  promised on time
• Publish profusely in high quality journals
• Write more grants! Why?
• funding does not last for ever
• 10 success rate
• distribution of wealth principle

3
What if you do not get a grant?

• don't cry (OK, cry a little if you feel better)
• pick up the pieces of your failed proposal and
  restart your grants writing engine
• get reviewers comments, read and get angry then
  keep them in a drawer away from your view for a
  while..
• come back and read reviews again
• talk to PM and your mentor/well wishers
• resubmit until you succeed

4
Top ten reasons why funding is normally not
awarded
1. Lack of new or original ideas. 2. Diffuse,
superficial, or unfocused research plan. 3. Lack
of knowledge of published relevant work. 4. Lack
of experience in the essential methodology. 5.
Uncertainty concerning future directions. 6.
Questionable reasoning in experimental approach.
7. Absence of an acceptable rationale. 8.
Unrealistically large/small amount of work. 9.
Lack of sufficient experimental detail. 10.
Uncritical approach.
http//www.hort.purdue.edu/rhodcv/hort652n/ho00005
.htm
5
How your proposals will be evaluated for this
FW5850 class?

• All of you have already submitted a single pdf
  file of your proposal to me by email.
• It has been mailed to your peers and professors
• Now, you will change your role. You will review
  (as an ad hoc reviewer) all the proposals from
  your group except your own.
• You will prepare reviews for each proposal in
  your group in the prescribed format (already
  emailed to you)
• Bring two hard copies of your reviews to class on
  December 12th, 2006.
• Your advisors and I will review them too!
• All reviews given to PI will be anonymous

6
Evaluation Criteria

• Intellectual merit
• How important this proposal is for advancement of
  knowledge?
• Qualification of PI and quality of proposal?
• Creative and original concepts?
• How well conceived and organized is this
  activity?
• Sufficient resources available for this research?
• Broader impacts
• Advance discovery and understanding
• Can promote teaching and research integration
• Diversity (gender, ethnicity, disability,
  geographical), if any
• Infrastructure development
• Dissemination of information obtained
• What is the benefit to society?

ALL CRITERIA MAY NOT APPLY FOR EACH
PROPOSAL! Focus more on the contents (summary,
description) than the format! Not important for
your evaluation
7
Panel meeting on December 12 and 14, 2006

• You change your role again. Now, you are a panel
  member.
• There will be five panels 5 peer groups
• On December 12th, we will meet in the atrium
  area.
• There will be five separate tables for panel
  meeting, one per group
• Each proposal will get 15 minutes discussion (a
  bell will ring every 15 minutes)
• You will go to the other table when your own
  proposal is being discussed as shown in the next
  slide.

8
Wild life
Ecologists
ENGINEERS
Foresters
FMGB
9
Panel reviews

• Each panel member will first state their ratings
  and then discuss each proposal based on their own
  written reviews.
• Panel will prepare a one page report using three
  major categories summary, strength, weakness
  (2-3 lines each) (see next slide).
• The panel will also give the final rating as
  Excellent, very good, good, fair, poor
• The panel report will be given to me at the end
  of your discussion and you will select a panel
  leader from the members within your own group to
  read the summary to whole class on December 14th,
  the last day of this class.

10
Panel evaluation

• What is the main research topic of the proposal?
  (One-two sentences)
• What is the major strength of this proposal?
• What is the major weakness of this proposal (if
  any)?
• Summary statement (one or two lines)

11
Panel presentation (December 14th 2006)

• You will select one leader from your group who
  will read all reports from your group after panel
  meeting to the whole class
• Each proposal will get two minutes
• Each report will have a specific final rating.
• Then you will enjoy your Xmas vacation!

12
Any questions?
13
http//www.aaas.org/spp/rd/guihist.htm
14
http//www.aaas.org/spp/rd/guihist.htm
15
http//www.aaas.org/spp/rd/guihist.htm
16
http//www.aaas.org/spp/rd/guihist.htm
17
(No Transcript)
18
(No Transcript)
19
http//www.aaas.org/spp/rd/guihist.htm
20
http//www.aaas.org/spp/rd/guihist.htm
21
http//www.aaas.org/spp/rd/guihist.htm
22
http//www.aaas.org/spp/rd/guihist.htm
23
http//www.aaas.org/spp/rd/guihist.htm
24
MPS Math Phys Sci EHR Edu, human
Resources GEO Geological Sci CSIE Comp Info Sci
and Eng Bio Biological Sci ENG Engineering SBE Soc
ial, behavior, Eco Sci
http//www.aaas.org/spp/rd/guihist.htm
25
NSF major divisions
http//www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2007/toc.jsp

• Biological Sciences  
• Molecular and Cellular BiosciencesIntegrative
  Organismal BiologyEnvironmental
  BiologyBiological InfrastructureEmerging
  FrontiersPlant Genome Research Computer and
  Information Science and Engineering
• Computing and Communication FoundationsComputer
  and Network SystemsInformation and Intelligent
  SystemsInformation Technology Research
  Engineering  
• Chemical, Biological, Environmental and Transport
  Systems Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing
  InnovationElectrical, Communications and Cyber
  Systems Industrial Innovation and
  PartnershipsEngineering Education and
  CentersEmerging Frontiers in Research and
  Innovation Geosciences  
• Atmospheric SciencesEarth SciencesInnovative
  and Collaborative Education and ResearchOcean
  Sciences Mathematical and Physical Sciences
• Astronomical SciencesChemistryMaterials
  ResearchMathematical SciencesPhysicsMultidiscip
  linary Activities Social, Behavioral and
  Economic Sciences
• Social and Economic SciencesBehavioral and
  Cognitive SciencesScience Resources Statistics
  Office of Cyberinfrastructure

26
Where to go to see information on funding agencies

• Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
• Department of Energy, Office of Energy Research
  (DOE)
• Department of Transportation (DOT)
• Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
• Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
• National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  (NASA)
• National Science Foundation (NSF)
• National Institutes of Health (NIH)
• National Institutes of Standards and Technology
  (NIST)
• USDA Cooperative State Research, Education and
  Extension Service (USDA CSREES)

http//www.admin.mtu.edu/research/sprot/funding/fe
deral.html
(this link is active)
27
USDA-NRIhttp//www.csrees.usda.gov/fo/fundview.cf
m?fonum1606
http//www.csrees.usda.gov/funding/rfas/pdfs/07_nr
i.pdf

• Focus areas
• Agricultural Food Biosecurity
• Agricultural Systems
• Animals Animal Products
• Biotechnology Genomics
• Economics Commerce
• Families, Youth Communities
• Food, Nutrition Health
• Natural Resources Environment
• Pest Management
• Plants Plant Products
• Technology Engineering

28
FY2007 RFA

• http//www.csrees.usda.gov/funding/rfas/pdfs/07_nr
  i.pdf
• Program Opportunities
• Program Code - Program Name
• 20.2 - Plant Biosecurity
• 23.1 - Managed Ecosystems
• 28.0 - Air Quality
• 31.0 - Bioactive Food Components for Optimal
  Health
• 31.5 - Human Nutrition and Obesity
• 32.1 - Epidemiological Approaches for Food Safety
  
• 41.0 - Animal Reproduction
• 42.0 - Animal Growth and Nutrient Utilization
• 43.0 - Animal Genome (A) Applied Animal Genomics
  
• 44.0 - Animal Protection and Biosecurity (B)
  Animal Well-Being
• 44.0 - Animal Protection and Biosecurity (C)
  Animal Biosecurity Coordinated Agricultural
  Projects (CAP)
• 51.9 - Biology of Weedy and Invasive Species in
  Agroecosystems
• 52.1 - Plant Genome (D) Applied Plant Genomics
  Coordinated Agricultural Project (CAP)
• 56.0 - Plant Biology (A) Gene Expression and
  Genetic Diversity
• 56.0 - Plant Biology (B) Environmental Stress
• 66.0 - Agricultural Prosperity for Small and
  Medium-Sized Farms

29
Purpose and Priorities

• The purpose of the USDA-NRI Program is to support
  research, extension, and education grants that
  address key problems of national, regional, and
  multistate importance in sustaining all
  components of agriculture (farming, ranching,
  forestry including urban and agroforestry,
  aquaculture, rural communities, human nutrition,
  processing, etc.).

180 million
30
Type of applicationsgrant size
5,000 to 1,500,000success rate 17

• New
• Resubmitted
• Renewal
• Resubmitted renewal
• Research grant
• Conference
• AREA (Agricultural Research Enhancement awards)
• Postdoctoral
• New Investigator
• Strengthening Awards
• Small institutions
• Limited success
• Sabbatical
• seed grants
• Equipment grants

31
USDA has a number of programs

• 56.0 Plant Biology (C) Biochemistry
• Investigators are encouraged to contact National
  Program Leader Dr. Gail McLean (202-401-6060 or
  gmclean_at_csrees.usda.gov) regarding questions
  about suitability of research topics for this
  program element.
• Proposed budget requests must not exceed 400,000
  (including indirect costs) for research projects
  for project periods of 2-4 years. Requests for
  funding above 400,000 will be returned to the
  applicant without review.
• The total amount of support available for the
  Biochemistry program element will be
  approximately 4.2 million.
• Note This program requires a letter of intent by
  December 6, 2006 (500pm ET) prior to application
  submission. Applications submitted without an
  approved letter of intent will not be reviewed.
• Program Deadline Electronic submissions for
  invited applications must be submitted by 500
  P.M., Eastern Time, February 14, 2007.

THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE.
32
A bunch of forms to be filled and 15 copies to be
mailed

• Proposal Cover Page (Form CSREES-2002)
• Table of Contents
• Project Summary (Form CSREES-2003)
• Response to Previous Review (if applicable)
• Project Description (see instructions for page
  limitations) 18 pages
• References to Project Description
• Facilities and Equipment
• Key Personnel (vitae and publications list)
• Collaborative Arrangements (including letters of
  support)
• Conflict-of-Interest List (Form CSREES-2007)
• Results from Prior NRI Support (if applicable)
• Budget (Form CSREES-2004)
• Budget Narrative
• Matching (if required)
• Current and Pending Support (Form CSREES-2005)
• Assurance Statement (s) (Form CSREES-2008)
• Compliance with the National Environmental Policy
  Act (NEPA) (Form CSREES-2006)
• Appendices to Project Description
• Personal Data on Project Director (s) (Page B of
  Form CSREES-2002)

Now electronic by grants.gov
33
Evaluation criteria

• 1. Scientific merit of the application for
  research, extension and/or education
• 2. Qualifications of proposed project personnel
  and adequacy of facilities
• 3. Planning and administration of the proposed
  project
• 4. Relevance of the proposal to improvements in
  and sustainability of U.S. agriculture

34
Scientific merit

• novelty, uniqueness, and originality
• conceptual adequacy of hypothesis or research
  question
• clarity and delineation of objectives
• adequacy of description of the undertaking
• suitability and feasibility of methodology
• demonstration of feasibility through preliminary
  data
• probability of success of project

35
Qualifications

• Qualifications of proposed project personnel and
  adequacy of facilities
• 1. training and awareness of previous and
  alternative approaches, performance record and/or
  potential for future accomplishments2. time
  allotted for systematic attainment of
  objectives3. Institutional experience and
  competence in subject area4. adequacy of
  available or obtainable support personnel,
  facilities and instrumentation

36
Relevance?

• Relevance of the project to long-range
  improvements in and sustainability of U.S.
  agriculture
• 1. documentation that the research is directed
  towards a current or likely future problem in
  U.S. agriculture2. development of basic research
  ideas towards practical application

37
Rating

• Each reviewer is asked to rate each proposal
  overall as either
• excellent
• very good
• good
• fair
• poor

38
Panel recommendations

• The following categories are generally used to
  rank proposals by the Panel
• Outstanding
• High priority for funding
• Medium priority for funding
• Low priority for funding
• Some scientific merit
• Do not fund

Proposals are also ranked in each category
(mainly in first two-three only) Success rate
20-25 actual 17 last year as per new info