Overview of the Department of Energy
Office of Science Research Funding
Arnold H. Kritz
Department of Physics
Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA
Faculty Peer Exchange Workshop: Finding Funding from
the Department of Energy
Date: April 23, 2014
My Background
• Ph.D. Yale 1961 (Non-equilibrium Statistical Mechanics)
• General Dynamics, San Diego, CA 1961-1965
‒ Funded by the Dept. of Defense, Air Force Office of Scientific Research
• Ballistic missile defense and detection
• Aeronautical Research Associates of Princeton, Princeton, NJ 1965-1969
‒ NASA, AFOSR, NRL, NSF
• Miscellaneous Projects
• Faculty member, Dept. of Physics, Hunter College CUNY 1969-1991
‒ Funded by DOE Office of Fusion Energy Sciences since 1972
• Radio Frequency heating and current drive in plasmas
• Professor Lehigh University 1991-2014
‒ Funding by DOE Office of Fusion Science
• Anomalous transport and whole device modeling
• Part-time Program Manager (75%) DOE, Germantown, MD 2000-2004
‒ 25% Effort at Lehigh University
• Future 2015-? Senior Research Scientist, Lehigh University
‒ DOE Funding continues
DOE Office of Science
• Single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in US
‒ For Fiscal 2014 (Oct. 1, 2013 to Sept. 30, 2014) $5,071 M
• Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research $478.6 M ($172.4 M)
‒ Computational Science, Applied Math, High Performance Computing
• Office of Basic Energy Sciences (BES) $1,712.8 M
‒ Chemical Sciences, Geosciences, & Biosciences
‒ Materials Sciences & Engineering
• Office of Biological and Environmental Research (BER) $610.2 M
‒ Biological Systems Science
‒ Climate and Environmental Sciences
• Office of Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) $505.7 M
‒ Plasma Physics Research
‒ Fusion Energy Research
• Office of High Energy Physics $797.5 M
• Office of Nuclear Physics $569.9 M
• Office of Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists $26.5 M
Office of Basic Energy Sciences
• Chemical Sciences, Geosciences, & Biosciences $316 M
‒ Fundamental Interactions Research $76.0 M
‒ Chemical Transformations Research $93.5 M
‒ Photochemistry and Biochemistry Research $69.6 M
‒ Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs) $42.0 M
‒ Energy Innovation Hubs—Fuels from Sunlight $ 24.2 M
‒ SBIR/STTR $10.1 M
• Materials Sciences & Engineering $362.7
‒ Scattering and Instrumentation Sciences Research $64.0 M
‒ Condensed Matter and Materials Physics Research $120.9 M
‒ Materials Discovery, Design, and Synthesis Research $74.0 M
‒ Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research(EPSCoR) $10.0 M
‒ Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs) $58.0 M
‒ Energy Innovation Hubs—Batteries and Energy Storage $24.2 M
‒ Computational Materials Sciences $0 M
‒ SBIR/STTR $11.6 M
Funding Opportunities
• DOE Office of Science Web Site Announcements
‒ http:// science.energy.gov/grants/foas/open/
‒ http:// science.energy.gov/grants/foas/closed/
Scientific Discovery through Ultrafast Materials and Chemical Sciences
Announcement Number: DE-FOA-0001089
Post Date: February 21, 2014
Close Date: April 21, 2014
• Grants Process
‒ http:// science.energy.gov/grants/grants-process
‒ Grants vs Cooperative Agreements
• Grants Policy and Guidance
‒ http:// science.energy.gov/grants/policy-and-guidance
• Office of Science Graduate Fellowship
‒ Support for your students
• Early Career research programs
‒ http:// science.energy.gov/early-career/
‒ Within 10 years of receiving Ph.D.
• Effective use of Sabbaticals and Summers
(375KB)
Know the Program Managers
• Determine who are the program managers in your areas of interest
‒ From grant announcements
• science.energy.gov/~/media/grants/pdf/foas/2013/SC_FOA_0000958.pdf
(2013 call for Early Career Research Prog. Announc.)
• This announcement also provides details of specific areas of interest
‒ 25 areas noted for BES and program managers for each area
• Office web sites
‒ http://science.energy.gov/ber (or bes, fes, etc)
• Present research results at major national meetings as often as possible
‒ Make a point of connecting with program managers at the meetings
• Early career years, might have to support research expenses from salary
‒ Learn background of program manager(s)
• Value in sending white papers to program managers
‒ Also value in going to Germantown, MD to meet with program managers
• Develop a record of serious research publications
‒ Remember that you are competing with other serious researchers who may
be working longer hours than you and thus may be more productive
Follow the Changes That Are Occurring
• DOE Research Office interests change with time
• Each DOE Office has an Advisory Committee
‒ By law Advisory Committees Meetings, Minutes and Reports must be open
to the public
‒ At the Office web site connect to the Advisory Committee site
• Learn who are the members of the Advisory Committee
• Read meeting agendas, minutes and reports
• When possible attend an Advisory Committee meeting for the particular Office
of Science of interest – the Program Managers all attend
• National Academy of Science reports another source of changing direct.
• A trend over the last several years
‒ Multi-institutional/multi-disciplinary research
• Example: Lehigh Fusion Group has participated in grant proposals that involve
more than six institutions (combinations of University groups and National
Laboratory groups) and that include physicists, computer scientists and applied
mathematicians
• Support comes from more than one DOE Science
• Follow through when National Scientific Organizations ask you to
contact Congressional Offices with regard to budget issues
Proposals
• Make sure that your proposal is responsive to the particular DOE Call
• Identify urgent problems that require research
‒ Clearly state the research problem you are addressing
‒ If possible indicate why your approach is unique and why you are uniquely
qualified to address the problem
• Learn the questions to which the reviewers will be asked to respond and
address those questions in the proposal you prepare
‒ in my area we know the reviewers are asked to address:
‒ Questions addressed by reviewers for other DOE Offices likely to be similar
FES Issues Addressed by Reviewers
1. Scientific and/or technical merit of the project.
‒ What important problem(s) in plasma or fusion science does this application address?
‒ How does the proposed research compare with other research in its field, both in terms of
scientific and/or technical merit and originality?
‒ What is the likelihood that it will lead to new or fundamental advances in its field?
‒ How adequate are the proposed plans to validate, where appropriate, the theoretical predictions
with experimental measurements?
FES Issues Addressed by Reviewers cont.
2. Appropriateness of the proposed method or approach.
‒ Are the conceptual framework, methods, and analyses adequately developed and likely to lead to
scientifically valid conclusions?
‒ Does the proposed research employ innovative concepts or methods?
‒ Does the applicant recognize significant potential problems and consider alternative strategies?
3. Competency of the applicant's personnel and adequacy of the proposed resources.
‒ How well qualified are the applicant's personnel to carry out the proposed research? (If
appropriate, please comment on the scientific reputation and quality of recent research by the
principal investigator and other key personnel.)
‒ Please comment on the applicant's research environment and resources.
‒ Does the proposed work take advantage of unique facilities and capabilities and/or make good
use of collaborative arrangements?
4. Performance under existing award (for renewal applications).
‒ Assess the progress the applicants made toward their research goals during the most recent
performance period and the impact of the research on the fusion program.
‒ Have the applicants disseminated the results of their research through publications in peerreviewed journals, meeting and conference presentations, workshops, or other appropriate
means?
‒ If appropriate, have the applicants attempted to validate their theoretical predictions against
experimental results?
5. Reasonableness and appropriateness of the proposed budget. Are the proposed budget
and staffing levels adequate to carry out the proposed research?
6. Other Appropriate Factors.
‒ What are the overall strengths and weaknesses of the application?
‒ Could the proposed research make a significant contribution to another field?
‒ If applicable, please comment on the educational benefits of the proposed activity.