How your own proposals will be
reviewed for this FW5850 class?
• Most of you have already submitted a single pdf file of
your proposal to me by email.
• I have put them on the web and emailed you all the
location of all proposals from your group.
• Now you will review (as an ad hoc reviewer) all
proposals from your group except your own.
• You will write one page review for each proposal in your
group (minus your own) along with rating and email me
all reviews as a single MS word file or (pdf) by Nov 18th.
• Your advisors, Valorie and I may review too!
• All reviews will be anonymous
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!
Panel meeting on December 4,
2004
• I will forward all reviews of each proposal to one of your group
members (other than you).
• That chosen person (the panel member) will prepare a panel
summary with general topic, positive and negative aspects and final
rating of the proposal.
• On December 4, we will meet in the atrium area outside G002
around noon and first have Pizza and drinks.
• There will be seven tables for panel meeting, one per group
• Each proposal will get ten minutes discussion (a bell will ring every
ten minutes)
• You will go to other table when your own proposal is being
discussed as shown in the next slide.
• The report will go into my file and you will select a Panel leader from
members within your own group to read the summary to whole
class.
PHYSICISTS
FRES I
FRES II
ENGINEERS
CPJ
ENV I
MGB
ENV II
Timeline for your 2004 FW5850
proposals
• Final proposals submitted on or before November 4th
• Your reviews of other people’s proposals are due on or
before Nov 18th (send me an email)
– Reviews should be critical and anonymous
– Rate each proposal
• Outstanding, Very good, Good, fair, poor, not competitive
• Remember there is a thanksgiving break week in
between Nov 20th-28th
• Summary for one proposal prepared by December 4th
• Panel meeting on December 4th
• Final presentations December 4th
• This will be our last class. No class on December 2nd and
9th, 2004
Panel presentation
• You will select one leader per group who
will read all reports from your group after
panel meeting to whole class
• Each proposal will get one-two minutes
• Each report will have a specific rating.
• Enjoy your Xmas vacation!
Any questions?
HORT603 - Grants and Grantsmanship: Professor David Rhodes, Purdue
Characteristics of a Good Grant Proposal
•It should have new/novel/innovative ideas.
•It should be likely to advance an area of science.
•It should fill critical gaps in knowledge of a specific area.
•It should be "science-driven".
•It should be working toward a long-term goal.
•It should have a thoughtful and up-to-date literature review.
•It should have well stated questions.
•It should have preliminary data which support the feasibility of the research.
•It should be well written and succinct and follow the program guidelines.
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/rhodcv/hort652n/ho00005.htm
Characteristics of Poor Grant Proposals
•Proposed research has already been done by others.
•Derivative research (research may be viewed as a repetition of what has
already been accomplished in other systems).
•Contingent aims.
•Dead-end research.
•Technique searching for a problem.
•Poor justification.
•PI or PIs lack necessary technical expertise.
•Not using the most direct approach.
•Wrong choice of experimental system.
•Too broad and overly ambitious.
•Too narrow in scope.
•No preliminary data.
•Lacks sufficient details for adequate evaluation.
•Poorly written and presented.
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/rhodcv/hort652n/ho00005.htm
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
Funding trends in United States
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/rhodcv/hort652n/ho00005.htm
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/rhodcv/hort652n/ho00005.htm
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/rhodcv/hort652n/ho00005.htm
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/rhodcv/hort652n/ho00005.htm
Agency
FY 1991
FY 1992
FY 1993
FY 1994
FY 1995
FY 1996
FY 1997
FY 1998
FY 1999
FY 2000
FY 2001
FY 2002
DOD
37,209
37,779
38,848
35,510
35,349
35,783
37,238
37,430
38,532
39,109
42,743
50,134
NIH
8,977
9,6245
9,891
10,474
10,762
11,425
12,217
13,097
14,943
17,125
19,710
22,822
NASA
8,124
8,544
8,815
9,406
9,459
9,432
9,352
9,884
9,727
9,778
9,925
10,301
DOE
7,339
8,133
7,444
6,771
6,416
6,273
6,217
6,288
7,002
7,232
7,744
8,122
NSF
1,893
1,972
2,014
2,243
2,396
2,391
2,424
2,568
2,784
2,854
3,279
3,527
USDA
1,391
1,519
1,467
1,528
1,487
1,488
1,556
1,553
1,656
1,693
1,959
2,139
Commerce
537
583
792
1,022
1,118
966
964
1,081
1,076
1,096
1,201
1,354
Transportation
411
621
621
641
666
601
612
676
696
643
747
853
EPA
459
493
497
588
554
482
595
672
692
645
609
702
Interior
620
643
649
708
668
571
591
609
627
562
631
673
68,747
71,941
72,928
71,074
70,948
71,206
73,934
76,106
80,170
83,346
91,371
103,694
Total
Numbers in millions ($)
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/rhodcv/hort652n/ho00005.htm
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/federal.html
Just as a curiosity..
• Select an agency that you think will be
best for your research area and explore
how will you modify the proposal
preparation and submission process than
what we did for this class taking NSF as a
model.
• If you wish, submit one page to me by next
class (Optional and extra credit)
USDA-NRI
• http://www.csrees.usda.gov/fo/funding.cfm
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
FY2005 RFA
•
http://www.csrees.usda.gov/funding/rfas/pdfs/05_nri.pdf
•
Program Opportunities
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
20.0 Animal and Plant Biosecurity
22.1 Agricultural Plants and Environmental Adaptation
23.1 Managed Ecosystems
25.0 Soil Processes
26.0 Watershed Processes and Water Resources
28.0 Air Quality
31.0 Bioactive Food Components for Optimal Health
31.5 Human Nutrition and Obesity
32.0 Food Safety
32.1 Epidemiological Approaches for Food Safety
41.0 Animal Reproduction
42.0 Animal Growth and Nutrient Utilization
43.0 Animal Genomics
43.1 Animal Genome Reagent and Tool Development
44.0 Animal Protection
45.0 Functional Genomics of Agriculturally Important Organisms
51.2 Integrative Biology of Arthropods and Nematodes
51.3 Arthropod and Nematode Gateways to Genomics
51.8 Biology of Plant-Microbe Associations
51.9 Biology of Weedy and Invasive Plants
52.1 Plant Genome, Bioinformatics, and Genetic Resources
52.2 Genetic Processes and Mechanisms of Crop Plants
52.4 Applied Plant Genomics CAP
53.0 Developmental Processes of Crop Plants
54.3 Agricultural Plant Biochemistry
61.0 Agricultural Markets and Trade
62.0 Rural Development
66.0 Enhancing the Prosperity of Small Farms and Rural Agricultural Communities
71.1 Improving Food Quality and Value
71.2 Biobased Products and Bioenergy Production Research
75.0 Nanoscale Science and Engineering for Agriculture and Food Systems
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.).
Type of applications
•
•
•
•
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
USDA has a number of programs
• 31.5 Human Nutrition and Obesity
• Investigators are encouraged to contact the National Program
Leaders, Etta Saltos (esaltos@csrees.usda.gov; telephone: (202)
401-5178) or Susan Welsh (swelsh@csrees.usda.gov; telephone:
(202) 720-5544) with questions about the suitability of applications.
• Standard Research Grants for this program will not exceed
$500,000 (including indirect costs) for project periods of 2-4 years.
Integrated Project Grants for this program are not likely to exceed
$1.5 million for project periods up to 4 years. The total amount of
support available for this program will be approximately $8 million.
• Program Deadline: Applications must be received by 5:00 P.M.,
Eastern Time, June 15, 2005.
• This crosscutting program addresses the complex problem of
obesity prevention. The program seeks to support applications that
integrate at least two of the three CSREES supported functions research, education and extension/outreach.
THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE….
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)
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
Scientific merit
1. novelty, uniqueness, and originality
2. conceptual adequacy of hypothesis or
research question
3. clarity and delineation of objectives
4. adequacy of description of the undertaking
5. suitability and feasibility of methodology
6. demonstration of feasibility through
preliminary data
7. probability of success of project
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 accomplishments
2. time allotted for systematic attainment of
objectives
3. Institutional experience and competence in
subject area
4. adequacy of available or obtainable support
personnel, facilities and instrumentation
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. agriculture
2. development of basic research ideas
towards practical application
Rating
Each reviewer is asked to rate each
proposal overall as either:
• excellent
• very good
• good
• fair
• poor
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
Success rate 20-25%