Up-date
November 2001





Independent Agency
Supports basic research and education
Uses grant mechanism
National Science Board is the governing body


Every program falls under one of the following strategic goals:

People – a diverse, internationally competitive and globally-engaged workforce


Ideas – Discovery across frontiers and connections in service to society
Tools – Accessible, state-of-the-art information bases and shared tools


FY 2002 – up 8.2%
Budget Emphases

Core Research – Math – increase not approved


Increase Graduate Fellowship Stipends

$20,500
Initiatives for National Priorities

Biocomplexity, Information Technology Research,
Nanoscale S & E, Learning for the 21 st Century Workforce








Large-scale networking
High-end computing
Computational science and infrastructure
High-confidence software and systems
Human-computer interaction and information management
Software design and productivity
Implications of IT






Biosystems at the nanoscale
Nanoscale structures and novel phenomena
Device and system architecture
Nanoscale processes in the environment
Modeling and simulation at the nanoscale.






Dynamics of coupled natural and human systems
Coupled biogeochemical cycles
Genome-enabled environmental science and engineering
Instrumentation development for environmental activities
Materials use: science, engineering, and society

st




Multidisciplinary learning research
IT-enabled tools for learning
Link formal and informal education
Centers for Learning and Teaching






Children’s Research Initiative

How children learn and how they learn in the surroundings in which they grow up
Plant Genome Research
Science and Technology Centers
H1-B Visa Program - $from HB-1 visas fund NSF programs
Graduate Teaching Fellowships for K-12





Cross-cutting
Directorate
Solicited
Unsolicited







Novel untested ideas; new research areas; urgency
Unorthodox, too new – might not have a favorable review – Einstein would not have been funded outside of SGER
CALL
Abbreviated proposal; limited amount
Expedited review – very fast, program officer reviews
Hot topics – homeland security, anthrax


Goals:

Catalyze industry-university partnerships



Encourage innovative application of academe’s intellectual capabilities
Bring industry’s perspective and integrative skills to academe
Promote high quality research and broaden educational experiences in industrial settings






Proposal Requirements


Co-PI from industry
Statement describing the industrial R&D contribution

Specific plan for industry/university interaction
Fairly high success rate
Cost-sharing by industry
U. S. institutions of higher ed that confer degrees in areas that NSF funds can submit proposals for fulltime faculty
Only U.S. citizens or permanent residents are eligible






Vast majority of practicing scientists come from undergraduate institutions
No specific set asides
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 (ROA)
Good Science/Good Research Design




Goals:

Initiate and conduct undergraduate researchparticipation projects

Create research environment with strong facultystudent interaction
Recruitment

Significant percentage of students from outside host institution
Deadline: September 15 of each year



Goal:

Attract undergraduates into science by providing an active research experience
Guidelines:








Add one or two students to an active ongoing project
Must be U.S. citizen or permanent resident
No indirect costs (administrative allowance of 25% of student stipend)
Awards: 6K
Ask program officer about due dates
No set aside
Can include travel costs to a conference
Fairly quick turn around





Strongly encourage new faculty, emphasizing planning of an integrated academic career
Develop faculty who are both highly productive researchers and dedicated, effective educators
Form partnership with college or university to encourage balanced career development of individual faculty
Increase participation of those traditionally underrepresented






5 years, minimum $500,000
Deadline, undefined, generally mid-July
Review process varies by directorate
Eligibility: 1 st 4 years of first tenuretrack position
Include letter of support or endorsement from department chair


Should include:






The objectives and significance of the proposed integrated research and education activities; Emphasis on integrated
The relation of the research to the current state of knowledge in the field an of the education activities to the current state of knowledge of effective teaching and learning in one’s field of study;
An outline of the plan of work, describing the methods and procedures to be used, including evaluation of the education activities;
The relation of the plan to the PI’s career goals and job responsibilities and the goals of his/her institution; and
A summary of prior research and education accomplishments
The education plan should not be something you would do anyway



The representation of women drops as you go up – inequities in space allocation time and rank
Goal:

Increase the representation and advancement of women in academic S&E careers. Thereby contributing to the development of a more diverse S&E workforce


Three Types of Awards



Institutional Transformation – address institutional climate, ways to assist transition from tenure track-tenure such as workshops for faculty development

EX: UW Center for Institutional Change – mentoring and faculty development
Leadership – small

Recognize contributions by individuals and institutions, and enable further progress
Fellows – 3 years

Enable promising individuals to establish or re-establish fulltime independent academic careers after:

An extended postdoc, an extended interruption for family, or a spouse relocates








Goal – to increase access to scientific and engineering equipment in US
Instrument acquisition or development
3 proposals/institution one must be for development; if consortium, must exist before the proposal
Award size: $100,000 - $2million – SBE could be lower
Cost share for us – nothing on first $100,000, 30% after that, on equipment only
Can upgrade components in a system
Due January 24, 2002






No deadlines – submit anytime
Deadlines – submit before or on
Target dates – could submit after date and still be reviewed if not too late
Submission windows – submit between two dates
Preliminary proposals – short, cuts out the things they aren’t interested in


Merit Review Criteria


Intellectual Merit Criterion
Broader Impacts Criterion

Should address these directly in the proposal






How important is the a proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields?
How well qualified is the proposer- reviewer may comment on quality or prior work
To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative and original concepts?
How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity?
Is there sufficient access to resources?






How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training and learning?
How well does the activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups?
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?









References listed in proposal
Program Officer’s knowledge of who’s doing what
Reviewer files
Technical programs from professional societies
Recent Authors in Scientific and Engineering journals
S & E abstracts by computer search
Reviewer recommendations
Investigator’s suggestions


You can suggest names who are well qualified
You can names you would prefer not to review the proposal





Review board reviews and scores
Program director recommends who gets funded – looks at balancing priorities, risks, budget constraints, quality
Program director really calls the shots
Important to get to know them





Feedback to PI
Informal notification
Formal notification
Scope of work and budget discussions













Lack of a new or original idea
Diffuse, superficial, or unfocused project plan
Lack of knowledge or published, relevant work
Lack of experience in essential methodology
Uncertainty concerning future direction
Questionable reasoning in experimental approach
Absence of acceptable scientific rationale
Unrealistically large amount of work
Lack of sufficient detail
Uncritical approach
Lack of funds
Good Proposal; just not a “competitive proposal”


Once upon a time there was an NSF reviewer who asked a colleague, who was familiar with the area, to look at the grant he was reviewing and give him his opinion. The colleague copied the grant and in the next submission turned it in as his own. On his review panel was the author of the original grant. What do you think happened?


While the colleague was guilty of plagiarism, the original reviewer was also cited for divulging a confidential grant application to someone outside the review panel.
THE END