Funding Opportunities at NSF
2010 Neuroeconomics Conference
Jonathan W. Leland
Decision, Risk and Management Science
Division of Social and Economic Sciences
Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences
National Science Foundation
Where’s the money?
Where’s the Money for
Neuroecon?
• 2 potential sources
– Special solicitations (primarily CRCNS)
– Unsolicited proposals to standing programs
(primarily in Social, Behavior and Economic
Sciences directorate.)
Special Solicitations for NEs
• Collaborative Research in Computational
Neuroscience (CRCNS) TENTATIVE
• Objective - support collaborative activities that
advance the understanding of nervous system
structure and function, mechanisms underlying
nervous system disorders, and computational
strategies used by the nervous system.
• Participating organizations – NSF, NIH, BMBF
(Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung)
4
More on CRCNS
• Research Proposals, US-German Research
Proposals collaboratives, Data Sharing
Proposals
• Supports collaborative research between
biomedical, biological,
behavioral/cognitive/social scientists and
computer, mathematical, physical
sciences/engineering.
Unsolicited proposal sources –
funding the old fashion way
• Sources
– SES and BCS with SBE
– Funding from other NSF directorates.
Programs in SBE
January 18 & August 18
Decision, Risk, & Management Sciences
Economics
Law and Social Science
Methodology, Measurement & Statistics
Political Science
Sociology
February 1 & August 1
Societal Dimensions of Eng., Science, &
Tech.
Science & Technology Studies
February 2
Innovation and Organizational Sciences
•
•
•
December 1 & July 1
Archaeology & Archaeometry
Physical Anthropology
•
•
•
•
•
•
January 1 & August 1
Cultural Anthropology
•
•
•
•
•
January 15 & July 15
Cognitive Neuroscience
Developmental & Learning
Sciences
Perception, Action, & Cognition
Linguistics
Social Psychology
January 15 & August 15
Geography & Regional Science
Relevant Programs in SES
• Decision, Risk and Management Science (7 M)
– research that explores fundamental issues in judgment
and decision making, risk analysis, management
science, and organizational behavior
• Methodology, Measurement, and Statistics (4 M)
– Statistical methodology/modeling directed towards the
social and behavioral sciences
– Methodological aspects of procedures for data
collection
• Economics (25 M)
– Empirical and theoretical economic analysis as well as work
on methods for rigorous research on economic behavior.
Relevant Programs In BCS
• Cogntive Neuroscience (8 M)
• how the human brain supports thought, perception, affect,
action, social processes, and other aspects of cognition and
behavior
• Perception, Action and Cognition (7.3 M)
• vision, audition, haptics, attention, memory, reasoning, written
and spoken discourse, motor control, and developmental issues
in all topic areas.
• Development and Learning Science (6.6 M)
• cognitive, linguistic, social, cultural, and biological processes
related to children's and adolescents' development and
learning.
• Social Psychology (6.7 m)
• research on human social behavior, including cultural
differences and development over the life span.
Other Possibilities
•
•
•
•
Mathematical Biology (bio directorate)
Neural Systems (bio directorate)
Robust Intelligence (cise directorate)
Biomedical engineering (eng
directorate)
Finding a Home(s) at NSF
• Come to
www.nsf.gov
• Click on Awards
Search the Abstracts
• Click on the:
– Search all Fields tab
• Type in keywords:
– Multiattribute utility
Viola – Potential Homes
• Welcome to your
potential homes:
– DRMS
– SBIR (for applied
work with goal of
commercialization
– Engineering Design
and Innovation
– Magnetospheric
Physics?
Once you have some leads
• Send a 1-2 page e-mail to the
relevant program director(s)
– Research question(s)
– Theory on which you build
– Methods
– Major citations (including journal
name)
So What is The Process
• You work, work, work
– Submit January or August 18th.
• I work, work, work
–
–
–
–
Perhaps request co-review if you didn’t
Send out requests for 6 external reviews
Assign proposal to 2 DRMS panelists for review.
Convene panel to discuss proposals and make
funding recommendations
Then
• You experience
– The thrill of victory (p approx. .25)
– the agony of defeat (p approx. 75)
Silly Submitter Tricks
• Multiattribute Utility in an Emotional
Space
– “In this proposal I outline a series of
experiments which will demonstrate that
Professor Lerner’s model of emotionspecific influences on judgment is not
specific and is, if fact, just silly.”
A Savvy Alternative
• From the Grant Proposal Guide
– c. List of Suggested Reviewers or
Reviewers Not to Include (optional)
• Proposers may include a list of suggested
reviewers who they believe are especially well
qualified to review the proposal.
• Proposers also may designate persons they
would prefer not review the proposal, indicating
why.
Another Silly Submitter Trick
• From the Grant Proposal
Guide
– c. List of Suggested
Reviewers or Reviewers Not
to Include (optional)
– Proposers may include a list
of suggested reviewers who
they believe are especially
well qualified to review the
proposal.
– Proposers also may
designate persons they
would prefer not review the
proposal, indicating why.
• Suggested Reviewers for
“Multiattribute Utility in an
Emotional Space”
– Danny Kahneman – bet the
program director hasn’t
heard of him!
– College roommate
(alwayscrying@emot.com)
was always pretty emotional
– John Coauthoredallmyother
papers –
(almostsameemailasme@
questionableu.edu) - very
knowledgeable about my
work.
Now, You might think
• It’s not worth wasting a lot of time writing the proposal
• After all, why would reviewers think that just
because you wrote a sloppy proposal, you’d do
sloppy research?
• Bad Idea
Now, You might think
• It’s not important to proofread your proposal carefully.
• After all, this isn’t grade school. It’s the
quality of the ideas that count, not neatness.
• Bad Idea
Now, You might think
• You shouldn’t waste time making sure the project
summary and abstract clearly and concisely outline the
problem, the objectives, the project activities, and
expected outcomes.
After all, reviewers can darn well study the full
proposal if they want to get a clear idea about
what you are proposing to do. Let them earn
their understanding the old-fashioned way by
slogging through your proposal page-by-page.
• Bad Idea
Now, You might think
• It’s not important to write clearly and succinctly.
After all, reviewers might not respect you if your
proposal is too easy to understand.
Bad Idea
Now, You might think
• It’s not necessary to provide details about the specifics
of your research plan – clearly stated hypotheses, a
crisp summary of your research plan and procedures,
and the other elements that make it clear exactly how
you intend to go about answering your research
questions.
• After all, the reviewers will not require all this
extraneous detail in order to recognize the
distinctively high quality of your work. A
simple “trust-me” appeal should do the trick.
• Bad Idea
Now, You might think
• It’s not worth paying attention to the reviews
of previous versions of your proposal.
Where do they find these ignoramuses anyway?
They’re not even smart enough to understand
your proposal or, if they do, they don’t
understand why it’s important. Don’t bother
trying to address their questions. Maybe you’ll
get better reviewers next time.
• Bad Idea
Good Luck!