1. Introduction and NSF Overview September 2006

2. Main Topics Origins of NSF The National Science Foundation
The NSF FY 2007 Budget Request
NSF Initiatives
Current Proposal, Award and Funding Trends
The New NSF Web Site

3. Origins of NSF

4. Origins of NSF
“The Government should accept new responsibilities for promoting the flow of scientific knowledge and the development of scientific talent in our youth.”
Science, The Endless Frontier, 1945
1947: Congress Approves, Truman Vetoes: Agencies created in the meantime
1950: Compromise Bill Approved & Signed by Truman

5. NSF Act of 1950 “To promote the progress of science…”
NSB (24) and 1 Director, appointed by the President
Encourage & develop a national policy for the promotion of basic research and education in the math, physical, medical,biological, engineering and other sciences
Initiate & support basic scientific research in the sciences
Evaluate the science research programs undertaken by agencies of the Federal government
Provide information for S&E policy formation

6. NSF Vision
Enabling the nation’s future through discovery, learning and innovation.
NSF-3

7. NSF in a Nutshell Discipline-based structure Independent Agency
Cross-disciplinary mechanisms
Use of Rotators/IPAs
National Science Board
Independent Agency
Supports basic research & education
Uses grant mechanism
Low overhead; highly automated

8. National Science Foundation
Director
Deputy Director
National Science
Board
Inspector
General
Staff Offices
Computer &
Information
Science
& Engineering
Mathematical
& Physical
Sciences
Biological
Sciences
Engineering
Geosciences
Social, Behavioral
& Economic
Sciences
Budget,
Finance
& Award
Management
Information Resource
Management
Education
& Human
Resources

9. National R&D funding, by source
SOURCE: Science and Engineering Indicators

10. President Submits Budget to Congress Develop Conference Report
NSF Budget Cycle
NSF
OMB
President Submits Budget to Congress
House
Budget Committee
Authorization Committees
Appropriations Subcommittee
Appropriations Committee
Full House Version
Senate
Budget Committee
Authorization Committees
Appropriations Subcommittee
Appropriations Committee
Full Senate Version
Develop Conference Report
Each Chamber Passes Conference Report
President Signs
OLPA-8

11. NSF’s Congressional Players
House
Senate
Budget
Budget Committee
Committee on Science
Subcommittee on Research
Subcommittee on Science,
Justice, and Commerce and
Related Agencies
Budget
Budget Committee
Health, Education, Labor
and Pensions
Commerce, Science and
Transportation Committee
Subcommittee on
Commerce, Justice and
Science
Authorization
Authorization
Appropriations
Appropriations
OLPA-9

12. Federal R&D budget authority, by budget function
SOURCE: Science and Engineering Indicators

13. Trends in Research by Agency FY 1976-2007
billions of constant FY 2006 dollars
Source: AAAS analyses of R&D in annual AAAS R&D reports. FY 2007 figures are President’s request. Research includes basic and applied research figures are NSF data on obligations in the Federal Funds survey. March ’06 © 2006 AAAS.
OLPA-25

14. NSF Role in Research and Development
Fiscal Year 2002 N I H

15. NSF Support as a Percentage of Total Federal Support of Academic Basic Research
(excluding NIH)
Percentage
OLPA-29

16. NSF Support for Basic Research at Academic Institutions
Share of Total Federal Support - FY 2003 Preliminary

17. President’s Comp Initiative
President’s American Competitiveness Initiative
Double the NSF budget over 10 years
Cover image credit: Eric J. Heller, Harvard University
Cover image credit: Eric J. Heller, Harvard University

19. (Increase from FY 2006: $439 million, 7.9%)
Big Picture
$6.02 billion
(Increase from FY 2006: $439 million, 7.9%)

20. NSF Funding by Account
NSF FY 2007 Budget

21. R&RA by Directorate
NSF FY 2007 Budget

22. EHR by Division
NSF FY 2007 Budget

23. MREFC Account
NSF FY 2007 Budget

24. NSTC Crosscuts
NSF FY 2007 Budget

25. Sensors Explosives Sensors for the Detection of Explosives $20 million
Credit: Mete Sozen and Julio Ramirez, Purdue University School of Civil Engineering

26. International Polar Year
IPY
International Polar Year
$62 million
Credit: Michael Van Woert, NOAA
Marnie’s notes
From KO/Norway speech
Iceberg photo for International Polar Year
Slide image: Photograph of an iceberg floating in water
Iceberg
Michael Van Woert, NOAA
From NOAA photo library, no permission needed
Michael Van Woert, NOAA

27. Science Met Rev
Science Metrics
$6.8
million

28. Cyberinfrastructure Cyberinfrastructure $597 million
Petascale Computing $50 million
Credit: Bob Wilhelmson, NCSA and the University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign; Lou Wicker, National Severe Storms Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Matt Gilmore, Lee Cronce, Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois. Visualization by Donna Cox, Robert Patterson, Stuart Levy, Matt Hall, Alex Betts, NCSA.
Marnie’s notes
From KO/Norway speech
Iceberg photo for International Polar Year
Slide image: Photograph of an iceberg floating in water
Credit: Michael Van Woert, NOAA
Iceberg
Credit: Bob Wilhelmson, NCSA and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Lou Wicker, National Severe Storms Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Matt Gilmore, Lee Cronce, Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois. Visualization by Donna Cox, Robert Patterson, Stuart Levy, Matt Hall, Alex Betts, NCSA.
Credit: NCSA, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and NOAA.

29. Sunflower blank Bolstering K-12 Education
Discovery Research K-12 $104 M Grand Challenges
Developing effective science and mathematics assessments for K-12
Improving science teaching and learning in the elementary grades
Introducing cutting-edge discoveries into K-12 classrooms
Credit: Barry Myers

30. Current Proposal, Award and Funding Trends

31. NSF Recent Trends: FY 2002 to FY 2005
Change
from
FY02 to
FY05
FY02
FY03
FY04
FY05
Obligations Incurred
(Millions of Dollars)
$4,954
$5,579
$5,871
$5,654
14%
Organizational
Excellence
$184
$196
$268
$292
59%
FTE
1,239
1,242
1,274
1,279 3%
# of Competitive
Proposals
35,164
40,075
43,851
41,722
19%
# of Competitive
Awards
10,406
10,844
10,380
9,757
-7%
Aver. Annual
Res. Grant Size
$115,666
$135,609
$139,637
$143,669
24%
Aver. Research
Grant Duration
(years) -
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.9

33. Old Site New Site

34. Key Documents FY 2007 NSF Budget Request
Grant Proposal Guide (NSF 04-23)
Science and Engineering Indicators
When in doubt –

35. Outline Proposal review process Research proposal preparation
Submission
Administrative Review
Scientific Review
Decisions
Research proposal preparation
Getting started
The proposal
Proposal writing tips

36. NSF Proposal & Award Process & Timeline
Returned As Inappropriate/Withdrawn
NSF
Proposal
Generating
Document
Administrative Review
Scientific Review
NSF
Minimum
of 3
Reviews
Required
Award
Via
DGA
Organization
submits
via
FastLane OR
Grants.gov
Proposal
Processing
Unit
Program
Director
Analysis
&
Recom.
Mail
Division
Director
Concur
Panel
NSF
Program
Director
Both
Organization
Research &
Education
Communities
Decline
Proposal Receipt
at NSF
DD Concur
Award
90 Days
6 Months
30Days
Proposal Preparation and Submission
DGA Review & Processing
of Award
Proposal Review and Decisions

37. Life of a Proposal Preparation Submission Administrative Review
Printed, checked for print problems, transferred to Division/Office
Assigned to program, cluster, section, etc.
Checked for compliance
Both review criteria
Format
Appropriateness
Scientific Review
ad hoc reviews
Panel review
Decisions
Award or decline recommendation by Program Director
Concurrence by Division Director
Non-award notifications by Division/Office
Award notifications by Division of Grants and Agreements

38. Proposal Submission 2 How? Who? To whom? What? When?
Via FastLane ( or Grants.gov (
Who?
To whom?
Selecting a program
What?
Basics of Proposal Types
When?
Target date, deadline and window

39. Proposal Submission - Who?2
Proposal Submission - Who?
Universities and colleges
Non-profit, non-academic organizations
For-profit organizations
State and local governments
Small Businesses – SBIR Program
Unaffiliated individuals
Foreign organizations

40. Proposal Submission – To whom? Categories of Funding Opportunities2
Proposal Submission – To whom? Categories of Funding Opportunities
Dear Colleague Letter
provides general information to community, clarifies or amends existing policy or document, or informs community about upcoming opportunities or special competitions for supplements to existing awards
Program Description
broad, general descriptions of programs
Program Announcement
similar to Program Descriptions
Program Solicitation
encourage submission of proposals in specific program areas of interest to NSF
more focused; normally apply for limited period of time
may include additional review criteria and reporting requirements, budgetary and eligibility limits, require letters of intent or pre-proposals, etc.

41. My NSF http://www.nsf.gov/mynsf/2
My NSF

42. Proposal Submission - What?2
Proposal Submission - What?
Letters of Intent
Only if needed by the program
Intent: to help NSF program staff to gauge size and range of competition
Contents: PI's and co-PI's names, proposed title, list of possible participating organizations, and synopsis
Not externally evaluated or used to decide on funding
Preliminary Proposal
Intent: to reduce unnecessary effort in proposal preparation and to increase the overall quality of full submission
Contents: based on the program
Review and decisions: peer review to aid decisions
Invite or Not invite
Encourage or Not encourage
Full Proposal
Typical submission to NSF

43. Proposal Submission - When?2
Proposal Submission - When?
Published in specific program descriptions, announcements, and solicitations
Target dates
dates after which proposals still accepted, but may miss a particular panel
Deadline dates
dates after which proposals will not be accepted for review
Submission Windows
designated periods of time during which proposals accepted for review
Accepted any time
e.g. SGER (Small Grants for Exploratory Research), conference/workshop proposals, supplements

44. Submission and afterwards2
Submission and afterwards
Submission
Check before you submit
Print out from FastLane to ensure pdf conversion is correct
Work with your Sponsored Projects Office
After submission
Acknowledgment and FastLane proposal status page
FastLane Proposal File Update module
Parts of a proposal may be replaced after submission

45. Administrative Review3
Administrative Review
Compliance Check
Print problems, format, page limits, etc.
Return without review
DOES NOT ADDRESS BOTH REVIEW CRITERIA IN PROJECT SUMMARY
inappropriate for funding by NSF
insufficient lead-time before the activity’s start
received after announced proposal deadline date
full proposal submitted when preliminary proposal "not invited"
duplicate of, or substantially similar to, proposal already under consideration by NSF from same submitter
does not meet NSF proposal preparation requirements
not responsive to GPG (Grant Proposal Guide) or program announcement/solicitation
previously reviewed and declined and has not been substantially revised
duplicates another proposal already funded

46. Merit Review Criteria 4 Intellectual merit of proposed activity
Creativity and originality
Advance knowledge and understanding within and across fields
Conceptualization and organization
Qualifications of investigators
Access to resources
Broader impacts of proposed activity
Advance discovery while promoting teaching, training, & learning
Broaden participation of underrepresented groups
Enhance infrastructure for research and education
Disseminate results to enhance scientific and technological understanding
Benefits to society
Examples:

47. Scientific Review 4 Mail Reviews (aka ad hoc) Panel Review
Identifying reviewers:
Reviewer suggestions by the principal investigator (PI)
Program Director’s knowledge of the research area
References listed in proposal
Recent technical programs from professional societies
Recent authors in scientific and engineering journals
Reviewer recommendations
Panel Review
Panelists may be asked to provide written reviews
Panelists discuss and rank proposals
Panelists usually write a panel summary

48. Reviewer Conflicts of Interest4
Reviewer Conflicts of Interest
Remove or limit influence of ties to an applicant institution or investigator that could affect reviewer advice
Preserve trust of scientific community, Congress, and general public in integrity, effectiveness, and evenhandedness of NSF’s peer review process

49. Reviewer Conflicts of Interest4
Reviewer Conflicts of Interest
Affiliations with applicant institutions
Current (e.g. faculty) or other (e.g. consultant) employment at the institution
Being considered for employment or any formal or informal reemployment arrangement at the institution
Any office, governing board membership or relevant committee membership at the institution
Relationships with investigator or project director
Known family or marital relationship
Business partner
Past or present thesis advisor or thesis student
Collaboration on a project, book, article, or paper within the last 48 months
Co-edited a journal, compendium, or conference proceedings within the last 24 months

50. Basis for Decisions: Reviews5
Basis for Decisions: Reviews
Peer Review
Content of review is more important than the rating
Program Director analyzes reviews for
Fairness
Substance
Technical problems
Reasons for the reviewer concerns or enthusiasm
Program Director sometimes obtains additional reviews or requests comments from PI
Panel recommendation

51. Basis for Decisions: A Balanced Portfolio5
Basis for Decisions: A Balanced Portfolio
Innovation and Creativity
Breadth of research areas
Priority areas and systems
Demographics and Diversity
Broadening participation
Institution/State impact - RUI, EPSCoR, etc.
Integration of research and education
International collaboration
PI situation - career point, other support

52. Why do some proposals fail?
Absence of innovative ideas or hypothesis
Will provide only an incremental advance
Not exciting or cutting edge
Errors
Unclear or incomplete expression of aims
Faulty logic or experimental design
Less than rigorous presentation
Unrealistic, sloppy or incomplete
Resources and facilities not in place
PI qualifications/expertise not evident
Necessary collaborations not documented

53. Funding and afterwards5
Funding and afterwards
Funding
Budget and scope negotiations
Afterwards
Do what you promised
Notifications & Requests via FastLane
Supplement opportunities
REU - Research Experience for Undergraduates
ROA - Research Opportunity Awards
RET - Research Experience for Teachers
Submit annual and final reports

54. Outline Proposal review process Research proposal preparation
A good proposal is a good idea, well expressed, with a clear indication of methods for pursuing the idea, evaluating the findings, making them known to all who need to know, and indicating the broader impacts of the activity.
Getting started
The proposal
Proposal writing tips

55. Step 1: Getting started Find the right program
Idea: There is no substitute!
Have a cutting edge idea
Find the right program
Program Directors (phone, )
Events like this!

56. Develop your brilliant idea
Key Questions
What do you intend to do?
Why is the work important?
What has already been done?
How are you going to do the work?
Make sure it is innovative and exciting
Survey the literature
Talk with others in the field
Can you convince people that you can do the project?
Obtain preliminary data
Develop arguments to support feasibility
Determine available facilities and resources
What you have
What collaborators can help with

57. Step 2: Grant Proposal Guide
Get it - Read it - Follow it
Proposal preparation and submission
Submission of collaborative proposals via
Subaward
Separate, yet linked, proposals
Small Grants for Exploratory Research
Review criteria and process
Return without review criteria
Withdrawal, declination, and award processes
Significant award administration procedures

58. Beyond the GPG
What to look for in a program solicitation/announcement/description:
Goal
Special proposal preparation instructions and/or other requirements (e.g., preproposals, letters of intent, etc.)
Deviations from the GPG
Additional review criteria or reporting requirements
Eligibility or budgetary limitations
Deadlines or target dates

59. Parts of a Proposal Cover sheet and certifications Project summary
Both intellectual merit and broader impacts described
Table of contents
Project description
References cited
Biographical sketches
Budgets and justification
Current and pending support
Facilities, equipment and other resources
Special information/documentation
NO reprints, preprints, letters of endorsement
Single Copy Documents
Reviewer suggestions, deviation authority, confidential information, etc.

60. Project Summary Include both review criteria Intellectual Merit
Proposals that do not separately address both criteria within the one-page Project Summary will be returned without review.
Intellectual Merit
Describe the scientific problem and why it is important
State the overall objective of the project
State the specific aims
Describe how the aims will be achieved
Broader Impacts
Educational & outreach activities; infrastructure; dissemination of results; underrepresented groups; benefit to society

61. Project Description The key to a strong proposal
Overall concept / rationale
Hypothesis-driven or Data-driven
Execution
Careful
Thorough
Appropriate

62. Project Description
Results from prior NSF support (required if applicable)
Objectives and expected significance
Relation to the PI’s longer term goals
Relation to present state of knowledge
Experimental methods and procedures
Sections optional:
preface, background, preliminary studies, specific objectives, significance, experimental plan

63. Project Description Know your audience Think about the reviewers
Write accurately, concisely, and clearly
Make it easy for reviewers to like your proposal
You never get a second chance to make a first impression
First page tells it all
Figures and tables get your point across clearly
The reviewers may not be an expert in your specific field

64. Biographical Sketch Professional Preparation Appointments Publications
5 closely related
5 other significant publications
Synergistic activities
Collaborators & other affiliations
Collaborators (last 4 yrs) & co-editors (last 2yrs)
Graduate and Postdoctoral Advisors
Thesis Advisor and Postgraduate-Scholar Sponsor

65. Budget Budgets should be
reasonable, but ask for what you need
for personnel, equipment, travel, participant support, & other direct costs (subaward, consultant, computer services, publication costs)
for cost of educational activities associated with research, where appropriate
Unless solicitation specifies otherwise, do not:
include cost-sharing on Line M in budget
exceed cost-sharing level or amount specified in solicitation
Justification

66. Current and Pending Support
List everything
current, pending and anticipated
Be careful of overlap
Perception of overlap could be detrimental in the review.
Dual submissions
when they are allowed

67. Proposal Writing Tips

68. 1. Get help with proposal writing
Read:
NSF publications
Successful proposals
Look before you leap:
Serve as a reviewer or panelist
Talk with people:
Program officers
Current or former “rotators”
Successful colleagues
Sponsored projects office

69. 2. Start early and don’t be shy
Write:
Rewrite and rewrite again
Get critiques from:
Mentors and colleagues
Previous members of review panels

70. 3. Be reasonable Be aware of the scope: Be honest and up-front:
“Too ambitious” vs. “Too narrow”
Be honest and up-front:
Address issues instead of trying to hide them
Acknowledge possible experimental problems and have alternatives

71. 4. Make it easy for the reviewers
Simplify and streamline:
Make sure you get your overall idea across!
Pay attention to details:
Run the spell checker and proof-read
Prepare clear photos, graphs, etc.
Make the font size as big as you can

72. 5. If you have to resubmit Stay calm! Keep in touch:
Take ten… breaths, hours, days
Examine the criticisms carefully
Keep in touch:
Call, or visit your program director
Rapid resubmission does not help!
Take time to self-evaluate the proposal and the project

73. Getting Support in Proposal Writing
NSF Publications
Program Solicitations
Grant Proposal Guide
Web Pages
Funded Project Abstracts
Reports, Special Publications
Program Directors
Incumbent
Former “Rotators”
Mentors on Campus
Previous Panelists
Serving As A Reviewer
Sponsored Research Office
Successful Proposals

74. Reorganizations & Initiatives & New Offices

75. Engineering Directorate

76. Engineering Reorganization

77. Office of Cyber Infrastructure
Acquisition of CI resources for Science
Acquisition of general CI
Training of future generations of researchers and educators in use of CI
FY 2007 Request $187 Million + CI investments of R&RA and Education Directorates

78. CI Programs
Petascale Acquisition
Mid-scale Acquisition
CI Team

79. Division of Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Environments
Combines ESIE and REC
Three Clusters
DRK12 + ITEST + …
REESE + ALT
ISE + ITEST + …
Reflects one of the NSF-wide Initiatives

80. Selected NSF Programs CPATH – CISE Undergraduate Program
ALT – Advanced Learning Technologies
DRK12 – Discovery Research K-12
SBIR
Biotechnology (BT)
Electronics (EL)
Emerging Opportunities (EO)
Information Technology (IT)

81. SBIR Review SBIR and STTR Phase 1 – 100K and 150K Phase 2 – 500K
Matchmaker Opportunities

83. Global Environment for Network Innovations (GENI)
PURPOSE
Build in security and robustness;
Enable the vision of pervasive computing and bridge the gap between the physical and virtual worlds by including mobile, wireless and sensor networks;
Enable control and management of other critical infrastructures;
Include ease of operation and usability; and
Enable new classes of societal-level services and applications.
The GENI Initiative includes:
A research program; and
A global experimental facility designed to explore new architectures at scale.

84. Major Research Instrumentation
Support the acquisition, through purchase, upgrade, or development, of major state-of-the-art instrumentation for research, research training, and integrated research/education activities at organizations;
Improve access to and increase use of modern research and research training instrumentation by scientists, engineers, and graduate and undergraduate students;
Enable academic departments or cross-departmental units to create well-equipped learning environments that integrate research with education;
Foster the development of the next generation of instrumentation for research and research training;
Promote partnerships between academic researchers and private sector instrument developers.

85. MRI – Amounts Normally $100,000 to $2,000,000
PUIs – may be less than $100,000
Success rate for PUIs high
Success rate for $1,000,000 to $2,000,000 fairly low (e.g. 8-10/year)
Check on cost-sharing in upcoming PA