1. 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

2. 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!

3. 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.

4. PHYSICISTS ENV I ENGINEERS MGB ENV II CPJ FRES II FRES I

5. 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 18 th (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 4 th Panel meeting on December 4th Final presentations December 4th This will be our last class. No class on December 2 nd and 9 th, 2004

6. 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!

7. Any questions?

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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. Top ten reasons why funding is normally not awarded http://www.hort.purdue.edu/rhodcv/hort652n/ho00005.htm

11. Funding trends in United States http://www.hort.purdue.edu/rhodcv/hort652n/ho00005.htm

15. AgencyFY 1991FY 1992FY 1993FY 1994FY 1995FY 1996FY 1997FY 1998FY 1999FY 2000FY 2001FY 2002 DOD37,20937,77938,84835,51035,34935,78337,23837,43038,53239,10942,74350,134 NIH8,9779,62459,89110,47410,76211,42512,21713,09714,94317,12519,71022,822 NASA8,1248,5448,8159,4069,4599,4329,3529,8849,7279,7789,92510,301 DOE7,3398,1337,4446,7716,4166,2736,2176,2887,0027,2327,7448,122 NSF1,8931,9722,0142,2432,3962,3912,4242,5682,7842,8543,2793,527 USDA1,3911,5191,4671,5281,4871,4881,5561,5531,6561,6931,9592,139 Commerce5375837921,0221,1189669641,0811,0761,0961,2011,354 Transportation411621 641666601612676696643747853 EPA459493497588554482595672692645609702 Interior620643649708668571591609627562631673 Total68,74771,94172,92871,07470,94871,20673,93476,10680,17083,34691,371103,694 Numbers in millions ($) http://www.hort.purdue.edu/rhodcv/hort652n/ho00005.htm

18. 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 Energy, Office of Energy Research Department of Transportation (DOT)Department of Transportation Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)Department of Health and Human Services Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)Environmental Protection Agency Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR)Michigan Department of Natural Resources National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)National Aeronautics and Space Administration National Science Foundation (NSF)National Science Foundation National Institutes of Health (NIH)National Institutes of Health National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST)National Institutes of Standards and Technology USDA Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (USDA CSREES)USDA Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service http://www.admin.mtu.edu/research/sprot/funding/federal.html

19. 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)

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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.).

23. 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

24. 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.esaltos@csrees.usda.govswelsh@csrees.usda.gov 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….

25. 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)

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. Rating Each reviewer is asked to rate each proposal overall as either: excellent very good good fair poor

31. 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%