10/5/2015 Applying for an NSF grant: Tips for success Melanie Roberts, Ph.D. University of Colorado, Boulder TIGER presentation, April 9, 2009 Visiting Research Fellow, Center for Science and Technology Policy Research (Formerly: AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellow, National Science Foundation)

Outline Basics of the National Science Foundation Identifying Opportunities Procedures Separating Awards from Declinations Tips

NSF in a Nutshell Government agency Supports basic research and education Low overhead; highly automated Discipline-based structure Cross-disciplinary mechanisms Use of Rotators Funds investigator- initiated ideas National Science Board

CU gets more than its share of NSF funding CU $48 M (17%) $54.3M (19%)

Schizophrenic Mission: “Basic” vs “Applied” Research As defined by Vannevar Bush in The Endless Frontier, 1945: Basic research is performed without thought of practical ends. It results in general knowledge and an understanding of nature and its laws. This general knowledge provides the means of answering a large number of important practical problems, though it may not give a complete specific answer to any one of them. The function of applied research is to provide such complete answers. From National Science Foundation Strategic Plan, Today’s research requires globally-engaged investigators working collaboratively across agencies and international organizations to apply the results of basic research to long-standing global challenges such as epidemics, natural disasters and the search for alternative energy sources.

Where to Start? Check awards by program, keyword, etc. ( Sign up for “National Science Foundation Update” Read instructions carefully  Read Grant Proposal Guide before beginning If questions, call NSF program officer

Funding Opportunities - overview Unsolicited proposals to programs Program announcements & solicitations Dear Colleague Letter (no new money) Doctoral dissertation improvement grants Rapid response research (RAPID) Early concept grants for exploratory research (EAGER)

Identifying the appropriate program Directorate -> Division -> Program -> Solicitation

Program instructions Solicitations would be listed here

Interdisciplinary projects Check “cross-cutting” programs & solicitations Otherwise, you can submit to more than one program  First listed will be lead  Call both program officers  Co-reviewed proposals have slightly higher funding rate Get collaborators with appropriate expertise  Careful about weak collaborations!

Funding for grad students & postdocs Graduate Research Fellowships Doctoral dissertation improvement grants Postdoctoral Research Fellowships

American Investment & Recovery Act $3B on top of an annual budget of $6.5B No new solicitations (probably)  Fund some previous declines  Increase funding rates  May ask for up to 5 years of funding  Priorities: New investigators, high risk research Most awards will be made by Sept 30,  Average time of review = 5.6 months Broader impacts for communities & economy?

What if you don’t have a proposal ready to go?

Rapid Response Research (RAPID) Severe urgency with regard to availability of or access to data, facilities or specialized equipment, including quick-response research on natural or anthropogenic disasters and similar unanticipated events. Internal peer review $200,000 maximum for 1 year  May request extension Two to five page project description Must contact program officer first

Early-concept grants for exploratory research (EAGER) Exploratory work on untested, potentially transformative ideas High-risk, high-potential payoff Internal review only $300,000 maximum; 2 years  May request extension Five to eight page project description Must contact program officer first

Research & Education Communities NSF Proposal Generating Document Program Officer Analysis & Recom- mendation Proposal Process Division Director Concur Organization submits via FastLane Minimum of 3 Reviews Required Ad hoc Panel Both Proposal Processing Unit NSF Program Officer Returned as Inappropriate/Withdrawn Organization Award via DGA Decline 4 months30 days Proposal Preparation Time Proposal received by NSFDiv. Dir. ConcurAward Review of Proposal P.O. Recommend DGA Review & Processing of Award

Funding Decisions Peer reviewers provide recommendations Program Officer decision Feedback to PI Scope of work and budget discussions 24% funding rate, but varies by program  New programs are tricky

What to include in your proposal? Two Merit Review Criteria  Intellectual merit Must be outstanding  Broader impacts Helps put some proposals over top Project timeline & outputs Specific roles for all participants Biosketch – specific format Equipment & facilities Prior funding & results Budget & justification Fifteen pages

Intellectual Merit How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields? How well qualified is the proposer (individual or team) to conduct the project? (If appropriate, the reviewer will comment on the quality of prior work.) To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts? How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity? Is there sufficient access to resources?

Broader Impacts Promote teaching, training and learning Broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)\ Enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks and partnerships  Disseminate results broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding  Benefit society

Writing Tips Generalizable knowledge Well-grounded in the literature Read carefully! Follow all instructions! If in doubt, leave it out Project summary is the most important piece Suggest reviewers Letters of support from collaborators Buzz words = transformative, interdisciplinary No typos!!!

Reasons for Declinations Bad fit for program “Trust-me” proposal Not grounded in literature Not feasible  Expertise gaps  Insufficient funding  Too ambitious Incremental contribution – “ho hum” proposals Bad luck

NSF vs. NIH NSF tends to be smaller NSF stresses basic research In NIH, reviewers come up with numerical score, and proposals are funded down list until money runs out In NSF peer reviewers provide recommendations and program officers make decisions  More flexibility on “high-risk” research  Balance portfolio NSF uses “revise & resubmit” loosely

Human Subjects No award for a project involving human subjects can be made without prior Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval of the research activity. IRB approval is not needed at the time of proposal submission.

Budget Tips Amounts  Reasonable for work -- Realistic  Well Justified -- Need established  In-line with program guidelines Eligible costs  Personnel  Equipment  Travel  Other Direct Costs, Subawards  Facilities & Administrative Costs  Broader impacts – discuss with PO

Final Words of Advice Subject your grant to peer review before you submit it Collaborate! The right names help… or call Program Officer with specific questions  Ask for a copy of a successful proposal If at first you don’t succeed… try again!  This time, with expert reviews to help you out.

10/5/2015 The End

NSF Sources of Reviewers Program Officer’s knowledge References listed in the proposal Google Community of Science and other databases Reviewer’s recommendations Investigator’s suggestions