NSF funding: a view from the “ inside ”

NSF funding: a view from the “inside” Richard McCourt EHR/DGE National Science Foundation rmccourt@nsf.gov

Where to Submit @ NSF • Discipline-based Directorates: • Biological Sciences (BIO) • Computer & Information Sciences & Engineering (CISE) • Engineering (ENG) • Geosciences (GEO) • Mathematical & Physical Sciences (MPS) • Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences (SBE) • Education & Human Resources • Divisions within each Directorate • Sections/Clusters • Programs within Sections • Program Directors (permanent & IPAs)

EHR’s Organizational Structure

The EHR Enterprise at NSF:Program Overview • Investments across STEM fields to support education achievement and workforce development: • Education Research, Development, Evaluation • Teacher Development, Capacity Building and Partnerships in K-12 Education • Broadening Participation; Support for Minority Serving Institutions • STEM Career Pathways: Undergraduate Education • Public Engagement with Science • Innovation in Graduate Education

Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide Applying for grants and Managing Awards http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf09_1/index.jsp?org=NSF

Preparing the Proposal: • Start Early (3-6 months before deadline)! • Review NSF Award Abstracts (Fastlane) • Talk to your NSF Program Director • Talk to your colleagues; have experienced colleagues review a draft and comment • Recruit and describe university infrastructure support for your proposed project • Address the merit review criteria • Compliance checks (PAPP)

Program directors: available to you for advice and appointments (conference booths, visits to NSF) Program directors are your contacts for becoming a reviewer and panelist • Do your homework before you meet with or call program officers, prepare specific questions • Program directors can help you find out about other programs and make contacts across the Foundation

Working with your Program Director • Funding decisions are based on many factors, but not on personal relationships with program directors • Program Officers should be treated as you would a respected colleague • They are busy: contact them only when necessary (check the agency web site first) and in a way that allows for an efficient reply (email is preferred) • Do not contact them when you are upset (following a declination)

$ $ Review Process Overview Two distinct audiences – technical and general You reviewer reviewer reviewer reviewer reviewer reviewer reviewer Program Director Panel Program Director or

Who Gets Funded (Ideal World) Typically funded “Gray” Zone Number of proposals “Almost Always Funded” Almost Never funded Poor Fair Good Outstanding Excellent Very Good

Give careful consideration • Two NSF Merit Review Criteria • Integration of Research and Education • Integration of Diversity into projects and activities • Additional program-specific Review Criteria (listed in the program announcement) • Institutional data—know thyself and tell the reader.

Merit Review Criteria and the “New” Broader Impacts • Intellectual Merit: The Intellectual Merit criterion encompasses the potential to advance knowledge And • Broader Impacts: The Broader Impacts criterion encompasses the potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes.

For Both Criteria: • Potential to advance knowledge and benefit society • Explore cretive original or potentially transformative concepts • Well-reasoned, organized plan to carry out and assess • Qualifications of personnel • Adequate resources

Commandments for Writing Competitive NSF Proposals “Thou shalt propose a brilliant idea.” “Thou shalt read the PAPP, or at least the good parts.” “Thou shalt get help with proposal writing.” “Thou shalt spell chek.” “Thou shalt write for the right audience.” “Thou shalt not irritate the reviewers.” “Thou shalt not kill (with some exceptions) too many trees.” "Thou shalt not steal the work of others."

The NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program

GRFP Overview • Initiated 1952 • 46,500 Fellows to date • 30 Nobel Laureates & 440 National Academy of Sciences members • 4,600 Active Fellows in 200 institutions • Higher Ph.D. completion rates • Enhanced diversity

GRFP Key Elements Five Year Award – $126,000 (+) • Three years of support • $30,000 Stipend per year • $12,000 Educational allowance to institution • International research opportunities – expanded • Supercomputer access (XSEDE)

GRFP Unique Features • Flexible: choice of project, advisor & program • Unrestrictive: No service requirement • Portable: Any accredited institution • MS PhD • 2010-2012: 2,000 Fellowships • 12,000 Applications - ~17% success rate

NSF-Supported Disciplines • Chemistry • Computer & Information Science/Engineering • Engineering • Geosciences • Life Sciences • Mathematical Sciences • Physics and Astronomy • Psychology • Social Sciences

RUI Research at Undergraduate Institutions Baccalaureate degrees in NSF-supported fields 2-4 year institutions No more than 10 Ph.D.s per year Funded by individual Divisions

RUI Research at Undergraduate Institutions Additional Requirement: RUI Impact Statement on effects of research on educational environment of institution 5 page maximum Institution certifies RUI status

ROA Research Opportunity Awards Faculty from RUIs do research as visiting scientists Supplement existing NSF-supported research Request comes from host institution

CAREERFaculty Early Career Development NSF-Wide Junior faculty (untenured) Integrated Research and Teaching $400-500K over 5 years PECASE – Agency nominated, White House OSTP selects

REUResearch Experiences for Undergraduates Cross-cutting, all fields supported by NSF, including interdisciplinary Sites – cohorts at a field station, lab, site (full proposals) Supplements – for existing awards (short proposals) Research, pipeline to attract and retain STEM students

REUResearch Experiences for Undergraduates Possible partners Department of Defense Department of Energy (Geothermal and renewable energy) International Ethics Research Experiences for Teachers Evaluative Research

MRIMajor Research Instrumentation Development or acquisition of shared instruments Not startup funding for one investigator <$100,000 for non-Ph.D. granting institutions (plus all math, social and behavioral sciences) $100,000-$4 M for all institutions 30% cost share for Ph.D.-granting

MRIMajor Research Instrumentation SEMs and TEMs Confocal Microscopes, Fluorescence Stereomicroscope* Radar Observatory Real-time PCR* Time-of-flight Gas Chromatograph Laser Ablation System for Coupled Mass Spectroscopy* NMR Elemental Analyzers* *<$100,000

TUESTransforming Undergraduate Education in STEM Creating Learning Materials and Strategies Implementing New Instructional Strategies Developing Faculty Expertise Assessing and Evaluating Student Achievement Conducting Research on Undergraduate STEM Education

RAPIDRapid Response Research Severe urgency, disaster response or unexpected events Brief (2-5 pages) Internal review Up to $200K, 1 year

Recent RAPIDs Fire severity and ecosystems in Minnesota (Ecosystem Studies) Change in phytoplankton community structure of Lake Erie in low ice year (Biological Oceanography) Hurricane Irene Storm Surge Sedimentation (Deep Earth Processes) Digital catalog of linguist notes on endangered Itelman language (Arctic) Social networks in Moroccan elections (Political Science)

EAGEREArly-concept Grants for Exploratory Research Early stages, potentially transformative New approaches, combinations of disciplines, perspectives High Risk/High Reward Brief (5-8 pages) Up to $300K, 2 years

Recent EAGERs • Marine biopolymers as tracers of biogeochemical processes (Biological Oceanography) • Ecogenomics and metabolomics and the evolution of pathogenecity (Ecology of Infectious Diseases) • Silicon Graphane Analogues (Solid State & Materials Chemistry) • Programming the Crowd (Software & Hardware Foundation)

NSF funding: a view from the “ inside ”