Internet2 Day @ Marquette University March 5, 2004 Douglas Gatchell

1. NSF Overview Internet2 Day @ Marquette University March 5, 2004 Douglas Gatchell

2. Today’s Talk • Overview of NSF • Proposal Process • Career Opportunities • Funding Opportunities • CyberInfrastructure

3. NSF Vision Enabling the nation’s future through discovery, learningand innovation. NSF-3

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

5. National Science Board (NSB) • 24 members + Director; President appoints; Senate confirms • 6 year terms; rotation every 2 years at May NSB meeting • Authority to make awards delegated through NSB to Director and flows down to grant and contract officers

6. 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

7. NSF: Special Responsibilities • Polar Programs • U.S. Antarctic Program • Science Resources Statistics • Data collection and analysis • Science and Engineering Indicators • International NSF-8

8. NSF Strategic Outcome Goals • People - Developing “a diverse, internationally competitive and globally engaged workforce of scientists, engineers, and well-prepared citizens.” • Ideas - Enabling “discoveries across the frontier of science and engineering, connected to learning, innovation, and service to society.” • Tools - Providing “broadly accessible, state-of-the-art shared research and education tools.”

9. The NSF FY 2005 Budget

10. Federal Obligations for Basic Research at Academic Institutions, FY 2002 Total Federal Distribution ($000) NSF Share of Total Federal Computer sciences Mathematics Social sciences Environmental sciences Engineering Other Sciences Physical sciences Biological sciences (non-medical) Psychology Medical sciences

11. Appropriations for the National Science Foundation FY 1998 - 2004 Total Growth FY 98 – FY 04: $2.15 billion (68%) Millions of dollars 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 $5,745 FY’98 FY’99 FY’00 FY’01 FY’02 FY’03 FY’04 FY’05 (Request)

12. NSF FY 2005 Request by Account(Dollars in Millions)

13. NSF FY 2005 Budget Request Priority Areas(Dollars in Millions)

14. Microbial genome sequencing • Ecology of infectious diseases • Dynamics of coupled natural and human systems • Coupled biogeochemical cycles • Genome-enabled environmental sciences and engineering • Instrumentation development or environmental activities • Materials use: science, engineering and society

15. Agents of change • Dynamics of human behavior • Decision making under uncertainty • Spatial social science • Modeling human and social dynamics • Instrumentation and data resource development

16. Fundamental mathematical and statistical sciences • Advancing interdisciplinary science and engineering • Mathematical and statistical challenges posed by large data sets • Managing and modeling uncertainty • Modeling complex nonlinear systems • Advancing mathematical sciences education

17. Fundamental research and education: • Grand challenges • Centers and networks of excellence • Infrastructure • Societal and educational implications

18. Integrated science and engineering education investment • K-16 faculty preparation and development • Focus on broadening participation • Research on effective learning paths

19. Current Proposal, Award and Funding Trends

20. Comparison of NSF Budget, Staff, and Competitive Proposal Submission 250% 200% 150% 100% 50% 0% -50% Percentage Change 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

21. National Science FoundationProposal Statistics • 40,073 proposal actions • 207,411 reviews • 54,000 reviewers • 10,844 awards • 27.0% funding rate (Fiscal Year 2003) NSF-9

22. NSF Research Grant Profile • Competitive awards: 10,844 • Average annual award: $147,208 • Median annual award: $99,200 • Average duration: 2.55 years (Fiscal Year 2003) NSF-10

23. NSF Project Funding Profile Research Projects 52% Administration & Management 5% Education & Training 18% Research Centers 6% Research Facilities 19%

25. Key Documents • FY 2004 Federal Budget • http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/ • FY 2004 NSF Budget Request • http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/bud/fy2004/toc.htm • Grant Proposal Guide (NSF 04-2) • http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/getpub?gpg • Science and Engineering Indicators • http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind02/start.htm • When in doubt – www.nsf.gov

26. Proposal Preparation

27. Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) • Provides guidance for preparation of proposals • Specifies process for deviations including: • individual program announcements; and • by written approval of cognizant AD or designee • Describes process -- and criteria -- by which proposals will be reviewed • Describes process for withdrawals, returns & declinations • Describes the award process and procedures for requesting continued support • Identifies significant grant administrative highlights

28. What to Look for in a Program Announcement/Solicitation • Goal of program • Eligibility • Special proposal preparation and/or award requirements

29. No deadlines Deadlines Target dates Submission Windows Preliminary proposals Types of Proposal Submission

30. Sections of an NSF Proposal • Cover Sheet • Project Summary • Table of Contents • Project Description • References Cited • Biographical Sketch(es) • Budget • Current & Pending Support • Facilities, Equipment & Other Resources • Special Information & Supplementary Documentation

31. 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. A Good Proposal

32. Proposal Development • Key Questions for Prospective Investigator 1. What do you intend to do? 2. Why is the work important? 3. What has already been done? 4. How are you going to do the work? (USPHS)

33. Proposal Development Strategies Individual Investigator • Determine your long-term research/education goals or plan • Develop your bright idea • Survey the literature • Contact Investigators working on topic • Prepare a brief concept paper • Discuss with colleagues/mentors

34. Proposal Development Strategies Individual Investigator (cont’d) • Prepare to do the project • Determine available resources • Realistically assess needs • Develop preliminary data • Present to colleagues/mentors/students • Determine possible funding sources • Understand the ground rules

35. Proposal Development Strategies Individual Investigator (cont’d) • Ascertain overall scope and mission • Read carefully solicitation instructions • Determine where your project fits • Ascertain evaluation procedures and criteria • Talk with NSF Program Officer: • Your proposed project • Specific program requirements/limitations • Current program patterns • Coordinate with your organization’s sponsored projects office

36. Budgetary Guidelines • Amounts • Reasonable for work - Realistic • Well Justified - Need established • In-line with program guidelines • Eligible costs • Personnel • Equipment • Travel • Participant Support • Other Direct Costs (including subawards, consultant services, computer services, publication costs)

37. Cost Sharing • Unless a program solicitation specifies otherwise, do not: • include cost sharing amounts on Line M of the proposal budget; or • exceed the cost sharing level or amount specified in the solicitation.

38. Budgetary Guidelines (cont’d) • General Suggestions • All funding sources noted in Current and Pending Support • Help from Sponsored Projects Office

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

40. Merit Review

41. NSF Proposal & Award Process & Timeline NSF Announces Opportunity Returned Without Review/Withdrawn GPG Announcement Solicitation Min. 3 Revs. Req. Award Via DGA N S F NSF Program. Office Program Office Analysis & Recomm. Org. submits via FastLane Mail DD Concur Panel Both Organization Research & Education Communities Decline Proposal Receipt at NSF Award DD Concur 90 Days 6 Months 30 Days Proposal Receipt to Division Director Concurrence of Program Officer Recommendation DGA Review & Processing of Award Proposal Preparation Time

42. Return Without Review The Proposal: • is inappropriate for funding by the National Science Foundation • is submitted with insufficient lead-time before the activity is scheduled to begin; • is a full proposal that was submitted by a proposer that has received a "not invited" response to the submission of a preliminary proposal; • is a duplicate of, or substantially similar to, a proposal already under consideration by NSF from the same submitter;

43. Return Without Review The Proposal: • does not meet NSF proposal preparation requirements, such as page limitations, formatting instructions, and electronic submission, as specified in the Grant Proposal Guide or program solicitation;) • is not responsive to the GPG or program announcement/solicitation; • does not meet an announced proposal deadline date (and time, where specified); or • was previously reviewed and declined and has not been substantially revised.

44. Return Without Review • Per Important Notice 127, “Implementation of new Grant Proposal Guide Requirements related to the Broader Impacts Criterion” -- • Proposals that do not separately address both criteria within the one-page Project Summary will be returned without review.

45. NSF Merit Review Criteria • NSB Approved Criteria include: • Intellectual Merit • Broader Impacts of the Proposed Effort

46. What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity? • Potential Considerations: • 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 and original concepts? • How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity? • Is there sufficient access to resources?

47. What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity? Potential Considerations: • How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training and learning? • How well does the activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)? • To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks and partnerships?

48. What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity? • Potential Considerations (continued): • Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding? • What may be the benefits of the proposed activity to society?

49. Reviewer Selection • Identifying reviewers • PI reviewer suggestions

50. NSF Sources of Reviewers • Program Officer’s knowledge of what is being done and who’s doing what in the research area • References listed in proposal • Recent technical programs from professional societies • Recent authors in Scientific and Engineering journals • S&E Abstracts by computer search • Reviewer recommendations • Investigator’s suggestions • (Letter to Program Officer)