Applying to the National Science Foundation

1. Applying to the National Science Foundation OSP Awareness Oct 2011 ospoff@syr.edu, osp.syr.edu

2. NSF’s Mission • To promote the progress of science; • to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; • and to secure the national defense.

3. NSF organization..… Supports all fields of fundamental science & engineering (except medical (bioengineering okay)) • Directorates Biosciences; Computer & Information Science & Engineering; Education & Human Resources; Engineering; Geosciences; Math & Physical Sciences; Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences • Offices Cyberinfrastructure; Integrative Activities; International Science & Engineering; Polar Programs

4. Programs & Opportunities Four Basic Categories Announcements and Funding Opportunities: • Dear Colleague Letter • Program Description • Program Announcement • Program Solicitation

5. Dear Colleague Letter • Provides general information to the research community • Clarifies existing policy or document • Inform NSF proposer community about upcoming opportunities or special competitions for supplements

6. Program Description • Broad general descriptions of programs or activities in NSF Directorates, Offices, and Divisions to encourage proposal submission in specific areas of interest to NSF

7. Program Announcement • Refers to formal NSF publications announcing NSF program • Primary mechanism to communicate research opportunities • PA’s use generic eligibility and proposal guidelines specified in the Grant Proposal Guide, incorporate NSF Merit Review Criteria

8. Program Solicitation • Encourage proposal submission in specific NSF program areas of interest • Generally more focused than Program Announcements • Normally apply for a limited time period • Typically include supplemental proposal preparation guidance • May contain specifically crafted review criteria

9. Program Solicitation (cont’d) • Require Letter of Intent or Preliminary Proposal • May limit number of proposals submitted by SU • Typically require additional award conditions/reporting requirements

10. Grants for Rapid Response Research (RAPID) EArly-concept Grants for Exploratory Research (EAGER) Facilitation awards for sci. & eng /c disabilities Supplemental requests (REUs, RETs) Collaborative proposals Equipment Conferences, Symposia & Workshops International Travel Doctoral Dissertation Types of Submissions- currently all thru FASTLANE - • Letter of Intent • Preliminary Proposal • Full Proposal • Variations on the theme:

11. Types of Submissions (cont’d) • Letter of Intent • Required in advance of full proposal submission • Used by NSF staff to gauge size and range of interest in the completion • Avoid potential conflicts of interests by reviewers

12. Types of Submissions (cont’d) • Preliminary Proposal • Reduce proposers’ unnecessary effort in proposal preparation when likelihood of success small • Increase overall quality at full submission • Proposers will receive an “Invite/Not Invite” or “Encourage/Discourage”

13. Submission “Deadlines” • Target Dates – “soft” • Program Officer approval required for submission after Target Date • Deadline Dates – “hard” (5:00 p.m. local) • Submission windows – time frame; end date “hard” (5:00 p.m. local)

14. NSF Proposals Convey • 1) the project’s objectives and significance to science, engineering or education; • It’s a great idea that’s important to NSF Project Description, Summary • 2) the suitability of the methods proposed; • The approach used is the best path to take; work is feasible and risks are reasonable relative to benefits. Project Description

15. NSF Proposals Convey cont’d • 3) The qualifications of the investigator, project team and grantee organization to perform the proposed work Biosketches • The investigator and the team possess the necessary expertise to assure project success. • Also used by PO to assess possible conflicts of interest

16. NSF Proposals Convey cont’d Facilities and Other Resources • Are all necessary resources and facilities available to assure project success • Describe only those resources directly applicable to the research • Use a narrative format • Do NOT include quantifiable financial information

17. NSF Proposals Convey cont’d • 4) the impact of the activity on the infrastructure of science, engineering and education; and • Broader impacts may include enabling the next generation of scientists, engineers & educators. Project Description • 5) the cost of the project. • There’s value for the investment; the cost is “in line” with similar projects. Budget & Justification

18. Review Criteria • What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity? • What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?

19. Intellectual Merit • Significance & impact - Importance to advancing knowledge and understanding within and across fields • Significance & innovation - Suggest and explore creative & original concepts? • Approach – Conception & organization of the activity? • Qualifications – Qualifications of PI/team (prior work) • Capability - Access to resources?

20. Broader Impacts • Is discovery & understanding advanced while teaching, training, and learning is promoted? • Broaden the participation of underrepresented groups • Enhance the infrastructure for research and education, e.g., facilities, instrumentation, networks and partnerships • Broad dissemination of results to enhance scientific and technology understanding • How will society benefit? • Examples illustrating activities likely to demonstrate broader impacts are available at http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/gpg/broaderimpacts.pdf.

21. In addition… NSF staff consider… • Integration of research and education • Efforts that infuse education with the excitement of discovery and enrich research through the diversity of learning perspectives.

22. Integrating diversity into NSF programs, projects & activities • Further NSF’s mission to broaden opportunities for & enable participation of all men and women, underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering.

23. Types of Review • Panel, Mail Review, Combination • Minimum 3 peer reviewers per proposal • Panel review = jointly conducted by peer reviewers with broad scientific knowledge • Mail review (a.k.a. “ad hoc review”) = reviewers with specific expertise in related fields; PO may use List of Suggested Reviewers in the application • Reviewers remain anonymous throughout • 8% = ad hoc; 55% = panel; 32% = combination panel/ad hoc

24. What’s new in 2011? • Data Management Plan • What’s produced: the types of data, samples, physical collections, software, curriculum materials, and other materials; • Standards to be used for data and metadata format and content (where existing standards are absent or deemed inadequate, this should be documented along with any proposed solutions or remedies);

25. What’s new in 2011? – DMP con’t • Policies for access and sharing including provisions for appropriate protection of privacy, confidentiality, security, intellectual property, or other rights or requirements; • Policies and provisions for re-use, re-distribution, and the production of derivatives; and • Plans for archiving data, samples, and other research products, and for preservation of access to them. • Include costs for DMP in budget!

26. What’s new in 2011- DMP con’t • Visit the OSP website for more information about NSF Directorate, Division, & Program Specific Guidance and a data management plan template: http://osp.syr.edu/forms%20and%20pages/pages/nsf---data-management-plan.html

27. What’s new in 2011? Cont’d • Voluntarily committed cost sharing is prohibited • No voluntary committed effort. PIs and key personnel are expected to devote some measurable effort on all sponsored projects. • Organizational Resources necessary and available for the project should be described in the Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources section (II.C.2.i).

28. What’s new in 2011? Cont’d • The description should be narrative in nature and must not include any quantifiable financial information financial information.

29. What’s continuing from 2010 • Responsible Conduct of Research • All undergraduate, graduate students and postdocs compensated by NSF must complete training in the Responsible Conduct of Research

30. What’s continuing from 2010 Cont’d

31. What’s continuing from 2010 Cont’d • For more information on RCR visit http://osp.syr.edu/Award-Management/compliance---post-award1/responsible-conduct-of-research-rcr.pdf

32. Getting Started • Review Directorate/program’s web site • Review announcement or solicitation carefully • Review what’s been funded in the past • http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/ • Contact Program manager EARLY • You want to do what… might they be interested? Would there be other programs interested?

33. Writing… • Start early (2 weeks before the deadline not recommended…) • Write for the reviewers • Ask program manager how reviewed? Panel, mail, both? • Make proposal a delight to read! • Use meaningful/informative headers • Don’t use full justification • White space helps!!

34. Writing …. • Have others review your narrative • Clear? Are review criteria addressed? • Any obvious holes to be filled? • Broader impacts meaningfully addressed? • Scientific experts and “generalist experts”. • Write project summary last. • Two separate sections  Int. Merit & Broader Imp.

35. Project Description Possible Outline (GPG) NOTE: Program solicitations may specify organization and content; these guidelines should be followed. • Introduction to project and its purpose (Introduce objectives in first page or two) • Context in which project fits • State of Knowledge – what is known, what’s not • Preliminary/foundational data • Significance of Project… So what? • Project Objectives– brief list of what you will do & their significance

36. Possible Outline cont’d • Approach/Experimental Design/Methods • What will you do, how will you analyze and interpret data and results? • How do you know your methods work? (What does “success look like? Controls? Evaluation process?) • What challenges might you encounter and how will you work around them? • Dissemination plan (including Data Management Plan) • Time line/project management • Broader Impacts & integration of research & education • Prior NSF results

37. Fastlane and other issues • www.FASTLANE.nsf.gov • Register (contact your OSP Research Administrator) • OSP can reset passwords if you’ve forgotten yours. • Formatting – Must follow GPG unless solicitation says otherwise… • http://www.nsf.gov/pubsys/ods/getpub.cfm?gpg • OSP does get proposals returned for non-compliance • Biosketches, font too small, publications non-compliance, collaborators not complete • Project summary in first person, intellectual merit / broader impacts not separately presented.

38. OSP resources… **NSF proposal checklist (osp.syr.edu / forms) • Amy Deppa (e- apps) asdeppa@syr.edu • Amy Graves (CAS, FALK) ajgraves@syr.edu • Meghan MacBlane (iSchool) mtmacbla@syr.edu • Caroline McMullin (Maxwell, SoE) cmcmulli@syr.edu • Stuart Taub (LCSmith) staub@syr.edu