Funding Opportunities at NSF 2010 Neuroeconomics Conference

1. Funding Opportunities at NSF2010 Neuroeconomics Conference Jonathan W. Leland Decision, Risk and Management Science Division of Social and Economic Sciences Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences National Science Foundation

2. Where’s the money?

3. Where’s the Money for Neuroecon? • 2 potential sources • Special solicitations (primarily CRCNS) • Unsolicited proposals to standing programs (primarily in Social, Behavior and Economic Sciences directorate.)

4. Special Solicitations for NEs Collaborative Research in Computational Neuroscience (CRCNS)TENTATIVE Objective - support collaborative activities that advance the understanding of nervous system structure and function, mechanisms underlying nervous system disorders, and computational strategies used by the nervous system. Participating organizations – NSF, NIH, BMBF (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung) 4

5. More on CRCNS • Research Proposals, US-German Research Proposals collaboratives, Data Sharing Proposals • Supports collaborative research between biomedical, biological, behavioral/cognitive/social scientists and computer, mathematical, physical sciences/engineering.

6. Unsolicited proposal sources – funding the old fashion way • Sources • SES and BCS with SBE • Funding from other NSF directorates.

7. January 18 & August 18 Decision, Risk, & Management Sciences Economics Law and Social Science Methodology, Measurement & Statistics Political Science Sociology February 1 & August 1 Societal Dimensions of Eng., Science, & Tech. Science & Technology Studies February 2 Innovation and Organizational Sciences December 1 & July 1 Archaeology & Archaeometry Physical Anthropology January 1 & August 1 Cultural Anthropology January 15 & July 15 Cognitive Neuroscience Developmental & Learning Sciences Perception, Action, & Cognition Linguistics Social Psychology January 15 & August 15 Geography & Regional Science Programs in SBE

8. Relevant Programs in SES • Decision, Risk and Management Science (7 M) • research that explores fundamental issues in judgment and decision making, risk analysis, management science, and organizational behavior • Methodology, Measurement, and Statistics (4 M) • Statistical methodology/modeling directed towards the social and behavioral sciences • Methodological aspects of procedures for data collection • Economics (25 M) • Empirical and theoretical economic analysis as well as work on methods for rigorous research on economic behavior.

9. Relevant Programs In BCS • Cogntive Neuroscience (8 M) • how the human brain supports thought, perception, affect, action, social processes, and other aspects of cognition and behavior • Perception, Action and Cognition (7.3 M) • vision, audition, haptics, attention, memory, reasoning, written and spoken discourse, motor control, and developmental issues in all topic areas. • Development and Learning Science (6.6 M) • cognitive, linguistic, social, cultural, and biological processes related to children's and adolescents' development and learning.  • Social Psychology (6.7 m) • research on human social behavior, including cultural differences and development over the life span. 

10. Other Possibilities • Mathematical Biology (bio directorate) • Neural Systems (bio directorate) • Robust Intelligence (cise directorate) • Biomedical engineering (eng directorate)

11. Come to www.nsf.gov Click on Awards Finding a Home(s) at NSF

12. Click on the: Search all Fields tab Type in keywords: Multiattribute utility Search the Abstracts

13. Welcome to your potential homes: DRMS SBIR (for applied work with goal of commercialization Engineering Design and Innovation Magnetospheric Physics? Viola – Potential Homes

14. Once you have some leads • Send a 1-2 page e-mail to the relevant program director(s) • Research question(s) • Theory on which you build • Methods • Major citations (including journal name)

15. So What is The Process • You work, work, work • Submit January or August 18th. • I work, work, work • Perhaps request co-review if you didn’t • Send out requests for 6 external reviews • Assign proposal to 2 DRMS panelists for review. • Convene panel to discuss proposals and make funding recommendations

16. Then • You experience • The thrill of victory (p approx. .25) • the agony of defeat (p approx. 75)

17. Silly Submitter Tricks • Multiattribute Utility in an Emotional Space • “In this proposal I outline a series of experiments which will demonstrate that Professor Lerner’s model of emotion-specific influences on judgment is not specific and is, if fact, just silly.”

18. A Savvy Alternative • From the Grant Proposal Guide • c. List of Suggested Reviewers or Reviewers Not to Include (optional) • Proposers may include a list of suggested reviewers who they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal. • Proposers also may designate persons they would prefer not review the proposal, indicating why.

19. From the Grant Proposal Guide c. List of Suggested Reviewers or Reviewers Not to Include (optional) Proposers may include a list of suggested reviewers who they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal. Proposers also may designate persons they would prefer not review the proposal, indicating why. Suggested Reviewers for “Multiattribute Utility in an Emotional Space” Danny Kahneman – bet the program director hasn’t heard of him! College roommate (alwayscrying@emot.com) was always pretty emotional John Coauthoredallmyother papers – (almostsameemailasme@ questionableu.edu) - very knowledgeable about my work. Another Silly Submitter Trick

20. Now, You might think • It’s not worth wasting a lot of time writing the proposal • After all, why would reviewers think that just because you wrote a sloppy proposal, you’d do sloppy research? • Bad Idea

21. Now, You might think • It’s not important to proofread your proposal carefully. • After all, this isn’t grade school. It’s the quality of the ideas that count, not neatness. • Bad Idea

22. Now, You might think • You shouldn’t waste time making sure the project summary and abstract clearly and concisely outline the problem, the objectives, the project activities, and expected outcomes. After all, reviewers can darn well study the full proposal if they want to get a clear idea about what you are proposing to do. Let them earn their understanding the old-fashioned way by slogging through your proposal page-by-page. • Bad Idea

23. Now, You might think • It’s not important to write clearly and succinctly. After all, reviewers might not respect you if your proposal is too easy to understand. Bad Idea

24. Now, You might think • It’s not necessary to provide details about the specifics of your research plan – clearly stated hypotheses, a crisp summary of your research plan and procedures, and the other elements that make it clear exactly how you intend to go about answering your research questions. • After all, the reviewers will not require all this extraneous detail in order to recognize the distinctively high quality of your work. A simple “trust-me” appeal should do the trick. • Bad Idea

25. Now, You might think • It’s not worth paying attention to the reviews of previous versions of your proposal. Where do they find these ignoramuses anyway? They’re not even smart enough to understand your proposal or, if they do, they don’t understand why it’s important. Don’t bother trying to address their questions. Maybe you’ll get better reviewers next time. • Bad Idea

26. Good Luck!