NSERC The case for grantsmanship

1. NSERCThe case for grantsmanship Presented by: Dr. René Tinawi Dr. Greg Naterer August 6, 2008

2. Plan of the presentation • About NSERC • Changes to GSC • Eligibility • Preparing a Grant Application • Peer review process • 2007 Funding Statistics • Final Advice

3. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNSERC www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca Suzanne Fortier President

4. NSERC Budget 2007-08(millions of dollars) Total: $920 Excludes $37M increase from the 2007 Federal Budget.

5. Discovery Programs Budget 2007-08 (millions of dollars) Total: $399 1. Includes Canadian Light Source funding from NRC ($3M) and Budget 2004 ($6M). Excludes $37M increase from the 2007 Federal Budget..

6. Changes to Grant Selection Committees and Process

7. GSC Restructuring • Restructuring of the Communications, Computer and Components Engineering (GSC 334) and Electromagnetics / Electrical Systems Engineering (GSC 335) Grant Selection Committees

8. Grant Selection Committee (GSC) Structure Review • Current discipline-based GSC structure may have difficulties handling inter-disciplinary and new areas of research • To handle increasing workload, GSCs are sub-dividing and thus becoming more specialized, exacerbating the problem • Is there a better way? NSERC is reviewing the current system

9. Eligibility

10. Preparing a Grant Application

11. Discovery Grants Objectives: • promoting and maintaining a diversified base of high-quality research capability in natural sciences and engineering in Canadian universities • fostering research excellence • providing a stimulating environment for research training (HQP) An essential grant to have!

12. Discovery Grants • Supports ongoing programs of research, rather than projects • Inherent flexibility in the research program • Success rate: approximately 70% • Average grant: $31K per year

13. Notification of Intent to Apply for a Discovery Grant (Form 180) • For Discovery Grants (DG), and University Faculty Award (UFA) applications • Facilitates selection of external referees • List contributions (2002-08) to avoid conflicts • Deadline: August 1 • Can have adverse consequences if not submitted

14. A Complete Discovery Grant Application Includes: • An Application for a Grant (Form 101) with supporting documentation • A Personal Data Form (Form 100) for applicant with appropriate appendices • Samples of research contributions (reprints, pre-prints, thesis chapters, manuscripts, etc.) • Environmental Assessment, if required

15. Potential HQP Past HQP record Budget justification Relationship to other sources of funds List of other sources of funds FORM 101 YOUR GRANT PROPOSAL F100 (CV) YOUR RESEARCH PROFILE Merit of the proposal Excellence of the Researcher Training of HQP Need for funds

16. FORM 100 Personal Data Form – an essential component • List all sources of support (held or applied for) during the past four years • Describe 5 most significant research contributions • List other research contributions (2002-2008) in reverse chronological order (journalpapers, conferences, books, etc.) • Emphasize quality not just quantity • Describe contributions to training of HQP (2002-2008) • Give other evidence of impact of work (awards, honours, membership on scientific committees) • Explain any delays in research activity (maternity)

17. FORM 101 Discovery Grant: Application tips • Please read the instructions: “Plug & Play” concept on-line does not work! • Write the summary in plain language • Provide a progress report (even for first time applicant, a must for renewals) • Position the research within the field (1page bibliography) • Articulate short and long-term objectives of your researchprogram • Provide a detailed and focused methodology (2-3 pages) • Outline problems that you may encounter and their possible solutions • Describe plans for training of HQP (co-supervision in some cases) • Prepare a realistic budget (look at statistics) • First time applicants must seek guidance from ORS and colleagues • Discuss any relationship to other research support • Address previous GSC comments or external referee reports (ifapplicable)

18. FORM 101 Other tips - Discovery Grants • Use the 2008 Web version of forms/guide • Read all instructions VERY carefully • Select the most appropriate GSC for your proposal • Find out who was on your GSC last year (yearly committee renewal 1/3) • Follow presentation standards for print size and page limitations (this will irritate committee members and could have negative impact) • Send the required number of papers or contributions • Ensure completeness of application • Read other (successful) proposals, if you can • Ask colleagues for (negative) comments on your application • First time applicant: Research program is essential • Applicants renewing: Productivity and training of HQP is a must! + Research Program • Allow several weeks to write your proposal and the possibility of iterating several times • Proposals written 24h before the deadline are not appreciated by GSC • In summary: your innovative research ideas and your CV no matter how outstanding they are, must be “packaged” in a neat and clear way by respecting page limits, margins, font size, etc. Poorly prepared proposal will definitely be rejected. • Remember: money is scarce and any excuse to reject or reduce funding will be used by GSC. Good news: You do this once every five years!

19. You don’t get rich working for NSERC!! Committee members are all volunteers. You will not believe your ears!! • I can’t understand how University X hired professor Y, applicant can’t even read the instructions! • Applicant is cheating: the font size is too small, it aggravates my eyes! • Research proposal is too widespread, no focus! • All the six papers in the CV are variations on the same theme: productivity is not impressive! • Publications: journals, conferences and book chapters are all mixed up and are not listed in the required order! • No mention or desire of HQP training: Applicant wants to attend conferences only! • Applicant has other funds for the same research: double dipping! • No time: it is evident this application was written 12 hours before the deadline! Applicant will have no time to conduct the proposed research! No funding! • The experimental program makes no sense at all: matchsticks inside a bucket of sand in a laboratory are not representative of real pile foundations! • Etc.

20. Research Tools and Instruments Grant (RTI)

21. Research tools and instruments (RTI)Budget: $375M Objectives: To foster and enhance the discovery, innovation and training capability of university researchers by supporting the purchase of research equipment and installations. Categories: • RTI – Category 1: $7,001 to $150,000; • RTI – Category 2: $150,001 to $325,000; (Moratorium) • RTI – Category 3: more than $325,000 (Moratorium). For categories 2 and 3, NSERC funding must be complemented from other sources such that NSERC requirement ≤ $150,000. Advice: • Apply for RTI at the same time as your DG • Involve other Faculty members, if possible • Try to obtain partial institutional or other support • Overall success rate is about 50% with an average grant of $49,000 • It is not advisable to apply for $149,900 RTI Grant

22. Research Tools and Instruments • Deadline date – October 25 • Ongoing moratorium on Categories 2 and 3 • $150,000 or less available from NSERC • Must hold or have submitted an NSERC research grant (not necessarily a Discovery Grant) • A Grant Selection Committee’s RTI competition budget is based on the total amount applied for

23. FORM 100 RTI FORM 101 & Research Tools and Instruments Category 1 • What research will be performed with equipment? • Justify each item • Explain need and urgency of overall request • Suitability of proposed equipment for research program • Indicate impact on training • Give alternate configurations and prices

24. How your application is evaluated by the Grant Selection Committee

25. Life Cycle of a DG Application August 1 to mid-September Form 180 - Assignment of GSC and Referees November 1 Submission of Grant Application by ORS November 25 Chairs’ Meeting – Confirmation of GSC November Mail-out DG to External Referees Mid-December Mail-out to GSC Members February Grants Competition March – April Announcement of Results

26. Outline of evaluation • The Grant Selection Committee • How is your application evaluated • Discovery Grants (DG) • Research Tools and Instruments Grants (RTI)

27. Levels of Review Generally, at least eight people will read your proposal: • One primary reviewer on GSC • One secondary reviewer on GSC • Three readers • One external reviewer (at least) Total number depends on your GSC

28. FORM 101 FORM 100 (CV) & FORM 101 Selection Criteria for DG • Merit of the proposal • Excellence of the researcher • Training of highly qualified personnel (HQP) • Need for funds

29. Reader Reader Reader Reader Reader During February Competition 2nd Reviewer Conflict? 32,000$ 30,000$ 25,000$ 23,000$ 20,000$ 0 0 P.O. Chair 1st Reviewer

30. Criterion1 - Excellence of Researcher • Knowledge, expertise and experience • Contribution to research • Importance of contributions • Complementarity of expertise and synergy for group applications

31. Criterion 2 - Merit of the Proposal • Originality and innovation • Significance and expected contribution to research • Clarity and scope of objectives • Clarity and appropriateness of methodology • Feasibility of program

32. Criterion 3 - Training of HQP • Quality and extent of past and potential contributions • Appropriateness of proposed work for training • Training in collaborative or interdisciplinary environment

33. Reporting HQP

34. Funding Statistics

35. 2007 Discovery Grants Results: All Disciplines

36. 2007 Research Tools and Instruments (RTI-1)

37. Why these statistics? • No grant application is guaranteed funding • Demand ($ of applicants) is > supply (available $) • Committees can not exceed their allocated budgets • Attitude of a GSC is to fund excellent applications only: a magnifying glass is used to spot the most minute reason, as an excuse, not to fund some applicants

38. Final Advice

39. Final Advice • Use the 2008 Web version of the forms and Guide. • Read all instructions carefully and follow presentation standards. • Ensure completeness of application. • Remember that more than one audience reads your application. • Ask colleagues for comments on your application. • Read other successful proposals, if possible. • Read the Peer Review Manual (on the web) • Allow enough time for iterations

40. Thank you for your patience! Questions?