How to write a successful CAREER proposal?

1. How to write a successful CAREER proposal? Ilona Kretzschmar Associate Professor Chemical Engineering City College of New York NSF CAREER Workshop 2009 03/12/09

2. How to write a successful CAREER proposal? Well, I don’t have a good answer, but I can tell you my story.

3. Academic Career 1996 Technical University of Berlin – Diploma Chemistry 1999 Technical University of Berlin – PhD Chemistry 2000 Harvard University – Fedeor Lynen Postdoctoral Fellow (AvH) in Surface Science 2002 Yale University – Research Associate in Molecular Electronics (EE) 2004 CCNY – Assistant Professor in Chemical Engineering 2008 CCNY – Promotion & Tenure

4. CAREER Proposal Submission • Summer 2004 • Title: CAREER: Uniquely functionalized nanoparticles for hierarchical self-assembly of three-dimensional structures • Process: • Read the solicitation carefully. • Asked departmental faculty about available outreach programs at CCNY. • Asked for successful proposals – none available. • Had departmental mentors (3) read my proposal. • Read abstracts from previously successful proposals. • Contacted NSF Division Director and Program Director. • Submitted the proposal. • NSF Division: Interfacial Processes and Thermodynamics • Submitted: 07/2004

5. NSF Career Workshop – October 2004 • learned how exhausting proposal reading and reviewing • is • got a feeling for how NSF review panel may work • learned more about educational outreach (video clips • broadcasted during football games) • learned about broader impact and diversity programs • (LSAMP) MOST IMPORTANTLY: made new friends  networked!!!

6. News on the CAREER proposal December 15th, 2004 Title: CAREER: Uniquely functionalized nanoparticles for hierarchical self-assembly of three-dimensional structures NSF Division: Interfacial Processes and Thermodynamics Ratings: Reviewer #1: good (G) Reviewer #2: very good (VG) Reviewer #3: excellent (E) Reviewer #4: very good (VG) Funding decision: NOT FUNDED

7. Panel Summary – What went wrong? Intellectual Merit This proposal generated a significant level of enthusiasm. The idea of asymmetry is considered novel, as well as much needed for generating 3D structure, and the approach is unique. The panel regarded the proposed bottom up approach favorably. The work is potentially revolutionary. The PI has an excellent track record in terms of training and has built an impressive list of collaborators in a short period of time. The panel also had some concerns. Primary among these is the lack of any track record at the PIs current institution. This is understandable, as she has just begun her academic appointment, but the lack of preliminary data weakens the proposal significantly. Questions were raised. First, will sintering the particles not destroy them? Can the PI address this? Second, will a high energy beam not cause rotation, hence negating the asymmetry achieved by partial coatings? There was concern as to how to achieve arms of controlled length and rigidity. Can that be controlled? Will there not be aggregation and/or distributions of 4, 5, 6 particles? If so, then how will this impact the usage of the connected particle assembly? Broader Impact The Education plan did not generate a level of excitement nearly as strong as the research plan. One of the goals (writing a book) was actually viewed as a negative quality of the proposal, given the large commitment of time (generally considered not a good idea for young professors). There is mention of a program involving high school teachers, but no real plan has been assembled and the proposal lacks details.

8. Lessons Learned from 1st Attempt 1) Proposal idea not that bad 2) Preliminary Data VERY important 3) Both Research &Education are important Important Reviewer Comment: “Rather than belabor the point here, the PI is encouraged to read Richard Felder's article "So You Want to Win a CAREER Award," Chemical Engineering Education, 36(1), 32-33 (Winter 2002).” Skipped 2005 submission to have time to get some good preliminary data and publications.

9. CAREER Submission #2 Preparation basically started after decline of 1st proposal! 1) Networking: - talked to EVERY visitor coming to the department about my research - IDENTIFIED and CONNECTED with people with similar research interests at conferences and meetings - asked visitors with research related to my area for their SUCCESSFUL CAREER proposals - have an UP-TO-DATE website Advertised my group, my research, my department, and my college!

10. CAREER Submission #2 (cont’d) 2) Research: - published 1st paper on asymmetric particle modification - published 2nd paper on density-functional modeling of particle assembly in collaboration with Marc Donohue at Johns Hopkins University - attracted three PhD students and several undergraduates to the laboratory to work on CAREER and other related, proposed research Established Track Record in My Research Area and Obtained Preliminary Data!

11. CAREER Submission #2 (cont’d) 3) Education and Outreach - established connection with LSAMP during other proposal preparations - accepted one undergraduate student from LSAMP into my lab - accepted two summer high-school students from the Harlem Children’s society into my lab - accepted two summer (2005) students from the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm (Sweden) into my lab - collaborated with Media and Communication Arts Department on Grove School of Engineering video clip - accepted any invitation to lecture on my research (REU at Columbia, invitations to give seminars) Established Track Record in Education and Outreach!

12. 2nd CAREER proposal submission Summer, 2006 Title: CAREER: Molecularly Directed Assembly of “Patchy” Particles NSF Division: PARTICULATE & MULTIPHASE PROCESSES Ratings: Reviewer #1: Excellent (E) Reviewer #2: Excellent (E) Reviewer #3: Very Good (VG) Reviewer #4: Very Good (VG) Funding decision: AWARDED

13. Lessons Learned from 2nd Round • NETWORKING! • - people you meet may be on your CAREER panel • 2) Track record in your research area • - people who read/review your papers may be on your • CAREER panel • 3) Track record in education and outreach • - a long-term record convinces the panel that you are • serious about education and outreach  you can • propose things that are not yet established • 4) Draw from existing outreach programs • 5) Come up with something unique and new that you want to do!

14. As a side note: What happened in between the two submissions?

15. NSF Funding Record: 2 out of 7 07/2004 – 1st CAREER proposal attempt 11/2004 – NER proposal 01/2005 – MRI proposal 02/2005 – unsolicited CBET proposal 03/2005 – Sensors proposal 09/2005 – unsolicited CBET proposal 10/2005 – unsolicited CBET proposal 11/2005 – NER proposal 11/2005 – NIRT proposal (co-PI) 01/2006 – MRI proposal 03/2006 – unsolicited CBET proposal 05/2006 – NUE proposal 07/2006 – 2nd CAREER proposal attempt 09/2006 – unsolicited CBET proposal (declined) (declined) (declined) (declined) (declined) (declined) (declined) (declined) (declined) (declined) (awarded) (awarded) (awarded) (awarded)

16. General CAREER Proposal Comments • every division/every panel is different • propose a doable set of projects for both short and long- • term (remember, they know how much a 1st or 2nd • year student can get done) • be concise – the project summary is the most important • part, it sets the stage • - a timeline is a MUST • use subheadings to make it easier for the reviewer to find • things during the panel discussion

17. General CAREER Proposal Comments (cont’d) • - use italic or underlining strategically, but sparsely • show your track record • show that you have the infrastructure • collaborators (can be used to support proposal, but • should not dominate proposal) Enjoy what you do! Good Luck!