How to obtain an NSF grant

1. How to obtain an NSF grant Jeff McDonnell Dept. Forest Engineering, Resources and Mgmt. Oregon State University

2. A quick recap of previous comments on grants • It’s critical for your P&T success • Misc. other things we’ve discussed: • The grant-publishing-grad loop • Spinning off curiosity-driven research from applied work • Using summer salary as slush funds in your program • How to balance federal and non-federal funds • Pitfalls of multiple small projects • Indirect costs • How they trickle down through the university • How to leverage grant success

3. A quote from an NSF Research Program Manager • “90% of the grant’s likelihood of success is based on how novel your questions are—ideally they are ones that have not ever been thought of or posed before”.

4. A quote from a famous Hungarian to remember Research is to see what everyone has seen and think what no one else has thought Albert Szent Gyorgyi .. This is different to applied research

5. A quote from a non-famous hydrologist to remember Research must be fundable, laudable and achievable. All three together define success.

6. Outline • How NSF works • How to write an NSF grant • Reviews and reviewing • Other sources of funding

7. NSF’s Mission • To promote the progress of science to advance the National health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the National defense; and for other purposes

8. NSF Act of 1950 (Public Law 810507) authorizes and directs NSF to initiate and support • Basic scientific research fundamental to the engineering process • Programs to strengthen scientific and engineering research potential • Science and engineering education programs at all levels and in all fields of science and engineering • An information base on science and engineering appropriate for the development of national and international policy • Over time, the following were added • Foster the interchange of scientific and engineering information nationally and internationally • Support the development of computer and other methodologies • Maintain facilities in the Antarctic and promote the US presence through research conducted there • Address issues of equal opportunity in science and engineering

9. One Division: EAR • Surface Earth Processes Section • Geobiology and Low Temperature Geochemistry • Geomorphology and Landuse Dynamics (GLD) • Hydrologic Sciences (HS) • Sedimentary Geology and Paleobiology (SGP) • Funding in 2007 • $4,982 Geo • $3,166 GLD • $10,704 HS • $5,662 SGP

10. 2007 Funding rates in HS • Number of proposals • 277 • Awards 56 (20%) • Declines 221 (80%) • For new PIs • 18%; 82% • For prior PIs • 22%; 78% • Average size and duration • Number of awards = 41 • Average annual dollars: $104,137 • Average award duration: 2.7 • Average dwell time • Awards: 7.3 months • Declines: 6.3 months

11. How a program manager co-funds • 18 different programs from 9 different divisions • 2007 HS average number of reviews per proposal • Average number of reviews • Awards 5.5 • Declines 6.5 • Average of average score • Awards 4.1 • Declines 3.4

12. HS review process • Mail • Solicit 6-10 reviews/proposal—aim for 3 reviews • Panel (9 panelists) • Panelists receive reviews prior to meeting • One leader and two readers for each proposal • Entire panel discusses proposal led by leader/readers • Leader and readers score proposal • Preliminary ranking: External + panel score during oanel • Leader and readers submit summaries within 2 weeks of panel for thorough and thoughtful analysis • Program Officers (Doug James and Richard Cuenca) • Final decisions / work together

13. Types of Grants • Regular core program submissions • Workshop proposals • SGER grants • CAREER grants • Educational! • International!

14. The Panel • 2-3 days in Washington • 10-15 minutes per proposal at the Panel • Will have 20-25 to shepherd through the system • Will rely on reviews and the Summary Statement • The most important part of the proposal!

15. Panel summary: decline “The panel discussion on this proposal reflected the wide range of outside reviews, from Fair to Excellent. The PI has proposed a high risk/high reward strategy that could be transformative and a major advance in our understanding. Although the panel supports the general thrust of the research, the explanations and proposed work were vague. A more developed and detailed work plan is needed for the panel to see how the research will answer the questions posed. There is essentially no information on how the ideas will be tested. Indeed, as one reviewer pointed out: ?No specifics on the approach is provided. Overall, in terms of the intellectual merit, funding this proposal looks like giving a blank check...? Although that reviewer thought that a blank check was justified based on the credibility of the research team, the review panel believes that senior researchers must be held to the same standard as junior researchers in the clarity, completeness and quality of their proposals. Some reviewers are quite skeptical as to whether the proposal will work. This skepticism need not be considered the kiss of death for the proposal. The panel will seriously consider high risk/high reward projects with skeptical reviews when the project description adequately shows how either proving or falsifying a hypothesis will advance science. The PI?s should address how their experiments could be designed to falsify Constructal Theory.”

16. What are reviewers asked? • What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity? • 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, please 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 the necessary resources?

17. ‘cont • 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 proposed activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geography, etc.)? • To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships? • Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding? • What may be the benefits of the proposed activity to society?

18. A negative reviewto read at your leisure 2.0 – The proposal presents the old platitude that watershed dynamics are controlled by topography, soils and climate instead of a research hypothesis, and then provides no credible means to test it. The PIs mention 'predictive capability' but offer no model for prediction. They propose to 'develop a theory-based modeling tool' but present no theory, no offer to test new results against existing models, and no cognizance of the predictive capabilities of existing models. They would 'predict hydrologic response over a range of space-time scales' but would examine only two catchments. The authors 'hypothesize that catchment-water residence time' is an important watershed control but demonstrate no awareness of the numerous existing models, some very successful and some dating back to the 1960s based on copious tritium measurements, that have been developed to determine this quantity. They would use isotope measurements to constrain watershed dynamics, but they are not isotope specialists and demonstrate no awareness of the many detailed studies, review papers, and books that have thoughtfully treated this subject. Scientific progress requires building on past work. As an aside, the budget contains nearly $100,000 in 'subawards' that are not explained in the budget justification. To provide a good learning experience for students, the project needs a novel hypothesis and a credible methodology to test it. The authors need to build on prior research on rainfall-runoff modeling, residence time, and isotope hydrology.

19. A positive reviewto read at your leisure 4.5 - The project focus on prediction of hydrologic response of catchments to rainfall events has been extensively studied. The novelty of what is proposed is the attempt to link hydrologic response to landscape characteristics specified by dimensionless numbers. The PIs would verify this theoretical model by comparisons with measurements at two experimental sites representing humid and semi-arid conditions. The work would extend previous research on hillslope and catchment scale hydrology where the PIs are well published in leading peer-reviewed hydrologic journals. The experienced PIs address both theoretical and experimental issues with a research plan that is well outlined to build on previous studies. The work should significantly enhance our understanding of the influence of landscape factors on the hydrodynamic processes in catchments in various climatic zones and contribute to improving predictive capabilities for ungauged catchments. The results would be widely published in developing countries where applications would most benefit underrepresented groups. The research includes undergraduate and postgraduate students and is integrated with teaching. The proposal is well prepared to address a vital scientific problem and should be supported.

20. What did they say? • “This is a well-written proposal addressing important cutting-edge issues.”, but….. • “XXXX and associates offer a platitude instead of a research hypothesis, and then provide no credible means to test it.” but…. • “The proposal includes both theoretical and experimental elements, which increases its scientific value. The research plan is well outlined and the objectives and relation to previous research are clearly stated.” but… • A major component of the proposed work is to use isotope measurements to constrain watershed dynamics. None of the authors are isotope specialists, and worse, they demonstrate no awareness of the thousands of detailed studies, nor even of relevant review papers and books, that have thoughtfully treated this subject. This is not the way to make scientific progress.”

21. Big question • How did the panel deal with these diverse views? • How did the program manager deal with these diverse views? • “I recognize that some reviews include statements that suggest that they did not read your proposal carefully, but the reality is that such miscommunications point out a need for clearer presentation. People vary in meanings they attach to wording. In many cases, the work was considered worthy but the proposal was just not rated highly enough to be funded in the present intense competition.”

22. Responding to reviews • Can you respond to these reviews? • Should you re-work and re-submit? • Should you look elsewhere to fund this work? • Do reviewers reveal their identity? • Do panel members reveal their identity?

23. Proposal writing • Hypothesis testing and theory development • Go after fundamental challenges in the field • Forge new frontiers of hydrological science • On writing • Make it EASY to find • Make it EASY to read! • Make it EASY to follow! • How long will it take to write • 2-3 weeks full time if with a collaborator • 5-6 weeks full time if solo from scratch • Pilot work very important • Key words important: new paradigm, frontiers, key words from your field

24. Proposal Parts Cover Sheet for Proposal to the National Science Foundation Project Summary (not to exceed 1 page) Table of Contents Project Description (Including Results from Prior NSF Support) (not to exceed 15 pages) References Cited Biographical Sketches (Not to exceed 2 pages each) Budget (Plus up to 3 pages of budget justification) Current and Pending Support Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources Special Information/Supplementary Doc’n

25. From http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~sfinger/advice/advice.html The guts of the proposalGreat advice from S. Finger 2. Project Description (15 pages!) 2.1 Objectives and Expected Significance • What are the main scientific challenges? Emphasize what the new ideas are. Briefly describe the project's major goals and their impact on the state of the art. Clearly state the question you will address: • Why is it important? What makes something important varies with the field. For some fields, the intellectual challenge should be emphasized, for others the practical applications should be emphasized. • Why is it an interesting/difficult/challenging question? It must be neither trivial nor impossible. 2.2 Background and Technical Need • What long-term technical goals will this work serve? • What are the main barriers to progress? What has led to success so far and what limitations remain? What is the missing knowledge? • What aspects of the current state-of-the-art lead to this proposal? Why are these the right issues to be addressing now? • What lessons from past and current research motivate your work. What value will your research provide? What is it that your results will make possible? • What is the relation to the present state of knowledge, to current work here & elsewhere? Cite those whose work you're building on (and whom you would like to have review your proposal). Don't insult anyone. For example, don't say their work is "inadequate;" rather, identify the issues they didn't address.

26. From http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~sfinger/advice/advice.html The guts of the proposalGreat advice from S. Finger 2.3 Research Description • Broad technical description of research plan: activities, methods, data, and theory. This should be equivalent to a PhD thesis proposal for the big leagues. Write to convince the best person in your field that your idea deserves funding. Simultaneously, you must convince someone who is very smart but has no background in your sub-area. The goal of your proposal is to persuade the reviewers that your ideas are so important that they will take money out of the taxpayers' pockets and hand it to you. • This the part that counts. WHAT will you do? Why is your strategy an appropriate one to pursue? What is the key idea that makes it possible for to answer this question? HOW will you achieve your goals? Concisely and coherently, this section should complete the arguments developed earlier and present your initial pass on how to solve the problems posed. Avoid repetitions and digressions. • In general, NSF is more interested in ideas than in deliverables. The question is: What will we know when you're done that we don't know now? The question is not: What will we have that we don't have now? That is, rather than saying that you will develop a system that will do X, Y and Z, instead say why it is important to be able to do X, Y and Z; why X, Y and Z can't be done now; how you are going to go about making Z, Y and Z possible; and, by the way, you will demonstrate X, Y and Z in a system. • Right now, NSF is more open to application-oriented research. They need to show Congress that the money spent on research benefits the US economy. Some years ago, the word "applied" was a bad word at NSF. Now it's a good word. The pendulum between focussing on basic or applied research has about a 20 year periodicity. You always need to check to find out where it is at the moment. Check with the program director and knowledgeable colleagues.

27. From http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~sfinger/advice/advice.html The guts of the proposalGreat advice from S. Finger 2.4 Education and Human Resources • What are your potential contributions to developing human resources in science & engineering at postdoc, graduate, and undergrad levels? In the last few years, NSF has started to take educational goals much more seriously. This section used to be boilerplate; it can't be any more. You need to think about what impact your research will have on education. Be specific but don't overstate. 2.5 Plan of work • Present a plan for how you will go about addressing/attacking/solving the questions you have raised. Discuss expected results and your plan for evaluating the results. How will you measure progress? • Include a discussion of milestones and expected dates of completion. (Six months is the about the smallest time chunk you should include in an NSF proposal.) You are not committed to following this plan - but you must present a FEASIBLE plan to convince the reviewers that you know how to go about getting research results. • For new PIs, this is often the hardest section to write. You don't have to write the plan that you will follow no matter what. Think of it instead as presenting a possible path from where you are now to where you want to be at the end of the research. Give as much detail as you can. (You will always have at least one reviewer who is a stickler for details.)

28. The budget A. SENIOR PERSONNEL: PI/PD, Co-PI’s, Faculty and Other Senior Associates (List each separately with title, A.7. show number in brackets) CAL ACAD SUMR B. OTHER PERSONNEL (SHOW NUMBERS IN BRACKETS) POST DOCTORAL SCHOLARS OTHER PROFESSIONALS (TECHNICIAN, PROGRAMMER, ETC.) GRADUATE STUDENTS UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS SECRETARIAL - CLERICAL (IF CHARGED DIRECTLY) TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES (A + B) C. FRINGE BENEFITS (IF CHARGED AS DIRECT COSTS) TOTAL SALARIES, WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS (A + B + C) D. EQUIPMENT (LIST ITEM AND DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH ITEM EXCEEDING $5,000.) TOTAL EQUIPMENT E. TRAVEL 1. DOMESTIC (INCL. CANADA, MEXICO AND U.S. POSSESSIONS) 2. FOREIGN F. PARTICIPANT SUPPORT COSTS 1. STIPENDS $ 2. TRAVEL 3. SUBSISTENCE 4. OTHER TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS ( ) TOTAL PARTICIPANT COSTS G. OTHER DIRECT COSTS 1. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES 2. PUBLICATION COSTS/DOCUMENTATION/DISSEMINATION 3. CONSULTANT SERVICES 4. COMPUTER SERVICES 5. SUBAWARDS 6. OTHER TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS H. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS (A THROUGH G) I. INDIRECT COSTS (F&A)(SPECIFY RATE AND BASE) J. TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS (H + I)

29. The budget • It’s boutique funding! • Put in one month of summer salary • Often not even viable for project completion • A huge chunk goes to Indirect cost • But still critically important

30. My experiences • My NSF attempts (since the inception of HS in 1991): • A few (of my first) that got funded first try • A few that have required a second attempt • A few that have outright failed • A few that have been non-traditional • Workshops • Conferences • International add-ons • What I have learned • Proposal NOT a paper just like an interview seminar NOT like an AGU talk • Re-submissions in no way a slam dunk (even when doing everything reviewers ask for) • Some programs equally weight intellectual merit and outreach • Use seed money to show proof of concept • Show a key graph or table demonstrating some chance of success • Go big or stay home….

31. More NSF thoughts It’s NOT an old boys club • Big names get rejected just as often as new comers (I’ve seen this when I have sat on panels) • Having had an NSF proposal has no bearing on your new proposal • Except that if you repeat the winning formula, your chances are much higher You need a new idea • The solution should lead to new understanding outside the field site per say—transfer value • You are asking for money—always remember this! Why does your idea merit anyone giving you money?

32. Other Hydrology funding • USDA NRI • EPA • USGS 104 and 105 programs • NASA • DOE • USFS • State • Fish and Wildlife • CalFed

33. Conclusions 1 • Go for it, it’s not that bad • NSF money is prestigious • At most universities it is expected for a positive tenure decision • It shows that work is peer reviewed up front…this has a cascading effect on the success link: publish-proposal-grad students; publish-proposal-grad students……… • It will force you into a mode of research that will benefit all that you do—just look at Barb Bond, Bev Law and Mark Harmon!

34. Conclusions 2Once you have the $$ in hand • Leverage, leverage, leverage • Cite it, cite it, cite it • Papers, presentations, web • Publish, publish, publish • Develop a rapport with the program manager • Write related proposals to NSF, USDA, EPA, BLM, USGS, CALFED, etc • Submit future NSF proposals that build on the outcome and the format