Strengths of Funded & Weaknesses of Unfunded MRI Proposals

1. Strengths of Funded &Weaknesses of UnfundedMRI Proposals Helen Hansma hhansma@nsf.gov Joan Frye, Sally O’Connor, Angela Klaus, Mark Farmer, and others NSF

2. Call Your Program DirectorAsk Us Early, Ask Us Often!!

3. Strong Proposals have: • healthy and vigorous research • student-faculty research collaborations • externally funded research • published in peer-reviewed research journals • no doubt that the requested instrument will be • well cared for and • put to good use for • research and research training

4. Weak Proposals raise Lots of Questions: • Is the requested instrument is actually needed for the proposed research?? • Will the instrument be involved in outreach and teaching?? • How have each of the PIs used this instrument in the past?? • What about the • low funding level of current faculty researchers, • lack of undergraduate and graduate student researchers, • lack of publications ??

5. Strong Proposals have: • Several users with a clear need for the instrument • Preliminary data • Research descriptions start with need for instrument • Integration of research and education

6. In Strong Proposals: • PIs have a past history of outreach activities • Broader Impacts - strong • Possible problems - anticipated & addressed • Many women and underrepresented minority students

7. Weak Proposals: • “If we get the instrument, users will come” = a recipe for failure • Users describe their research and say at the end, “And if we had [the new instrument], we could do [something more].”

8. Weaknesses.... • Weak science: • Research proposals not well developed • Research is of relatively low-impact • Not clear that the instrument was well justified. • Typographical errors = careless preparation?? • Few / poor references

9. Strong Proposals “Walks on water” • Each investigator includes a training component in his / her research description “I always wondered what it felt like to get an NSF award!” -a new awardee, upon receiving her award phone call

10. Weak Proposals • Vague generalizations • Figures & images are poor or lacking • Double spaced text • The reviewers say: • “It’s a sad little proposal.” • “It’s like reading a proposal by Charlie Brown’s teacher – it’s just noise” • “Instrumentation without a Cause”

11. A Weak Figure: As this image shows, our current microscope needs to be replaced. Image is too dark!è

12. A Strong Figure: Figure 1. Images with our current Costco microscope [left] and with the Zeus Alive! Microscope that we propose to buy [right]. Image is lighter hereè

13. Proposals MUST have: • Intellectual Merit AND Broader Impacts in the Project Summary • 15 pages or fewer of Project Description • Large enough font sizes and margins • Research - NOT medical

14. Proposal Titleshould be: “Acquisition of _______ “

15. Weaknesses: Budget • Instrument has too many / too few features for proposed research • Instruments not related • Too many instruments requested “We figured we’d ask for TWO of the same instrument, and they’d give us ONE.” -an unsuccessful PI “A Ferrari isn’t good in traffic.” -a reviewer

16. A Solid Management Plan describes: • Maintenance plans for the instrument(s) • How costs of instrument use and maintenance will be covered (user fees or ??) • The available expertise in use of the equipment • How new users will be trained • How user time will be allocated (if necessary)

17. Pitfalls to Watch out for... • Follow guidelines carefully! • Request the appropriate instruments (e.g. Is high throughput really needed? How does the instrument relate to the research?) • Emphasize research – not only teaching ! • Do not request a “laundry list” of items

18. Strategies for Success • Student involvement: co-authors on papers & presentations. • Strong maintenance of existing equipment and plans for requested equipment • Involvement of under-represented groups

19. Strategies.... • Wide use of instrument • Demonstrated need, e.g., # samples • Preliminary results/measurements

20. Resubmissions Most proposals are NOT funded!

21. Weak Resubmissions • Whining or angry responses to reviewers’ comments • Project description starts with responses to reviewers’ comments • Proposal has few changes

22. Strong Resubmissions: • Good responses to reviewers’ comments – can be incorporated into the revised proposal without mentioning the reviewers’ comments • Significant improvements in the proposal

23. Evaluating Proposals

24. Evaluating Proposals:NSF Merit Review Criteria • Intellectual Merit • Broader Impacts of the Proposed Effort

25. MRI-Specific Criteria: Instrument Acquisition • shared use of the instruments for research and/or research training • availability of technical expertise • management & maintenance plan • effective instrument use

26. Summary of Review Criteria Merit Review Criteria: • Intellectual merit • Broader impacts • Integration of research and education • Integrating diversity into the proposed activities Additional MRI Review Criteria: • for instrument acquisition - the management plan; • for instrument development - the rationale for development of a new instrument.

27. Proposal Preparation

28. Your “Holy Books”: • The MRI Program Announcement: NSF 05-515 http://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/programs/mri/ 2.The Grant Proposal Guide – GPG: NSF 04-23 http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg

29. To Do: • NSF Fastlane – start using it Early! • Other Senior Personnel – give them an early deadline for finishing their parts of the proposal.

30. Summary • Start early – give yourself enough time • Read the MRI PA and the GPG, and follow their rules • Get feedback on your proposal from your colleagues • Proposals should be clear, appropriate, and justified • Anticipate some frustration • Study reviews carefully • If declined - Call your Program Director after reading your reviews (take some time to think about them) • If awarded - follow up on reporting and find out about supplemental funding (stay in touch with PD)