Workshop Authors: Semahat Demir, Lydia Kavraki, Rob Raphael and Joan Strassmann
Lydia Kavraki, Ph.D.
Noah Harding Professor of Computer Science
Rice University
- You need to be prepared to address the issue in the long run
- You need more than a great idea
- You need to understand the logistics
- Identify a funding agency and learn everything you can about this agency (the web and your colleagues are good sources)
- Understand what is the mechanism for submitting a proposal from your institution (“Office of Sponsored Research”)
- Develop a time frame for writing and proofreading the proposal
- A proposal needs a budget and appropriate signatures
- Lead time is typically required
- Your colleagues can help you understand all that
- Allow time for many drafts
- Allow time for feedback
- Allow extra time
- You need to be prepared to address the issue in the long run
-
How will you prepare yourself for the next grant?
- You need more than a great idea
-
You need to be able to communicate and support your idea
- You need to understand the logistics
- Your “growth” as a researcher is essential
- Publish, collaborate, discuss your ideas, read, be brave and be prepared to fail
Semahat Demir, Ph.D.
Program Director
Biomedical Engineering Program
National Science Foundation
- Overview of NSF
- Different NSF Funding Opportunities
- NSF’s Priority Areas (NSF-Wide Investment Areas)
- NSF Merit Review Criteria
- Tips for Successful Proposal Writing
- NSF: Where Discovery Begins
- Enabling the Nation’s future through discovery, learning and innovation.
- Founded in 1950
- An independent federal agency
- Responsible for advancing science and engineering
- Makes merit-based grants and cooperative agreements
- Individual researchers and groups
- Colleges, universities
- Other institutions: public, private, state, local and federal
- Does not operate laboratories
- Peer-review and evaluation of 42,000 proposals (FY05) submitted by science and engineering research and education communities
- 9,800 new awards (success rates are different for different programs)
- 246,000 proposal reviews done
Table 1: NSF Support as a Percent of Total US Federal Support for Academic Basic Research in Selected Fields
| Physical Sciences: |
40% |
| Engineering: |
46% |
| Social Sciences: |
52% |
| Environmental Sciences: |
54% |
| Biology (excluding NIH): |
66% |
| Mathematical Sciences: |
77% |
| Computer Sciences: |
86% |
- Individual Programs
- Research, education, center programs
- Priority Areas (Investment Areas for FY)
- Cross-Programs and Cross-Directorates
- Cross Disciplinary Areas
- Cross-Programs and Cross-Directorates
- Interagency Programs
- NSF, and other government agencies
- Individual Investigator Initiated Awards
- CAREER Awards
- Center Awards
- SBIR/STTR awards
- SGER awards
- Supplements
- Workshops, conferences
- Biological Sciences (BIO)
- Computer and Information Sciences and Engineering (CISE)
- Education and Human Resources (EHR)
- Engineering (ENG)
- Biomedical Engineering Program
- Geosciences (GEO)
- Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS)
- Social, Behavioral And Economic Sciences (SBE)
- Polar Programs
- Office of Cyberinfrastructure
- Office of International Science and Engineering
- Office of Integrative Affairs
- Nanoscale Science and Engineering
- Biocomplexity in Environment
- Human and Social Dynamics
- Mathematical Sciences
- Cyberinfrastructure
- Biocomplexity in Environment
- Climate Change Science Program
- Cyberinfrastructure
- Human and Social Dynamics
- International Polar Year
- Mathematical Sciences
- National Nanotechnology Initiative
- Networking Information Technology R and D
- Criteria include:
- What is the intellectual merit and quality of the proposed activity?
- What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?
- Potential Considerations:
- 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, the reviewer will 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 resources?
- Potential Considerations:
- How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training and learning?
- How well does the activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, 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?
- Determine if your project is relevant to the program
- Get in touch with the Program Director
- Program Director:
- Review Panels
- Award/decline recommendation
- Post management of the awards (progress report)
- Follow the instructions posted by the agency
- Format, sections, project plan
- Agency’s Review Criteria (NSF Merit Review Criteria)
- Priority Areas for the agency
- Respond to a solicitation
- Deadlines (pre-proposal, letter of intent, full proposal)
- Additional review criteria and requirements
- Read “successful” proposals of your colleagues
- Have your proposal reviewed by collaborators or colleagues before submitting
- Do not submit on the day of the deadline
- Volunteer to serve on a review panel
Robert M. Raphael, Ph.D.
TN Law Assistant Professor
Dept. of Bioengineering
Rice University
- Choose a significant problem
- Bonus points if not much work has been done on the problem
- More bonus points if you have done the important work
- Leave no question that you can accomplish your aims
- Established track record of publications
- Clear and convincing preliminary data
- Write a clear, easy to read proposal
- “Calm down, understand the situation and communicate clearly” – We Were Soldiers
- Navigating the Scylla of building on your accomplishments and the Charybdis of creating new research problems and attacking new research areas, given your situation:
- Laboratory techniques not yet working
- Students not yet trained/busy with classes
- Teaching and other responsibilities
- Proposing to do too much
- Not making clear the points and connections that are obvious to you
- Do not necessarily assume the person who reviews your grant will be an expert in your area or know why your research is novel
- The response to a revised NIH grant is very important
- Never appear to be angry or emotional. Just stick to the science. If a reviewer got something wrong (which often happens), just lay out the facts.
- This is hard because you have put so much effort into the grant it’s easy to take comments personally.
- Criticisms are of the science, not of you!
- Get grants done in advance and have colleagues read them !
- Resist the thrill of pulling it off on “third and long”
- Thanks for Believing in Us!
- NSF CAREER
- Whitaker Foundation
- Texas Advanced Technology Program
- National Organization for Hearing Research
- NIH NRSA (Greeson, Organ)
- NSF-IGERT
- Keck Center for Computational and Structural Biology
- DOE Computational Science Graduate Fellowship
Joan E. Strassmann, Ph.D.
Department Chair
Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
Rice University
- So you want someone else to pay for your research?
- Ask important, big questions.
- Have several projects at once.
- Write clear, well-researched proposals.
- Collaborate.
- Identify all possible funding sources and learn their cultures.
- Don’t let funding consume you. Keep publishing!
- Do not redo your Ph.D. or postdoc work.
- Find a substantially new project if your proposal is rejected twice.
- Read deeply and broadly (at least 5 articles a day).
- Be creative.
- Do not be afraid to do something really different.
- Talk to lots of people about research.
- Keeps you excited.
- When one project faces problems, another could be blooming.
- Increases funding opportunities.
- Synergy in thinking about different things can suggest novel pathways.
- Increases your visibility.
- The proposal must be impeccable, no typos, clear headers, clear flow from hypotheses to methods.
- Follow the format of the agency exactly.
- Include preliminary data and figures.
- Get sample funded proposals by asking people for them, preferably those not too close to your research.
- Have several people read your proposal.
- Leave enough time, at least 3 months.
- New ideas often come from collaboration.
- Techniques and approaches can be shared.
- This is the ONLY way to succeed without turning into a workaholic.
- Teamwork is fun!
- Find collaborators from a broader pool than is initially comfortable, and bridge the gaps with frequent meetings.
- Same-stage collaborators are often best.
- NSF and NIH are not the only sources of funding.
- Learn about those grants requiring nominations, and get them.
- Take advantage of your sponsored research office in learning about private funding.
- The search for funding can be discouraging.
- Keep trying, but don’t forget to keep publishing anyway.
- Write up your research quickly.
- Write a minireview, review, perspective etc. at least every 2 years.
Have fun! It’s a great life!
-
Demir, S., Kavraki, L., Raphael, R., and Strassman, J. (2006, October). How to Obtain Funding: NSF Advance Workshop at Rice University. [http://www.advance.rice.edu/negotiatingtheidealfacultyposition/agenda.html].
-
Kinney, K., Wilson, P. and Neptune, R. (2004, October). EFWO Negotiating the Ideal Faculty Position Workshop Agenda: How to Find Funding. [http://www.engr.utexas.edu/efwo/workshop2004.cfm].
-
Thackrey, D. University of Michigan's Proposal Writer's Guide. [http://www.research.umich.edu/proposals/pwg/pwgcomplete.html].