Post on 12-Jan-2016
Internet2 Day @ Marquette University
March 5, 2004
Douglas Gatchell
NSF Overview
Today’s Talk
Overview of NSF Proposal Process Career Opportunities Funding Opportunities CyberInfrastructure
Enabling the nation’s future through discovery, learning
and innovation.
NSF-3
NSF Vision
NSF in a Nutshell Independent Agency Supports basic
research & education Uses grant mechanism Low overhead; highly
automated
Discipline-based structure
Cross-disciplinary mechanisms
Use of Rotators/IPAs National Science
Board
National Science Board (NSB)
24 members + Director; President appoints; Senate confirms
6 year terms; rotation every 2 years at May NSB meeting
Authority to make awards delegated through NSB to Director and flows down to grant and contract officers
Inspector General
National Science Board
Staff Offices
Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences
Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences
Budget, Finance & Award
Management
Budget, Finance & Award
Management
Information Resource
Management
Information Resource
Management
National Science FoundationDirector
Deputy Director
Engineering Geosciences Mathematical & Physical
Sciences
Education & Human Resources
Biological Sciences
Computer, Information
Science& Engineering
Polar Programs
U.S. Antarctic Program
Science Resources Statistics
Data collection and analysis
Science and Engineering Indicators
International
NSF: Special Responsibilities
NSF-8
NSF Strategic Outcome Goals People - Developing “a diverse, internationally
competitive and globally engaged workforce of scientists, engineers, and well-prepared citizens.”
Ideas - Enabling “discoveries across the frontier of science and engineering, connected to learning, innovation, and service to society.”
Tools - Providing “broadly accessible, state-of-the-art shared research and education tools.”
The NSF FY 2005 Budget
1,070,146
486,004
4,614,709
1,216,740
322,345
834,017
747,852
172,245
169,608
382,543
01,000,0002,000,0003,000,0004,000,0005,000,000
0%
1%
9%
35%
36%
42%
44%
48%
59%
84%
0 20 40 60 80 100
Total Federal Distribution ($000) NSF Share of Total Federal
Computer sciences
Mathematics
Social sciences
Environmental sciences
Engineering
Other Sciences
Physical sciences
Biological sciences (non-medical)
Psychology
Medical sciences
Federal Obligations for Basic Research at Academic Institutions, FY 2002
FY’98 FY’99 FY’00 FY’01 FY’02 FY’03 FY’04 FY’05
Millions of dollars
Total Growth FY 98 – FY 04: $2.15 billion (68%)
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
$5,745
(Request)
Appropriations for the National Science Foundation FY 1998 - 2004
NSF FY 2005 Request by Account(Dollars in Millions)
FY 2004 FY 2005Estimate Request Amount Percent
Research and Related Activities 4251.36 4452.31 200.95 4.73%Education and Human Resources 938.98 771.36 -167.62 -17.85%Major Research Equipment 154.97 213.27 58.3 37.62% and Facilities ConstructionSalaries and Expenses 218.7 294 75.3 34.43%National Science Board 3.88 3.95 0.07 1.80%Office of Inspector General 9.94 10.11 0.17 1.71%
Total, NSF 5577.83 5745 167.17 3.00%
Change overFY 2004
NSF FY 2005 Budget Request Priority Areas
(Dollars in Millions)
FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2004
Estimate Request Amount PercentBiocomplexity in the Environment 99.83 99.83 0.00 0.0%Human and Social Dynamics 24.24 23.25 -0.99 -4.1%Mathematical Sciences 89.09 89.11 0.02 0.0%Nanoscale Science and Engineering 253.51 305.06 51.55 20.3%Workforce for the 21st Century N/A 20.00 20.00 N/ATotal, Priority Areas $466.67 $537.25 $70.58 15.1%
Change over
Microbial genome sequencing Ecology of infectious diseases Dynamics of coupled natural and
human systems Coupled biogeochemical cycles
Genome-enabled environmental sciences and engineering
Instrumentation development or environmental activities
Materials use: science, engineering and society
Agents of change
Dynamics of human behavior
Decision making under uncertainty
Spatial social science
Modeling human and social dynamics
Instrumentation and data resource development
Fundamental mathematical and statistical sciences
Advancing interdisciplinary science and engineering
Mathematical and statistical challenges posed by large data sets
Managing and modeling uncertainty
Modeling complex nonlinear systems
Advancing mathematical sciences education
Fundamental research and education:
Grand challenges
Centers and networks of excellence
Infrastructure
Societal and educational implications
Integrated science and engineering education investment
K-16 faculty preparation and development
Focus on broadening participation
Research on effective learning paths
Current Proposal, Award and Funding Trends
250%
200%
150%
100%
50%
0%
-50%
Per
cen
tag
e C
han
ge
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003
Comparison of NSF Budget, Staff, and Competitive Proposal Submission
National Science FoundationProposal Statistics
40,073 proposal actions 207,411 reviews 54,000 reviewers 10,844 awards 27.0% funding rate(Fiscal Year 2003)
NSF-9
NSF Research Grant Profile
Competitive awards: 10,844
Average annual award: $147,208
Median annual award: $99,200
Average duration: 2.55 years
NSF-10(Fiscal Year 2003)
NSF Project Funding Profile
Administration & Management
5%
Education & Training
18%
Research Projects52%
Research Facilities19%
Research Centers6%
National Science Foundation BudgetModes of Support
Research Projects
Centers
Research Facilities
Education & Training
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
$4,500
$5,000
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000Current
Plan
2001Request
Fiscal Year
$ Millions
(Individual Investigators and Small Groups)
NOTE: From FY 1997, administration and management costs within R&RA and EHR are attributed to the Administration and Management function.
12%
23%
6%
59%
56%
8%
19%
18%
Key Documents FY 2004 Federal Budget
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/
FY 2004 NSF Budget Request http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/bud/fy2004/toc.htm
Grant Proposal Guide (NSF 04-2) http://www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/getpub?gpg
Science and Engineering Indicators http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind02/start.htm
When in doubt – www.nsf.gov
Proposal Preparation
Grant Proposal Guide (GPG)
Provides guidance for preparation of proposals Specifies process for deviations including:
individual program announcements; and by written approval of cognizant AD or designee
Describes process -- and criteria -- by which proposals will be reviewed
Describes process for withdrawals, returns & declinations Describes the award process and procedures for requesting
continued support Identifies significant grant administrative highlights
What to Look for in a Program Announcement/Solicitation
Goal of program
Eligibility
Special proposal preparation and/or award requirements
Types of Proposal Submission
No deadlines
Deadlines
Target dates
Submission Windows
Preliminary proposals
Sections of an NSF Proposal Cover Sheet Project Summary Table of Contents Project Description References Cited Biographical Sketch(es) Budget Current & Pending Support Facilities, Equipment & Other Resources Special Information & Supplementary Documentation
A Good Proposal
A good proposal is a good idea, well expressed, with a clear indication of methods for pursuing the idea, evaluating the findings, making them known
to all who need to know, and indicating the broader impacts of the activity.
Proposal Development
Key Questions for Prospective Investigator
1. What do you intend to do?2. Why is the work important?3. What has already been done?4. How are you going to do the work?
(USPHS)
Proposal Development Strategies Individual Investigator
Determine your long-term research/education goals or plan
Develop your bright idea Survey the literature Contact Investigators working on topic Prepare a brief concept paper Discuss with colleagues/mentors
Proposal Development Strategies Individual Investigator (cont’d)
Prepare to do the project Determine available resources Realistically assess needs Develop preliminary data Present to colleagues/mentors/students
Determine possible funding sources
Understand the ground rules
Proposal Development Strategies Individual Investigator (cont’d)
Ascertain overall scope and mission Read carefully solicitation instructions Determine where your project fits Ascertain evaluation procedures and criteria Talk with NSF Program Officer:
Your proposed project Specific program requirements/limitations Current program patterns
Coordinate with your organization’s sponsored projects office
Budgetary Guidelines Amounts
Reasonable for work - Realistic Well Justified - Need established In-line with program guidelines
Eligible costs Personnel Equipment Travel Participant Support Other Direct Costs (including subawards,
consultant services, computer services, publication costs)
Cost Sharing
Unless a program solicitation specifies otherwise, do not:
include cost sharing amounts on Line M of the proposal budget; or
exceed the cost sharing level or amount specified in the solicitation.
Budgetary Guidelines (cont’d)
General Suggestions
All funding sources noted in Current and Pending Support
Help from Sponsored Projects Office
Getting Support in Proposal Writing
NSF Publications Program Announcements/
Solicitations
Grant Proposal Guide
Web Pages
Funded Project Abstracts
Reports, Special
Publications
Program Officers Incumbent Former “Rotators”
Mentors on Campus
Previous Panelists
Serve As Reviewer
Sponsored Research Office
Successful Proposals
Merit Review
Research & Education
Communities
Proposal Preparation Time
Org.submits
viaFastLane
N S FN S FNSF
Program.Office
NSFProgram.
Office
ProgramOffice
Analysis&
Recomm.
ProgramOffice
Analysis&
Recomm.
DDConcur
DDConcur
ViaDGA
ViaDGA
OrganizationOrganization
Min. 3
Revs.Req.
DGA Review & Processingof Award
Proposal Receipt to DivisionDirector Concurrence of Program
Officer Recommendation
GPGAnnouncement
Solicitation
GPGAnnouncement
Solicitation
NSF AnnouncesOpportunity
Returned Without Review/Withdrawn
MailMail
PanelPanel
BothBoth
Award
NSF Proposal & Award Process & Timeline
Decline
90 Days 6 Months 30 Days
Proposal Receiptat NSF DD Concur Award
is inappropriate for funding by the National Science Foundation
is submitted with insufficient lead-time before the activity is scheduled to begin;
is a full proposal that was submitted by a proposer that has received a "not invited" response to the submission of a preliminary proposal;
is a duplicate of, or substantially similar to, a proposal already under consideration by NSF from the same submitter;
Return Without Review
The Proposal:
Return Without Review
does not meet NSF proposal preparation requirements, such as page limitations, formatting instructions, and electronic submission, as specified in the Grant Proposal Guide or program solicitation;)
is not responsive to the GPG or program announcement/solicitation;
does not meet an announced proposal deadline date (and time, where specified); or
was previously reviewed and declined and has not been substantially revised.
The Proposal:
Return Without Review
Per Important Notice 127, “Implementation of new Grant Proposal Guide Requirements related to the Broader Impacts Criterion” --
Proposals that do not separately address both criteria within the one-page Project Summary will be returned without review.
NSF Merit Review Criteria
NSB Approved Criteria include:
Intellectual Merit
Broader Impacts of the Proposed Effort
What is the intellectual merit 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?
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 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?
What are the broader impacts of the
proposed activity?
Potential Considerations (continued):
Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding?
What may be the benefits of the proposed activity to society?
Reviewer Selection
Identifying reviewers
PI reviewer suggestions
NSF Sources of Reviewers Program Officer’s knowledge of what is being done and who’s doing what in the
research area
References listed in proposal
Recent technical programs from professional societies
Recent authors in Scientific and Engineering journals
S&E Abstracts by computer search
Reviewer recommendations
Investigator’s suggestions
(Letter to Program Officer)
Investigator Input
Proposers are invited to either suggest names of persons they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal or identify persons they would prefer not to review the proposal.
Role of the Review Panel
Quality Control
Budget Constraints
Balancing Priorities
Taking Risks
Funding Decisions
Feedback to PI
Informal and formal notification
Scope of work and budget discussions
Reasons For Funding A Competitive Proposal
Likely high impact
PI Career Point (tenured?/“established”/ “young”)
Place in Program Portfolio
Other Support for PI
Impact on Institution/State
Special Programmatic Considerations (CAREER/RUI/EPSCoR)
Diversity Issues
Educational Impact
“Launching” versus “Maintaining”
NSF Reconsideration Process
Explanation from Program Officer
Written request for reconsideration to Assistant Director within 90 days of decline
Request from organization to Deputy Director
CAREER Program Objectives Strongly encourage new faculty, emphasizing planning of an integrated academic
career
Develop faculty who are both highly productive researchers and dedicated, effective educators
Form partnership with college or university to encourage balanced career development of individual faculty
Increase participation of those traditionally underrepresented in technical disciplines
CAREER Guidelines Review process varies by Directorate, and may be by mail, panel,
or combination
Normal indirect cost rate applies
5 year duration
Minimum Award: $400K over 5 years
CAREER Development PlanShould include: The objectives and significance of the proposed integrated research and education activities; The relation of the research to the current state of knowledge in the field and of the education
activities to the current state of knowledge on effective teaching and learning in one’s field of study;
An outline of the plan of work, describing the methods and procedures to be used, including evaluation of the education activities;
The relation of the plan to the PI’s career goals and job responsibilities and the goals of his/her institution; and
A summary of prior research and education accomplishments
http://www.communitytechnology.org/nsf_ci_report/
Revolutionizing Science and Engineering through Cyberinfrastructure
Ubiquitous, digital knowledge environments that are both interactive and functionally complete
Revolutionize and accelerate the processes of discovery, learning and innovation across the science and engineering frontier.
Atkins Report
Cyberinfrastructure Characteristics
Community-Focused virtual organizations distributed, collaborative
Scale and Scope Multidisciplinary International Supporting data- and compute-intensive applications High-end to desktop Heterogeneous
Common Technology & Policy Platform(s) Interoperability Supports characteristics above
Hardware
Integrated CI System meeting the needs of a community of
communities
Grid Services & Middleware
DevelopmentTools & Libraries
Applications• Environmental Science• High Energy Physics• Proteomics/Genomics• …
Domain-specific
Cybertools (software)
Domain-specific
Cybertools (software)
Shared Cybertools (software)
Shared Cybertools (software)
Distributed Resources
(computation, communicationstorage, etc.)
Distributed Resources
(computation, communicationstorage, etc.)
Ed
uca
tion a
nd
Tra
inin
g
Dis
covery
& In
novati
on
The Computing Continuum L
oo
sely
C
ou
ple
d
Tig
htl
y C
ou
ple
d
Clusters SMPs“Grids”“SETI”
Regional and National Networks
GlobalNetworks
WirelessNetworks
Micro-sensor Networks(‘smart dust”)
The Networking Continuum
Douglas GatchellInternational Networking Program Director
NSF: National Science Foundation
CISE: Directorate for Computer Information and Science and Engineering
SCI: Division of Shared Cyberinfrastructure
dgatchell@nsf.gov
www.cise.nsf.gov