How your proposals will be evaluated for this FW5850 class?

• Most of you have already submitted a single pdf file of your proposal to me by email (I presume).

• I will put them on the web and email you the location of all proposals from your group by November 21st.

• Now you will review (as an ad hoc reviewer) all the proposals from your group except your own.

• You will write one page review for each proposal in your group along with your rating and email me all reviews as a single MS word file by December 1st, 2005.

• Your advisors and I will review them too!• All reviews will be anonymous

Evaluation Criteria

• Intellectual merit– How important this proposal is for advancement of knowledge?– Qualification of PI and quality of proposal?– Creative and original concepts? – How well conceived and organized is this activity?– Sufficient resources available for this research?

• Broader impacts– Advance discovery and understanding– Can promote teaching and research integration– Diversity (gender, ethnicity, disability, geographical), if any *– Infrastructure development*– Dissemination of information obtained – What is the benefit to society?

ALL CRITERIA MAY NOT APPLY FOR EACH PROPOSAL!Focus more on the contents (summary, description) than the format!* Not important for your evaluation

Panel meetings on December 6 and 8, 2005

• I will forward all reviews that I receive for each proposal to one of your group members (naturally other than you).

• That chosen person (the panel member) will prepare a panel summary with general topic, positive and negative aspects and final rating of the proposal.

• On December 6, we will meet in the atrium area outside G002.• There will be two tables for panel meeting, one per group• Each proposal will get ten minutes discussion (a bell will ring every

ten minutes)• You will go to other table when your own proposal is being

discussed as shown in the next slide. • The panel report will go into my file and you will select a Panel

leader from members within your own group to read the summary to whole class on December 8th, the last day of this class.

Biologists

ENGINEERS

CPJ

Foresters

Crystal

Baron

Timeline for your 2005 FW5850 proposals

• Final proposals submitted on or before November 17th• Your reviews of other people’s proposals are due on or

before December 1st (send me an email)– Reviews should be critical and anonymous– Rate each proposal

• Outstanding, Very good, Good, fair, poor, not competitive

• Remember there is a thanksgiving break week in between Nov 21st-25th

• Summary for one proposal each prepared by December 6th

• Panel meeting on December 6th• Final presentations December 8th • This will be our last class.

Panel presentation (December 8th 2005)

• You will select one leader from your group who will read all reports from your group after panel meeting to the whole class

• Each proposal will get ~five minutes

• Each report will have a specific final rating.

• Then you will enjoy your Xmas vacation!

Any questions?

HORT603 - Grants and Grantsmanship: Professor David Rhodes, Purdue

Characteristics of a Good Grant Proposal

It should have new/novel/innovative ideas. It should be likely to advance an area of science. It should fill critical gaps in knowledge of a specific area. It should be "science-driven". It should be working toward a long-term goal. It should have a thoughtful and up-to-date literature review. It should have well stated questions. It should have preliminary data which support the feasibility of the research. It should be well written and succinct and follow the program guidelines.

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/rhodcv/hort652n/ho00005.htm

Characteristics of Poor Grant Proposals

•Proposed research has already been done by others. •Derivative research (research may be viewed as a repetition of what has

already been accomplished in other systems). •Contingent aims. •Dead-end research. •Technique searching for a problem. •Poor justification. •PI or PIs lack necessary technical expertise. •Not using the most direct approach. •Wrong choice of experimental system. •Too broad and overly ambitious. •Too narrow in scope. •No preliminary data. •Lacks sufficient details for adequate evaluation. •Poorly written and presented.

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/rhodcv/hort652n/ho00005.htm

1. Lack of new or original ideas. 2. Diffuse, superficial, or unfocused research plan. 3. Lack of knowledge of published relevant work. 4. Lack of experience in the essential methodology. 5. Uncertainty concerning future directions. 6. Questionable reasoning in experimental approach. 7. Absence of an acceptable rationale. 8. Unrealistically large/small amount of work. 9. Lack of sufficient experimental detail. 10. Uncritical approach.

Top ten reasons why funding is normally not awarded

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/rhodcv/hort652n/ho00005.htm

Funding trends in United States

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/rhodcv/hort652n/ho00005.htm

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/rhodcv/hort652n/ho00005.htm

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/rhodcv/hort652n/ho00005.htm

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/rhodcv/hort652n/ho00005.htm

Agency FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994 FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

DOD 37,209 37,779 38,848 35,510 35,349 35,783 37,238 37,430 38,532 39,109 42,743 50,134

NIH 8,977 9,6245 9,891 10,474 10,762 11,425 12,217 13,097 14,943 17,125 19,710 22,822

NASA 8,124 8,544 8,815 9,406 9,459 9,432 9,352 9,884 9,727 9,778 9,925 10,301

DOE 7,339 8,133 7,444 6,771 6,416 6,273 6,217 6,288 7,002 7,232 7,744 8,122

NSF 1,893 1,972 2,014 2,243 2,396 2,391 2,424 2,568 2,784 2,854 3,279 3,527

USDA 1,391 1,519 1,467 1,528 1,487 1,488 1,556 1,553 1,656 1,693 1,959 2,139

Commerce 537 583 792 1,022 1,118 966 964 1,081 1,076 1,096 1,201 1,354

Transportation 411 621 621 641 666 601 612 676 696 643 747 853

EPA 459 493 497 588 554 482 595 672 692 645 609 702

Interior 620 643 649 708 668 571 591 609 627 562 631 673

Total 68,747 71,941 72,928 71,074 70,948 71,206 73,934 76,106 80,170 83,346 91,371 103,694

Numbers in millions ($)

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/rhodcv/hort652n/ho00005.htm

Where to go to see information on funding agencies

• Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)• Department of Energy, Office of Energy Research (DOE)• Department of Transportation (DOT) • Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) • Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR)• National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)• National Science Foundation (NSF) • National Institutes of Health (NIH) • National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST) • USDA Cooperative State Research, Education and Exte

nsion Service (USDA CSREES)

http://www.admin.mtu.edu/research/sprot/funding/federal.html

Just as a curiosity..

• Select an agency that you think will be best for your research area and explore how will you modify the proposal preparation and submission process than what we did for this class taking NSF as a model.

• If you wish, submit one page to me by next class (Optional and extra credit)

USDA-NRI• http://www.csrees.usda.gov/fo/funding.cfm

Focus areas:• Agricultural & Food Biosecurity • Agricultural Systems • Animals & Animal Products • Biotechnology & Genomics • Economics & Commerce • Families, Youth & Communities • Food, Nutrition & Health • Natural Resources & Environment • Pest Management • Plants & Plant Products • Technology & Engineering

FY2005 RFA• http://www.csrees.usda.gov/funding/rfas/pdfs/05_nri.pdf

• Program Opportunities• 20.0 Animal and Plant Biosecurity• 22.1 Agricultural Plants and Environmental Adaptation• 23.1 Managed Ecosystems• 25.0 Soil Processes• 26.0 Watershed Processes and Water Resources• 28.0 Air Quality• 31.0 Bioactive Food Components for Optimal Health• 31.5 Human Nutrition and Obesity• 32.0 Food Safety• 32.1 Epidemiological Approaches for Food Safety• 41.0 Animal Reproduction• 42.0 Animal Growth and Nutrient Utilization• 43.0 Animal Genomics• 43.1 Animal Genome Reagent and Tool Development• 44.0 Animal Protection• 45.0 Functional Genomics of Agriculturally Important Organisms• 51.2 Integrative Biology of Arthropods and Nematodes• 51.3 Arthropod and Nematode Gateways to Genomics• 51.8 Biology of Plant-Microbe Associations• 51.9 Biology of Weedy and Invasive Plants• 52.1 Plant Genome, Bioinformatics, and Genetic Resources• 52.2 Genetic Processes and Mechanisms of Crop Plants• 52.4 Applied Plant Genomics CAP• 53.0 Developmental Processes of Crop Plants• 54.3 Agricultural Plant Biochemistry• 61.0 Agricultural Markets and Trade• 62.0 Rural Development• 66.0 Enhancing the Prosperity of Small Farms and Rural Agricultural Communities• 71.1 Improving Food Quality and Value• 71.2 Biobased Products and Bioenergy Production Research• 75.0 Nanoscale Science and Engineering for Agriculture and Food Systems

Purpose and Priorities

• The purpose of the USDA-NRI Program is to support research, extension, and education grants that address key problems of national, regional, and multistate importance in sustaining all components of agriculture (farming, ranching, forestry including urban and agroforestry, aquaculture, rural communities, human nutrition, processing, etc.).

Type of applications• New• Resubmitted• Renewal • Resubmitted renewal

• Research grant• Conference• AREA (Agricultural Research Enhancement awards)

– Postdoctoral– New Investigator– Strengthening Awards

• Small institutions• Limited success• Sabbatical• seed grants• Equipment grants

USDA has a number of programs

• 31.5 Human Nutrition and Obesity• Investigators are encouraged to contact the National Program

Leaders, Etta Saltos (esaltos@csrees.usda.gov; telephone: (202) 401-5178) or Susan Welsh (swelsh@csrees.usda.gov; telephone: (202) 720-5544) with questions about the suitability of applications.

• Standard Research Grants for this program will not exceed $500,000 (including indirect costs) for project periods of 2-4 years. Integrated Project Grants for this program are not likely to exceed $1.5 million for project periods up to 4 years. The total amount of support available for this program will be approximately $8 million.

• Program Deadline: Applications must be received by 5:00 P.M., Eastern Time, June 15, 2005.

• This crosscutting program addresses the complex problem of obesity prevention. The program seeks to support applications that integrate at least two of the three CSREES supported functions - research, education and extension/outreach.

THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE….

A bunch of forms to be filled and 15 copies to be mailed

• Proposal Cover Page (Form CSREES-2002) • Table of Contents • Project Summary (Form CSREES-2003) • Response to Previous Review (if applicable) • Project Description (see instructions for page limitations) 18 pages• References to Project Description • Facilities and Equipment • Key Personnel (vitae and publications list) • Collaborative Arrangements (including letters of support) • Conflict-of-Interest List (Form CSREES-2007) • Results from Prior NRI Support (if applicable) • Budget (Form CSREES-2004) • Budget Narrative • Matching (if required) • Current and Pending Support (Form CSREES-2005) • Assurance Statement (s) (Form CSREES-2008) • Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (Form CSREES-2006) • Appendices to Project Description • Personal Data on Project Director (s) (Page B of Form CSREES-2002)

Evaluation criteria

1. Scientific merit of the application for research, extension and/or education

2. Qualifications of proposed project personnel and adequacy of facilities

3. Planning and administration of the proposed project

4. Relevance of the proposal to improvements in and sustainability of U.S. agriculture

Scientific merit

1. novelty, uniqueness, and originality2. conceptual adequacy of hypothesis or

research question3. clarity and delineation of objectives4. adequacy of description of the undertaking5. suitability and feasibility of methodology6. demonstration of feasibility through

preliminary data7. probability of success of project

Qualifications

Qualifications of proposed project personnel and adequacy of facilities:

1. training and awareness of previous and alternative approaches, performance record and/or potential for future accomplishments2. time allotted for systematic attainment of objectives3. Institutional experience and competence in subject area4. adequacy of available or obtainable support personnel, facilities and instrumentation

Relevance?

Relevance of the project to long-range improvements in and sustainability of U.S. agriculture

1. documentation that the research is directed towards a current or likely future problem in U.S. agriculture2. development of basic research ideas towards practical application

Rating

Each reviewer is asked to rate each proposal overall as either:

• excellent

• very good

• good

• fair

• poor

Panel recommendations

The following categories are generally used to rank proposals by the Panel:

• Outstanding ***• High priority for funding **• Medium priority for funding • Low priority for funding • Some scientific merit • Do not fund

Proposals are also ranked in each category mainly in first two-threeSuccess rate 20-25%