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