Introduction and NSF Introduction and NSF OverviewOverview

September 2006September 2006

Main TopicsMain TopicsOrigins of NSF

The National Science Foundation

The NSF FY 2007 Budget Request NSF Initiatives

Current Proposal, Award and Funding Trends

The New NSF Web Site

Origins of NSFOrigins of NSF

Origins of NSFOrigins of NSF“The Government should accept new responsibilities for promoting the flow of scientific knowledge and the development of scientific talent in our youth.” Science, The Endless Frontier,

1945

1947: Congress Approves, Truman Vetoes: Agencies created in the meantime

1950: Compromise Bill Approved & Signed by Truman

NSF Act of 1950NSF Act of 1950“To promote the progress of science…”

NSB (24) and 1 Director, appointed by the President

Encourage & develop a national policy for the promotion of basic research and education in the math, physical, medical,biological, engineering and other sciences

Initiate & support basic scientific research in the sciences

Evaluate the science research programs undertaken by agencies of the Federal government

Provide information for S&E policy formation

NSF VisionNSF Vision

Enabling the nation’s futureEnabling the nation’s future through discovery, learning through discovery, learning

and innovation.and innovation.

NSF-3

NSF in a NutshellNSF 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 FoundationNational Science Foundation

Inspector General

National Science Board

Director Deputy Director

Staff Offices

Computer & Information

Science&

Engineering

Engineering Geosciences

Mathematical

& Physical Sciences

Social, Behavioral

& Economic Sciences

Education & Human Resources

Budget, Finance & Award

Management

Information Resource

Managemen

t

Biological

Sciences

SOURCE: Science and Engineering Indicators - 2004

National R&D funding, by source

NSF Budget NSF Budget CycleCycle

NSFNSF President Submits Budget to Congress

House Budget Committee

Authorization Committees

Appropriations Subcommittee

Appropriations Committee

Full House Version

Senate Budget Committee

Authorization Committees

Appropriations Subcommittee

Appropriations Committee

Full Senate Version

Develop Conference Report

Each Chamber Passes Conference Report

President Signs

OMB

OLPA-8

NSF’s Congressional NSF’s Congressional PlayersPlayers

Budget Committee

Committee on ScienceSubcommittee on

Research

Subcommittee on Science,Justice, and Commerce

andRelated Agencies

Budget Committee

Health, Education, Labor

and Pensions

Commerce, Science and

Transportation Committee

Subcommittee onCommerce, Justice andScience

House SenateA

ut h

ori

zati

on

Au

t ho

riza

tio

n

Ap

pro

pri

atio

ns

Ap

pro

pri

atio

ns

OLPA-9

Bu

dg

et

Bu

dg

et

SOURCE: Science and Engineering Indicators - 2004

Federal R&D budget authority, by budget function

Trends in Research by Trends in Research by AgencyAgency FY 1976-2007FY 1976-2007

billion

s o

f con

sta

nt

FY

2006

dollars

Source: AAAS analyses of R&D in annual AAAS R&D reports. FY 2007 figures are President’s request. Research includes basic and applied research. 1976-1994 figures are NSF data on obligations in the Federal Funds survey. March ’06 © 2006 AAAS.

OLPA-25

Total U.S. National R&D - $292B

Industry66%

Other6%

Federal28%

Total Federal R&D Obligations$86B

NSF4%

Total Federal Basic Research $24B

NSF13%

Total Federal Academic Basic Research - $13B

NSF20%Other

80%

Latest complete data currently available

NIH

NSF Role in Research and NSF Role in Research and DevelopmentDevelopment

Fiscal Year 2002Fiscal Year 2002

39

45

49

50

63

86

77

0 20 40 60 80 100

Physical sciences

Engineering

Social Sciences

Environmental sciences

Biology

Mathematics

Computer Science

NSF Support as a NSF Support as a Percentage of Total Percentage of Total Federal Support of Federal Support of Academic Basic ResearchAcademic Basic Research

Percentage

(excluding NIH)

OLPA-29

Other Sciences

Mathematics & ComputerSciences

Environmental Sciences

Engineering

Physical Sciences

Social Sciences &Psychology

All Life Sciences 4.7%

27.7%

35.5%

44.5%

50.3%

76.0%

39.1%

NSF Support for Basic Research at Academic NSF Support for Basic Research at Academic InstitutionsInstitutions

Share of Total Federal Support - FY 2003 Share of Total Federal Support - FY 2003 PreliminaryPreliminary

President’s American Competitiveness Initiative

Double the NSF budget over 10 years

Cover image credit: Eric J. Heller, Harvard University

Proposed NSF Outyear Estimates - FY 2006 and FY 2007

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016

$ in Millions

FY06 Outyears FY07 Outyears

$6.02 billion(Increase from FY 2006: $439 million,

7.9%)

Big PictureBig Picture

NSF FY 2007 BudgetNSF FY 2007 Budget

Amount Percent

Research and Related Activities $4,234.82 $4,331.48 $4,665.95 $334.47 7.7%

Education and Human Resources 843.54 796.69 816.22 19.53 2.5%

Major Research Equipment and 165.14 190.88 240.45 49.57 26.0%

Facilities Construction

Salaries and Expenses 223.45 246.81 281.82 35.01 14.2%

National Science Board 3.65 3.95 3.91 -0.04 -1.0%

Office of Inspector General 10.17 11.36 11.86 0.50 4.4%

Total, NSF $5,480.78 $5,581.17 $6,020.21 $439.04 7.9%

NSF Funding by Account(Dollars in Millions)

FY 2005 Actual

FY 2006 Current

PlanFY 2007 Request

Change over

FY 2006

NSF FY 2007 BudgetNSF FY 2007 Budget

FY 2006FY 2005 Current FY 2007

Actual Plan Request Amount PercentBiological Sciences $576.78 $576.69 $607.85 $31.16 5.4%Computer and Information Science and Engineering 490.20 496.41 526.69 30.28 6.1%Engineering 557.09 580.92 628.55 47.63 8.2%Geosciences 697.17 702.83 744.85 42.02 6.0%Mathematical and Physical Sciences 1,069.36 1,085.45 1,150.30 64.85 6.0%Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences 196.80 199.91 213.76 13.85 6.9%Office of Cyberinfrastructure 123.40 127.12 182.42 55.30 43.5%

Office of International Science and Engineering1 43.38 34.52 40.61 6.09 17.6%U.S. Polar Research Programs 278.27 322.68 370.58 47.90 14.8%U.S. Antarctic Logistical Support Activities 70.26 66.66 67.52 0.86 1.3%Integrative Activities 130.92 137.12 131.37 -5.75 -4.2%Arctic Research Commission 1.19 1.17 1.45 0.28 23.9%

Total, Research and Related Activities $4,234.82 $4,331.48 $4,665.95 $334.47 7.7%Totals may not add due to rounding.1 OISE FY 2005 Actual includes $9.42 million provided to NSF by the U.S. Department of State for an award to the U.S. Civilian Research and Development Foundation.

Research and Related Activities by Directorate(Dollars in Millions)

Change overFY 2006

NSF FY 2007 BudgetNSF FY 2007 Budget

FY 2006FY 2005 Current FY 2007

Actual Plan Request Amount Percent

Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) $93.35 $98.72 $100.00 $1.28 1.3%

Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings (DRL) 238.76 215.16 215.00 -0.16 -0.1%Undergraduate Education (DUE) 1 237.52 211.71 196.80 -14.91 -7.0%Graduate Education (DGE) 154.75 153.02 160.57 7.55 4.9%Human Resource Development

(HRD) 1 119.16 118.08 143.85 25.77 21.8%

Total, EHR 2 $843.54 $796.69 $816.22 $19.53 2.5%Totals may not add due to rounding.1 FY 2005 Actual and FY 2006 Current Plan reflect proposed FY 2007 structure of programs. See text foradditional detail. 2 Excludes $25.95 million in obligations in FY 2005, and an estimated $100.0 million in FY 2006 and FY 2007 fromH-1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner Fees.

Education and Human Resources Funding by Division(Dollars in Millions)

Change overFY 2006

NSF FY 2007 BudgetNSF FY 2007 Budget

FY 2005 Actual

FY 2006 Current

PlanFY 2007 Request

FY 2008 Estimate

FY 2009 Estimate

FY 2010 Estimate

FY 2011 Estimate

FY 2012 Estimate

Ongoing ProjectsALMA 49.30 45.14 47.89 47.07 37.37 20.98EarthScope 44.80 46.40 27.40IceCube 48.10 46.25 28.65 22.38 11.33 0.95NEON 12.00 12.00 20.00 30.00 26.00SODV 6.08 53.09 42.88SPSM 16.86 9.13DOJ Judgment 3.00New StartsARRV 56.00 42.00OOI 13.50 48.00 77.00 78.00 53.00 40.00AdvLIGO - 28.48 42.81 46.31 36.25 22.90

Totals $165.14 $190.88 $240.45 $199.93 $188.51 $176.24 $115.25 $62.90

Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) Account (Dollars in Millions)

MREFC AccountMREFC Account

NSF FY 2007 BudgetNSF FY 2007 Budget

Amount PercentNational Nanotechnology Initiative $334.99 $343.77 $373.18 $29.41 8.6%Climate Change Science Program 197.88 196.88 205.25 8.37 4.3%Networking and Information Technology R&D810.67 810.33 903.74 93.41 11.5%Homeland Security 341.40 341.82 384.21 42.39 12.4%

National Science and Technology Council Crosscuts(Dollars in Millions)

FY 2005 Actual

FY 2006 Current

PlanFY 2007 Request

Change overFY 2006

Sensors ExplosivesSensors Explosives

Sensors for the Detection of Explosives

$20 million

Credit: Mete Sozen and Julio Ramirez, Purdue University School of Civil Engineering

International Polar Year

Michael Van Woert, NOAA

2007-2008

$62 million

Science Metrics

Science Met RevScience Met Rev

$6.8million

Cyberinfrastructure$597 million

Petascale Computing $50 million

Credit: Bob Wilhelmson, NCSA and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Lou Wicker, National Severe Storms Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Matt Gilmore, Lee Cronce, Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois. Visualization by Donna Cox, Robert Patterson, Stuart Levy, Matt Hall, Alex Betts, NCSA.

Sunflower blankSunflower blank

Bolstering K-12 EducationDiscovery Research K-12 $104 M Grand ChallengesDeveloping effective science and mathematics assessments for K-12

Improving science teaching and learning in the elementary grades

Introducing cutting-edge discoveries into K-12 classrooms

Credit: Barry Myers

Current Proposal, Current Proposal, Award and Funding Award and Funding

TrendsTrends

NSF Recent Trends:NSF Recent Trends:FY 2002 to FY 2005FY 2002 to FY 2005

Obligations Incurred(Millions of Dollars)

$4,954

$5,579

OrganizationalExcellence

FTE

# of Competitive Proposals# of Competitive AwardsAver. Annual Res. Grant Size

Aver. Research Grant Duration(years)

14%

59%

3%

19%

-7%

24%

-

$5,871

2.9 2.9 2.9

$115,666

Change fromFY02 to FY05

FY05FY04FY03FY02

$135,609 $139,637

10,406 10,844 10,380

35,164 40,075 43,851

1,239 1,242 1,274

$184 $196 $268

$5,654

$292

1,279

41,722

9,757

$143,669

2.9

Old Site Old Site New Site New Site

Key DocumentsKey Documents

FY 2007 NSF Budget Request http://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2007

Grant Proposal Guide (NSF 04-23) http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key

=GPG

Science and Engineering Indicators http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind04/start.htm

When in doubt – http://www.nsf.gov/

OutlineOutline

Proposal review process Submission Administrative Review Scientific Review Decisions

Research proposal preparation Getting started The proposal Proposal writing tips

Scientific

ReviewAdministrativ

e

Review

Research & Education Communities

Proposal Preparation and Submission

Organization submits

via

FastLane OR

Grants.govNSF

ProgramDirector

ProgramDirectorAnalysis

& Recom..

DivisionDirectorConcur

ViaDGA

Organization

Minimum of 3

ReviewsRequired

DGA Review & Processing of Award

Proposal Review and Decisions

NSF Proposal

GeneratingDocument

Returned As Inappropriate/Withdrawn

Mail

Panel

Both

Award

NSF Proposal & Award Process & Timeline

Decline

90 Days 6 Months 30Days

Proposal Receiptat NSF DD Concur Award

Proposal Processing

Unit

NSFNSF

Life of a ProposalLife of a Proposal1. Preparation2. Submission3. Administrative Review

Printed, checked for print problems, transferred to Division/Office

Assigned to program, cluster, section, etc.

Checked for compliance Both review criteria Format Appropriateness

4. Scientific Review ad hoc reviews Panel review

5. Decisions Award or decline

recommendation by Program Director

Concurrence by Division Director

Non-award notifications by Division/Office

Award notifications by Division of Grants and Agreements

Proposal SubmissionProposal Submission

How? Via FastLane (https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov) or

Grants.gov (http://www.grants.gov)

Who?To whom? Selecting a program

What? Basics of Proposal Types

When? Target date, deadline and window

Proposal Submission - Proposal Submission - Who?Who?

Universities and collegesNon-profit, non-academic organizationsFor-profit organizationsState and local governmentsSmall Businesses – SBIR Program

Unaffiliated individualsForeign organizations

Proposal Submission – To whom? Proposal Submission – To whom? Categories of Funding Categories of Funding OpportunitiesOpportunities

Dear Colleague Letter provides general information to community, clarifies or amends

existing policy or document, or informs community about upcoming opportunities or special competitions for supplements to existing awards

Program Description broad, general descriptions of programs

Program Announcement similar to Program Descriptions

Program Solicitation encourage submission of proposals in specific program areas of

interest to NSF more focused; normally apply for limited period of time may include additional review criteria and reporting requirements,

budgetary and eligibility limits, require letters of intent or pre-proposals, etc.

My NSF My NSF http://www.nsf.gov/mynsf/http://www.nsf.gov/mynsf/

Proposal Submission - Proposal Submission - What?What?

Letters of Intent Only if needed by the program

Intent: to help NSF program staff to gauge size and range of competition Contents: PI's and co-PI's names, proposed title, list of possible

participating organizations, and synopsis Not externally evaluated or used to decide on funding

Preliminary Proposal Only if needed by the program

Intent: to reduce unnecessary effort in proposal preparation and to increase the overall quality of full submission

Contents: based on the program Review and decisions: peer review to aid decisions

o Invite or Not inviteo Encourage or Not encourage

Full Proposal Typical submission to NSF

Proposal Submission - When?Proposal Submission - When?Published in specific program descriptions, announcements, and solicitations

Target dates dates after which proposals still accepted, but

may miss a particular panel

Deadline dates dates after which proposals will not be accepted

for review

Submission Windows designated periods of time during which

proposals accepted for review

Accepted any time e.g. SGER (Small Grants for Exploratory

Research), conference/workshop proposals, supplements

Submission and Submission and afterwardsafterwards

Submission Check before you submit

Print out from FastLane to ensure pdf conversion is correct

Work with your Sponsored Projects Office

After submission Acknowledgment and FastLane proposal

status page FastLane Proposal File Update module

Parts of a proposal may be replaced after submission

Administrative ReviewAdministrative ReviewCompliance Check Print problems, format, page limits, etc. Return without review

DOES NOT ADDRESS BOTH REVIEW CRITERIA IN PROJECT SUMMARY

inappropriate for funding by NSF insufficient lead-time before the activity’s start received after announced proposal deadline date full proposal submitted when preliminary proposal "not

invited" duplicate of, or substantially similar to, proposal already

under consideration by NSF from same submitter does not meet NSF proposal preparation requirements not responsive to GPG (Grant Proposal Guide) or program

announcement/solicitation previously reviewed and declined and has not been

substantially revised duplicates another proposal already funded

Merit Review CriteriaMerit Review CriteriaIntellectual merit of proposed activity Creativity and originality Advance knowledge and understanding within and across

fields Conceptualization and organization Qualifications of investigators Access to resources

Broader impacts of proposed activity Advance discovery while promoting teaching, training, &

learning Broaden participation of underrepresented groups Enhance infrastructure for research and education Disseminate results to enhance scientific and technological

understanding Benefits to society Examples: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/gpg/broaderimpacts.pdf

Scientific ReviewScientific Review

Mail Reviews (aka ad hoc) Identifying reviewers:

Reviewer suggestions by the principal investigator (PI) Program Director’s knowledge of the research area References listed in proposal Recent technical programs from professional societies Recent authors in scientific and engineering journals Reviewer recommendations

Panel Review Panelists may be asked to provide written reviews Panelists discuss and rank proposals Panelists usually write a panel summary

Reviewer Conflicts of Reviewer Conflicts of InterestInterest

Remove or limit influence of ties to an applicant institution or investigator that could affect reviewer advice

Preserve trust of scientific community, Congress, and general public in integrity, effectiveness, and evenhandedness of NSF’s peer review process

Reviewer Conflicts of InterestReviewer Conflicts of Interest

Affiliations with applicant institutions Current (e.g. faculty) or other (e.g. consultant)

employment at the institution Being considered for employment or any formal or

informal reemployment arrangement at the institution Any office, governing board membership or relevant

committee membership at the institution

Relationships with investigator or project director Known family or marital relationship Business partner Past or present thesis advisor or thesis student Collaboration on a project, book, article, or paper within

the last 48 months Co-edited a journal, compendium, or conference

proceedings within the last 24 months

Basis for Decisions: Basis for Decisions: ReviewsReviews

Peer Review Content of review is more important than the

rating Program Director analyzes reviews for

Fairness Substance Technical problems Reasons for the reviewer concerns or enthusiasm

Program Director sometimes obtains additional reviews or requests comments from PI

Panel recommendation

Basis for Decisions: A Balanced Basis for Decisions: A Balanced PortfolioPortfolio

Innovation and CreativityBreadth of research areasPriority areas and systemsDemographics and DiversityBroadening participationInstitution/State impact - RUI, EPSCoR, etc.Integration of research and educationInternational collaborationPI situation - career point, other support

Why do some proposals Why do some proposals fail?fail?

Absence of innovative ideas or hypothesis Will provide only an incremental advance Not exciting or cutting edge

Errors Unclear or incomplete expression of aims Faulty logic or experimental design Less than rigorous presentation

Unrealistic, sloppy or incompleteResources and facilities not in place PI qualifications/expertise not evident Necessary collaborations not documented

Funding and afterwardsFunding and afterwards

Funding Budget and scope negotiations

Afterwards Do what you promised Notifications & Requests via FastLane Supplement opportunities

REU - Research Experience for Undergraduates ROA - Research Opportunity Awards RET - Research Experience for Teachers

Submit annual and final reports

OutlineOutline

Proposal review processResearch proposal preparationA 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.

Getting started The proposal Proposal writing tips

Step 1: Getting startedStep 1: Getting startedIdea: There is no substitute! Have a cutting edge idea

Find the right program www.nsf.gov Program

Directors (phone, email)

Events like this!

Develop your brilliant Develop your brilliant ideaidea

Key Questions• What do you intend to do?• Why is the work important?• What has already been done?• How are you going to do the work?

Make sure it is innovative and exciting Survey the literature Talk with others in the field

Can you convince people that you can do the project? Obtain preliminary data Develop arguments to support feasibility Determine available facilities and resources

What you have What collaborators can help with

Step 2: Grant Proposal Step 2: Grant Proposal GuideGuide

Get it - Read it - Follow itProposal preparation and submissionSubmission of collaborative proposals via Subaward Separate, yet linked, proposals

Small Grants for Exploratory ResearchReview criteria and processReturn without review criteriaWithdrawal, declination, and award processesSignificant award administration procedures

Beyond the GPGBeyond the GPG

What to look for in a program solicitation/announcement/description: Goal Special proposal preparation instructions and/or

other requirements (e.g., preproposals, letters of intent, etc.)

Deviations from the GPG Additional review criteria or reporting

requirements Eligibility or budgetary limitations Deadlines or target dates

Parts of a ProposalParts of a ProposalCover sheet and certificationsProject summary Both intellectual merit and broader impacts described

Table of contentsProject descriptionReferences citedBiographical sketchesBudgets and justificationCurrent and pending supportFacilities, equipment and other resourcesSpecial information/documentation NO reprints, preprints, letters of endorsement

Single Copy Documents Reviewer suggestions, deviation authority, confidential

information, etc.

Project SummaryProject Summary

Include both review criteria Proposals that do not separately address both criteria

within the one-page Project Summary will be returned without review.

Intellectual Merit Describe the scientific problem and why it is important State the overall objective of the project State the specific aims Describe how the aims will be achieved

Broader Impacts Educational & outreach activities; infrastructure;

dissemination of results; underrepresented groups; benefit to society

Project DescriptionProject Description

The key to a strong proposalOverall concept / rationaleHypothesis-driven or Data-drivenExecution Careful Thorough Appropriate

Project DescriptionProject Description

Results from prior NSF support (required if applicable)Objectives and expected significanceRelation to the PI’s longer term goalsRelation to present state of knowledgeExperimental methods and proceduresSections optional: preface, background, preliminary studies,

specific objectives, significance, experimental plan

Project DescriptionProject Description

Know your audienceThink about the reviewers Write accurately, concisely, and clearly Make it easy for reviewers to like your proposal You never get a second chance to make a first

impression First page tells it all Figures and tables get your point across clearly The reviewers may not be an expert in your

specific field

Biographical SketchBiographical Sketch

Professional PreparationAppointmentsPublications 5 closely related 5 other significant publications

Synergistic activitiesCollaborators & other affiliations Collaborators (last 4 yrs) & co-editors (last 2yrs) Graduate and Postdoctoral Advisors Thesis Advisor and Postgraduate-Scholar Sponsor

BudgetBudget

Budgets should be reasonable, but ask for what you need for personnel, equipment, travel, participant support,

& other direct costs (subaward, consultant, computer services, publication costs)

for cost of educational activities associated with research, where appropriate

Unless solicitation specifies otherwise, do not: include cost-sharing on Line M in budget exceed cost-sharing level or amount specified in

solicitation

Justification

Current and Pending Current and Pending SupportSupport

List everything current, pending and anticipated

Be careful of overlap Perception of overlap could be

detrimental in the review.

Dual submissions when they are allowed

Proposal Writing Proposal Writing TipsTips

1. Get help with proposal 1. Get help with proposal writingwriting

Read: NSF publications Successful proposals

Look before you leap: Serve as a reviewer or panelist

Talk with people: Program officers Current or former “rotators” Successful colleagues Sponsored projects office

2. Start early and don’t 2. Start early and don’t be shybe shy

Write: Rewrite and rewrite again

Get critiques from: Mentors and colleagues Previous members of review panels

3. Be reasonable3. Be reasonable

Be aware of the scope: “Too ambitious” vs. “Too narrow”

Be honest and up-front: Address issues instead of trying to

hide them Acknowledge possible experimental

problems and have alternatives

4. Make it easy for the 4. Make it easy for the reviewersreviewers

Simplify and streamline: Make sure you get your overall idea

across!

Pay attention to details: Run the spell checker and proof-read Prepare clear photos, graphs, etc. Make the font size as big as you can

5. If you have to resubmit5. If you have to resubmit

Stay calm! Take ten… breaths, hours, days Examine the criticisms carefully

Keep in touch: Call, email or visit your program director

Rapid resubmission does not help! Take time to self-evaluate the proposal and

the project

Getting Support in Getting Support in Proposal WritingProposal Writing

NSF Publications Program Solicitations

Grant Proposal Guide

Web Pages

Funded Project Abstracts

Reports, Special Publications

Program Directors Incumbent Former “Rotators”

Mentors on Campus

Previous Panelists

Serving As A Reviewer

Sponsored Research Office

Successful Proposals

Reorganizations & Initiatives Reorganizations & Initiatives & New Offices& New Offices

Engineering DirectorateEngineering Directorate

Engineering Engineering ReorganizationReorganization

Office of Cyber Office of Cyber InfrastructureInfrastructure

Acquisition of CI resources for ScienceAcquisition of general CITraining of future generations of researchers and educators in use of CIFY 2007 Request $187 Million + CI investments of R&RA and Education Directorates

CI ProgramsCI Programs

Petascale Acquisition

Mid-scale Acquisition

CI Team

Division of Research on Learning in Division of Research on Learning in Formal and Informal EnvironmentsFormal and Informal Environments

Combines ESIE and RECThree Clusters

DRK12 + ITEST + …REESE + ALTISE + ITEST + …

Reflects one of the NSF-wide Initiatives

Selected NSF ProgramsSelected NSF ProgramsCPATH – CISE Undergraduate ProgramALT – Advanced Learning TechnologiesDRK12 – Discovery Research K-12 SBIRBiotechnology (BT)Electronics (EL)Emerging Opportunities (EO)Information Technology (IT)

SBIR ReviewSBIR Review

SBIR and STTRPhase 1 – 100K and 150KPhase 2 – 500KMatchmaker Opportunities

Global Environment for Network Global Environment for Network Innovations (GENI)Innovations (GENI)

PURPOSE Build in security and robustness; Enable the vision of pervasive computing and bridge the

gap between the physical and virtual worlds by including mobile, wireless and sensor networks;

Enable control and management of other critical infrastructures;

Include ease of operation and usability; and Enable new classes of societal-level services and

applications.

The GENI Initiative includes: A research program; and A global experimental facility designed to explore new

architectures at scale.

Major Research Major Research InstrumentationInstrumentation

Support the acquisition, through purchase, upgrade, or development, of major state-of-the-art instrumentation for research, research training, and integrated research/education activities at organizations; Improve access to and increase use of modern research and research training instrumentation by scientists, engineers, and graduate and undergraduate students;Enable academic departments or cross-departmental units to create well-equipped learning environments that integrate research with education; Foster the development of the next generation of instrumentation for research and research training; Promote partnerships between academic researchers and private sector instrument developers.

MRI – Amounts MRI – Amounts

Normally $100,000 to $2,000,000PUIs – may be less than $100,000Success rate for PUIs highSuccess rate for $1,000,000 to $2,000,000 fairly low (e.g. 8-10/year)Check on cost-sharing in upcoming PA