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
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
Top Related