There's been some discussion on various blogs about the "OMG! NSF is Completely Broken and the World is Going to End!" forum headed up by the disgruntled "Aureliano Buendia." See Prof-like Substance and DrugMonkey for some interesting comments.
Something mentioned in that forum and in a comment at DrugMonkey's piqued my interest. QoQ over at DM's asserted that the NSF is indeed broken and noted in support:
First, the identity of the reviewers is not public and changes from submission to submission -- so you can't target a grant.
You can't target a grant.* I'm not entirely sure what QoQ means by this, but I suspect they want to write their proposals for specific reviewers on the panel. Perhaps so they can try to "butter up" the reviewers by citing their work favorably and often, or to avoid having to write a proposal in more general language that reviewers not experts in the sub-sub-field can understand. Or maybe even both. Or neither.
It doesn't matter really, because targeting reviewers on the panel is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!!!!
Why?
'Cos there ain't no guarantee that the reviewers you are targeting will get your proposal.
In fact the odds are not in the least bit favorable. Review panels at the NSF (and study sections at the NIH) cannot have experts from every sub-sub-field on them. Unless you want either panels with many dozens of members, or many, many more panels than currently exist (and there are already a lot). So the odds are there may be one reviewer at most who is an expert in your particular sub-sub-field (and that person is likely a competitor...).
Targeting panel members would be a particularly stupid thing to attempt (if you could) at the NSF where you could have anywhere from three to ten people reviewing your proposal. Usually three or so on the panel, and the rest as outside, "mail in" reviewers. Even if there is an expert on the panel you could target, one good review isn't even close to being enough to land funding. And let's be realistic - a panel member might be somewhat flattered by some "buttering up" in a proposal, but they're generally smart enough to recognize it for what it is.
Write your proposals for people only somewhat conversant with your corner of the field (and cite all the relevant literature, and none of the irrelevant). If you can't do that, chances are, you won't stand a chance of being funded.
* Actually, the NSF does let you do a form of targeting that a proposer would be foolish not to take advantage of. When you submit your proposal you are given the chance to suggest reviewers. In my experience NSF PO's do actually use some of these suggestions as outside reviewers. Obviously these need to be reasonable suggestions...
Showing posts with label NSF. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NSF. Show all posts
Monday, June 14, 2010
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Calling all chemistry types
Apparently the NSF Division of Chemistry is having trouble finding enough qualified reviewers. This would be a great opportunity for any chemistry types on the tenure-track out there. There is nothing like reviewing proposals to teach you how not to write one.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Write for your reviewers
There was an interesting discussion over at DrugMonkey recently regarding perceived and/or real issues with the grant review process. In particular there was some back and forth over what to do when you receive bad reviews from someone who clearly isn't an expert in your area. My first thought on reading some of this was...
Why on earth would you EXPECT the reviewers of your proposal to be experts in your field?????
It takes very little thought to come to the realization that the odds are very much against the roster of an NIH study section or NSF review panel actually having even one such expert. It is simply unrealistic to expect that to be the case. And even if it is, your proposal may not be assigned to that person for a variety of reasons (conflict of interest, reviewer already overloaded etc.).
Having your proposal reviewed is nothing like having a manuscript reviewed. Journal editors have access to a much, much larger pool of potential reviewers than program officers (PO's). Editors have the "luxury" of identifying and contacting reviewers who really do know the specific area of each manuscript.* PO's are stuck with the study section/review panel roster, plus maybe some ad hoc reviewers. And those ad hocs may not be experts in your area. Even if they do use ad hocs (very commonplace at the NSF**), your PO, and you as a proposer, want reviewers who are on the panel. No matter how good the ad hoc reviews, if someone, preferably two someones, on the panel isn't pushing hard for your proposal it won't be funded. Period.
So why would you write a proposal thinking it's going to be reviewed by an expert? Don't. You'd just be screwing yourself. Write it for reviewers with a general knowledge of your area. That's grantology 101.
* Getting them to agree to review is another matter.
** At the NSF ad hocs submit reviews electronically and aren't present at the panel.
Why on earth would you EXPECT the reviewers of your proposal to be experts in your field?????
It takes very little thought to come to the realization that the odds are very much against the roster of an NIH study section or NSF review panel actually having even one such expert. It is simply unrealistic to expect that to be the case. And even if it is, your proposal may not be assigned to that person for a variety of reasons (conflict of interest, reviewer already overloaded etc.).
Having your proposal reviewed is nothing like having a manuscript reviewed. Journal editors have access to a much, much larger pool of potential reviewers than program officers (PO's). Editors have the "luxury" of identifying and contacting reviewers who really do know the specific area of each manuscript.* PO's are stuck with the study section/review panel roster, plus maybe some ad hoc reviewers. And those ad hocs may not be experts in your area. Even if they do use ad hocs (very commonplace at the NSF**), your PO, and you as a proposer, want reviewers who are on the panel. No matter how good the ad hoc reviews, if someone, preferably two someones, on the panel isn't pushing hard for your proposal it won't be funded. Period.
So why would you write a proposal thinking it's going to be reviewed by an expert? Don't. You'd just be screwing yourself. Write it for reviewers with a general knowledge of your area. That's grantology 101.
* Getting them to agree to review is another matter.
** At the NSF ad hocs submit reviews electronically and aren't present at the panel.
Friday, October 30, 2009
What's your h-index?
Actually I don't really want to know. Listing h-indices here would be akin to having a pissing contest. Puerile, messy and smelly...
In recent years I've noticed an increase in the number of people who list the number of times their publications have been cited in their c.v.'s and/or biosketches.* Many have started listing their h-indices as well. At first I viewed this as a form of bragging. But now I've seen it enough that I'm beginning to pay attention. We could argue ad infinitum as to whether number of citations and/or h-indices are useful measures of a person's productivity and standing in their field.** That's akin to the interminable Mac vs. PC arguments*** and I'm really not interested in that kind of semi-religious "discussion". What I am interested in is people's opinions as to whether or not this is a reasonable practice. Do any of my readers list citation statistics in their c.v.'s or biosketches? What are your thoughts on this? Do your respective departments take such things into account come annual review time (which is now for many of us)?
I don't list citation statistics in my c.v./biosketch (but might do so in the future if it seems advantageous). And my department doesn't formally consider such things, although I suspect some of the senior faculty spend some time on ISI's Web of Knowledge prior to annual reviews figuring out the stats on the more junior faculty.
Finally, I wouldn't recommend grad students and junior postdocs listing such stats unless they have a really highly cited paper or two. I have seen senior postdocs applying for TT positions list their stats. In some cases it helps. In others, not so much. It's a good idea to poke around and see how you stack up versus your peers before making the decision.
* Yes, in biosketches in grant proposals. At least in NSF and private foundation proposals.
** Personally I find number of publications, average number of citations per publication, plus h-index the most informative combination, but recognize even that has flaws.
*** Mac.
In recent years I've noticed an increase in the number of people who list the number of times their publications have been cited in their c.v.'s and/or biosketches.* Many have started listing their h-indices as well. At first I viewed this as a form of bragging. But now I've seen it enough that I'm beginning to pay attention. We could argue ad infinitum as to whether number of citations and/or h-indices are useful measures of a person's productivity and standing in their field.** That's akin to the interminable Mac vs. PC arguments*** and I'm really not interested in that kind of semi-religious "discussion". What I am interested in is people's opinions as to whether or not this is a reasonable practice. Do any of my readers list citation statistics in their c.v.'s or biosketches? What are your thoughts on this? Do your respective departments take such things into account come annual review time (which is now for many of us)?
I don't list citation statistics in my c.v./biosketch (but might do so in the future if it seems advantageous). And my department doesn't formally consider such things, although I suspect some of the senior faculty spend some time on ISI's Web of Knowledge prior to annual reviews figuring out the stats on the more junior faculty.
Finally, I wouldn't recommend grad students and junior postdocs listing such stats unless they have a really highly cited paper or two. I have seen senior postdocs applying for TT positions list their stats. In some cases it helps. In others, not so much. It's a good idea to poke around and see how you stack up versus your peers before making the decision.
* Yes, in biosketches in grant proposals. At least in NSF and private foundation proposals.
** Personally I find number of publications, average number of citations per publication, plus h-index the most informative combination, but recognize even that has flaws.
*** Mac.
Friday, October 23, 2009
The month that was
I survived my month with two grant review panels, and a grant submission. Did I mention I also went to a small meeting in that timeframe? And had a root canal the day before one of the review panels?
I don't think I want to repeat that month...
And for Prof-like Substance:
The atrium of the NSF building in Alexandria after the review panels have met. My money is on the PD in the red and white tights.
I don't think I want to repeat that month...
And for Prof-like Substance:
The atrium of the NSF building in Alexandria after the review panels have met. My money is on the PD in the red and white tights.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
NSF and too much funding
Prof-like Substance has posted a nice summary of the NSF's funding stats for 2008. In it he writes:
"One thing that I found very surprising was the number of grants per PI. In the fiscal years 2006-08, 83% of PIs had one grant! That left 13% with two grants, 3% with three and 1% with four or more. As someone who has three very different projects that they are trying to get funded and has been talking with a colleague about a fourth, I'm not sure what to make of those numbers. If nothing else, it concerns me that reviewers might balk at a proposal just based on the number of grants held by a PI. Now, I'm not thinking that everything I am submitting will eventually get funded in the next year, but if these projects weren't fundable in my opinion, I wouldn't be wasting my time. Perhaps people who have served on a couple of panels (*cough* Odyssey? *cough*) might shed some light on the perception of when someone has "too much" funding."
I was going to reply in the comments but quickly realized this warranted a post all of it's own. Note that this is all based on my own observations and a few pieces of anecdotal evidence. As far as I know the NSF does not have any written policies regarding this stuff.
There are two issues here: holding more than one NSF grant concurrently, and what amounts to "too much" funding.
Firstly, let me address the comment "...reviewers might balk at a proposal just based on the number of grants held by a PI." Based on my experience on a couple of panels, that's rarely the case. A panel member might point out that someone is well-funded, but it doesn't seem to effect the review or panel scores. I believe it's the Program Directors who take current funding levels into account when making decisions as to who to fund.
As far as holding two NSF grants concurrently goes, the NSF stats reflect what I have observed over time. I have rarely come across someone who is PI on more than one NSF research grant. In fact I can only think of two instances. I do know of people who are PI on an NSF research grant and on a second, or even third, other type of NSF grant (e.g. REU site, equipment grant etc.). I would be one of those. So it happens, but it's rare. What's a PI to do? Call your Program Director and talk to them. Feel them out about the possibility of getting two NSF grants funded. One thing I do know however, submitting two proposals at the same time to the same panel is not received terribly well by the panelists. Or Program Director. Spread out your submissions.
So what has led to 83% of NSF-funded PI's holding just the one NSF grant? I have come to believe it's a function of the NSF's working philosophy. The Program Directors appear to view each grant funded as an investment. They want to "buy low", maintain the investment over the long term, and reap large returns. A well-established, well-funded investigator might be a "safe" investment, but often does not (appear to) give the same return per dollar over the long term as a riskier, young investigator.* What does that mean in practice? A senior person with one or more NIH R01's and no track record of recent NSF funding is unlikely to land an NSF grant. A young investigator with little or no other funding is in the running. Someone who landed an NSF grant early on, and subsequently pulled in other major funding while maintaining the NSF grant, remains in the running (the Program Directors want to hold their investments long term - as long as they continue to perform well on average).
I don't know whether this is fair or not. I have certainly benefited from this system. Keep in mind that the NSF's budget is a small fraction of the NIH's, and that they fund all non-biomedical science, plus math and engineering. Giving out multiple NSF grants to one investigator, or one to someone who is otherwise well-funded, means someone deserving misses out.** On the other hand, a single NSF grant is rarely enough to run a truly productive group...
Once again, the above are conjecture based on my own observations, nothing more.
* I would dearly love to see a study done on productivity/dollar. Many people, including myself, complain that investigators holding four or more R01's are not as productive per dollar as those with just one or two, but it's all based on anecdotal evidence on non-rigorous analysis of one or two mega-funded investigators.
** A Program Director recently told me the BIO Directorate at the NSF currently has a funding rate of ~15%. Better than NIH at the moment, but still lousy. A lot of really good grants are going unfunded.
"One thing that I found very surprising was the number of grants per PI. In the fiscal years 2006-08, 83% of PIs had one grant! That left 13% with two grants, 3% with three and 1% with four or more. As someone who has three very different projects that they are trying to get funded and has been talking with a colleague about a fourth, I'm not sure what to make of those numbers. If nothing else, it concerns me that reviewers might balk at a proposal just based on the number of grants held by a PI. Now, I'm not thinking that everything I am submitting will eventually get funded in the next year, but if these projects weren't fundable in my opinion, I wouldn't be wasting my time. Perhaps people who have served on a couple of panels (*cough* Odyssey? *cough*) might shed some light on the perception of when someone has "too much" funding."
I was going to reply in the comments but quickly realized this warranted a post all of it's own. Note that this is all based on my own observations and a few pieces of anecdotal evidence. As far as I know the NSF does not have any written policies regarding this stuff.
There are two issues here: holding more than one NSF grant concurrently, and what amounts to "too much" funding.
Firstly, let me address the comment "...reviewers might balk at a proposal just based on the number of grants held by a PI." Based on my experience on a couple of panels, that's rarely the case. A panel member might point out that someone is well-funded, but it doesn't seem to effect the review or panel scores. I believe it's the Program Directors who take current funding levels into account when making decisions as to who to fund.
As far as holding two NSF grants concurrently goes, the NSF stats reflect what I have observed over time. I have rarely come across someone who is PI on more than one NSF research grant. In fact I can only think of two instances. I do know of people who are PI on an NSF research grant and on a second, or even third, other type of NSF grant (e.g. REU site, equipment grant etc.). I would be one of those. So it happens, but it's rare. What's a PI to do? Call your Program Director and talk to them. Feel them out about the possibility of getting two NSF grants funded. One thing I do know however, submitting two proposals at the same time to the same panel is not received terribly well by the panelists. Or Program Director. Spread out your submissions.
So what has led to 83% of NSF-funded PI's holding just the one NSF grant? I have come to believe it's a function of the NSF's working philosophy. The Program Directors appear to view each grant funded as an investment. They want to "buy low", maintain the investment over the long term, and reap large returns. A well-established, well-funded investigator might be a "safe" investment, but often does not (appear to) give the same return per dollar over the long term as a riskier, young investigator.* What does that mean in practice? A senior person with one or more NIH R01's and no track record of recent NSF funding is unlikely to land an NSF grant. A young investigator with little or no other funding is in the running. Someone who landed an NSF grant early on, and subsequently pulled in other major funding while maintaining the NSF grant, remains in the running (the Program Directors want to hold their investments long term - as long as they continue to perform well on average).
I don't know whether this is fair or not. I have certainly benefited from this system. Keep in mind that the NSF's budget is a small fraction of the NIH's, and that they fund all non-biomedical science, plus math and engineering. Giving out multiple NSF grants to one investigator, or one to someone who is otherwise well-funded, means someone deserving misses out.** On the other hand, a single NSF grant is rarely enough to run a truly productive group...
Once again, the above are conjecture based on my own observations, nothing more.
* I would dearly love to see a study done on productivity/dollar. Many people, including myself, complain that investigators holding four or more R01's are not as productive per dollar as those with just one or two, but it's all based on anecdotal evidence on non-rigorous analysis of one or two mega-funded investigators.
** A Program Director recently told me the BIO Directorate at the NSF currently has a funding rate of ~15%. Better than NIH at the moment, but still lousy. A lot of really good grants are going unfunded.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Real lives and white lies
The title of this post is stolen borrowed from a new opinion piece by Peter A. Lawrence in PLoS Biology titled "Real Lives and White Lies in the Funding of Scientific Research."* Go read it (open access - it's free!). Lawrence is mostly referring to the current system in Britain, but there are clearly parallels with the system here in the U.S.
Lawrence is concerned with the fate of young innovative scientists. However, many of the opinions cited in Lawrence's piece come from well-established scientists, so it's not clear how some of the suggested "fixes" (shorter grant applications, a tiered system of fixed five-year funding blocks followed by review, etc.) would work for young scientists. One of the quoted scientists complains about a 2.5 year funding gap after 30 years in research, which is easy to interpret as the whining of one of those old farts CPP loves to hate. Maybe he is, maybe he's not. Still, it's an interesting read.
Some highlights:
On the system-
On the advantages of large groups-
And perhaps my favorite paragraph-
Kafkaesque indeed...
* Peter A. Lawrence (2009) Real Lives and White Lies in the Funding of Scientific Research. PLoS Biol 7(9): e1000197
Lawrence is concerned with the fate of young innovative scientists. However, many of the opinions cited in Lawrence's piece come from well-established scientists, so it's not clear how some of the suggested "fixes" (shorter grant applications, a tiered system of fixed five-year funding blocks followed by review, etc.) would work for young scientists. One of the quoted scientists complains about a 2.5 year funding gap after 30 years in research, which is easy to interpret as the whining of one of those old farts CPP loves to hate. Maybe he is, maybe he's not. Still, it's an interesting read.
Some highlights:
On the system-
“What a strange business this is: We stay in school forever. We have to battle the system with only a one in eight or one in ten chance of getting funded. We give up making a living until our forties. And we do it because we want to help the world. What kind of crazy person would go for that?”—Nancy Andrews, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Dean of the Duke University School of Medicine
On the advantages of large groups-
"The peculiar demands of our granting system have favoured an upper class of skilled scientists who know how to raise money for a big group [3]. They have mastered a glass bead game that rewards not only quality and honesty, but also salesmanship and networking. A large group is the secret because applications are currently judged in a way that makes it almost immaterial how many of that group fail, so long as two or three do well. Data from these successful underlings can be cleverly packaged to produce a flow of papers—essential to generate an overlapping portfolio of grants to avoid gaps in funding.
Thus, large groups can appear effective even when they are neither efficient nor innovative. Also, large groups breed a surplus of PhD students and postdocs that flood the market; many boost the careers of their supervisors while their own plans to continue in research are doomed from the outset. The system also helps larger groups outcompete smaller groups, like those headed by younger scientists such as K. It is no wonder that the average age of grant recipients continues to rise [4]. Even worse, sustained success is most likely when risky and original topics are avoided and projects tailored to fit prevailing fashions—a fact that sticks a knife into the back of true research [5]. As Sydney Brenner has said, 'Innovation comes only from an assault on the unknown” [6].'
And perhaps my favorite paragraph-
"Universities have whole departments devoted to filling in the financial sections of these forms. Liaison between the scientists and these departments and between the scientists and employees of the granting agencies has become more and more Kafkaesque."
Kafkaesque indeed...
* Peter A. Lawrence (2009) Real Lives and White Lies in the Funding of Scientific Research. PLoS Biol 7(9): e1000197
Monday, May 04, 2009
Dear Reference Letter Writer
Thank you so much for your letter of reference for the student who applied to our NSF REU program. It was so very informative. Knowing that the student's favorite activity is reading will truly aid our decision process. So much more than the information we requested, such as their research potential, ability to work with others, or even classroom performance. I can fully understand why you have given them the "strongest possible recommendation."
And of course you clearly understood that no apologies were necessary for sending in your reference letter two months past the deadline.
And of course you clearly understood that no apologies were necessary for sending in your reference letter two months past the deadline.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Applying to an NSF REU site [Updated]
There's an interesting discussion going on over at Isis's palace regarding the personal statement essays required by many REU sites as part of an application. I run such a site. Following are some thoughts on how (and perhaps how not) to apply to REU sites.
A summer spent at an REU site can be a wonderful experience that can help you decide whether a career in scientific research is for you. Or a career in science in general. That's what the REU program is all about. It's not for padding your CV. Only apply if you're serious about working through the Summer. Working hard. At the end you will have learned a lot. And maybe earned a stellar reference letter or two that will help get you into grad school or where-ever you want to be next.
Keep in mind these sites get a lot of very good applications. It's very competitive. Here the acceptance rate is below 10%.
Choice of Sites
There are oh so many sites to choose from. Choose carefully. Don't spam them with applications. We can see right through that kind of thing.
Apply only to those sites you are truly interested in. And have the background for. Majoring in mediaeval music probably won't be seen as a big plus at that physics site you've applied to.
And don't think you need to attend a site at an Ivy league school. I'm at a state school. Former participants from the site I run have ended up grad students at some of the best schools in the country.
Criteria Used
First, you MUST be a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. That's an NSF rule. Can't be bent or broken. Don't bother applying just because you have work authorization. It's not enough. If you're not a citizen you need a green card. Nothing else will do.
Have a decent GPA. I'm afraid anything under 3.0 just isn't looked at. If you're below 3.2 you need a really good explanation for why this doesn't reflect your true potential. We get a lot of applications with GPA's greater than 3.8. It's very, very competitive.
That pesky personal statement essay thingy needs to be good. Truth is, if everything else is stellar you might get away with a poor essay. But by stellar I mean so good every site you apply to calls to offer you a slot with double the stipend of everyone else. Plus accommodations in a five star hotel. That good. You're best bet here is to a) avoid the long list of relatives who have died of assorted diseases you wish to cure, b) avoid the cutsey story about falling in love with the chemistry set you got on your third birthday, and c) tailor your letter to the site you're applying to. Tell us why you want to spend your summer HERE. And read Isis's advice.
Prior research experience. Had a whole bunch? Great! Good for you. Too bad we probably won't take you. The REU program is aimed at giving research experiences to students who have few, if any, opportunities to do research. A little prior research experience is okay. A lot means you might not get an offer. Not all sites conform to this approach, but I have been assured by other REU PI's that not doing so can have serious consequences for the site. For example, not getting the grant that supports it renewed...
And then there are the...
Letters of Recommendation
I cannot overemphasize the importance of your letters of recommendation. These can easily make or break your application. They need to be good. They need to be sent on time (this year I received one a month to the day after the deadline - way after we had sent out offers). They need to be good (did I say that already?). They need to be substantial - two sentences saying you're the best student since the last one they wrote a letter for won't cut it. And they need to be from people who can really say something about your potential in science. Not from relatives (yes, had one of those... Mom was very proud of her little boy). Not from your favorite English professor (I've received many - they're mostly useless*). Not from the manager of the store you've been working in part-time (okay, those are a bit better than useless, but still not great). You will be accepted into an REU site based on your scientific potential. That is what these letters must address. And most of all, they need to be good.
[Update] How We Choose
I forgot to talk about this bit. It's kind of important.
So given the above, how do we choose which applicants to make offers to? I can't speak for other REU sites, but here we try to take a balanced approach. Setting aside criteria like belonging to an under-represented group (a big deal for the NSF), our perfect candidate would be the following: someone with a 4.0 GPA, from a small college, no research experience, professing a unquenchable desire to attend grad school, with stellar letters of recommendation.
We've only ever had a few applicants like that (we've had many come very close). So how do we choose? Well, someone with a 3.8 GPA from a small college would be ranked higher than a 4.0 from an R1 institution (plenty of potential research opportunities). High grades in science courses are more important than high grades in non-science courses. Stellar recommendation letters will trump GPA's to a point. Lack of research opportunities will also trump GPA's to a point. A clearly expressed desire to pursue a scientific career (research or otherwise) ranks high. In the end, it's somewhat subjective. It has to be.
Contacting the Site
It is perfectly okay to contact the REU site you've applied to to make sure all your materials have arrived. Or to find out where they are in the sorting/ranking/making offers process. It is not alright to have someone else contact the site on your behalf. Especially not your Mom. Trust me, that leaves a very, very bad impression.
Declining an Offer
Finally, let's say you're one of the chosen few and receive an offer from one or more REU sites. But you've already committed to another site (or internship). Please, please, please don't wait to decline. As noted by FSP recently, too many (i.e. more than zero) students leave declinations until the last minute, or worse, "forget" to decline offers. If you do this you may well be screwing another student. Someone who really, really wanted to get into site A, but had to accept an offer from their second or third or fourth choice because the acceptance deadline arrived before they received an offer from site A. Even if you're not screwing someone else (and you'll never know if you did), it's just plain common courtesy.
* The letters, not the English professors.
A summer spent at an REU site can be a wonderful experience that can help you decide whether a career in scientific research is for you. Or a career in science in general. That's what the REU program is all about. It's not for padding your CV. Only apply if you're serious about working through the Summer. Working hard. At the end you will have learned a lot. And maybe earned a stellar reference letter or two that will help get you into grad school or where-ever you want to be next.
Keep in mind these sites get a lot of very good applications. It's very competitive. Here the acceptance rate is below 10%.
Choice of Sites
There are oh so many sites to choose from. Choose carefully. Don't spam them with applications. We can see right through that kind of thing.
Apply only to those sites you are truly interested in. And have the background for. Majoring in mediaeval music probably won't be seen as a big plus at that physics site you've applied to.
And don't think you need to attend a site at an Ivy league school. I'm at a state school. Former participants from the site I run have ended up grad students at some of the best schools in the country.
Criteria Used
First, you MUST be a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. That's an NSF rule. Can't be bent or broken. Don't bother applying just because you have work authorization. It's not enough. If you're not a citizen you need a green card. Nothing else will do.
Have a decent GPA. I'm afraid anything under 3.0 just isn't looked at. If you're below 3.2 you need a really good explanation for why this doesn't reflect your true potential. We get a lot of applications with GPA's greater than 3.8. It's very, very competitive.
That pesky personal statement essay thingy needs to be good. Truth is, if everything else is stellar you might get away with a poor essay. But by stellar I mean so good every site you apply to calls to offer you a slot with double the stipend of everyone else. Plus accommodations in a five star hotel. That good. You're best bet here is to a) avoid the long list of relatives who have died of assorted diseases you wish to cure, b) avoid the cutsey story about falling in love with the chemistry set you got on your third birthday, and c) tailor your letter to the site you're applying to. Tell us why you want to spend your summer HERE. And read Isis's advice.
Prior research experience. Had a whole bunch? Great! Good for you. Too bad we probably won't take you. The REU program is aimed at giving research experiences to students who have few, if any, opportunities to do research. A little prior research experience is okay. A lot means you might not get an offer. Not all sites conform to this approach, but I have been assured by other REU PI's that not doing so can have serious consequences for the site. For example, not getting the grant that supports it renewed...
And then there are the...
Letters of Recommendation
I cannot overemphasize the importance of your letters of recommendation. These can easily make or break your application. They need to be good. They need to be sent on time (this year I received one a month to the day after the deadline - way after we had sent out offers). They need to be good (did I say that already?). They need to be substantial - two sentences saying you're the best student since the last one they wrote a letter for won't cut it. And they need to be from people who can really say something about your potential in science. Not from relatives (yes, had one of those... Mom was very proud of her little boy). Not from your favorite English professor (I've received many - they're mostly useless*). Not from the manager of the store you've been working in part-time (okay, those are a bit better than useless, but still not great). You will be accepted into an REU site based on your scientific potential. That is what these letters must address. And most of all, they need to be good.
[Update] How We Choose
I forgot to talk about this bit. It's kind of important.
So given the above, how do we choose which applicants to make offers to? I can't speak for other REU sites, but here we try to take a balanced approach. Setting aside criteria like belonging to an under-represented group (a big deal for the NSF), our perfect candidate would be the following: someone with a 4.0 GPA, from a small college, no research experience, professing a unquenchable desire to attend grad school, with stellar letters of recommendation.
We've only ever had a few applicants like that (we've had many come very close). So how do we choose? Well, someone with a 3.8 GPA from a small college would be ranked higher than a 4.0 from an R1 institution (plenty of potential research opportunities). High grades in science courses are more important than high grades in non-science courses. Stellar recommendation letters will trump GPA's to a point. Lack of research opportunities will also trump GPA's to a point. A clearly expressed desire to pursue a scientific career (research or otherwise) ranks high. In the end, it's somewhat subjective. It has to be.
Contacting the Site
It is perfectly okay to contact the REU site you've applied to to make sure all your materials have arrived. Or to find out where they are in the sorting/ranking/making offers process. It is not alright to have someone else contact the site on your behalf. Especially not your Mom. Trust me, that leaves a very, very bad impression.
Declining an Offer
Finally, let's say you're one of the chosen few and receive an offer from one or more REU sites. But you've already committed to another site (or internship). Please, please, please don't wait to decline. As noted by FSP recently, too many (i.e. more than zero) students leave declinations until the last minute, or worse, "forget" to decline offers. If you do this you may well be screwing another student. Someone who really, really wanted to get into site A, but had to accept an offer from their second or third or fourth choice because the acceptance deadline arrived before they received an offer from site A. Even if you're not screwing someone else (and you'll never know if you did), it's just plain common courtesy.
* The letters, not the English professors.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
The NIH wants to be the NSF!
New announcement from the NIH - apparently they're going to use some of their stimulus money to fund...
Wait for it...
Undergraduate students for the summer!
The announcement reads remarkably like one for the NSF REU program. The application doesn't look too onerous. And it's on paper, not grants.gov (I wonder why? <--- sarcasm). If you have some enthusiastic undergraduates who want to work for you, here's your chance to get them paid for ($10/hour - a bit below the NSF going rate of $10.60/hour). Just keep in mind that they can be a lot of work up front. And a lot of fun.
Wait for it...
Undergraduate students for the summer!
The announcement reads remarkably like one for the NSF REU program. The application doesn't look too onerous. And it's on paper, not grants.gov (I wonder why? <--- sarcasm). If you have some enthusiastic undergraduates who want to work for you, here's your chance to get them paid for ($10/hour - a bit below the NSF going rate of $10.60/hour). Just keep in mind that they can be a lot of work up front. And a lot of fun.
Monday, December 08, 2008
So you want a piece of the NSF pie? Some thoughts.
Some random thoughts to wrap up this series.
As before, disclaimers here.
1) The review process-
The NSF review process is very different to that of the NIH. I gather the different Directorates, and even organizations within Directorates, have some leeway in deciding how the review process works. What I'm about to describe is the process my own proposals go through at the BIO Directorate. Your mileage may vary.
Review is basically a two-stage process. First your proposal is sent out to a bunch (at least two, sometimes up to six or seven) ad hoc reviewers, plus at least two members of the review panel. These reviewers send in their reviews via Fastlane. The second step is the review panel. The panel considers all of the reviews (as many as eight or even nine), discusses the proposal and assigns a rank (not a score). The Program Director then takes the rankings and figures out what she can fund.
So you get a bunch of reviews. This is good and bad. On the plus side, you can survive a mediocre review if all the others are stellar. You also get a lot of (hopefully) useful feedback. On the minus side, if one of the panel members who reviewed your grant really didn't like it, your odds of being funded are not great even if all the ad hoc reviewers loved your proposal. As with NIH study sections, you need an advocate on the review panel.
2) Proposal rankings-
As I noted above, reviewers don't score NSF proposals per se. They give them a ranking. The reviewers assign a rank of Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair or Poor (from memory). The review panel takes those and assigns an aggregate rank of Outstanding, Highly Meritorious, Meritorious, or Non-Competitive. The last two categories won't be funded. Sadly, it is often the case that not all of the proposals ranked as Outstanding can be funded...
WARNING! WARNING! ANECDOTAL STUFF FOLLOWS!
Okay, the following stuff is purely anecdotal - you've been warned. I'm posting it because I've heard the same things from multiple people (n > 6), leading me to think there might just be a grain of truth in each of these...
3) NSF doesn't want young people to fail-
NSF Program Directors have a lot of say over who gets funded and who doesn't. Clearly they can't over-ride the reviewers to much or too many times otherwise they would have a very hard time finding people willing to review proposals. But they can nudge proposals over the funding line if they feel it's warranted. What I have heard from multiple people is that Program Directors will sometimes do this in order to fund an otherwise unfunded young investigator on the verge of their tenure decision. Of course said investigator needs to have been productive enough to warrant this.
This is not something I would bet any money on. Or my tenure. It's obviously best to not to have to rely upon the largesse of a Program Director.
4) Once you're in you're golden-
By that I mean once you're funded by the NSF, as long as you're productive, your Program Director will try to ensure you maintain the ability to be productive. I am by no means suggesting that the Program Director will fund your proposals over higher scoring proposals. Rather that if you're on the funding edge and it's a choice between you as a previously NSF-funded, productive PI and someone else, you will get the nod (remember - this is anecdotal stuff).
I have brought this up hesitantly because it sounds like a mechanism for maintaining the status quo. I would like to think that's not the intent, rather that it's more a matter of Program Directors being loyal to their productive charges. Can it have the side effect of maintaining the status quo? Yes. The someone else is likely a new investigator... Please note that a) THIS IS ANECDOTAL, b) this is somewhat at odds with the previous anecdotal point in this post, and c) I'm not defending this.
As before, disclaimers here.
1) The review process-
The NSF review process is very different to that of the NIH. I gather the different Directorates, and even organizations within Directorates, have some leeway in deciding how the review process works. What I'm about to describe is the process my own proposals go through at the BIO Directorate. Your mileage may vary.
Review is basically a two-stage process. First your proposal is sent out to a bunch (at least two, sometimes up to six or seven) ad hoc reviewers, plus at least two members of the review panel. These reviewers send in their reviews via Fastlane. The second step is the review panel. The panel considers all of the reviews (as many as eight or even nine), discusses the proposal and assigns a rank (not a score). The Program Director then takes the rankings and figures out what she can fund.
So you get a bunch of reviews. This is good and bad. On the plus side, you can survive a mediocre review if all the others are stellar. You also get a lot of (hopefully) useful feedback. On the minus side, if one of the panel members who reviewed your grant really didn't like it, your odds of being funded are not great even if all the ad hoc reviewers loved your proposal. As with NIH study sections, you need an advocate on the review panel.
2) Proposal rankings-
As I noted above, reviewers don't score NSF proposals per se. They give them a ranking. The reviewers assign a rank of Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair or Poor (from memory). The review panel takes those and assigns an aggregate rank of Outstanding, Highly Meritorious, Meritorious, or Non-Competitive. The last two categories won't be funded. Sadly, it is often the case that not all of the proposals ranked as Outstanding can be funded...
WARNING! WARNING! ANECDOTAL STUFF FOLLOWS!
Okay, the following stuff is purely anecdotal - you've been warned. I'm posting it because I've heard the same things from multiple people (n > 6), leading me to think there might just be a grain of truth in each of these...
3) NSF doesn't want young people to fail-
NSF Program Directors have a lot of say over who gets funded and who doesn't. Clearly they can't over-ride the reviewers to much or too many times otherwise they would have a very hard time finding people willing to review proposals. But they can nudge proposals over the funding line if they feel it's warranted. What I have heard from multiple people is that Program Directors will sometimes do this in order to fund an otherwise unfunded young investigator on the verge of their tenure decision. Of course said investigator needs to have been productive enough to warrant this.
This is not something I would bet any money on. Or my tenure. It's obviously best to not to have to rely upon the largesse of a Program Director.
4) Once you're in you're golden-
By that I mean once you're funded by the NSF, as long as you're productive, your Program Director will try to ensure you maintain the ability to be productive. I am by no means suggesting that the Program Director will fund your proposals over higher scoring proposals. Rather that if you're on the funding edge and it's a choice between you as a previously NSF-funded, productive PI and someone else, you will get the nod (remember - this is anecdotal stuff).
I have brought this up hesitantly because it sounds like a mechanism for maintaining the status quo. I would like to think that's not the intent, rather that it's more a matter of Program Directors being loyal to their productive charges. Can it have the side effect of maintaining the status quo? Yes. The someone else is likely a new investigator... Please note that a) THIS IS ANECDOTAL, b) this is somewhat at odds with the previous anecdotal point in this post, and c) I'm not defending this.
Friday, December 05, 2008
So you want a piece of the NSF pie? Broader Impacts.
As before, necessary disclaimers can be found here.
The dreaded Broader Impacts... This is the place many of the proposals I've reviewed have significant weaknesses. It used to be you could just pay lip service to these. Half a page max at the end of the proposal would be plenty. Not anymore. The NSF has instructed its reviewers to take these very seriously. And I can assure you the Program Officers take them very, very seriously. So when you write a proposal destined for the NSF, you need to take the broader impacts very seriously.
Let's start with why NSF requires broader impacts - understanding this can help formulate some for your proposal. It is important to understand that the NSF will not give you a grant just to do research. Read their mission statement:
To promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity and welfare; to secure the national defense (NSF Act of 1950).
Note that it's promote the progress of science. That's much more than just funding research. The NSF's mission includes science education and training, and dissemination of scientific knowledge to the broader population. That's where the broader impacts criteria come from.
So what are broader impacts? The place to start is with the NSF Grant Proposal Guide. Find the section on review criteria and specifically that part dealing with the broader impacts. As you will see these are split into two categories:
Basically it comes down to how you're going to tie education and training into your research activities and how you're going to go about improving diversity within science. The NSF has kindly put together a crib sheet describing how you might address these. It can be downloaded via at www.nsf.gov/pubs/2002/nsf022/bicexamples.pdf (for some reason I can't get Blogger to publish this as a link...). These are just suggestions and nobody in their right mind would propose to tackle all of them. Pick and choose those that work for your circumstances. Be creative and come up with new ones.
Here are some of my thoughts on how to address the broader impacts.
Integration of research and education:
This is the easier of the two criteria to deal with. It's important to understand here that "education" includes training, teaching and dissemination.
Training- In your proposal you want to talk about how you're going to involve trainees in your research. Trainees can include undergrads, grad students and postdocs. You could just say they will be involved, but it's much better to provide specific examples of how they will be involved. For example, what pieces of your project would be suitable fodder for undergrad researchers? Some verbiage describing how your trainees will be trained can also help.
Involving undergrads (and possibly high school students) is a very good thing to do (at least in NSF's view). And can be very rewarding for the PI as well. If you can, write an undergrad or two into each budget year. And specifically state that you will actively encourage even more undergrads to join your lab and that you will apply for REU supplements to support them (read up on these - it's easy money and really looks good when you go to renew your NSF grant). And don't forget to tout all the great work you've done with undergrads in the past.
Teaching- You can keep this as simple as stating that you will integrate the results of your research into your teaching (about the minimum in terms of addressing this, and really all I do), through to getting involved in teaching at K-12 schools. Another possibility is to host high school science teachers over the summer. The NSF has a whole program devoted to funding this kind of thing.
Dissemination- It's a given that you're going to publish and present your data at meetings etc. The difference here is that you need to explicitly state that. And describe how your trainees are going to be disseminating as well. Don't forget to budget funds for these activities, including funds to send trainees to meetings. It's important to back these things up with a real commitment - money.
If you have other opportunities to disseminate the results of your research (e.g. you've been invited to write a review or book chapter), talk about those. The book I recently edited is broader impact/dissemination fodder I count tout. Are you depositing stuff in publically-accessible databases? That's more dissemination stuff.
Diversity:
You can address this separately from the above, or integrated within it. Either works.
What the NSF wants here is some description of how you are going to try to involve people from traditionally under-represented (in science) groups in your research program. I've always found this the most difficult to address. You want to write something that you actually have a chance to succeeding at. If you read the NSF Broader Impacts crib sheet (www.nsf.gov/pubs/2002/nsf022/bicexamples.pdf) you can get some reasonable ideas. Collaborations with PI's who are, or who work with under-represented people count. As do collaborations with faculty at four-year colleges. The ultimate is to have members of under-represented groups working in your lab.
If you have any kind of track record of doing any of this, tout it loudly and clearly.
One last word of advice. Addressing the broader impacts sufficiently is going to require valuable real estate in your 15 page proposal. I don't know how much would be considered too much, but I can tell you less than a page will likely doom your grant. In my last two NSF proposals (both renewals, one that was funded in 2004 and one that has just been recommended for funding) I used at about two pages (not counting the space used to describe the broader impact work done with the prior period of funding).
The dreaded Broader Impacts... This is the place many of the proposals I've reviewed have significant weaknesses. It used to be you could just pay lip service to these. Half a page max at the end of the proposal would be plenty. Not anymore. The NSF has instructed its reviewers to take these very seriously. And I can assure you the Program Officers take them very, very seriously. So when you write a proposal destined for the NSF, you need to take the broader impacts very seriously.
Let's start with why NSF requires broader impacts - understanding this can help formulate some for your proposal. It is important to understand that the NSF will not give you a grant just to do research. Read their mission statement:
Note that it's promote the progress of science. That's much more than just funding research. The NSF's mission includes science education and training, and dissemination of scientific knowledge to the broader population. That's where the broader impacts criteria come from.
So what are broader impacts? The place to start is with the NSF Grant Proposal Guide. Find the section on review criteria and specifically that part dealing with the broader impacts. As you will see these are split into two categories:
- Integration of Research and Education
- Integrating Diversity into NSF Programs, Projects, and Activities
Basically it comes down to how you're going to tie education and training into your research activities and how you're going to go about improving diversity within science. The NSF has kindly put together a crib sheet describing how you might address these. It can be downloaded via at www.nsf.gov/pubs/2002/nsf022/bicexamples.pdf (for some reason I can't get Blogger to publish this as a link...). These are just suggestions and nobody in their right mind would propose to tackle all of them. Pick and choose those that work for your circumstances. Be creative and come up with new ones.
Here are some of my thoughts on how to address the broader impacts.
Integration of research and education:
This is the easier of the two criteria to deal with. It's important to understand here that "education" includes training, teaching and dissemination.
Training- In your proposal you want to talk about how you're going to involve trainees in your research. Trainees can include undergrads, grad students and postdocs. You could just say they will be involved, but it's much better to provide specific examples of how they will be involved. For example, what pieces of your project would be suitable fodder for undergrad researchers? Some verbiage describing how your trainees will be trained can also help.
Involving undergrads (and possibly high school students) is a very good thing to do (at least in NSF's view). And can be very rewarding for the PI as well. If you can, write an undergrad or two into each budget year. And specifically state that you will actively encourage even more undergrads to join your lab and that you will apply for REU supplements to support them (read up on these - it's easy money and really looks good when you go to renew your NSF grant). And don't forget to tout all the great work you've done with undergrads in the past.
Teaching- You can keep this as simple as stating that you will integrate the results of your research into your teaching (about the minimum in terms of addressing this, and really all I do), through to getting involved in teaching at K-12 schools. Another possibility is to host high school science teachers over the summer. The NSF has a whole program devoted to funding this kind of thing.
Dissemination- It's a given that you're going to publish and present your data at meetings etc. The difference here is that you need to explicitly state that. And describe how your trainees are going to be disseminating as well. Don't forget to budget funds for these activities, including funds to send trainees to meetings. It's important to back these things up with a real commitment - money.
If you have other opportunities to disseminate the results of your research (e.g. you've been invited to write a review or book chapter), talk about those. The book I recently edited is broader impact/dissemination fodder I count tout. Are you depositing stuff in publically-accessible databases? That's more dissemination stuff.
Diversity:
You can address this separately from the above, or integrated within it. Either works.
What the NSF wants here is some description of how you are going to try to involve people from traditionally under-represented (in science) groups in your research program. I've always found this the most difficult to address. You want to write something that you actually have a chance to succeeding at. If you read the NSF Broader Impacts crib sheet (www.nsf.gov/pubs/2002/nsf022/bicexamples.pdf) you can get some reasonable ideas. Collaborations with PI's who are, or who work with under-represented people count. As do collaborations with faculty at four-year colleges. The ultimate is to have members of under-represented groups working in your lab.
If you have any kind of track record of doing any of this, tout it loudly and clearly.
One last word of advice. Addressing the broader impacts sufficiently is going to require valuable real estate in your 15 page proposal. I don't know how much would be considered too much, but I can tell you less than a page will likely doom your grant. In my last two NSF proposals (both renewals, one that was funded in 2004 and one that has just been recommended for funding) I used at about two pages (not counting the space used to describe the broader impact work done with the prior period of funding).
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
So you want a piece of the NSF pie? Scope and budget.
Herein I continue my somewhat disorganized discussion of NSF funding...
Necessary disclaimers can be found here.
Okay, so now you've had a chance to study NSF's award statistics, it's time to think about the scope of an NSF proposal. Let's face it, a five year, four/five specific aim proposal probably isn't going to fly. Most proposals funded by the NSF appear to be for around three years and have a modest budget. Poke around here to see what the NSF has funded in your area recently to get a better idea of what you're dealing with.
The budget is all important here - it will define the scope of what you propose to do. Remember, those median annual award sizes are totals - direct plus indirect costs. Obviously if you are at an institution with a high F&A rate (say 90%), you're going to be able to ask for more than the median amounts. But don't get greedy - the NSF has limited funds. If your F&A rate is more modest (say around 50%), think in terms of the median amount. Figure out what the median direct rate would be - that's roughly what you'll have to work with (in practice, if you're funded, you're likely to take a modest budget cut, but don't worry about that too much). Let's say you're applying to the BIO directorate, MCB organization, Molecular Biophysics section (one of the more generous sections and the one I'm funded through), and have a F&A rate of 50%. The median direct costs (using the 2007 median annual award) are then:
Directs = $159,113/1.5 = $106,075
Basically $100k/year for three (maybe four) years in this example (remember - your mileage will vary). So the important question becomes what can you do with that? The answer will define the scope of your proposal.
What you can do with that amount of money is highly dependent upon the kind of work you do and the type of position you have. I'm in a college of medicine where each PI pays the stipend and benefits (but not tuition - yet) of their graduate students (no TA's). I might just be able to pay two students based on an award of $100/k per year if I'm very, very careful (i.e. miserly). Or one postdoc and part of a tech's salary. Etc. These considerations clearly limit the scope of what I can propose to do with an NSF grant. In the end I've found two specific aims are about all I can manage. If you're in a setting where TAships for grad students are plentiful, perhaps you can manage more.
Something to keep in mind while we're on the topic of the budget. The NSF will only allow you to pay two months of your salary per year from all sources of NSF funds you have access to. Recently there was a discussion at DrugMonkey's place about this. Let's take me as an example. I'm PI on an NSF research grant and on an NSF REU Site grant. If I get 0.5 months salary from the REU grant I can only take 1.5 months salary from the research grant. NSF doesn't appear to care how much of your salary comes from grants from other agencies.
One last thing while I'm thinking about it. Should you get an NSF award (congrats!), there are two types of research grant; Standard and Continuing. You have no say in which one you get. If you're awarded a Standard grant you're given all the money up front. If you get a Continuing grant you get one year's money at a time. Each new year is contingent on an annual report you have to submit (you have to put these in with Standard grants too). I've always had a Continuing grant and have never had an issue with obtaining the next year's money (I am quite diligent about putting in the required report). I've also never heard of anyone not getting their next year's money, but I suppose it's a possibility.
Necessary disclaimers can be found here.
Okay, so now you've had a chance to study NSF's award statistics, it's time to think about the scope of an NSF proposal. Let's face it, a five year, four/five specific aim proposal probably isn't going to fly. Most proposals funded by the NSF appear to be for around three years and have a modest budget. Poke around here to see what the NSF has funded in your area recently to get a better idea of what you're dealing with.
The budget is all important here - it will define the scope of what you propose to do. Remember, those median annual award sizes are totals - direct plus indirect costs. Obviously if you are at an institution with a high F&A rate (say 90%), you're going to be able to ask for more than the median amounts. But don't get greedy - the NSF has limited funds. If your F&A rate is more modest (say around 50%), think in terms of the median amount. Figure out what the median direct rate would be - that's roughly what you'll have to work with (in practice, if you're funded, you're likely to take a modest budget cut, but don't worry about that too much). Let's say you're applying to the BIO directorate, MCB organization, Molecular Biophysics section (one of the more generous sections and the one I'm funded through), and have a F&A rate of 50%. The median direct costs (using the 2007 median annual award) are then:
Basically $100k/year for three (maybe four) years in this example (remember - your mileage will vary). So the important question becomes what can you do with that? The answer will define the scope of your proposal.
What you can do with that amount of money is highly dependent upon the kind of work you do and the type of position you have. I'm in a college of medicine where each PI pays the stipend and benefits (but not tuition - yet) of their graduate students (no TA's). I might just be able to pay two students based on an award of $100/k per year if I'm very, very careful (i.e. miserly). Or one postdoc and part of a tech's salary. Etc. These considerations clearly limit the scope of what I can propose to do with an NSF grant. In the end I've found two specific aims are about all I can manage. If you're in a setting where TAships for grad students are plentiful, perhaps you can manage more.
Something to keep in mind while we're on the topic of the budget. The NSF will only allow you to pay two months of your salary per year from all sources of NSF funds you have access to. Recently there was a discussion at DrugMonkey's place about this. Let's take me as an example. I'm PI on an NSF research grant and on an NSF REU Site grant. If I get 0.5 months salary from the REU grant I can only take 1.5 months salary from the research grant. NSF doesn't appear to care how much of your salary comes from grants from other agencies.
One last thing while I'm thinking about it. Should you get an NSF award (congrats!), there are two types of research grant; Standard and Continuing. You have no say in which one you get. If you're awarded a Standard grant you're given all the money up front. If you get a Continuing grant you get one year's money at a time. Each new year is contingent on an annual report you have to submit (you have to put these in with Standard grants too). I've always had a Continuing grant and have never had an issue with obtaining the next year's money (I am quite diligent about putting in the required report). I've also never heard of anyone not getting their next year's money, but I suppose it's a possibility.
Monday, December 01, 2008
So you want a piece of the NSF pie? The NSF is NOT the NIH.
I've decided to put down some thoughts of mine regarding obtaining funding from the NSF. This will likely end up being a series of posts...
First, the necessary disclaimer: These are my opinions only, shaped by my experiences as an NSF-funded investigator (in a College of Medicine), a reviewer of NSF proposals, plus the experiences of some friends and collaborators. Your mileage will almost certainly vary.
Second, some background: I was awarded my first NSF grant in 2001. I renewed that in 2004 and have recently heard that my second renewal has been recommended for funding. I am also PI on an NSF REU Site grant. I have reviewed many NSF proposals, most from the BIO directorate and some from MPS, on an ad hoc basis. Finally, I sat on an NSF SBIR review panel for two years.
Now, let's get down to business here. If you're in the biological sciences, please repeat after me:
Keep repeating this until you are firmly convinced of the truth in that statement.
Now you would think that that's obvious, right? Apparently it isn't to about 25% of the applicants whose proposals I've reviewed for the BIO directorate...
Here are some, but not all, major differences:
1) Budget-
The projected FY 2009 NIH budget is $28.7 billion for R&D expenditures. The NSF? $4.5 billion for R&D. This is under the current Continuing Resolution. See the AAAS September R&D Update to see where I got these figures. These numbers have a very profound effect on many aspects of NSF funding versus NIH...
2) Mission-
The mission of the NIH is "science in pursuit of fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to extend healthy life and reduce the burdens of illness and disability."
The mission of the NSF "includes support for all fields of fundamental science and engineering, except for medical sciences." [Emphasis mine.]
The NIH funds biomedical research. The NSF funds all of the other sciences. Including social. Plus engineering. And mathematics. And the NSF mission includes a strong science education component (which I believe accounts for the disparity between the $6 billion total budget of the NSF versus the $4.5 billion it spends on R&D).
So, don't go proposing to solve cancer, or heart disease, or Alzheimer's in your NSF proposal. If you do I can pretty much guarantee it won't be funded. Basic biological science is fine (otherwise I wouldn't be funded), so there is some overlap between the NSF and NIH. But you need to be careful about how you sell your basic science to the NSF. Can't figure out how to sell your science without referring to the medical benefits of the research? Don't bother applying to the NSF.
3) Scope-
The scope (budget and period of funding) of an NSF proposal is very different to that of an NIH R01. The NSF keeps some interesting funding statistics. If you're considering applying to the NSF, go find the data for the last year or two for the directorate and organization (within the directorate) you are most likely going to send your proposal to. Study those numbers. Not the funding rates. The mean award duration and median annual award size. Your proposal needs to be in the same ballpark as those numbers (unless you're applying to a special program with special budget instructions). Sure, you can ask for more time and/or money, but you'd better do a very, very good job of justifying why you need more.
Oh yeah, one other thing. Those median annual award sizes? That's total. Direct plus indirect costs.
4) Proposals-
Aside from the fact that an NSF proposal is limited to 15 pages versus the (current) 25 page limit at NIH, there are other differences. I'm not going to go into great detail here. I'll probably cover some of that stuff in later posts. The main thing is to go study the NSF review criteria. And take them seriously. Intellectual Merit pretty much refers to the quality of the science proposed (and of the proposer). That Broader Impact stuff? Not something the NIH puts much weight on. The NSF, on the other hand, is very serious about it. I'm going to write a post devoted purely to Broader Impacts since this is where I've seen many proposals fail. Particularly those form new investigators.
5) Effect on tenure-
This is aimed at those of you in a College of Medicine. I got tenure based on my NSF funding. Here that's considered sufficient to satisfy the funding part of the tenure equation (assuming you've done very well on all other parts of the equation). That is not the case in all medical schools. There are Deans of medical schools who consider NSF money second class at best and will not approve tenure for someone with only NSF funding. Be sure you know what the ground rules are at your institution.
First, the necessary disclaimer: These are my opinions only, shaped by my experiences as an NSF-funded investigator (in a College of Medicine), a reviewer of NSF proposals, plus the experiences of some friends and collaborators. Your mileage will almost certainly vary.
Second, some background: I was awarded my first NSF grant in 2001. I renewed that in 2004 and have recently heard that my second renewal has been recommended for funding. I am also PI on an NSF REU Site grant. I have reviewed many NSF proposals, most from the BIO directorate and some from MPS, on an ad hoc basis. Finally, I sat on an NSF SBIR review panel for two years.
Now, let's get down to business here. If you're in the biological sciences, please repeat after me:
The NSF is NOT the NIH.
Keep repeating this until you are firmly convinced of the truth in that statement.
Now you would think that that's obvious, right? Apparently it isn't to about 25% of the applicants whose proposals I've reviewed for the BIO directorate...
Here are some, but not all, major differences:
1) Budget-
The projected FY 2009 NIH budget is $28.7 billion for R&D expenditures. The NSF? $4.5 billion for R&D. This is under the current Continuing Resolution. See the AAAS September R&D Update to see where I got these figures. These numbers have a very profound effect on many aspects of NSF funding versus NIH...
2) Mission-
The mission of the NIH is "science in pursuit of fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to extend healthy life and reduce the burdens of illness and disability."
The mission of the NSF "includes support for all fields of fundamental science and engineering, except for medical sciences." [Emphasis mine.]
The NIH funds biomedical research. The NSF funds all of the other sciences. Including social. Plus engineering. And mathematics. And the NSF mission includes a strong science education component (which I believe accounts for the disparity between the $6 billion total budget of the NSF versus the $4.5 billion it spends on R&D).
So, don't go proposing to solve cancer, or heart disease, or Alzheimer's in your NSF proposal. If you do I can pretty much guarantee it won't be funded. Basic biological science is fine (otherwise I wouldn't be funded), so there is some overlap between the NSF and NIH. But you need to be careful about how you sell your basic science to the NSF. Can't figure out how to sell your science without referring to the medical benefits of the research? Don't bother applying to the NSF.
3) Scope-
The scope (budget and period of funding) of an NSF proposal is very different to that of an NIH R01. The NSF keeps some interesting funding statistics. If you're considering applying to the NSF, go find the data for the last year or two for the directorate and organization (within the directorate) you are most likely going to send your proposal to. Study those numbers. Not the funding rates. The mean award duration and median annual award size. Your proposal needs to be in the same ballpark as those numbers (unless you're applying to a special program with special budget instructions). Sure, you can ask for more time and/or money, but you'd better do a very, very good job of justifying why you need more.
Oh yeah, one other thing. Those median annual award sizes? That's total. Direct plus indirect costs.
4) Proposals-
Aside from the fact that an NSF proposal is limited to 15 pages versus the (current) 25 page limit at NIH, there are other differences. I'm not going to go into great detail here. I'll probably cover some of that stuff in later posts. The main thing is to go study the NSF review criteria. And take them seriously. Intellectual Merit pretty much refers to the quality of the science proposed (and of the proposer). That Broader Impact stuff? Not something the NIH puts much weight on. The NSF, on the other hand, is very serious about it. I'm going to write a post devoted purely to Broader Impacts since this is where I've seen many proposals fail. Particularly those form new investigators.
5) Effect on tenure-
This is aimed at those of you in a College of Medicine. I got tenure based on my NSF funding. Here that's considered sufficient to satisfy the funding part of the tenure equation (assuming you've done very well on all other parts of the equation). That is not the case in all medical schools. There are Deans of medical schools who consider NSF money second class at best and will not approve tenure for someone with only NSF funding. Be sure you know what the ground rules are at your institution.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Undergraduates in research
There are a couple of interesting discussions going on over at Isis's bright, shiny new home regarding how undergraduates should approach PI's they're interested in working with, and how said PI's interact with such undergrads.
I am a big proponent of having undergrads working on research projects. I like working with undergrads in the lab. They tend to be enthusiastic and willing to learn. I have pretty much always had one or more in my lab right from the time I started at Big State U. A number of them have been extraordinarily productive. During the almost 12 years I've been here I've published seven papers with undergrads listed as authors. Six of those have an undergrad as first author. Another, with an undergrad first author, should be submitted in the next couple of weeks. Some readers of my blog may recall that I am also PI on an NSF REU Site grant that pays for a bunch of students to come do research in the department each Summer.
Based on my experiences with these students I offer up the following:
For undergraduate students-
For PI's-
Undergrads can rock in the lab. If given the chance.
I am a big proponent of having undergrads working on research projects. I like working with undergrads in the lab. They tend to be enthusiastic and willing to learn. I have pretty much always had one or more in my lab right from the time I started at Big State U. A number of them have been extraordinarily productive. During the almost 12 years I've been here I've published seven papers with undergrads listed as authors. Six of those have an undergrad as first author. Another, with an undergrad first author, should be submitted in the next couple of weeks. Some readers of my blog may recall that I am also PI on an NSF REU Site grant that pays for a bunch of students to come do research in the department each Summer.
Based on my experiences with these students I offer up the following:
For undergraduate students-
- Choose the PI's you're thinking of approaching carefully. Just because they're working on something you think is cool doesn't mean they're a good choice. Do they seem approachable? Have they had/do they have undergrads in their lab? Do they have a large lab, which would increase the chance that you wouldn't have much interaction with the PI? Check out their website for a start.
- Don't spam a bunch of PI's via email. Write each person you're interested in an individualized message. Indicate why you're interested specifically in them. Read up on the work they're doing. Every single undergrad who has ever worked with me scored a position because they had done their homework. And asked to talk to me.
- Be honest about why you want to try your hand at research. We do know that many premeds want the experience to increase their odds of getting into med school. Personally I have no problem with that - I'm in a college of medicine after all. Some PI's don't want premeds in their labs for a variety of reasons, some quite good - if you're premed you probably don't want to be in those labs. Besides, if we know what you want out of the experience we are in a better position to help you get it.
- A tepid reference letter for grad or med school from a "rockstar" professor won't help as much as an enthusiastic letter from a lesser known, more junior person. Tepid reference letters will often hurt your chances, not help.
- Be enthusiastic and be prepared to work hard. And remember that the PI has many responsibilities and may not always be available when you want/need them.
- Finally, keep in mind that many PI's at MRU's are not required to have undergrads in their labs. Paying tuition does not entitle you to a place in someones lab.
For PI's-
- Undergrads are a lot of work. Even the really good ones. But they are, IMHO, worth the effort. Heck, I've got seven, almost eight, publications as a result of working with undergrads. And they're fun.
- Don't take on an undergrad unless you're prepared to put in the work. You could assign them to a grad student or postdoc, but if you do, make sure you make some effort to stay involved in what they do. They came to work with you.
- Having a trial period in which an undergrad does scut work (washing dishes etc.) is fine. Just don't make it too long. Using an undergrad as free scut labor makes you a jerk. If you're paying them to do scut work and have no intention of getting them involved in research, make sure they understand that before they start.
- If an undergrad has earned authorship, give it to them. And put them in the right place in the authorship list. Bumping them out of a first authorship they've earned in order to give it to a grad student, postdoc or yourself makes you a serious ass wipe.
Undergrads can rock in the lab. If given the chance.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Cover your butt syndrome
I have a grant from the National Science Foundation, a Federal agency, to run a Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) site. Basically this lets me bring eight undergraduate students into the Department to do research for ten weeks during the Summer. The grant pays them a stipend and covers the cost of staying in the dorms for ten weeks. On Friday afternoon I had an interesting phone call from the University accounting office:
After introductions and various pleasantries...
Accounting drone: "We have a bill from University housing that they want to charge to your NSF REU grant. We need you to send us a written justification for paying for dorm housing on a grant. And we need it in the next hour or so - this is the last day we can pay this off the last financial year of the grant."
Me: "There's a specific budget line item for covering these costs. We justified that when we applied for the money. And it's a requirement of the NSF that we provide dorm housing."
Accounting drone: "We still need a justification for why you're paying for dorm housing on a grant."
Me: "This is a grant for training undergraduate students and requires us to provide dorm housing. I don't understand why you need a justification when we already had to provide that when we applied for the grant."
Accounting drone: "It's in case we're audited."
Me: "Audited by whom?"
Accounting drone: "The Federal government."
Me: "Let me get this straight, you need me to justify spending Federal grant money on dorm housing mandated by the Federal agency that provided the grant in case the Federal government decides to audit us because the University is afraid that such a Federal audit might get it into trouble if we didn't justify spending Federal dollars on Federally-mandated dorm housing?"
Accounting drone: "Yes."
Me: "I see..."
To her credit, this was not accounting drone's fault, and she did send me a copy of someone else's justification to copy from (there's more than one REU site on campus). But still...
After introductions and various pleasantries...
Accounting drone: "We have a bill from University housing that they want to charge to your NSF REU grant. We need you to send us a written justification for paying for dorm housing on a grant. And we need it in the next hour or so - this is the last day we can pay this off the last financial year of the grant."
Me: "There's a specific budget line item for covering these costs. We justified that when we applied for the money. And it's a requirement of the NSF that we provide dorm housing."
Accounting drone: "We still need a justification for why you're paying for dorm housing on a grant."
Me: "This is a grant for training undergraduate students and requires us to provide dorm housing. I don't understand why you need a justification when we already had to provide that when we applied for the grant."
Accounting drone: "It's in case we're audited."
Me: "Audited by whom?"
Accounting drone: "The Federal government."
Me: "Let me get this straight, you need me to justify spending Federal grant money on dorm housing mandated by the Federal agency that provided the grant in case the Federal government decides to audit us because the University is afraid that such a Federal audit might get it into trouble if we didn't justify spending Federal dollars on Federally-mandated dorm housing?"
Accounting drone: "Yes."
Me: "I see..."
To her credit, this was not accounting drone's fault, and she did send me a copy of someone else's justification to copy from (there's more than one REU site on campus). But still...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)