Disordered ramblings

Of late I've become interested in so-called intrinsically disordered proteins (IDP's).* These are proteins that contain one or more "significant" regions of sequence that are unstructured. "Significant" can range from perhaps ten or so residues, up to the entire protein. There are experimental data suggesting that the disordered regions in some of these are vital for function. It is generally thought that disordered regions important for function might undergo a folding reaction when bound by another protein, or a nucleic acid, or even a small molecule.

I'm interested in IDP's** because two of my favorite proteins have disordered domains that are essential for function and that do undergo the kind of folding upon binding mentioned above. This makes these proteins more interesting to me intellectually (not that they would be boring without disorder), but can also make them significantly more difficult to study than your garden variety well-folded, globular protein.

The IDP field is populated by large numbers of bioinformaticists (spawning my last post). There are also experimentalists and computational biologists (of the molecular simulation kind), but much of the initial driving force in creating this as a field appears to have come from the bioinformaticists. A small group of them.

Who are seriously over hyping the field.***

The hype being based largely on predictions of disorder. Predictions. Not much data. A prediction is just a pointer to something that might (or might not) be interesting. It's pretty much meaningless without experimental verification.

This is a problem. Yes, we all need to sell ourselves and our research. We all need to convince others that what we do is important and should receive gobs of funding $$$'s. But what you're selling has to have some connection to reality. A track record. Data.

Right now the IDP field has all the appearances of an infomercial for some kitchen gadget that is promised to mix, knead, puree, blend, chop, slice, dice, julienne, fry, roast, bake, boil, steam, load the dishwasher, sweep the floors, put the children to bed, and polish your shoes. Only believable in the wee hours of the morning after a long evening consuming copious quantities of the alcoholic beverage of your choice.

For now I'm keeping my credit card in my pocket.










* There are many, many recent reviews on the subject. This one is okay (and free).

** I seriously dislike the name "intrinsically disordered protein." For a start, the majority of the IDP's that have been identified are mostly well-structured and only have a fraction of their sequences disordered. I saw someone use the term "intrinsically disordered region." That's an improvement.

*** Case in point: the many, many reviews. Many, many of which were authored/co-authored by this guy. Dude, enough already. Go spend some time in the lab generating new data.

Geekery

Thanks to the grant-making powers that be it looks like I might be getting a new toy. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Now I need to start planning how to get one of these... Or an equivalent.

I like fluorescence. Can you tell?

Targeted reviewers?

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...

The captain has turned on the fasten seatbelt sign

Buckle up folks, we're in for a rough ride...


Apparently the NIH is concerned funding rates are going to fall off a cliff in 2011. Jocelyn Kaiser has a news piece this week in Science.


Some "lowlights":

The 2-year grants will run out in 2011, and when that happens it could cause a nasty shock. Barring a new windfall—and none is in sight—NIH's budget will drop sharply next year. Much of the work recently begun will be left short of cash. The result could be the lowest grant funding rates in NIH history, and the academic job market will suddenly dry up—especially for young researchers.


Ummm, duh.


"This is the cliff that people are talking about, " Collins said. "We are going to face a crunch" in 2011, he said. The success rate, or portion of reviewed applications that receive funding, which hovered around 30% a few years ago and 20% this year, "will be more like 15%."


20% this year? Really?

The cliff problem was the focus of a meeting of economists, academic leaders, and NIH officials last week at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island in New York. Economist Paula Stephan of Georgia State University in Atlanta expects trouble as a glut of postdoctoral fellows and graduate students who were hired or kept on with ARRA money will hit the job market. "There is going to be a huge backlog of individuals looking for jobs and fellowships in 2011 and 2012, " predicts Stephan.

One suggestion: persuade Congress to fund one-time "bridge" fellowships to give ARRA-funded postdocs more time to find academic jobs or switch careers. "It wouldn't take a whole lot of money, " says meeting organizer Richard Freeman, a labor economist at Harvard University.

What academic jobs is he talking about? Basically Freeman's suggestion boils down to giving "bridge" funding to ARRA-funded postdocs so they have time to bail out...

Harvard microbiologist and American Society for Microbiology President Roberto Kolter, who spoke at Cold Spring Harbor, says "there's a wait-and-see attitude right now" in his department, which didn't apply for much ARRA money. He and many of his colleagues won't need to renew their grants for 2 or 3 years. But then, he expects, "there will be some casualties."

Ain't that the truth...

Building bridges

Based on the comments to my previous post, albeit a small sample size, there does seem to be support for requiring recipients of, or applicants for, bridge funding to demonstrate their worthiness. While I have the attention of a larger than normal audience (thanks to DrugMonkey), let me ask how bridge funding is handled in your department. Do you have set criteria/expectations, or is it handed out seemingly arbitrarily? If there are criteria, what are they?

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.

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.

Your science is not enough

There's an awful lot of good advice out there in the blogosphere on how to succeed at many aspects of academia. DrugMonkey and Writedit are great resources for grant-writing, Professor in Training and Prof-like Substance are chronicling the trials and tribulations of being tenure-track assistant profs in the biological sciences, DrDrA is transitioning to the next level, and FemaleScienceProfessor provides a great deal of useful information from the senior level, etc. One thing that I have not seen discussed very much is something I have a problem with...

Assertiveness.

Some grad students and postdocs might be surprised to hear that once you reach the giddy heights of an academic position your kickass science is no longer sufficient. It's what will get you that position, but it's not enough to progress in your field from there. Yes, you can obtain grants and publish based solely on the science, but it's not enough. It's necessary, and importantly, you need some kickass science first and foremost. But kickass science alone probably won't get you invited to speak at a meeting or another institution. It won't set up the collaborations with the heavy hitters and rising stars in your field. Kickass science might make you a familiar name in your field, but not necessarily a presence in the field. It won't necessarily get you the recognition you think you're due.

That's where assertiveness comes in. Want to know how many speakers at meetings (other than the heavy hitters) get those slots? They asked. They pushed themselves forward, told the organizers "I have kickass science, I can give a kickass presentation and I deserve a slot". Ditto for many of those people giving seminars at your institution. Ditto for a collaboration between a heavy hitter and a junior person. Ditto for invitations to submit manuscripts for special issues of journals. Ditto for some publications in GlamourMagz. It goes on all the time. Next time you find yourself thinking "How the hell did they get that invitation/collaboration?", remind yourself they probably asked. Pushed. Lobbied. It's something I'm not terribly good at, but I'm trying to improve (damn it, I'm good enough, I deserve that recognition!).

People are surprisingly often willing to give someone a chance. But just one. You need to deliver. If you promise a kickass presentation of kickass science you had better deliver. Offered a killer collaboration? Deliver it. Pushed for an invitation to submit a stellar manuscript? Make it better than stellar. Otherwise those doors will be slammed shut. Too many doors slammed on you will get you a reputation that's hard to get rid of.

Something to think about and work on.

Just remember though, you have to have the kickass science first.

New Year

2010 already. How did that happen?

No matter. This is going to be a good year for me.

My somewhat recently resurrected research project is making good progress despite the occasional hiccup.



Odyssey's research project has a minor setback.


The bride of the above-mentioned project is showing strong signs of life and is the subject of a proposal about to go out the door.



The bride of Odyssey's research program is alive! Sort of.

And now my project has...

a son!!!!



Doesn't Dad look proud?

Of course he can't walk yet. And he's still on life support. But still, progress looms.


There are papers and proposals to write. Experiments to plan. Talks to give. Meetings to attend. Coffee to consume.


Life is good.

May this be a good year for all of us.

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.

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.

Mistake?

I'm beginning to wonder if agreeing to be on two grant review panels in the same month I have a grant due was one...

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-

“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

PSIfi careers

Recently there was quite a bit of discussion in the blogosphere regarding a former SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory technician destroying $500,000 worth of proteins crystals. This incident occurred at the Joint Center for Structural Genomics, a part of the NIH-funded Protein Structure Initiative (PSI). You can read about this incident over at DrugMonkey's place.

A couple of the comments following DM's post made the point that these PSI labs are little more than large protein structure factories. 'Tis true. According to the global repository of all that is worth knowing, Wikipedia, PSI labs produced >3400 new structures between the inception of PSI in 2000 and November 2008, with ~1900 being new folds. One can argue whether or not the scientific output is worth the (so-far) >$700 million cost - many people have, including prominent structural biologists such as Greg Petsko. I don't really want to get into that here. What I do want to talk about is one of the human costs of PSI.

PSI employees a great number of scientists. Many of these are employed as postdocs. The problem with this is that many of these "postdocs" aren't really receiving research training.* Sure, they solve many structures, but that in and of itself is not research. The PSI labs are trying to solve as many representative protein structures as possible and each (at least initially) tend(ed) to focus on a single organism (or maybe a couple) as the source of material. A postdoc in a PSI lab could solve a whole bunch of structures, but the only relationship between the proteins would be the organism they were derived from. Many of the proteins were/are of unknown function. And the vast majority of the publications reporting the structures are short letters or notes with many authors... This is not research and it is not research training.

We're not associated with PSI, but do happen to have very good facilities for x-ray crystallography at Big State U. Consequently, in recent faculty searches we have had quite a few applications from PSI-trained crystallographers. Despite long publication lists, none of them have ever made it to the interview pile. Why? Well, an unusually large portion haven't written a coherent research plan (unusually large compared to applications from non-PSI trainees). I suspect they simply don't know how to construct a worthwhile/fundable research project. They haven't received the training. Many of the remainder suggest decent systems to work on (proteins of medical relevance), but propose nothing more than crystallography, which nowadays is not enough to get funding. And they have no preliminary data. None.

You could argue that a postdoc who takes a position in a PSI lab hoping to move on to an academic career is naive. They are. Judging by the applications we've seen, there are a bunch of naive postdocs out there. However, I think the PSI labs share some responsibility here. They should make it very clear to postdoc applicants that the positions they are applying for are unlikely to provide the training necessary for an academic career. Perhaps some of them do. Even better would be to call the positions by a name other than "postdoctoral scholar/fellow/trainee" - something employing "technician" seems more appropriate.

Petsko has stated "As a structural biologist, I want to train people who use structure determination as part of what they do. It is not the end in itself, nor should it be, not any more."

Sounds about right to me.





* Many, not all. I am aware that some PSI postdocs receive excellent research training.

Herding cats

I'm in the midst of writing an equipment proposal for a bright shiny new toy that will be really, really useful. To a lot of the faculty here. Although I've never written this kind of proposal before I'm not finding the writing terribly difficult - I know enough about the instrument and what we'll do with it to wax lyrical. No, it's not the writing that's getting to me. It's extracting information from my fellow faculty. It's like herding cats.



Odyssey trying to corral fellow faculty.

All I need from each of them is a biosketch, list of current and pending funding, and a paragraph or two describing the research they would do with the instrument. Is that really so hard?

Apparently it is. To the point that I can now confidently state a new law...

Odyssey's law of equipment proposal writing:

The ability to obtain from a faculty member useful information required for an equipment proposal is inversely proportional to just how useful that piece of equipment would be to that person.




Anyone got a good bullwhip I can borrow?

Challenge grant haiku

Twenty thousand grants.
Overload the reviewers.
NIH. Turkeys.

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.

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.

Dear Future Applicant for Tenure and Promotion

Your time on the tenure track is thundering its way towards the big decision. Soon you are going to have to put together that thick wad of documents known as your tenure packet/dossier/file. All of the documents in that packet are important, but some are more important than others. None are more important than your curriculum vitae. This document, your c.v., is a summary of almost everything needed to evaluate you for tenure and promotion. The other documents just provide the details.

So, dear applicant, please take the time and spend the effort to make your c.v. a document that will help those evaluating you come to the right decision. Because we really do want to see you be promoted with tenure. (Unless of course one of us is an obnoxious dickwad.)

You can ease our task by making all the information we need easy to find and read. Put the important stuff up front, and leave out the truly unnecessary.

And please don't use your c.v. to demonstrate your artistic nature. Please. Don't.

Do have a neat, logically organized c.v. And spell check it. A sloppy, disorganized c.v. makes you look... well, sloppy and disorganized. Not really what I want in a colleague.

Here are some further thoughts on some (not all) of the basics:

Background/Training/Education
My personal preference is for this to be in reverse chronological order, going from your current position back to your undergraduate schooling. Leave out where you went to high school^* - really, we don't give a rat's rear end. And those perfect SAT/GPA/GRE scores you're so proud of?^* Not of any interest to us when it comes to tenure decision time.

Publications
Reverse chronological order please. That Journal of Biological Chemistry paper you published while in elementary school? Very impressive, but not going to count towards tenure. Put the papers you've generated as an independent PI first. Those are the only ones that count. And do us a favor. Make it very clear what papers came out of which positions - I personally like subheadings denoting "Papers arising from my postdoctoral work", "Papers arising from my graduate work" etc. It's important to include these because they establish your history. But they won't count towards tenure.

And those manuscripts on your postdoctoral work you published while on tenure track? Sorry, they don't count towards tenure. They belong in the "Papers arising from my postdoctoral work" group. No, really, they don't count. Ever.^**

What about papers "in preparation"? Not going to count. Don't bother with them.

Okay, if you really, really must. One "in preparation". Two at the very most. They still won't count. Three or four "in preparation"? That's asking for trouble. Unless you've published a gazillion papers while on tenure track - but they still won't count. If you're a little short on published papers and list three or four "in preparation"?^* You've just given me the impression you have trouble finishing things, even with the tenure guillotine hanging over your head.

Ten "in preparation"?^* You're a delusional fool. Granted, I've met some tenured delusional fools, but to a person they hid their delusional foolishness until after they got tenure.

Funding
Start with current/active funding. That's the most important by far. Actually it's really all that counts. Then list pending. If you have a revised grant pending that got a good score the last time it was reviewed, give us the score. Expired/previous funding comes last. Within each subgroup, reverse chronological order please.

Awards
You won a trophy for badminton at high school? How nice. Doesn't count. Please just list the relevant stuff. Preferably in reverse chronological order.

Professional Society Membership
Listing this doesn't count for much, but not listing it looks... odd.^* It suggests that you're not involved in your field outside of your own research program.

Internal Service
Please indicate what level each committee is. A Graduate Curriculum Committee at the University level is a very different beast to one at the Department level. President of your undergraduate chemistry club? Doesn't count.

External Service
You do have some, right? List the journals you reviewed manuscripts for and the agencies you reviewed proposals for. Editorial boards. Professional society activities. These are important. To get tenure and promotion you need to demonstrate that you have national standing. Recent national standing.



Bottom line: Put the stuff that counts up front. You do know what counts at your institution, right?






^* Yes, I have seen this in a c.v. within a tenure packet.
^** This topic deserves a post all of it's own.

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.