Twitterererer.. er

Twitter has been getting all sorts of publicity recently. Which has got me wondering. What do you call someone who uses twitter?

Free Web poll for your Web site - freepolls.com

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.

New blog alert

Go check out Professor Anonymous.

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.

Gratuitous self citation

I'm currently reviewing a manuscript where 38 of the 65 cited papers were written by the senior author. And ~30 of those are at best tangentially related to the manuscript under review... I have never come across such a egregious case of gratuitous self-citation. Have you?


Somehow I don't think this manuscript will see the light of day. At least not in its current form.

Happiness...

...is a full and productive lab.

So far this year I've snatched supertech from the jaws of dysfunction, picked up a very good grad student, started a new and talented undergrad, and am working with a very bright high school student.

The lab is humming along.

So much so that I've had to suspend the weekly beatings.

That's my boy!

We went to a family event at my girls' elementary school last night. While there I was in the corridor with my son who wanted a drink from the water fountain. After he had finished drinking a teenage girl walked up to get a drink. Without missing a beat my son, with an impish grin, asked her where she lives...



Did I mention my son is two-and-a-half? The future will be interesting.

Oh dear...

As of this moment, my blog is the top hit for Google searches using:

"how many papers needed for tenure"
"papers needed for tenure"
"papers for tenure"

and number two for:

"how many papers for tenure"

Not that I care that people find my blog that way (I get 4-5 hits a day from people using those searches - and might even get more now with this post). It's more concerning that there are that many people who think they can find the answer on the internet.

Oh, and for those who find this post using such a search, read this.

Judging presentation skills scale [UPDATE 2]

It's been a while since DrugMonkey reposted this meme, but the seminar I had to endure today reminded me of it and inspired me to invent my own scale for judging presentation skills. Not the science being presented, but the skill with which it is presented.

Herein I present Odyssey's

Presentation Impact Scale Summing Offending Factors Factor*,

hereafter shortened to PISSOFF.

It's very simple really,

PISSOFF = sum(Offending Factors)/(Total Number of Slides)

where Offending Factors are determined by, but are not limited to:

• Total number of slides exceeding number of minutes allotted for presentation (Offending Factor = [Total Number of Slides - 0.9*(Minutes Allotted)]²)
  
• Number of slides in presentation speaker skips over during presentation
  
• Number of figures the speaker does not refer to/explain
  
• Number of tables (or other sections) with text too small to read
  
• Number of tables with too much text to read
  
• Number of times speaker flicks backwards and forwards through slides in order to find the one he wants to talk about
  
• Number of slides that have nothing to do with the topic being presented
  
• Not addressing the audience (+10 to 20 depending upon severity)
  
• Mumbling (+10 to 20 depending upon severity)
  
• Assuming everyone in the audience is familiar with the background of the topic (+10 to 20 depending upon severity)
  
• Presenting more than one story (+20 for the first additional story, +40 for the second, +1000 for the third and subsequent stories)
  
• Speaker waving the laser-pointer around like a madman (+5 to 10 depending upon severity)
  
• Use of yellow on a white background (+10 per instance)
  
• Use of red text on a blue background (+10 per slide)
  
• Using canned Powerpoint backgrounds (+10 for simple backgrounds up to +40 for complex backgrounds)
  
• Use of canned Powerpoint background that is animated (+200)
  
• Excessive use of animation (+10 to +50 depending upon severity)
  
• Speaking with their back to the audience (+20)
  
• Number of "in case they ask that question" slides appended to the end of the presentation
  
• Running over the allotted time (add 10x[Number of Minutes Over]²/(Minutes Allotted))
  
• Speaker appears bored (+100)
  
• Use of the phrase "this is really fascinating work, but I don't have time to tell you about it", or anything similar (+20 per instance)
  
• Figures/movies that don't work because the speaker didn't bother to try them out beforehand (+10 per instance)
  

Feel free to suggest more Offending Factors. I know there are many, many more - I'm too brain-dead to think of them right now.

The PISSOFF scale runs from zero for an excellent speaker to greater than one for a speaker who should never, ever be asked to present again.

I estimate yesterday's speaker would have a PISSOFF score of about 0.9...




* Yes, yes, I know it sounds horribly redundant etc.

Uber cool? Really?

Global time wasters

My, my there are a lot of you, and from all over!


Figure 1: Map denoting where the visitors to this blog hail from (red dots).

Don't you have anything better to do?

How Many Papers for Tenure?

The title of this entry comes from a Google search a recent visitor to my blog used.

Good question.

I can't answer it.

The only people who can give you some kind of answer to this are senior faculty in your department (and possibly college), and yourself.

But you absolutely must know the answer very early in the tenure-track process. Preferably before you officially start your position. At the very latest six months in.

So how do you find out how many papers you need? You need to do two things:

1) Ask. Ask early and often. Ask the senior faculty in your department. If you've met some, ask senior faculty in related departments within your college (e.g. within medicine, or within arts and sciences). You may not get a straight answer. You may get several different answers. Hopefully you will get some kind of answer.

2) Look it up. Find out how many publications the last few people who made tenure in your department had. No one tenured in the last few years? Look up the publication totals of recently tenured people in related departments within your college.

Once you've done both of the above, take the largest of the answers you've found (they may not match up).

That's the absolute minimum number of publications you are aiming for.

Absolute minimum. You want more. You may need more.

The answer to the question "how many papers needed for tenure?" is not set in stone.


[UPDATE] Do apply some common sense to the above. Let's say your senior colleagues provide you with a consensus estimate of X publications, and the last three people to get tenure in your department had (X+1), (X+2), and (X+10) publications. Take (X+2) as your minimum goal.

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.

Writer's block

Anyone know a good cure?

I'm trying to write what should be the last paper from my old, almost dead research program, but just can't raise the enthusiasm to get it done. I need to get this off my desk for a bunch of reasons, not the least of which being that one of my former undergrads worked her butt off collecting the data for this paper. She deserves the first authorship. She is now off at med school, so the writing is up to me.

I'd rather be writing about my new research...

It's a New Year!!! Woohoo!!!

Most years in early January I waste time bemoaning the fact that I didn't achieve everything I wanted to in the previous year. Not this year. Did I get everything done I wanted to last year? Hell no. I fell about two manuscripts and one grant submission short of my goals. So what? I managed to rebuild my dying research program and renew my NSF funding. IMHO, a good year.

This year seems somehow more exciting and full of new possibilities. My new research project is up and running (albeit slowly), I'm laying the groundwork for a second, equally exciting new project and I'm restocking my lab with new personnel. Right now, the academic life is good.

What about the funding downturn and failing economy? Not gonna let that stop me. Uh uh. Wouldn't be prudent. Someone's getting funding. Might as well be me. Besides, bitching and moaning about such things is not only a waste of time, but also makes you a less than desirable colleague. I'd rather be working on my kick-ass science.

How about you?

Are You a Rockstar Scientist!!!!!?

Many, many years ago, while I was a grad student, New Scientist magazine published a quiz titled "Leader of the Lab." I have shamelessly stolen borrowed and altered what I remember of that for the following:

Are You a Rockstar Scientist!!!!!?

Answer the following multiple choice questions to determine if you have what it takes to be a Rockstar Scientist!!!!! Keep a note of your answers and use the grading system at the end of this post. No cheating!


1) You've just started your tenure track faculty position. You're trying to get your lab up and running when your newly hired tech comes into your office clearly upset. His mother has just been diagnosed with a terminal disease and has only a week or so left to live. The tech hasn't as yet earned any vacation or sick leave time, but would like to take time off to spend with his dying mother. What do you do?

1. Of course he should go. He should take as long as is necessary. And he shouldn't worry about being paid - you'll make sure he is.
   
2. He can go. Although you feel bad about it, it does have to be leave without pay.
   
3. He can go when he finishes up all the experiments he was supposed to have done during that time. And it's leave without pay.
   
4. Tell him that's what weekends are for.
   

2) Two graduate students want to join your lab. Both have indicated an interest in the same project of potential high impact. What do you do?

1. Explain the situation to both and try to work out who gets the coveted project. Do your best to come up with a second project of equal potential for the other student.
   
2. Give the best student the project and assign the second student something else.
   
3. Give the best student six months on the coveted project. If after that time they haven't made sufficient progress, give the project to the second student.
   
4. Put them both on the project and tell them whoever gets Nature/Science/Cell-worthy data first wins. The loser gets the boot.
   

3) An undergrad from one of your classes approaches you about doing research for credit in your lab. She is very interested in your work and is going to apply to grad school. You've never had an undergrad do research with you before, but are well aware that it's a substantial time and effort commitment on your part. What do you do?

1. Agree and set up a schedule where you can work with her until she's up to speed in the lab. Thereafter make sure you meet with her at least weekly.
   
2. Agree, then assign her to one of your grad students. Check up on her progress about once a month. Let the grad student decide her grade at the end of the semester.
   
3. Agree, then assign her to your tech. Don't bother checking up on her progress and assign her a C at the end of the semester.
   
4. Agree, then make her the lab dishwasher. Make yourself unavailable to talk with her once she's started. Give her an F for not having produced any data.
   

4) You will soon be coming up for tenure. You have plenty of grant money and a bunch of published papers, including two in the C/N/S glamormagz. A senior colleague is planning to go on sabbatical and asks you to teach one of his courses while he's gone. It's very much in your area of expertise and your colleague has offered you his Powerpoint slides and lecture notes. What do you do?

1. Agree to teach the course. It won't be that much work and will earn some good will.
   
2. Agree to teach the course but insist that your colleague writes a glowing paragraph about your selflessness in his letter supporting your tenure.
   
3. Tell your colleague you already have too much teaching.
   
4. Say no, then go tell your Department Chair that, with tenure coming up, you need to lighten your teaching load. Insist your senior colleague (the one who wants to go on sabbatical) is not only the best replacement, but the only person in the Department capable of giving your lectures.
   

5) You're now an associate professor with tenure. Professor Bigwig, a leader in your field, is coming to give a seminar in your Department. You know that she's organizing next year's SuperBig Meeting in your field. By sheer coincidence you are currently reviewing a renewal of the major grant that Bigwig needs to keep her laboratory running. What do you do?

1. Meet with Bigwig, tell her about the latest findings in your lab, and pay her all the respect she is due.
   
2. Meet with Bigwig and try to dazzle her with your latest findings in the hope she will consider you for a speaking slot in Superbig Meeting.
   
3. Meet with Bigwig and try to charm her into giving you a speaking slot. If that doesn't work, outright demand a speaking slot using your latest C/N/S publication as justification.
   
4. Meet with Bigwig and point out what a wonderful speaker you are and that you noticed there's an empty slot for a plenary speaker. All while tapping on that copy of her proposal you left lying in full view on your desk.
   

6) You're sitting on a grant review panel when you are assigned a proposal from a new investigator who is proposing to do precisely what you were going to put into a grant application you're currently writing. What do you do?

1. Let the program officer know the situation. Review the proposal as objectively as possible. If the new investigator's proposal receives a fundable, or near fundable, score, rethink your proposal.
   
2. Tell no one, but review the proposal somewhat objectively. Give it the score you think it deserves, given that this is a new, unproven investigator... Submit your proposal as planned.
   
3. Review the grant, but, no matter how good it is, give it a score that guarantees it won't be funded. Insist on additional preliminary data that will take at least a year to generate. Submit your proposal as planned.
   
4. Trash the grant, writing a review that sends the message that the proposed work is crap, and that the new investigator has never had and never will have a decent idea in their life. Then cut and paste from their proposal into your proposal.
   

7) You are now a full professor. An assistant professor in your Department, who is coming up for tenure, has been collaborating with you. You've each put in the same amount of time, effort and $'s. The manuscript is written and you're deciding on authorship prior to submission (a postdoc is clearly first author). What do you do?

1. Give the junior person senior authorship - it will be a big help in getting them tenure.
   
2. Insist on being co-corresponding author with your junior collaborator, but let them be last author.
   
3. You're senior. Obviously you'll be senior author.
   
4. Collaborator? What collaborator?
   

8) You've been very successful at grant writing and now have a lab full of smart postdocs. What do you do?

1. Keep doing what you're doing. Provide the best environment you can for the people in your lab, encourage them to write proposals for their own funding, and make sure they move on to bigger and better things when the time is right.
   
2. Keep those postdocs working hard. If they can keep the data flowing and you can get your own proposals funded, they can apply for their own funding.
   
3. Have your postdocs write grant proposals for you. Apply your editorial magic to them before putting your name on as PI and submitting.
   
4. Have your postdocs write your grant proposals for you. In their free time. Don't bother reading them, just have your secretary put your name on as PI and submit. They remain employed as long as they bring in the money. Keep the best grant writers convinced that they need to publish a lot more before they'll be ready to move on. Find ways to delay publication of their data. Sit back and enjoy.
   

9) When you first arrived at your University your Department purchased a confocal microscope you needed. The deal was that you would be in charge of this instrument, but that others in the Department would have access and you would provide the training. Over the years you have been doing less and less confocal work, to the point that you now no longer need such an instrument. What do you do?

1. Still put in the effort to keep the instrument maintained, and to train other users.
   
2. Retain control over the instrument, but leave the training to the tech in your lab who has used it once or twice.
   
3. Tell the Department that you no longer have any need for the instrument and that you refuse to be responsible for it anymore.
   
4. Sell the confocal microscope on Ebay and use the proceeds to pay for a skiing vacation in the Alps.
   

10) A young, completely unknown, recently graduated PhD from Estonia emails you a rough draft of a manuscript for you comments. Upon reading the manuscript you realize that this is Nobel-prize stuff. What do you do?

1. Go through the manuscript carefully, provide thoughtful and detailed comments, and inform the PhD as to the impact the work will have.
   
2. Offer to collaborate with the PhD, but insist they will be senior author.
   
3. Tell the PhD that the manuscript is interesting, but needs further experiments. Offer them a postdoctoral position in your lab so they can do the work with you, and that you will then publish the work with you as senior author.
   
4. Email the PhD telling them the work is crap not worthy of submission anywhere. Meanwhile have everyone in your lab do some quick and easy experiments you can add to the existing manuscript, rewrite it and submit.
   

Answer Key:

For each "a" give yourself one point, for each "b" two points, each "c" three points, and each "d" four points.

If you scored:

10-20
Sorry, you are just too nice to ever be a Rockstar Scientist!!!!! Your colleagues really like you and you are certainly popular among the grad students. But stardom will forever be out of reach.

21-30
Not going to make it to Rockstar Scientist!!!!! You try, but that pesky conscience keeps getting in the way.

31-39
You're almost a Rockstar Scientist!!!!! But not quite. What's holding you back? Couldn't sell the confocal? Missed the plane to Stockholm?

40
You are truly a Rockstar Scientist!!!!! Congratulations! It must be great not having to write grant proposals anymore. What did you get for the confocal and how was Stockholm?

Happy Non-Denominational Festive Season!

Numbers

Random observations involving numbers...

Sometime very early this morning my blog had it's 7000th visitor (someone from Brisbane, Australia - bet the weather's better there than here). It blows me away that people not only read some of my blather in the first place, but come back for more! Hat tip to DrugMonkey - much of the traffic I'm getting is due to him.

My very first experimental work-based paper (I used to be a computational biophysicist) has just hit 80 citations. That's about 10/year. Apparently an old dog can teach himself new tricks...

30. The number of degrees (in F; that's about 17C) the temperature is expected to drop by between the time I arrived at work this morning and the time I leave this evening. We're expecting 2-4 inches of mixed snow and ice this evening. Snow I like. Ice sucks.

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.

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:

• 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).

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.