Form Detail Form a = Personal Bio Data Form B = Qualification - PowerPoint by asc13041

VIEWS: 42 PAGES: 38

Form Detail Form a = Personal Bio Data Form B = Qualification document sample

More Info
									      NSF Program manager
• Decides the final rankings of the proposals
• Two more visiting program managers help
• Has some freedom to move within the ranks
• Decides how much money can be given
• Calls or communicates with the PI
• Negotiates what needs to be done and for how
  much support $?
• Sends declination letters and reviews
• Answers your questions
      What if you get a grant?
• Do Party but not forever!
• You are among the top 5-10% researchers in
  your field
• Hire good people and deliver the goods you
  promised on time
• Publish profusely in high quality journals
• Write more grants! Why?
  – funding does not last for ever
  – 10% success rate
  – distribution of wealth principle
    What if you do not get a grant?

• don't cry (OK, cry a little if you feel better)
• pick up the pieces of your failed proposal
  and restart your “grants writing” engine
• get reviewer’s comments, read and get
  angry then keep them in a drawer away
  from your view for a while..
• come back and read reviews again
• talk to PM and your mentor/well wishers
• resubmit until you succeed
Top ten reasons why funding is normally not awarded

1. Lack of new or original ideas.
2. Diffuse, superficial, or unfocused research plan.
3. Lack of knowledge of published relevant work.
4. Lack of experience in the essential methodology.
5. Uncertainty concerning future directions.
6. Questionable reasoning in experimental approach.
7. Absence of an acceptable rationale.
8. Unrealistically large/small amount of work.
9. Lack of sufficient experimental detail.
10. Uncritical approach.



    http://www.hort.purdue.edu/rhodcv/hort652n/ho00005.htm
     How your proposals will be
  evaluated for this FW5850 class?
• All of you have already submitted a single pdf file of your
  proposal to me by email.
• It has been mailed to your peers and professors
• Now, you will change your role. You will review (as an ad
  hoc reviewer) all the proposals from your group except
  your own.
• You will prepare reviews for each proposal in your group
  in the prescribed format (already emailed to you)
• Bring two hard copies of your reviews to class on
  December 12th, 2006.
• Your advisors and I will review them too!
• All reviews given to PI will be anonymous
                Evaluation Criteria
• Intellectual merit
   –   How important this proposal is for advancement of knowledge?
   –   Qualification of PI and quality of proposal?
   –   Creative and original concepts?
   –   How well conceived and organized is this activity?
   –   Sufficient resources available for this research?
• Broader impacts
   –   Advance discovery and understanding
   –   Can promote teaching and research integration
   –   Diversity (gender, ethnicity, disability, geographical), if any *
   –   Infrastructure development*
   –   Dissemination of information obtained
   –   What is the benefit to society?
       ALL CRITERIA MAY NOT APPLY FOR EACH PROPOSAL!
       Focus more on the contents (summary, description) than the format!
       * Not important for your evaluation
  Panel meeting on December 12
          and 14, 2006
• You change your role again. Now, you are a
  panel member.
• There will be five panels = 5 peer groups
• On December 12th, we will meet in the atrium
  area.
• There will be five separate tables for panel
  meeting, one per group
• Each proposal will get 15 minutes discussion (a
  bell will ring every 15 minutes)
• You will go to the other table when your own
  proposal is being discussed as shown in the
  next slide.
Ecologists               Wild life




             ENGINEERS




                         Foresters
   FMGB
                Panel reviews
• Each panel member will first state their ratings and
  then discuss each proposal based on their own written
  reviews.
• Panel will prepare a one page report using three major
  categories: summary, strength, weakness (2-3 lines
  each) (see next slide).
• The panel will also give the final rating as Excellent,
  very good, good, fair, poor
• The panel report will be given to me at the end of your
  discussion and you will select a panel leader from the
  members within your own group to read the summary
  to whole class on December 14th, the last day of this
  class.
          Panel evaluation
• What is the main research topic of the
  proposal? (One-two sentences)
• What is the major strength of this
  proposal?
• What is the major weakness of this
  proposal (if any)?
• Summary statement (one or two lines)
Panel presentation (December 14th
              2006)
• You will select one leader from your group
  who will read all reports from your group
  after panel meeting to the whole class
• Each proposal will get ~two minutes
• Each report will have a specific final rating.
• Then you will enjoy your Xmas vacation!
Any questions?
http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/guihist.htm
http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/guihist.htm
http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/guihist.htm
http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/guihist.htm
http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/guihist.htm
http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/guihist.htm
http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/guihist.htm
                                         MPS
                                         Math Phys Sci
                                         EHR
                                         Edu, human Resources
                                         GEO
                                         Geological Sci
                                         CSIE
                                         Comp Info Sci and Eng
                                         Bio
                                         Biological Sci
                                         ENG
                                         Engineering
                                         SBE
                                         Social, behavior, Eco Sci




http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/guihist.htm
http://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2007/toc.jsp

NSF major divisions
  •   Biological Sciences
  •   Molecular and Cellular Biosciences
      Integrative Organismal Biology
      Environmental Biology
      Biological Infrastructure
      Emerging Frontiers
      Plant Genome Research
       Computer and Information Science and Engineering
  •   Computing and Communication Foundations
      Computer and Network Systems
      Information and Intelligent Systems
      Information Technology Research
       Engineering
  •   Chemical, Biological, Environmental and Transport
      Systems
      Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing Innovation
      Electrical, Communications and Cyber Systems
      Industrial Innovation and Partnerships
      Engineering Education and Centers
      Emerging Frontiers in Research and Innovation
       Geosciences
  •   Atmospheric Sciences
      Earth Sciences
      Innovative and Collaborative Education and Research
      Ocean Sciences
       Mathematical and Physical Sciences
  •   Astronomical Sciences
      Chemistry
      Materials Research
      Mathematical Sciences
      Physics
      Multidisciplinary Activities
       Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences
  •   Social and Economic Sciences
      Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences
      Science Resources Statistics
       Office of Cyberinfrastructure
    Where to go to see information on
           funding agencies
•   Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
•   Department of Energy, Office of Energy Research (DOE)
•   Department of Transportation (DOT)
•   Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
•   Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
•   Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
•   National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
•   National Science Foundation (NSF)
•   National Institutes of Health (NIH)
•   National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST)
•   USDA Cooperative State Research, Education and
    Extension Service (USDA CSREES)
      http://www.admin.mtu.edu/research/sprot/funding/federal.html
                          (this link is active)
                        USDA-NRI
http://www.csrees.usda.gov/fo/fundview.cfm?fonum=1606
        http://www.csrees.usda.gov/funding/rfas/pdfs/07_nri.pdf
Focus areas:
• Agricultural & Food Biosecurity
• Agricultural Systems
• Animals & Animal Products
• Biotechnology & Genomics
• Economics & Commerce
• Families, Youth & Communities
• Food, Nutrition & Health
• Natural Resources & Environment
• Pest Management
• Plants & Plant Products
• Technology & Engineering
                                  FY2007 RFA
•   http://www.csrees.usda.gov/funding/rfas/pdfs/07_nri.pdf
•   Program Opportunities
•   Program Code - Program Name
     – 20.2 - Plant Biosecurity
     – 23.1 - Managed Ecosystems
     – 28.0 - Air Quality
     – 31.0 - Bioactive Food Components for Optimal Health
     – 31.5 - Human Nutrition and Obesity
     – 32.1 - Epidemiological Approaches for Food Safety
     – 41.0 - Animal Reproduction
     – 42.0 - Animal Growth and Nutrient Utilization
     – 43.0 - Animal Genome (A): Applied Animal Genomics
     – 44.0 - Animal Protection and Biosecurity (B): Animal Well-Being
           • 44.0 - Animal Protection and Biosecurity (C): Animal Biosecurity Coordinated Agricultural Projects
             (CAP)
     – 51.9 - Biology of Weedy and Invasive Species in Agroecosystems
                 – 52.1 - Plant Genome (D): Applied Plant Genomics Coordinated Agricultural Project (CAP)
     – 56.0 - Plant Biology (A): Gene Expression and Genetic Diversity
     – 56.0 - Plant Biology (B): Environmental Stress
     – 66.0 - Agricultural Prosperity for Small and Medium-Sized Farms


     –   71.1 - Improving Food Quality and Value
      Purpose and Priorities
• The purpose of the USDA-NRI Program is
  to support research, extension, and
  education grants that address key
  problems of national, regional, and
  multistate importance in sustaining all
  components of agriculture (farming,
  ranching, forestry including urban and
  agroforestry, aquaculture, rural
  communities, human nutrition, processing,
  etc.).
         Type of applications
   grant size: $5,000 to $1,500,000
•  New
          success rate: 17 %
• Resubmitted
• Renewal
• Resubmitted renewal

• Research grant
• Conference
• AREA (Agricultural Research Enhancement awards)
    – Postdoctoral
    – New Investigator
    – Strengthening Awards
        •   Small institutions
        •   Limited success
        •   Sabbatical
        •   seed grants
        •   Equipment grants
  USDA has a number of programs
• 56.0 Plant Biology (C): Biochemistry
• Investigators are encouraged to contact National Program Leader
  Dr. Gail McLean (202-401-6060 or gmclean@csrees.usda.gov)
  regarding questions about suitability of research topics for this
  program element.
• Proposed budget requests must not exceed $400,000 (including
  indirect costs) for research projects for project periods of 2-4 years.
  Requests for funding above $400,000 will be returned to the
  applicant without review.
• The total amount of support available for the Biochemistry program
  element will be approximately $4.2 million.
• Note: This program requires a letter of intent by December 6,
  2006 (5:00pm ET) prior to application submission. Applications
  submitted without an approved letter of intent will not be
  reviewed.
• Program Deadline: Electronic submissions for invited applications
  must be submitted by 5:00 P.M., Eastern Time, February 14, 2007.
                    THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE….
A bunch of forms to be filled and 15
       copies to be mailed
•   Proposal Cover Page (Form CSREES-2002)
•   Table of Contents
•   Project Summary (Form CSREES-2003)
•   Response to Previous Review (if applicable)
•   Project Description (see instructions for page limitations) 18 pages
•   References to Project Description
•   Facilities and Equipment
•   Key Personnel (vitae and publications list)
•   Collaborative Arrangements (including letters of support)
•   Conflict-of-Interest List (Form CSREES-2007)
•   Results from Prior NRI Support (if applicable)
•   Budget (Form CSREES-2004)
•   Budget Narrative
•   Matching (if required)
•   Current and Pending Support (Form CSREES-2005)
•   Assurance Statement (s) (Form CSREES-2008)
•   Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (Form CSREES-2006)
•   Appendices to Project Description
•   Personal Data on Project Director (s) (Page B of Form CSREES-2002)


                          Now electronic by grants.gov
         Evaluation criteria
1. Scientific merit of the application for
  research, extension and/or education
2. Qualifications of proposed project
  personnel and adequacy of facilities
3. Planning and administration of the
  proposed project
4. Relevance of the proposal to
  improvements in and sustainability of
  U.S. agriculture
            Scientific merit

1. novelty, uniqueness, and originality
2. conceptual adequacy of hypothesis or
   research question
3. clarity and delineation of objectives
4. adequacy of description of the undertaking
5. suitability and feasibility of methodology
6. demonstration of feasibility through
   preliminary data
7. probability of success of project
            Qualifications
Qualifications of proposed project personnel
and adequacy of facilities:

1. training and awareness of previous and
alternative approaches, performance record
and/or potential for future accomplishments
2. time allotted for systematic attainment of
objectives
3. Institutional experience and competence in
subject area
4. adequacy of available or obtainable support
personnel, facilities and instrumentation
           Relevance?
Relevance of the project to long-range
improvements in and sustainability of
U.S. agriculture
1. documentation that the research is
directed towards a current or likely
future problem in U.S. agriculture
2. development of basic research ideas
towards practical application
                Rating
Each reviewer is asked to rate each
  proposal overall as either:
• excellent
• very good
• good
• fair
• poor
     Panel recommendations
The following categories are generally used
  to rank proposals by the Panel:
• Outstanding ***
• High priority for funding **
• Medium priority for funding
• Low priority for funding
• Some scientific merit
• Do not fund
    Proposals are also ranked in each category (mainly in first two-three only)
    Success rate 20-25% actual 17% last year as per new info

								
To top