About the series
Join the Division of Molecular and Cellular Biosciences (MCB) at the National Science Foundation for our next virtual office hour.
On Wednesday, April 12th from 2-3pm ET, the topic will be “How to Write a Great NSF Proposal”.
Program Directors will be present to address your questions.
For alerts on future virtual office hours, please subscribe to the MCB Blog.
Presentation outline
Today’s Topic: “How to Write a Great NSF Proposal”
Led by Richard Cyr (rcyr@nsf.gov)
View recordings of past Office Hours presentations on MCB Blog: https://mcbblog.nsfbio.com/office-hours/2/
National Science Foundation Overview
- Funding for basic research and education across all STEM disciplines since 1950 supporting 24% of all federally funded basic scientific research.
- NSF is organized into 8 Directorates and 2 Offices
- FY23 at a glance:
- Budget: $10.9 billion
- Received about ~39,000 proposals, ultimately supporting ~11,000 competitive awards funding ~352,000 scientists, educators and students
- Overall funding rate of 28%
NSF Merit Review Criteria
Intellectual merit
- Potential to advance knowledge within/across fields
- Creative, original, potentially transformative concepts
- Well-reasoned and organized ideas and experiments
- Qualified investigators
- Access to adequate resources
Broader impacts
- Potential to benefit society
- Promote training and education
- Enhance infrastructure resources
- Engage in outreach to the community
- Broaden participation of underrepresented groups in STEM
Proposal cycle from principal investigator’s perspective
- Research idea
- Preliminary results
- Contact a program director to discuss the project idea
- Project proposal preparation and submission
- NSF Merit Review: intellectual merit and broader impacts
- Decision: An award or a decline
Panel rating categories
- Outstanding: Strongest in both intellectual merit and broader impacts; innovative and bold.
- Priority: Strong in both intellectual merit and broader impacts; innovative and bold but has some minor issues.
- Medium priority: Potentially strong in both intellectual merit and broader impacts but one or more issues.
- Low Priority: Significant weaknesses in intellectual merit or broader impacts, or both and/or likely to have an incremental impact (i.e., confirmatory work).
- Non-Competitive: Seriously flawed in intellectual merit or broader impacts and/or missing crucial elements related to those merit criteria.
How to get started…
- Think broadly about what basic scientific questions your research might address
- Consider what Broader Impact activities you want to propose
- Explore the NSF website to identify likely programs
- Contact a Program Director before you submit a proposal. Email a one-page synopsis of your research idea asking for asking for feedback.
What Makes a Proposal Competitive?
- New, original ideas with potential for high societal impact that are important and not just interesting.
- Focused, feasible project plans with realistic amounts of work; Sound scientific rationale; sufficient details; and a critical approach. Potential pitfalls and alternative hypotheses should be considered.
- Articulated knowledge of the subject area citing published relevant works.
- Experience in essential methods or approaches, and/or collaborator expertise.
- A well-written proposal that is understandable to general audiences who are not working directly in the field.
Advice for Writing an Excellent Proposal
- Start early and read the solicitation.
- Identify your audience, balancing information between general and specific subject area knowledge.
- Frame a big picture
- Describe the proposed project plan in detail explaining how it will address the needs, gaps, and hypotheses.
- Emphasize creative or innovative aspects of the proposed project.
- Provide proof-of-concept by including preliminary data, especially if the proposed approach is new to you, or the field.
- Speak with a Program Director
- Reread the solicitation
Common scientific mistakes
- Work is too close to what has been done before - i.e., incremental advance or limited impact.
- Project scope is too large or is too narrowly focused to be exciting
- Proposed methods/research plan that will not yield results that address the stated goals of the project.
- Flawed experimental/theoretical /analytical design
- Aims are interdependent
- Failure to be transparent in writing leading to a disconnect between what you are thinking and what the reviewer reads
- Medically motivated project. However, it is ok to mention disease in Broader Impacts
What You Don’t Want to See in Your Reviews
- The PI has not been very productive either during or since the Ph.D.
- The proposal is naïve and/or overly ambitious
- Potential pitfalls and alternate strategies are not described and alternate interpretation of data is ignored
- PI has failed to cite essential literature
- Necessary resources are not available, or the PI does not have demonstrated expertise
- Proposal is Strong in intellectual merit, but broader impacts are weak
Common Mistakes: Failure to Follow Guidelines
- Essential documents are missing, such as departmental letter (if required) and letters of collaboration
- Letters of collaboration are non-compliant
- Including extraneous documents
- Formatting that makes the document hard to read, such as narrow margins, small font size, small or low-resolution figures lacking a detailed legend, excessive acronyms
- Typos, misspellings, or incorrect figure placement
- Inaccurate conversion of Word document to PDF
Some Notes on Broader Impacts
- It’s not a formula: Do something that interests you, has measurable outcomes, and matches the time you are willing to devote.
- Ask for money if you need it
- Use existing infrastructure, as appropriate. Don’t need to reinvent but build on something from your institution.
- Realize that institutions certify to support your efforts
- How will you know the activities have the intended outcome? Ask for help with assessment.
- Check out resources at the Center for Advancing Research Impact in Society (ARIS).
What about Medical Research?
- Biological research on mechanisms of disease in humans, including on the etiology, diagnosis, or treatment of disease or disorder, is normally not supported.
- Biological research to develop animal models of such conditions, or the development or testing of procedures for their treatment, also are not normally eligible for support.
- However, use-inspired basic research with societal benefits (such as future implications for human health) can be supported.
- For example, research on:
- Mechanisms of DNA damage and repair is a YES, but DNA repair pathway/enzyme as drug target is NO.
- Fundamental questions about viral structure, replication, evolution, etc. is a YES, but therapeutic interventions against infection is NO
- Mechanisms underlying cell motility is a YES, but metastasis of tumor cells is NO
New PAPPG 23-1 is in Effect
NSF 23-1: Effective for proposals submitted or due on or after January 30, 2023. See the PAPPG for more information.
- Safe and Inclusive Working Environments for Off-campus/Off-site Research: After April 18, 2023, BIO and GEO proposals that involve off-campus or off-site research must submit a plan for safe and inclusive research (PAPPG II.E.9). This requirement reflects NSF’s efforts to foster safe and harassment-free environments wherever science is conducted. More information can be found Feb 7th, 2023, webinar recording.
- Potential Life Sciences Dual Use Research of Concern (DURC): Proposals that could potentially be considered DURC or involve enhanced potential pandemic pathogens must self-identify and comply with US Govt. policy requirements (PAPPG II.E.6). Governed by policies released in 2014 and 2017.
- Biographical Sketch and Current and Pending Statement: After October 23, 2023, biosketches and C&P statements must use SciENcv format (PAPPG II.D.2.h).
A summary of changes can be found at https://new.nsf.gov/policies/pappg/23-1/summary-changes.
Declination is a Part of the Process
Stay Calm and Do NOT Get Discouraged!
- Read the reviews and Panel Summary more than once
- Ask others to interpret the reviews for you
- Reflect on your next moves after you have had time to digest the feedback (Reviews, Panel Summary, PD Comments, Context Statement)
- Contact your Program Director
Resubmit after addressing significant weaknesses
- Do you need more preliminary data?
- What were the common themes in the reviews?
- Is one component better than another?
- Are there significant strengths that you can build upon for resubmission?
