Abstract collage of overlapping, bright-colored glowing circles
Event ended Q&As and information sessions

MCB Virtual Office Hours: How to Write a Great NSF Proposal

About this event

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.

 

Please register here. 

For alerts on future virtual office hours, please subscribe to the MCB Blog.

MCB Virtual Office Hours: How to Write a Great NSF Proposal
Credit: U.S. National Science Foundation
The Division of Molecular and Cellular Biosciences (MCB) presented an office hour with tips for writing NSF proposals.

 

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

  1. Research idea 
  2. Preliminary results
  3. Contact a program director to discuss the project idea 
  4. Project proposal preparation and submission
  5. NSF Merit Review: intellectual merit and broader impacts 
  6. 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?