1

CHE 594 Lecture 11The proposal Process

Proposal Planning & Writing

Identifying sources of funds

Needs Assessment

Capitalize on your differences

Case Statement

Advocates

Sponsor Giving

Sponsors are concerned about specific problems, injustices, or inequities

Sponsors see a gap between “what is” and “what ought to be”

Their mission is to close this gap and with regard to Federal Agencies – serve the public good

Agency Missions

NSF – build scientific manpower, help the economy

DOE – maintain national labs, contribute to defense, help the energy industries

NIH – advance human health DARPA – prevent technological surprise

NASA – advance spacecraft & rocketry, explore the universe

Keys To A Great Proposal

Great research idea Advance the goals of the agency Feasible within the time frame an financial constraints of the program

Compelling Presentation Organized to make it easier for the reviewer

Demonstrated skills of the principle investigator (PI) Great publication record Up to date literature review Preliminary data

6

The Hourglass Picture Of Research

Adapted From William M.K. Trochim Cornell

Start with an important big question

Focus to solvable question

Observe

Analyze data

Reach conclusions

Generalize back to big problem

7

Example A Problem That Professor Masel Is Thinking About Now

Big Question: Biofuels (Cellulosic ethanol) presently too expensive. Can we reduce the cost?

Solvable question: Can tethered sulfuric acid (polyelectrolyte brush) be used in place of sulfuric acid to reduce cost?

Measure kinetics of polyelectrolyte catalyzed cellulose conversion as a function of polyelectrolyte structure

Analyze data

Conclusions: kinetics, structural functional relationships

Generalize: Economic analysis to determine whether these catalysts reduce the cost of cellulosic ethanol

Wyman Paper: Pretreatment has largest potential for cost reduction

8

Finding The Solvable Question Key

Adapted From William M.K. Trochim Cornell

Start with an important big question

Focus to solvable question

Observe

Analyze data

Reach conclusions

Generalize back to big problem

Need to convince reviewers it is

solvable

Limits problems to ones the

reviewers think they can solve

Persuasive Proposals

In today’s competitive grants environment, “good” proposals seldom get funded; “excellent” proposals get funded

Excellent proposals reflect the values of the sponsor. Proposal are persuasive when they address sponsor’s goals and objectives

General Proposal Process

Agency issues proposal call (or solicitation window)

Researchers prepare proposals and send them in. Agencies get at least 5 times as many proposals as they can fund

Review process starts First decision triage in all agencies except NSF chem – is proposal worth reviewing (~50% of proposals lost)

Remaining proposals ranked based largely only on info in proposal

Successful Proposals

Proposals are funded when they express the priorities shared by the sponsor

Make a convincing case to the reviewer Varies with the review panel

Your job is to answer all of the questions in the proposal so they have no reason not to fund your project

Questions That a Proposal Must Answer

Does the proposal: Show sufficient understanding of sponsor guidelines and priorities?

Address well-documented problems?

Show a good approach to the problem?

Establish organizational/individual credibility?

Questions to Answer

Does the proposal: Have an efficient time table?

Indicate probable outcomes?

Propose a reasonable budget?

Identify the benefits of the project?

Fundable Proposals Must Make a Case In all Areas!

Only 20% or less of new proposals funded. Reviewers are trying to find reasons to throw out proposals – you cannot give them one.

Timeline

In theory…Grantwriting experts say it takes three years for a new grantwriter (including taking preliminary data) Solicitation issued

6 months to 1 year in advance Standing solicitation

Proposal Submitted Review may take 6- 12 months Awards announced

Typical Federal initial award 10/01

The Proposal Review Process

Who will be reviewing?

How will proposals be reviewed?

How are proposals evaluated?

The Proposal Review Process

Types of Reviews: Foundation Board Site Visit Program Staff Agency Staff Field Readers Panel Review Peer Review

How will Proposals be Reviewed? How much time did they have to read the application?

Did you have a mail, panel or electronic review?

Was a reviewer’s evaluation form used?

Was a particular point scoring system used?

Any special “red flags” to watch for?

Was there a staff review after the peer review?

How Are Proposals Evaluated?

Scored independently against the guidelines?

Ranked against each other? Prioritized within sponsor funding categories?

First come, first funded? On the basis of special criteria, e.g., geography?

Example

Proposals that are reviewed by a committee

Numeric values may be applied with a scoring tool

The total score is 100 and sections are scored Description of need: 20 points

Project Design: 25 points Feasibility: 20 points Community Involvement: 10 points Portability: 5 points Subjective Evaluation: 20 points

NSF Review

Mail review (chem) or panel review (chem eng)

Typical reviewers 1 senior scientist in a related area Industrial representative Many assistant professors (want to learn the review process, impress the grant officer)

Diversity representatives Women or minorities People from Epscor states People from smaller universities

Different reviewers every review cycle

Typical DOE review

Mail review or panel review Reviewers

One older scientist One senior scientist in your area Two national lab scientists Senior scientist in related area

50% new reviewers every review cycle

NIH review

Scored by a panel at Center for Scientific Review

Panel membership posted and remains the same year to year http://www.drg.nih.gov/Roster_proto/sectionI.asp

For chemistry or engineering proposals ½ chemists or engineers ½ physicians/medical researchers

Traige – ignore 50% of the proposal Scores then compared to get funding decision

If you are scored, panel will recommend changes, and you can resubmit

DARPA Review

Panel Review Program Officer

Often scientist from ranked school or national lab on leave

Scientists from Military Labs Usually one of your competitors

High level consultants (Usually NAE or NAS)

Once panel selects proposals, head of DARPA still needs to say yes or no

Common Rejection Reasons

Bad choice of problem The problem is of insufficient importance or is unlikely to produce any new or useful information

The proposed research is based on a hypothesis that rests on insufficient evidence, is doubtful, or is unsound.

The problem is more complex than the investigator appears to realize.

Approach The proposed tests, or methods, or scientific procedures are unsuited to the stated objective.

The description of the approach is too nebulous, diffuse, and lacking in clarity to permit adequate evaluation.

Investigators The investigator does not have adequate experience or training, or both, for this research.

The investigator appears to be unfamiliar with recent pertinent literature or methods, or both

Source: Ernest M. Allen “Why Are Research Grant Applications Disapproved?” 132, 960 1532-1534.

Remember….

Value isn’t what you think it is.

It’s what the reviewers perceive it to be.

Successful grant writers understand the sponsor’s values and express that view in the proposal.

Example: Masel’s Left Handed Molecules

What critical things would I need to include in the proposal to convince NSF, DOE, NIH, DARPA to fund the proposal

28

Questions?