Strengths of Funded & Weaknesses of Unfunded MRI Proposals Helen Hansma Bad Plan!! : Your Program Director Ask Us Early, Ask Us Often!! Start early and dont be shy Write: Rewrite and rewrite again Get critiques from: Mentors and colleagues Previous members of review panels Proposal Title should be: MRI: Acquisition of _______ Be Realistic Be aware of the scope: Too ambitious vs. Too narrow Be honest & up-front: Address issues dont hide them Acknowledge possible experimental problems and have alternatives Strong Proposals have: healthy and vigorous research student-faculty research collaborations externally funded research published in peer-reviewed research journals no doubt that the requested instrument will be: well cared for and put to good use for research and research training Weak Proposals raise Lots of Questions: Is the requested instrument is actually needed for the proposed research?? Will the instrument be involved in outreach and teaching?? How many of the PIs used this instrument in the past?? Questions: What about the: low funding level of current faculty researchers?? lack of undergraduate and graduate student researchers?? lack of publications?? Weaknesses.... Weak science: Research proposals not well developed Research is of relatively low-impact Not clear that the instrument was well justified. Typographical errors = careless preparation?? Few / poor references Weak Proposals: If we get the instrument, users will come = a recipe for failure Users describe their research and say at the end, And if we had [the new instrument], we could do [something more]. Strong Proposals have: 1.Several users with a clear need for the instrument 2.Preliminary data 3.Research descriptions start with need for instrument 4.Integration of research and education In Strong Proposals: 1.PIs have a past history of outreach activities 2.Broader Impacts - strong 3.Many women and underrepresented minority students Strong Proposals Walks on water Each investigator includes a training component in his / her research description I always wondered what it felt like to get an NSF award! -a new awardee, upon receiving her award phone call Weak Proposals Vague generalizations Figures & images are poor or lacking Double spaced text The reviewers say: Its a sad little proposal. Its like reading a proposal by Charlie Browns teacher its just noise Instrumentation without a Cause A Weak Figure: As this image shows, our current microscope needs to be replaced. Image is too dark! A Strong Figure: Figure 1. Images with our current Costco microscope [left] and with the Zeus Alive! Microscope that we propose to buy [right]. Image is lighter here Proposals MUST have: 1.Intellectual Merit AND Broader Impacts in the Project Summary 2.15 pages or fewer of Project Description 3.Large enough font sizes [12 pt] and margins 4.Research - NOT medical Weaknesses: Budget 1.Instrument has too many / too few features for proposed research 2.Instruments not related 3.Too many instruments requested We figured wed ask for TWO of the same instrument, and theyd give us ONE. -an unsuccessful PI A Ferrari isnt good in traffic. -a reviewer A Solid Management Plan describes: 1.Maintenance plans for the instrument(s) 2.How costs of instrument use and maintenance will be covered (user fees or ??) 3.The available expertise in use of the equipment 4.How new users will be trained 5.How user time will be allocated (if necessary) Pitfalls to Watch out for... 1.Follow guidelines carefully! 2.Request the appropriate instruments (e.g. Is high throughput really needed? How does the instrument relate to the research?) 3.Emphasize research not only teaching ! 4.Do not request a laundry list of items Strategies for Success 1.Student involvement: co-authors on papers & presentations. 2.Strong maintenance of existing equipment and plans for requested equipment 3.Involvement of under-represented groups Strategies Wide use of instrument 2.Demonstrated need, e.g., # of samples to be run 3.Preliminary data / results /figures Make it easy for the reviewers Simplify and Streamline: Make sure you get your overall idea across! Pay Attention to Details: 1.Run the spell checker and proof-read 2.Prepare clear photos, graphs, etc. 3.Make the font size as big as you can [at least 11 pt] A Good Proposal is a good idea, well expressed, with a clear indication of methods for pursuing the idea, evaluating the findings, making them known to all who need to know, and indicating the broader impacts of the activity. Evaluating Proposals Fund!!!!!!!! Proposal Preparation Your Holy Books: 1.The MRI Program Announcement:2.The Grant Proposal Guide GPG: To Do: 1.NSF Fastlane start using it Early! 2.Other Senior Personnel give them an early deadline for finishing their parts of the proposal. NSF on the web- An indispensable resource Summary Start early give yourself enough time Read the MRI PA and the GPG, and follow their rules Get feedback on your proposal from your colleagues Proposals should be clear, appropriate, and justified Anticipate some frustration Study reviews carefully If declined - Call your Program Director after reading your reviews (take some time to think about them) If awarded - follow up on reporting and find out about supplemental funding (stay in touch with PD) Evaluating Proposals NSF Merit Review Criteria: 1.Intellectual Merit 2.Broader Impacts of the proposed effort MRI-Specific Criteria: shared use of the instruments for research and/or research training availability of technical expertise management & maintenance plan effective use of instrument Summary of Review Criteria Merit Review Criteria: Intellectual merit Broader impacts Integration of research and education Integrating diversity into the proposed activities Additional MRI Review Criteria: Management Plan for instrument development - the rationale for developing a new instrument Resubmissions Most proposals are NOT funded! 1.Stay calm! Take ten breaths, hours, days Examine the criticisms carefully 2. , call, or visit your program director 3.Rapid resubmission does not help! Take time to self-evaluate the proposal and the project Why Do Proposals Fail? Absence of innovative ideas or hypothesis Will provide only an incremental advance Not exciting or cutting edge Errors Unclear or incomplete expression of aims Faulty logic or experimental design Less than rigorous presentation Unrealistic, sloppy or incomplete Resources and facilities not in place PI qualifications/expertise not evident Necessary collaborations not documented Weak Resubmissions Whining or angry responses to reviewers comments Project description starts with responses to reviewers comments Proposal has few changes Strong Resubmissions: Good responses to reviewers comments: can be incorporated into the revised proposal without mentioning the reviewers comments Significant improvements in the proposal
