Early Career Awards from Federal Agencies Panel Discussion-November 7, 2019

School of Engineering Research Panel Discussion

Early Career Awards from Federal Agencies: Former Program Directors’ Advice Date: November 7, 2019

Moderator: Candan Tamerler

Welcome to the first of SOE Research events series targeting agency specific tips. This first event will cover the NSF’s most prestigious award in support of Early Career Faculty.

As the ADR, I formed multiple ad-hoc advisory committees at the School of Engineering to work together in assisting our faculty members while they are getting ready to prepare their proposals. Funding sources are different, the proposals need to target to the agency interest. Some of them require different partnership programs. SOE Research events will target different opportunities, interest groups and provide a platform to be proactive in developing research programs.

Today`s panel was initiated by the SOE ad-hoc advisory committee members with NSF focus. Our committee members served at the NSF as Program Directors across two of the seven directorates of the foundation, reviewed and funded hundreds of proposals. This is a unique opportunity for our faculty to listen to their perspective. Here are some tips to prepare your NSF CAREER proposals.

Panelists

  1. Ted Bergman
    • 2008-2010 Director of the Thermal Transport Processes Program, CBET Division, Directorate for Engineering
  2. Trung Van Nguyen
    • 2007-2009 Director of the Energy for Sustainability Program, CBET Division, Directorate for Engineering
    • This program is now called Electrochemical Systems
  3. Ron Hui
    • 2006-2007 Director of the Electronics, Photonics and Magnetic Devices Program, ECCS Division, Directorate for Engineering
  4. Victor Frost
    • 2009-2011 Program Director, U.S. National Science Foundation in CISE/CNS Division (Computer and Information Science and Engineering/Computer Network Systems)
  5. Michael Branicky
    • 2008-2010 Program Director, U.S. National Science Foundation, CNS Division (Computer and Information Science and Engineering/Computer Network Systems)

What are common pitfalls?

Ted Bergman

  • Assuming that all NSF program directors and scientific communities agree on what constitutes a good CAREER proposal
    • Don’t assume that everyone follows one path.
  • Not communicating with program directors before submitting proposals
    • Program directors can often give advice, and would like to receive good proposals!
  • Underestimating the time/energy it takes to write the proposal.
  • Overestimating how well the panelists will understand the specific science in your proposal
    • There will be panelists from many fields of expertise, many of whom will not have depth of knowledge in your field.
  • Underestimating the depth of scientific knowledge that your panelists will have
    • As a program director, I liked to find CAREER panelists with a breadth of knowledge, such as department chairs and associate deans that were active in their own research areas/experts in their field. Don’t underestimate the panelists’ general scientific knowledge.
    • You need to strike the right balance.

Victor Frost

  • Another pitfall is not being clear what the outcome is that’s worth NSF’s investment. You are asking the government for a great deal of money, so be upfront, straightforward, and state quantitatively how you hope to advance the state of the art.
  • Don’t bury this point too far into your proposal. If panelists have 10 proposals to review and you bury your deliverables too far in, it may be overlooked.

Michael Branicky

  • Panelists do not like to see unrelated parts in a proposal. It’s better to have a common intellectual framework. Different pieces should be tied together somehow.

Trung Van Nguyen

  • Not doing enough “homework” is a common flaw.
  • Look at recent awards, winners, proposals, and the budgets given to programs. Some programs are only able to fund 1 proposal, others more. Apply to ones which are relevant and possibly can fund multiple proposals.

Ron Hui

  • Lack of central focus is a common pitfall. Proposals should not just be “laundry lists.”
  • Proposals striving for only incremental change are often declined.
  • Don’t expect to accomplish too much in a short period of time. Proposals must be realistic.
  • There is not a strong enough scientific component to some declined proposals. As this is NSF, the scientific component must be prioritized.
  • If your previous experience doesn’t support what you claim to do, it may not be seen as credible.

Victor Frost

  • You can search the NSF database by program, PI, etc. to see abstracts of funded research.

 

Ted Bergman

  • When faculty members preparing their CAREER proposals asked for advice, I would recommend they submit proposals on something different than what was already funded. It’s important to bring new ideas to the table.

What are good ways to find a program?

Trung Van Nguyen

  • Learn which programs have been funding your areas of interest, and read program descriptions as these change year to year.
  • Volunteer to serve on panels to better understand the review process and get to know the audience. The next time you submit you will be a face attached to the name. Some of the same people may be reviewing your proposal.
  • Budget is a very important factor. Don’t submit to programs with $1-2 million, but ones with $12 million or more. Increase your chance for success.

Victor Frost

  • One experience at NSF involved a proposal for the improvement of a technology that’s already 90% efficient. Are proposals like these worth investing in for a few extra percentage points? It’s good to reiterate the importance of having a different proposal than ones already funded.

Trung Van Nguyen

  • Fundamental research or science that will make engineering better is always desirable.

Ron Hui

  • Don’t be discouraged by declined proposals.

Michael Branicky

  • NSF is not the only option for funding.
  • It is not the program director’s job to evaluate your science, but rather to determine whether your proposal fits their program or not.
  • If your proposal was not sent to the most appropriate program, they may suggest one that fits better.

Victor Frost

  • Don’t be shy in talking to program directors about the direction of research. Their job is tied to the science.

Michael Branicky

  • We would sometimes receive proposals dealing with security. If they mentioned cryptography, my reviewers would have to give them to a different group for review. Having a credible evaluation of the science is a priority.

 

What differentiates a CAREER proposal from other proposals?

  1. Ted Bergman
    • There is more breadth of knowledge amongst reviewers of CAREER proposals.
    • A CAREER proposal should address your career in its first paragraph.
    • Scientifically, the CAREER award should be a launch to a 30 year career. This is an extremely significant aspect of your CAREER proposal.
  2. Trung Van Nguyen
    • This isn’t just a research project. A topic or area of research chosen here should lead to a successful career. If you receive ½ million dollars for 5 years, afterwards you should be an expert in that area.
  3. Ron Hui
    • There are many similar proposals. Sometimes being an outlier is better. Try to differentiate yourself from the rest.
  4. Victor Frost
    • Having a support letter from your chair is necessary.
    • These rules change frequently though, so be aware of the requirements. The proposal solicitation states what the chair should say. Support letters beyond the chair’s are less crucial.

Strategies for strong support letters and outreach/collaboration

  1. Some were under the impression that support letters are “stock letters.”
    • The chair letter is not a stock letter.
  2. Ted Bergman
    • Collaborative letters, i.e. those from a school you’ve been working with, are still important and different than letters of support.
    • Many proposals received by NSF mention potential work with schools, but include nothing in the budget to support it. Proposals must be realistic.
    • I received a call from a high school principal who was overwhelmed by faculty calling them to ask how to work with the high school as they were preparing their CAREER proposals. The point is to not do the same things everyone else does.
  3. Victor Frost
    • Do not state that you are working with anyone without contacting them. At Haskell, for example, there are official channels that must be used for contact.
    • Collaborative relationships like these should be in development already if listed in a CAREER proposal. Prospective projects do not carry the same weight as those in the works.
  4. Ted Bergman
    • Some program directors and reviewers prefer to see what the PI’s will do, not what the PI’s institution already does. A brief phone call with program directors can clarify whether to focus on developing new, or building on existing outreach components.
  5. Victor Frost
    • The outreach itself doesn’t necessarily have to be “innovative.” The science should absolutely be, but the outreach less so.
  6. Michael Branicky
    • Outreach should ultimately increase the impact of your research.
    • If there’s a framework at your institution for outreach, use it to your advantage.
    • You should include an assessment plan and metrics to measure outreach. This could be as simple as tracking how many people attend events.
    • Know what your community views as appropriate in the broader impact.
  7. Victor Frost
    • Have senior individuals reviewing proposals to ensure that they’re feasible.
    • It’s good to mention how departmental investments were used and what was learned in the process.

What should the timeline to apply look like? Is it better to apply sooner or later?

  1. Victor Frost
    • It’s best to have enough of a track record before you apply.
  2. Ted Bergman
    • I encourage people to apply ASAP. When I was at NSF, panelists were aware of the proposer’s experience and would adjust expectations.
    • Time in a faculty appointment does not necessarily indicate experience/preparedness. Some proposers have been funded before they even begin a faculty appointment! It’s rare, but this happens.
  3. Michael Branicky
    • I second this. Apply ASAP!
    • Commit to submit. There’s effort required, but this is your career and it’s what you are expected to do. If you commit today, start working on it today.
    • You could write an outline of impactful problems in the field today and go from there.
  4. Victor Frost
    • The School of Engineering has resources for internal review, so make sure to use them.
    • Make your personal due date 6 weeks or a month before the actual deadline.
    • Have colleagues review proposals even 6 months before the due date. It’s clear when proposals have not been thoroughly reviewed/edited. Many declined proposals were clearly rushed.
  5. Candan Tamerler
    • Please reach out if you need assistance with submission! This is the most important career opportunity for many young faculty, so reach out for help.

 

 

Audience Questions

Can you serve as a panelist at the same time as submitting?

  • Victor Frost
    • Yes, but not for the same program to which you’re applying.
    • Many of the things said here apply to other organizations as well. DOD is just as prestigious but may require more homework on a match.

 

What percent of a proposal should be dedicated to education?

  • Victor Frost
    • Education should not overshadow the science. This should still be the primary focus.
    • Maybe 20-30% should be education and outreach, the rest to science.
    • Education and outreach will not win a proposal alone. However, proposals that don’t mention these may be rejected immediately.
  • Ted Bergman
    • Maybe 2-3 pages of 15 should be devoted to education/outreach for a CAREER proposal. It could be less for a regular proposal.

Is it recommended to submit 2 CAREER proposals at once?

  • No! It is far better to only submit 1 CAREER proposal at a time.
  • A CAREER proposal is not a project proposal. It will be very difficult to split career focus between two fields.
  • Ted Bergman
    • If you can’t make up your mind which proposal is more important for your career, how do you expect the program directors to choose? It will reduce your chance for success to divide your focus.
  • Ron Hui
    • Some submit both CAREER and regular proposals simultaneously. This is different than 2 simultaneous CAREER proposals as regular proposals are narrower in focus.
  • Victor Frost
    • It was more common for me to see people submitting regular proposals first and then CAREER.
    • Just pick one area and focus on it rather than submitting 2 CAREER proposals. You never know when a reviewer will see both and misinterpret this, causing both to be rejected.

I’ve submitted a proposal to CRII. Does it make sense to delay CAREER proposals until results come in?

  • Michael Branicky
    • If you can talk about results, you could include them 1 year after. These are not submitted in the same program at the same time.

Follow-up question: Since CRII results are phased, you might know if you’re funded in February and the CAREER deadline is close. What to do in this case?

  • Michael Branicky
    • Ask the program director about how these are related and what they recommend.
  • Victor Frost
    • In an ideal world, you should be working on the CRII now!
    • Startup packages allow you to begin now except for in some areas (possibly Biomed) which have to acquire materials after funding.

 

How do you lay out the timeline, balance multiple research topics, and decide how much time to spend discussing each one?

  • Michael Branicky
    • The arc of your research should be clear. Lay the trajectory out in a compelling way.
  • Trung Van Nguyen
    • Try to know your end goal and convey that. The journey is up to you!
  • Ron Hui
    • Make sure that your research topics are connected, and not just a “laundry list.”

If your proposal is declined, should you address every point before resubmitting next year?

  • Ron Hui
    • Not necessarily. It will be a different panel the following year.
    • NSF won’t allow people to submit the same proposal exactly. Make sure to use a different title at least.
  • Michael Branicky
    • A program officer can see all proposals going back decades, so don’t duplicate titles.
  • Trung Van Nguyen
    • Point out what has changed between the proposals. Things will have changed in a year, so talk about developments during that time. Improve using new knowledge and education.

How important is the assessment of different components?

  • Ron Hui:
    • You do need to identify assessment mechanisms.
  • Ted Bergman
    • A risk you run is that every minute you spend on assessment is one less minute you spend on the science. Don’t over assess at the risk of reducing the science.
  • Michael Branicky
    • If expecting something minimal, then meet that expectation. If applying to a program that already has assessment, then meet that.

Overall Message: “Commit to Submit”