Huge dollar-amount grants

[Aureliano Buendia]

As I write NSF grants, I'm astonished at how quickly their value increases to hundreds of thousands of dollars. This is due to a couple of problems. First, equipment and supplies can be incredibly expensive. Manufacturers and service companies know that they can double their prices when feeding at the federal trough. Second, overhead rates are insane. Some institutions have overhead rates in excess of 60%. This is a money-grab, plain and simple. If grants were smaller, more of us would get them.

Many of us could do our work for well under $50k/year. Give us a chance to show this.

[Anon2]

"Some of us could do our work for well under $50k/year. Give us a chance to show this."

Fixed that last line for you. You know that you can always write smaller budgets on your proposal if you want. And if you are not happy about your university's overhead, that sounds like a local problem.

Step up your science or step off your soapbox. You have been peer reviewed.

[bulbman]

In the plant sciences, we see multimillion dollar grants funded for tree of life or genomic projects that ultimately fail to meet their objectives. NSF likes the fact that these are often multi-institutional, but I sometimes think that is a problem, rather than an advantage. One to which I am serving as a collaborator (no dollars), seems to be in great disarray.

There badly need to be a small grants program. And caps on indirect costs!

[Unsub]

I agree that most of the projects that are funded are collaborative and in some cases some of the collaborators have very little to contribute other than the clout that their name will bring. So if there is way to encourage small grants with a cap on direct costs and projects by individuals rather than tree of life kind of ones that may be set up to fail in achieving ALL the goals that would be great. Science these days it seems cannot/should not be done by an individual or his/her lab but instead should involve many different researchers with their little finger in the pie. Why so? What was wrong with the way we were doing science where we were sure of what we can do even though all of us were not doing everything. I am not sure if it is a problem with NSF per se. We the reviewers are also responsible because we recommend what should or not be funded. if all we look for is an integrative/collaborative work then why blame NSF? Why not encourage small but interesting competitive work? Why should my project always come back with - "You need to get support of a senior scientist who is familiar with this area of research?? Isn't this a problem with the peer review process and not NSF itself.

[odyssey]

There is no lower limit on how much you can ask for in a NSF grant. What benefit would there be to having a separate small grants program?

I couldn't support even a single student on a $50k/year grant given the cost of doing research in my field. If you can do yours at that kind of funding level, then only write grants asking for that much.

[Aureliano Buendia]

I don't see massive overhead costs as a "local problem." (My institution is actually quite reasonable on overhead, btw.) NSF can and does limit overhead in some programs, and all overhead rates are negotiated.

In some cases, overhead is another way that American institutions of higher education try to grab as much money as possible, whether from the public trough or from their own students. If overhead were limited to reasonable amounts (e.g., the TRUE costs of keeping the lights on, etc.), then there would be more money to fund new grants to currently unfunded scientists.

Why does NSF agree to pay abusive overhead rates?

[retired observer]

The administrator of this board asks why NSF "agrees" to abusively high indirect cost rates.

Each institution negotiates its indirect cost rates with the Federal government, using standard terms of negotiation and standard definitions of allowable costs that can be included in "indirect costs." That negotiated rate is then respected by and used across the board by almost all Federal agencies. Having never been involved personally in such negotiations, I cannot be specific about what they entail. However, I know that there have been a small number of high-visibility scandals in years past about costs that certain institutions put forward as part of their "indirect cost" of doing business that turned out to be unallowable types of costs under the standard terms of such negotiations; they were then obliged to repay the government. I doubt if such flagrant shenanigans are common, but I also don't doubt that institutions use their creativity within allowable limitations to "demonstrate" costs in ways that would increase their rates.

This post to which I am responding, and also other posts that I have read, seem to be based on either incomplete or false knowledge on the part of the person posting. This forum would be better served, in my opinion, if people get their facts completely straight first before expressing opinions.

[retired observer]

Jun 11, 2010 11:43:16 GMT -5 @Unsub said:

I agree that most of the projects that are funded are collaborative ... So if there is way to encourage small grants ... and projects by individuals rather than tree of life kind ... that would be great ...

This author is mistaken that "most of the projects that are funded are collaborative." In fact, most NSF BIO projects are supported through the "regular" or "core" programs, rather than the special programs like Tree of Life, and most are projects by individuals rather than by groups, and most are relatively low-budget in comparison to the large group projects that are funded through the "special programs." AND the posters who commented that there is no minimum dollar amount for a regular NSF grant through a core program are absolutely correct about that.

The person who posted this message should get on the NSF website and look at the definitions of the core programs to find the one(s) that most closely jive with his or her project. Then, the person should look at the list of program directors for those programs, look at the descriptions of their areas of expertise, pick the one who would be most likely to understand the project, get on the telephone and talk to that program director. An email might also work. Maybe an email with a phone follow-up would work best.

Warning: the person might get advice that he or she doesn't like, or doesn't want to hear. I know that some proposers "shop around" for program officers and even programs regardless of the appropriateness of the fit between the project and the program. That's a very bad idea! Instead, have a conversation; LISTEN to the program officer; and then, if you're still dissatisfied with what you've heard, talk to someone else within the same program, or to the deputy division director. Chances are that what you heard the first time will be reiterated by the others, but since some program directors are relatively new to NSF while others are much more experienced, it is unlikely but still possible that you might by chance initially talk to a "newbie" whose advice might not be the best due to lack of experience of the PD. It's okay to ask the PD how long he or she has been in his or her position at NSF.

As a helpful aside: if you are submitting large-budget proposals to Tree of Life and are continually and repeatedly advised by the program directors to seek a senior scientist to help you, then you should understand that they are trying to tell you something important, and don't just shrug it off. The message might be as simple as "we are not going to invest two million dollars for two years in the lab of an unproven beginner." Program officers are stewards of taxpayer money, and while you might not like to hear such a message, I would guess that the taxpayers would see it differently.

[retired observer]

Jun 14, 2010 16:59:43 GMT -5 @retired observer said:

Jun 12, 2010 11:56:51 GMT -5 Aureliano Buendia said:

If you really wanted to know, and really wanted your readers to know, you would not have deleted the careful reply I posted a couple of hours ago.

My deepest embarrassment and apologies -- you did leave my post up. Thank you. I don't know why but it didn't show on my screen until after I had (in haste, as is often the case when emotions are involved) submitted this time=1276361811 thoroughly inappropriate (also the case often when emotions are involved) post, which I deeply regret now.

Please delete the referenced one-sentence inappropriate post.

Thank you.

[guest]

I agree that the smaller grants with focused projects may yield something good. The yield from the huge grants given out to 1 to 4 centers/institutions (often 'elite' institutions only) is not clear. It should promote more individual PI oriented projects, rather than grab-bag collaborative efforts where the coordination is a huge mess that often causes the failure.

More auditing of the huge grants should be conducted. What did they achieve, what benefits the ordinary people (researchers) get out of, what did each collaborators contribute to the common goal? If it is simple research papers generated and student support, any reasonable individuals can do that with decent amount. The justification for huge grants is not clear.

[Aureliano Buendia]

No worries, Retired Observer. I deleted your mistaken post. I make mistakes all the time.

I really appreciate your input to all of these discussions. Your expertise adds a great deal to the conversation. I apologize, though half-heartedly, for mistakes that I have made and posted. I simply don't have the time to learn everything about NSF before I post. I know that I'll get hammered for that, but I have a good answer (at least to me). By creating this site, my colleagues and I hope that good information will come out from the efforts of all users. And that is what is happening. It's not my job to be an expert on NSF, but that doesn't invalidate my feelings. (Again, I know that many will disagree, arguing that by creating this forum, I've made it my job. I reject that. I don't need to be an expert to have an opinion.)

What no one can deny is that many of us, including lots of great NSF employees, are really frustrated by the current system. I'm pleased to see this forum providing a constructive outlet for this problem.

[Aureliano Buendia]

No one has posted any real solutions to these problems. High overheads are not a local problem. When the big greedy schools take so much money from programs, they leave less money for others. Saying that this is a local problem, or an unsolvable problem because of the way overhead is negotiated is a cop out.