|
|
Post by Aureliano Buendia on Jun 9, 2010 12:16:13 GMT -5
How many of us have heard that it takes two, three, or even four submissions to get funded?
This doesn't have to be the case. We are all professionals, publishing in peer-reviewed journals, doing important and influential work. Why are the standards of NSF so much higher than those of our societies, journals, and institutions?
While rewriting grants can be a useful exercise, it can also be a waste of precious time. We know the science is theoretically and practically sound. Let us do it.
Funding rates of 10% and lower are insulting and disrespectful. They put program officers in a tight position, having to deny funding to excellent proposals.
The emphasis of preliminary data can also be a problem. In some cases, studies have to be nearly complete before a grant is successful. This can be a problem for young researchers or scientists at primarily teaching institutions. How can they be expected to generate extensive preliminary data sets when they don't have the time or money to do the work?
Equally baffling are the cases when labs with excellent NSF funding records are denied funding for minor offenses. These groups have proven themselves over the years, but may find that needed funding is denied, setting off a scramble to pay graduate students, postdocs, and suppliers until the next feast of money arrives. This is absurd.
One explanation for low funding rates could be that the amounts of money in play are huge, and so the responsibility to vet the work is commensurately high. But the tendency for grants to be excessively high is another NSF problem. If grants were made in modest amounts, investments in young researchers or new research programs would be feasible, and experienced labs would have the ability to make long-range plans. Experienced PIs could write papers instead of five or six grants a year.
|
|
|
|
Post by anonymous on Jun 11, 2010 8:44:09 GMT -5
One explanation for low funding rates could be that the amounts of money in play are huge, and so the responsibility to vet the work is commensurately high. But the tendency for grants to be excessively high is another NSF problem. If grants were made in modest amounts, investments in young researchers or new research programs would be feasible, and experienced labs would have the ability to make long-range plans. Experienced PIs could write papers instead of five or six grants a year. Then why don't experienced PI's submit requests with smaller budgets? If we didn't ask for a million dollars to do a ten thousand dollar project, then more projects could be funded. That seems to be a PI problem and not an NSF problem. |
|
|
|
Post by odyssey on Jun 11, 2010 15:38:08 GMT -5
One explanation for low funding rates could be that the amounts of money in play are huge... Define huge. My NSF grant would probably seem huge to a mathematician, but is just barely enough to do the work I proposed. On the other hand, my grant is small compared to a R01 from the NIH. While I agree the funding rates are dangerously low, I don't think you can blame that on "huge" grants. The NSF is severely underfunded given that their mandate is to fund of all the non-biomedical sciences. In that case, it's not the NSF that's broken, it's Congress. Equally baffling are the cases when labs with excellent NSF funding records are denied funding for minor offenses. Define "minor offense." If you expect people to carry on a reasonable discussion of whether or not the "system is broken" at the very least do us the favor of providing explanations (and preferably data) for your claims. All this talk about NSF grants being too large and the need for a small grant program needs to be couched in the right framework. And as pointed out by others in various places in this forum, there is nothing stopping you from writing an NSF proposal with a small budget. |
|
|
|
Post by Aureliano Buendia on Jun 12, 2010 12:07:47 GMT -5
I have provided stats: funding rates of around 10%, "Not Competitive" rates of over 70%. And my own anecdotal experience, developed over collaborations with many, many labs, is that when the federal spigot is turned on, efforts are not made to spend money wisely, just to spend every last cent before the spigot is shut off.
An NSF program office recently told me that DNA work can easily merit up to $180,000/year. Most organismal biologists that I know could do the work for FAR less than that, including hiring personnel. Has any effort been made to adjust what is reasonable as technology has gotten cheaper? Nope. Just keep the money flowing.
Sure, we need to lobby congress for more funding for NSF. But seriously, how's that workin' out for ya? If you mean to claim that the system isn't broken, they I can't take you seriously. The system is designed to ferret out the smallest issues with grants in order to reject them. And name and status of PIs certainly factors into that.
You agree that funding rates are dangerously low. It's a zero sum game. If someone is getting twice what they need, someone else isn't getting anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by odyssey on Jun 14, 2010 10:01:51 GMT -5
I have provided stats: funding rates of around 10%, "Not Competitive" rates of over 70%. Alright, here are some real stats on funding rates: dellweb.bfa.nsf.gov/awdfr3/default.asp. Not seeing 10% there... To the best of my knowledge NSF doesn't actually publish the Non-Competitive rates, but 70%? A little bit of an exaggeration, don't you think? The panels I've sat on put fewer than 10% in that category. According to the Context Statement I received for my last application, only 2% in that round were Non-Competitive. An NSF program office recently told me that DNA work can easily merit up to $180,000/year. Most organismal biologists that I know could do the work for FAR less than that, including hiring personnel. Has any effort been made to adjust what is reasonable as technology has gotten cheaper? Nope. Just keep the money flowing. Using that logic perhaps the NSF should give high-energy particle physicists no more money that they currently give theoretical physicists... There are many kinds of "DNA work", some more expensive than others. And in my experience PO's at the NSF are more than happy to slash budgets where they feel it's warranted. |
|
|
|
Post by FundNature on Jun 14, 2010 12:51:36 GMT -5
NSF system is broken because obtaining grants has more to do with PI host institution getting money and covering huge overheads rather than actual science. There are workshops that are run by former and current NSF reviewers who teach how to game the system.
What's really interesting that once a PI secures a NSF grant, the PI can significantly deviate from the original proposal. So writing NSF proposals is more geared toward making it "Competitive" by wording it in such a way that it matches closely NSF solicitations rather than expressing true interests and intentions of the PI.
Once huge grants are obtained - and NSF does encourage big grants with plenty of allocation to "broader impacts" - the grants are used to cover huge overheads of PI's host institution and fund the PI's lab to do whatever the PI actually wants to do.
So obtaining NSF grant has more to do with ability to craft proposals that closely match NSF solicitations and striking luck with reviewers than actual science.
Crafting NSF proposals is an art by itself and does not necessarily correlate with PI's ability to do top-notch science.
The fact that NSF is underfunded, heavily bureaucratic entity that is deeply segregated into divisions, the divisions that are very poorly suited for interdisciplinary research, makes the "broken system," both "broken and shattered."
|
|
|
|
Post by guest on Jun 14, 2010 19:15:41 GMT -5
I know some PI's get funded only when certain NSF program directors are in charge. I think the program directors should be careful to be more objective. Some people who served as NSF PD advise the PIs that getting funded is not just the science/content but the relationship or network PIs may have. So are we in to select the projects for excellence or for the relationship with some PD's and PI's? We may as well abolish all peer review systems and save some money and efforts if the latter (relationship based funding) is prevalent, similar to the corrupt society.
|
|
|
|
Post by backup on Jun 16, 2010 8:10:55 GMT -5
Hey Odyssey, I'll chime in here. My recent proposal in DEB Evolutionary Processes came back (rejected) with the following rate breakdown: Outstanding 13 6%
Superior 15 7%
Meritorious 35 15%
Not Competitive 164 72% The funding rate was suggested by this quote "In the FY2009 fiscal year, the Evolutionary Processes (EP) Cluster funded 18% of submitted research proposals, substantially higher than in recent years because of a one-time infusion of additional resources to NSF through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The funding rate in FY 2010 is likely to be substantially lower." So 10% does look like an exaggeration, but not by much. |
|
