NSF major divisions• Biological Sciences  • Molecular and Cellular Biosciences

Integrative Organismal BiologyEnvironmental BiologyBiological InfrastructureEmerging FrontiersPlant Genome Research Computer and Information Science and Engineering

• Computing and Communication FoundationsComputer and Network SystemsInformation and Intelligent SystemsInformation Technology Research Engineering  

• Chemical, Biological, Environmental and Transport Systems Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing InnovationElectrical, Communications and Cyber Systems Industrial Innovation and PartnershipsEngineering Education and CentersEmerging Frontiers in Research and Innovation Geosciences  

• Atmospheric SciencesEarth SciencesInnovative and Collaborative Education and ResearchOcean Sciences Mathematical and Physical Sciences

• Astronomical SciencesChemistryMaterials ResearchMathematical SciencesPhysicsMultidisciplinary Activities Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences

• Social and Economic SciencesBehavioral and Cognitive SciencesScience Resources Statistics Office of Cyberinfrastructure

http://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2007/toc.jsp

Where to go to see information on funding agencies

• Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)• Department of Energy, Office of Energy Research (DOE)• Department of Transportation (DOT) • Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) • Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR)• National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)• National Science Foundation (NSF) • National Institutes of Health (NIH) • National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST) • USDA Cooperative State Research, Education and Exte

nsion Service (USDA CSREES)

http://www.admin.mtu.edu/research/sprot/funding/federal.html (this link is active)

USDA-NRIhttp://www.csrees.usda.gov/fo/fundview.cfm?fonum=1606

Focus areas:• Agricultural & Food Biosecurity • Agricultural Systems • Animals & Animal Products • Biotechnology & Genomics • Economics & Commerce • Families, Youth & Communities • Food, Nutrition & Health • Natural Resources & Environment • Pest Management • Plants & Plant Products • Technology & Engineering

http://www.csrees.usda.gov/funding/rfas/pdfs/07_nri.pdf

FY2007 RFA• http://www.csrees.usda.gov/funding/rfas/pdfs/07_nri.pdf • Program Opportunities• Program Code - Program Name

– 20.2 - Plant Biosecurity

– 23.1 - Managed Ecosystems

– 28.0 - Air Quality

– 31.0 - Bioactive Food Components for Optimal Health

– 31.5 - Human Nutrition and Obesity

– 32.1 - Epidemiological Approaches for Food Safety – 41.0 - Animal Reproduction

– 42.0 - Animal Growth and Nutrient Utilization

– 43.0 - Animal Genome (A): Applied Animal Genomics

– 44.0 - Animal Protection and Biosecurity (B): Animal Well-Being

• 44.0 - Animal Protection and Biosecurity (C): Animal Biosecurity Coordinated Agricultural Projects (CAP)

– 51.9 - Biology of Weedy and Invasive Species in Agroecosystems

– 52.1 - Plant Genome (D): Applied Plant Genomics Coordinated Agricultural Project (CAP)

– 56.0 - Plant Biology (A): Gene Expression and Genetic Diversity

– 56.0 - Plant Biology (B): Environmental Stress

– 66.0 - Agricultural Prosperity for Small and Medium-Sized Farms

–71.1 - Improving Food Quality and Value

Purpose and Priorities

• The purpose of the USDA-NRI Program is to support research, extension, and education grants that address key problems of national, regional, and multistate importance in sustaining all components of agriculture (farming, ranching, forestry including urban and agroforestry, aquaculture, rural communities, human nutrition, processing, etc.).

Type of applicationsgrant size: $5,000 to $1,500,000

success rate: 17 % • New• Resubmitted• Renewal • Resubmitted renewal

• Research grant• Conference• AREA (Agricultural Research Enhancement awards)

– Postdoctoral– New Investigator– Strengthening Awards

• Small institutions• Limited success• Sabbatical• seed grants• Equipment grants

USDA has a number of programs

• 56.0 Plant Biology (C): Biochemistry • Investigators are encouraged to contact National Program Leader

Dr. Gail McLean (202-401-6060 or gmclean@csrees.usda.gov) regarding questions about suitability of research topics for this program element.

• Proposed budget requests must not exceed $400,000 (including indirect costs) for research projects for project periods of 2-4 years. Requests for funding above $400,000 will be returned to the applicant without review.

• The total amount of support available for the Biochemistry program element will be approximately $4.2 million.

• Note: This program requires a letter of intent by December 6, 2006 (5:00pm ET) prior to application submission. Applications submitted without an approved letter of intent will not be reviewed.

• Program Deadline: Electronic submissions for invited applications must be submitted by 5:00 P.M., Eastern Time, February 14, 2007.

THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE….

A bunch of forms to be filled and 15 copies to be mailed

• Proposal Cover Page (Form CSREES-2002) • Table of Contents • Project Summary (Form CSREES-2003) • Response to Previous Review (if applicable) • Project Description (see instructions for page limitations) 18 pages• References to Project Description • Facilities and Equipment • Key Personnel (vitae and publications list) • Collaborative Arrangements (including letters of support) • Conflict-of-Interest List (Form CSREES-2007) • Results from Prior NRI Support (if applicable) • Budget (Form CSREES-2004) • Budget Narrative • Matching (if required) • Current and Pending Support (Form CSREES-2005) • Assurance Statement (s) (Form CSREES-2008) • Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (Form CSREES-2006) • Appendices to Project Description • Personal Data on Project Director (s) (Page B of Form CSREES-2002)

Now electronic by grants.gov

Evaluation criteria

1. Scientific merit of the application for research, extension and/or education

2. Qualifications of proposed project personnel and adequacy of facilities

3. Planning and administration of the proposed project

4. Relevance of the proposal to improvements in and sustainability of U.S. agriculture

Scientific merit

1. novelty, uniqueness, and originality2. conceptual adequacy of hypothesis or

research question3. clarity and delineation of objectives4. adequacy of description of the undertaking5. suitability and feasibility of methodology6. demonstration of feasibility through

preliminary data7. probability of success of project

Qualifications

Qualifications of proposed project personnel and adequacy of facilities:

1. training and awareness of previous and alternative approaches, performance record and/or potential for future accomplishments2. time allotted for systematic attainment of objectives3. Institutional experience and competence in subject area4. adequacy of available or obtainable support personnel, facilities and instrumentation

Relevance?

Relevance of the project to long-range improvements in and sustainability of U.S. agriculture

1. documentation that the research is directed towards a current or likely future problem in U.S. agriculture2. development of basic research ideas towards practical application

Rating

Each reviewer is asked to rate each proposal overall as either:

• excellent

• very good

• good

• fair

• poor

Panel recommendations

The following categories are generally used to rank proposals by the Panel:

• Outstanding ***• High priority for funding **• Medium priority for funding • Low priority for funding • Some scientific merit • Do not fund

Proposals are also ranked in each category (mainly in first two-three only)Success rate 20-25% actual 17% last year as per new info

The mission of the Department of Energy's Office of Science is to Deliver the remarkable discoveries and scientific tools that transformour understanding of energy and master and advance the national, economic, and energy security of the United States.

DOE Mission

http://www.er.doe.gov/index.htm

DOE Office of Science• The Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic

research in the physical sciences in the United States, providing more than 40 percent of total funding for this vital area of national importance. It oversees – and is the principal federal funding agency of – the Nation’s research programs in high-energy physics, nuclear physics, and fusion energy sciences.

• The Office of Science manages fundamental research programs in basic energy sciences, biological and environmental sciences, and computational science. In addition, the Office of Science is the Federal Government’s largest single funder of materials and chemical sciences, and it supports unique and vital parts of U.S. research in climate change, geophysics, genomics, life sciences, and science education.

Crown Jewels• Multi-program Laboratories:

• Argonne National Laboratory • Brookhaven National Laboratory• Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory• Oak Ridge National Laboratory • Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

• The other five are single-program national laboratories:

• Ames Laboratory • Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory • Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility • Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory • Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

Five Interdisciplinary Programs

• Advanced Scientific Computing Research

• Basic Energy Sciences

• Biological and Environmental Research

• Fusion Energy Sciences

• High Energy Physics

• Nuclear Physics

FAQ: http://www.sc.doe.gov/sub/about/faq.htm

TOC

· Face Page (Form DOE F 4650.2) including authorizing signatures

· Budget Page(s) (Form DOE F. 4620.1) · Project Description · Biographical Sketches · Facilities and Resources· Bibliography of literature · Statement of current and pending support · Assurances and certifications

Electronic submission and preapplication

Evaluation Criteria

New and renewal applications will be subjected to formal merit review and will be evaluated against the following criteria which are listed in descending order of importance as set forth in 10 CFR Part 605:

1. Scientific and/or technical merit or the educational benefits of the

project; 2. Appropriateness of the proposed method or approach; 3. Competency of applicant's personnel and adequacy of proposed

resources; 4. Reasonableness and appropriateness of the proposed budget; and 5. Other appropriate factors, established and set forth in a notice of

availability or in a specific solicitation.

Foundations and Industries

http://foundationcenter.org/

• Thousands of philanthropist organizations• Billions of $ to be given• Most important thing is to find a match

between organization and your topic• Alternatively alter your goal to fit the

organization• Most of the applications are quite short,

decisions taken by smaller groups who look for things other than science

http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/topfunders/top100assets.html http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/topfunders/top100giving.html

Rank Name/(state) Assets

As ofFiscal YearEnd Date

1. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (WA) $29,153,508,000 12/31/05

2. The Ford Foundation (NY) 11,615,906,693 09/30/05

3. J. Paul Getty Trust (CA) 9,618,627,974 06/30/05

4. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (NJ) 9,359,361,000 12/31/05

5. Lilly Endowment Inc. (IN) 8,360,760,584 12/31/05

6. The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation (CA) 7,336,131,000 12/31/05

7. W. K. Kellogg Foundation (MI) 7,298,383,532 08/31/05

8. The David and Lucile Packard Foundation (CA) 5,788,480,930 12/31/05

9. The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation (NY) 5,586,112,000 12/31/05

10. John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation (IL) 5,490,449,000 12/31/05

The list below includes the 100 largest U.S. grantmaking foundations ranked by the market value of their assets, based on the most current audited financial data in the Foundation Center's database as of October 12, 2006. Fiscal records will be updated when more recent audited financial information is obtained.

http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/topfunders/top100assets.html

Rank Name/(state) Total Giving

As ofFiscal YearEnd Date

1. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (WA) $1,182,826,639 12/31/03

2. Lilly Endowment Inc. (IN) 462,336,723 12/31/03

3. The Ford Foundation (NY) 431,643,480 09/30/03

4. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (NJ) 390,600,294 12/31/03

5. The Bristol-Myers Squibb Patient Assistance Foundation, Inc. (NJ) 297,134,526 12/31/02

6. The David and Lucile Packard Foundation (CA) 277,891,647 12/31/03

7. Merck Patient Assistance Program, Inc. (NJ) 244,000,295 12/31/02

8. The Pew Charitable Trusts (PA) 238,534,822 12/31/02

9. The Starr Foundation (NY) 209,301,410 12/31/02

10. John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation (IL) 195,573,328 12/31/02

Top ten US foundations

Rank Name/(state) Total Giving

As of Fiscal Year End Date

1. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (WA) $1,356,327,000 12/31/05

2. Merck Patient Assistance Program, Inc. (NJ) 519,998,639 12/31/04

3. The Ford Foundation (NY) 516,907,177 09/30/05

4. The Bristol-Myers Squibb Patient Assistance Foundation, Inc. (NJ) 506,639,972 12/31/04

5. Lilly Endowment Inc. (IN) 427,465,199 12/31/05

6. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (NJ) 372,500,000 12/31/05

7. The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation (CA) 319,916,093 12/31/05

8. Janssen Ortho Patient Assistance Foundation, Inc. (NJ) 289,783,393 12/31/04

9. The Annenberg Foundation (PA) 251,663,628 06/30/05

10. Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (CA) 225,986,140 12/31/04

Industries

• Handsome big grants!• To solve a specific problem• Industry comes to you than you go to them (or you

induce them to come to you)• Short proposals (1-2 pages at times)• No forms to fill but contracts• More specific on deliverables (no guarantees)• Less “how to do” details• Comes with many Intellectual property issues• Less freedom to publish and support students• Co-ops

ZEN IN THE ART OF GRANTSMANSHIP

(or, This Ain't About Money, It's About Attitude):

A GRANTSEEKER'S GUIDE

http://www.mindspring.com/~bozartmt/zen_in.html

Visit this site to read more about grantsmanship

Final advice• What Every Good Proposal Should Contain

The Need - You must demonstrate that the proposed activity is needed and that this need is not being met elsewhere. Who is the potential audience, what is the geographic area to be served, why is this need not being met already, how many people will be served, etc.

The Plan - You must explain how you intend to meet this need. What you will do, what is your timetable, why is this the best way to do it, how it will be promoted, what criteria will you use to determine if it was successful, etc. You should be clear and SPECIFIC! Your goal is to prove your project is fail-safe. Anticipate and propose solutions to the potential objections and problems.

Why You? - You must demonstrate why you are the most logical means by which this plan can be carried out. Even if the granting agency accepts that there is a need and your plan can meet it, why should they believe that you are capable of carrying it out successfully? What are your special skills and resources, what is your past history of activities in this area, how successful have you been in the past, what has been the size of your past audience, how many people have been involved in your activities in the past? Be especially sure that you identify the particular personnel who will have primary responsibility, and provide resumes if appropriate.

Budget - You must demonstrate that this plan can be carried out (by you!) at an acceptable cost. This means a detailed budget, providing both income and expense projections. The more detailed and specific you are (within reason), the better.

My three simple rules

• Know who you are!• Know who you want to be!• Learn how to get from here to there!

Concluding Remarks

What did I learn from teaching this course?

A BIG THANK YOU to you all!!!

• For taking this class• Attending it so regularly• You were very eager to learn• Being attentive• Submitting all assignments on time (?)• Finishing final proposal on time• Reviewing other proposals • Participating in panel meeting

Something about Reviews

• You might be the first time grant writers• You all are first time reviewers, panel members• More about learning process than the outcome• If someone criticized your proposal, do not take

it personally• You have to learn from criticism and improve• Do not try to find who wrote, what and why?• This is how it is supposed to be the Real World!

2004-2005

• Meghan McGee : NSF Graduate Fellowship

• Veronica Brieno Rankin: Visiting Fellowship for Acknowledged Research Leaders via Land and Water, Australia

• Valerie Fuchs: NSF Graduate Fellowship (special coaching)

Acknowledgments

• Anita Quinn, Kim Codere, Jackie Huntoon, Dave Reed, Peter Larsen

• Chung-Jui Tsai, John Jaszczak and John Vucetich

• Faculty reviewers

• You all!

Remember..

• What you learnt in this class and practice it to perfection!

• Hall of Fame! Do email me when you get your first grant

• Have a nice summer!