I'm a molecular biophysicist in a biochemistry department. In a college of medicine. And I'm funded by the NSF. Not too sure my dean likes that... I'm here to blather on about things that interest me and to raise the average age of the bloggers here by at least 1.2567 years. And I'm Australian.
My posts are presented as opinion and commentary and do not represent the views of LabSpaces Productions, LLC, my employer, or my educational institution.
I haven't gotten very far with the stack of proposals I need to review for my upcoming review panel meeting, but guys, you're not doing so well.
Let's have a look at what we have so far, shall we?
1) A proposal that does not address the Broader Impacts (BI) criteria. At all. Look, I know these can be a pain, but ignoring them? Not going to work. Read the NSF's Grant Proposal Guidelines (GPG). Or at least skim the review criteria bit. You can't be funded if you don't do a decent job on the BI's. Doesn't matter how good your science is.
And your science isn't that great.
2) A proposal with a central hypothesis along the lines of "I hypothesize grass is green."* And then you outline a series of experiments, some in excruciating detail and others with no detail at all, that don't even test the patently ridiculous hypothesis...
3) A proposal with Headings in Blue Text, Subheadings in Red Text, and important points highlighted using italicized red text. Did you really think this was a good idea? I haven't read your proposal yet, but I can tell you, try as I might, I'm starting with a slightly negative outlook. Way to go!
4) Two proposals from new investigators who have failed to check the "new investigator" box.** Stupid, stupid, stupid.
You guys are lucky in that I will point out at the panel that you really are new investigators. If you're truly lucky the PO will pay attention.
* We're talking about disease- and pest-free grass that has had adequate water and fertilizer.
** Yes, they really are new investigators - I did my homework.
This post has been viewed: 1855 time(s)