Dear PI's who wrote the NSF proposals I am now reviewing...

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Oh dear.

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.

If you need help with BI's, have a look here. And here.

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.

Recent Comments

Comment by Cole Parmer in Hypotheses: The most disposable of lab supplies

Haha the comment above is funny! Research before hypothesis! . . .Read More

Aug 09, 2012, 1:48pm

Comment by Tim in Peer review, schmeer review

Good article! "Do proponents of this system have any idea just how hard it is to find reviewers under the current system?" I've just stumbled across this artcile, so my comments are. . .Read More

Oct 13, 2011, 5:20pm

Comment by Tideliar in Standing out in a crowd

Rules of the Internets, #3"Don't necro dead threads n00b"Corollary Rule 3.1"If the best you can add is content-lite, don't fucking necro dead threads n00b"Corollary Rul. . .Read More

Jul 06, 2011, 5:48pm

Comment by mrs.stanford in DonorsChoose - give early and give often. [UPDATED]

anyone interested in helping my kindergarteners? Check out http://www.donorschoos. . .Read More

Jan 25, 2011, 10:47am

Comment by Anonymous in Standing out in a crowd

Thanks for the post! Very helpful. - Reshmi . . .Read More

Jan 13, 2011, 12:44am

Blog Comments

Page: 1

Follow the blog comments feed here.

Thomas Joseph

Rate Post:

Wed, Sep 29, 2010, 12:59 pm CDT

Re: Broader Impacts: I see that the NSF still considers PostDoc mentoring to fall under broader impacts. For a lot of the work (e.g., NIFA) I've been asked to review, that doesn't cut it any longer. In regards to education, the target needs to be grade school, middle school, and high school students. To that effect we're interfacing a lot more with groups like the FFA.

Namnezia

Wed, Sep 29, 2010, 1:02 pm CDT

I have a question for you - I was just looking through you NSF advice page, and you mentioned something about PO's wanting to keep their investigators funded. However, my impression is that PO's are there on a rotating basis, so would have no long-term vested interest in supporting a particular investigator. When I first submitted my proposal is spoke to one PO, by the time the reviews came in and the proposal got funded there was a new PO, last year there is now a totally different PO overseeing my grant.

Tideliar

Wed, Sep 29, 2010, 1:48 pm CDT

"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..."

Jeesus, i got one of these on an internal study section once. I was thinking, OK...well, you're a n00b PI so maybe I'll be nice for while and read on. What about experiments to test this amazing H1...

...Nothing....or at least no detail, just lots of hand waving and the small issue that if experimental set 1 failed, there is no more work to do. And this wasn't acknowledged. Did you think i wouldn't notice?

You want to $250,000 and you don't know if your basic premise is correct yet?

Odyssey

Wed, Sep 29, 2010, 1:55 pm CDT

@TJ:
PD mentoring does fall under the BI's, but the NSF now requires a separate PD mentoring plan in the supplementary material, so in effect it's removed from the bulk of the BI's. And while BI's aimed at K-12 education are great, IME they're not essential. One can do a lot targeting undergrads, but it has to be more than just having a few in the lab.

@Namnezia:
The rotating PO's do appear contrary to my assertion. However, all of the NSF programs have permanent PO's as well as rotators. Ultimately the permanent PO's oversee the entire portfolio for the program, so there really is some continuity. One of these days I should do a post on rotating PO's...

@Tideliar:
Sadly this wasn't a n00b PI...

Brian Krueger, PhD
Duke University

Wed, Sep 29, 2010, 2:06 pm CDT

I'm never going to write an NSF grant for fear that it falls into Odyssey's hands.

Dr Becca, Ph.D.

Wed, Sep 29, 2010, 2:12 pm CDT

The font style and color changes are amazing. I can just picture the thought process: Hmm..you know what would make this grant really stand out? COLOR CODED HEADINGS! My reviewer will be so grateful because this will make it so much easier to read!!!!

Brian Krueger, PhD said: I'm never going to write an NSF grant for fear that it falls into Odyssey's hands.

On review panels, the other members refer to me as "That Bastard." :-)

Actually Brian, I'd be happy to ~~trash~~ provide constructive feedback for any NSF proposals you write. Just don't use blue and red text. Especially not italicized red text.