Broader Impact of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010
06.1.10 by Michelle Kienholz
As nicely summarized by Jeffrey Mervis in ScienceInsider, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (H.R.5116) has passed the House on its third attempt. The Senate still needs to take up the measure, and then any differences would need to be reconciled. While this bill authorizes $84 billion for research, education, and other programs over the next 5 years at the NSF (which gets $40B), the Department of Energy, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, another less welcome bit of NSF authorization is include. Namely, the new Broader Impact review criteria:
SEC. 214. BROADER IMPACTS REVIEW CRITERION.
(a) Goals- The Foundation shall apply a Broader Impacts Review Criterion to achieve the following goals:
(1) Increased economic competitiveness of the United States.
(2) Development of a globally competitive STEM workforce.
(3) Increased participation of women and underrepresented minorities in STEM.
(4) Increased partnerships between academia and industry.
(5) Improved pre-K-12 STEM education and teacher development.
(6) Improved undergraduate STEM education.
(7) Increased public scientific literacy.
(8) Increased national security.
(b) Policy- Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director shall develop and implement a policy for the Broader Impacts Review Criterion that–
(1) provides for educating professional staff at the Foundation, merit review panels, and applicants for Foundation research grants on the policy developed under this subsection;
(2) clarifies that the activities of grant recipients undertaken to satisfy the Broader Impacts Review Criterion shall–
(A) to the extent practicable employ proven strategies and models and draw on existing programs and activities; and
(B) when novel approaches are justified, build on the most current research results;
(3) allows for some portion of funds allocated to broader impacts under a research grant to be used for assessment and evaluation of the broader impacts activity;
(4) encourages institutions of higher education and other nonprofit education or research organizations to develop and provide, either as individual institutions or in partnerships thereof, appropriate training and programs to assist Foundation-funded principal investigators at their institutions in achieving the goals of the Broader Impacts Review Criterion as described in subsection (a); and
(5) requires principal investigators applying for Foundation research grants to provide evidence of institutional support for the portion of the investigator’s proposal designed to satisfy the Broader Impacts Review Criterion, including evidence of relevant training, programs, and other institutional resources available to the investigator from either their home institution or organization or another institution or organization with relevant expertise.
Actually, the new first and eighth goals are not far off from the NSF’s original intent: “The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent federal agency created by Congress in 1950 ‘to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense…’ ” Who knew?
Nature’s Corie Lok recently took a look at the NSF’s broader impact requirement, which began in 1997 (and started to be enforced in 2002), though this was based on prior NSF criteria. Even so …
Many NSF-funded researchers find the foundation’s definition of broader impacts to be, perhaps unsurprisingly, broad, and frustratingly vague. …
Because it lacks conceptual clarity, the broader-impacts requirement often leaves researchers unsure about what to include in their proposals, and leads to inconsistencies in how reviewers evaluate applications. …
To make matters worse, the NSF has made little attempt to systematically track how its broader-impacts requirements are being met, or how much grant money is being spent in the process. Nor does it have a system in place to evaluate the effectiveness of the various projects.
Indeed, how does one track the impact of individual NSF-funded investigators on achieving the new first and eighth goals (increased economic competitiveness and national security)? It seems, at least, help may be on the way:
In March, the NSF’s oversight body, the National Science Board, launched a task force to examine how broader impacts can be improved. Chaired by Alan Leshner, chief executive of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington DC, the task force is not expected to make its recommendations until 2011.
Perhaps the task force will concur with suggestions that remove the burden of broader impacts from individual investigators:
Yet such ideas lead to a more fundamental question. Is having every principal investigator working individually on broader impacts — for which many are inexperienced and untrained — the most efficient way of achieving the maximum effect?
Some scholars say no. In a paper published last year, Warren Burggren, a biologist and dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of North Texas in Denton, writes that the job of implementing broader impacts should fall to the researcher’s institution, not to the researcher him or herself. The institution, be it college, department or centre, would pool a portion of the NSF grants obtained by its members and hire the professionals needed to broaden impacts effectively. Scientists should still be involved, but the coordination would happen at the institutional level. “I think it will be more efficient, because you’ve got people doing what they’re trained for,” says Burggren.
Another idea, suggested by Barry Bozeman, a science-policy expert at the University of Georgia in Athens, is for the NSF to create specific research programmes with strong broader-impact goals around areas in which the effects are important and obvious, such as climate change. Bozeman says that the NSF is already following this strategy with awards that, for example, promote the recruitment and retention of women in academic science.
Imagine that … having everyone concentrate on doing what they’re trained to do … talk about making America competitive in science again.
NIH & NSF Entering a New Line of Business
05.13.10 by Michelle Kienholz
Funding it, that is, as part of the new i6 Challenge.
I couldn’t possibly describe this program better than the full announcement:
The i6 Challenge is a new, multi-agency innovation competition led by the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) and its Economic Development Administration (EDA). The DOC and EDA will coordinate this funding opportunity with the NIH, the NSF, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to leverage federal resources and maximize available funding to i6 Challenge winners.
The i6 Challenge is designed to encourage and reward innovative, ground-breaking ideas that will accelerate technology commercialization and new venture formation across the United States, for the ultimate purpose of helping to drive economic growth and job creation.
To accomplish this, the i6 Challenge targets sections of the research-to-deployment continuum that are in need of additional support, in order to strengthen regional innovation ecosystems. Applicants to the i6 Challenge are expected to propose mechanisms to fill in existing gaps in the continuum or leverage existing infrastructure and institutions, such as economic development organizations, academic institutions, or other non-profit organizations, in new and innovative ways to achieve the i6 objectives.
Applicants are also expected to leverage regional strengths, capabilities, and competitive advantages. Furthermore, they are expected to identify a real or persistent problem or an unaddressed opportunity with a sense of urgency, cultivate strong public-private partnerships, provide a credible plan to access resources, demonstrate how the effort will be sustained, and bring together a well-qualified team and partners.
EDA intends to fund implementation grants for technical assistance through its Economic Adjustment Assistance Program under the i6 Challenge.
EDA will make at least 6 awards of up to $1M – one in each of its 6 regions. EDA can only fund proposals in an area that, on the date of application, meets one (or more) of the following economic distress criteria: 1. An unemployment rate that is, for the most recent 24-month period for which data are available, at least one percentage point greater than the national average unemployment rate; 2. Per capita income that is, for the most recent period for which data are available, 80% or less of the national average per capita income; or 3. Has a “Special Need,” as determined by EDA.
Successful Applicants who are NIH SBIR Grantees with an active SBIR grant as of October 2010 are eligible for up to $500K in supplemental awards.
Successful Applicants who are NSF SBIR Grantees with an active SBIR grant as of July 15, 2010 are eligible for up to $100K (individual) to $500K (collective) in supplemental awards.
USPTO will provide customized intellectual property seminars to entrepreneurs and innovators associated with the winning Applicants.
Applicants must demonstrate a Matching Share of at least $500K, which must be available and committed to the project from non-federal sources. EDA will give preference to applications with higher Matching Shares and to applications with higher levels of cash contributions in their Matching Share.
Strongly recommended letters of intent are due June 15th – full applications due July 15th.
Questions? I can’t imagine … but there will be a conference call on Monday, May 17, 2010 at 2:00 p.m. EDT.
NSF Authorization Bill
04.15.10 by Michelle Kienholz
The good news is that the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2010 (H.R.4997), introduced this week by Daniel Lipinski (D-IL), authorizes budgets of $8.22B for FY11, $8.93B for FY12, $9.56B for FY13, $10.11B for FY14, and $10.70B for FY15. Each FY total is broken down into amounts authorized for research and research-related activities, education and human resources, major equipment and facilities, agency operations and award management, National Science Board, and Inspector General. (Here is what NSF requested.)
The Bill includes a few other spending caveats, starting with an emphasis on “potentially transformative research”:
The Director shall establish a policy that requires the Foundation to use at least 5% of its research budget [not including equipment & facilities funds] to fund basic, high-risk, high-reward research proposals. … the term ‘‘high-risk, high-reward research’’ means research driven by ideas that have the potential to radically change our understanding of an important existing scientific or engineering concept, or leading to the creation of a new paradigm or field of science or engineering, and that is characterized by its challenge to current understanding or its pathway to new frontiers.
Congress is also pushing for more collaborative research at NSF … or maybe one or two particular collaborative arrangements, given the level of detail and funding:
The Director shall award competitive, merit-based awards in amounts not to exceed $5,000,000 over a period of up to 5 years to interdisciplinary research collaborations that are likely to assist in addressing critical challenges to national security, competitiveness, and societal well-being and that— (1) involve at least 2 co-equal principal investigators at the same or different institutions; (2) draw upon well-integrated, diverse teams of investigators, including students or postdoctoral researchers, from one or more disciplines; and (3) foster creativity and pursue high-risk, high-reward research. In selecting grant recipients under this section, the Director shall give priority to applicants that propose to use advances in cyberinfrastructure and simulation-based science engineering.
Well then. I guess earmarkish directives aren’t quite dead.
Universities are also sought to inject life into US manufacturing:
The Director shall carry out a program to award merit-reviewed, competitive grants to institutions of higher education to support fundamental research leading to transformative advances in manufacturing technologies, processes, and enterprises that will support United States manufacturing through improved performance, productivity, sustainability, and competitiveness. Research areas may include— (1) nanomanufacturing; (2) manufacturing and construction machines and equipment, including robotics, automation, and other intelligent systems; (3) manufacturing enterprise systems; (4) advanced sensing and control techniques; (5) materials processing; and (6) information technologies for manufacturing, including predictive and real-time models and simulations, and virtual manufacturing.
Virtual manufacturing. Who knew? There is more language about funding for partnerships with minority-serving institutions, mid-scale research equipment, and a big emphasis on education in STEM (bill focuses on grad students and postdocs).
Of possible interest to anyone seeking NSF funding is the language on “Broader Impacts” and its review criterion. First, why Congress thinks this is important:
The Foundation shall apply a Broader Impacts Review Criterion to achieve the following goals:
(1) Increased economic competitiveness of the United States.
(2) Development of a globally competitive STEM workforce.
(3) Increased participation of women and underrepresented minorities in STEM.
(4) Increased partnerships between academia and industry.
(5) Improved K-12 STEM education and teacher development.
(6) Improved undergraduate STEM education.
(7) Increased public scientific literacy.
(8) Increased national security.
National security? What happened to, “How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training and learning?”
Then the Bill lays out the policy changes (versus current guidance) NSF should implement:
(b) POLICY.—Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director shall develop and implement a policy for the Broader Impacts Review Criterion that—
(1) provides for educating professional staff at the Foundation, merit review panels, and applicants for Foundation research grants on the policy developed under this subsection;
(2) clarifies that the activities of grant recipients undertaken to satisfy the Broader Impacts Review Criterion shall— (A) to the extent practicable employ proven strategies and models and draw on existing programs and activities; and (B) when novel approaches are justified, build on the most current research results;
(3) allows for some portion of funds allocated to broader impacts under a research grant to be used for assessment and evaluation of the broader impacts activity;
(4) encourages institutions of higher education and other nonprofit organizations to develop and provide, either as individual institutions or in partnerships thereof, appropriate training and programs to assist Foundation-funded principal investigators at their institutions in achieving the goals of the Broader Impacts Review Criterion as described in subsection (a); and
(5) requires principal investigators applying for Foundation research grants to provide evidence of institutional support for the portion of the investigator’s proposal designed to satisfy the Broader Impacts Review Criterion, including evidence of relevant training, programs, and other institutional resources available to the investigator from either their home institution or organization or another institution or organization with relevant expertise.
Hmm. And the broader impact on NSF grant applications will be …
OpenNSF Dialogue Now Open for Discussion
03.2.10 by Michelle Kienholz
Quite simply, an open invitation from the NSF to the scientific community:
NSF is developing an Open Goverment Plan, which will serve as the roadmap for our plans to improve transparency, better integrate public participation and collaboration into our core mission, and become more innovative and efficient. As we begin to consider these topics, we’d like to hear your ideas and suggestions. Please visit our OpenNSF dialogue between February 6 and March 19 to give us your input.
2009 International Science & Engineering Visualization Challenge
02.19.10 by Michelle Kienholz
Woohoo! One of my favorite events of the year … the announcement of the NSF & Science International Science & Engineering Visualization Challenge winners.
The NSF maintains a nice Website for this annual competition, and this issue of Science covers the 2009 highlights. Categories include Illustration, Photography, non-interactive media, and interactive media.
Enjoy!
Cool NSF Solicitation … even if it is “transformative”
02.14.10 by Michelle Kienholz
I don’t recall prior NSF solicitations with a subtitle or tag line …
Innovations in Biological Imaging and Visualization (IBIV)
An Ideas Lab activity to stimulate transformative approaches to biological image analysis and data visualization
Preliminary proposals due April 12, 2010 … invited full proposals due July 15, 2010 … 2-10 awards will be made ($5M set aside)
What’s so interesting?
The goal of this activity is to identify opportunities for investment to advance the state-of-the-art in biological image analysis, data visualization, archiving, and dissemination. Participants selected through an open application process will engage in an intensive five-day residential workshop (May 24-28, 2010) to generate project ideas through an innovative, real-time review process. Members of the biological research community, computational theorists and engineers, mathematicians, imaging specialists from other fields, educators involved in training the next generation of researchers, and a range of other specialists (artists, illustrators, etc.) are all strongly encouraged to participate.
[Program Description section rewrites the last sentence above to read:] Participation from molecular and cell biologists, biophysicists, ecologists, evolutionary and population biologists, computational theorists and engineers, mathematicians, imaging specialists from other fields, educators involved in training the next generation of researchers, and a range of other specialists (artists, illustrators, etc.) is strongly encouraged.
The Program Description also lays out some of the potential challenges to be addressed at the Ideas Lab workshop:
Potential applications of biological image capture and analysis are diverse, but offer many scientific and educational benefits:
- Automated feature recognition in complex biological images
- Enhanced algorithms for filtering data from images with low signal-to-noise profiles
- High throughput image or video capture and analysis for quantification or classification of subject matter
- Improved multidimensional spatial registration and object tracking in sequential series or overlapping images
- Validated analysis of heterogeneous data submitted by “citizen scientists”
- Enhanced representation and visualization of multi-dimensional datasets for dissemination of scientific findings
A myriad of challenges and barriers must be overcome for biological image analysis to reach its full potential. Advances in the applications listed above, or in one of many other areas, could have profound impacts on the biological research community, and other scientific disciplines.
The narrative for the preliminary proposal due in April is exactly 2 pages in length. The first half of page one is should describe your professional background, with the other half of the page covering the special expertise you bring to biological image analysis & visualization … plus 50 words or less describing “an imaging challenge you think should be addressed at the Ideas Lab.”
Page two includes responses of no more than 100 words to the following questions:
- What is your personal experience with working in teams?
- How would you describe your ability to explain your research to non-experts?
- The Ideas Lab environment is especially suited to individuals who are willing to step outside their particular area of interest or expertise, who are positively driven, who enjoy creative activity, who can think innovatively and who can settle in easily in the company of strangers. Please describe an experience you have had in a comparable environment.
- What would you personally and professionally gain from participating in this Ideas Lab event?
No appendices or supplementary material … no project summary … no references or budget etc.
Have fun. Have transformative ideas.
FY11 Budget Take 1
02.2.10 by Michelle Kienholz
Quick post with some links to nice Science Insider overviews of Obama’s budget request for the NIH ($32.1B, with 3% increase from FY10) and NSF ($7.4B, with 8% increase from FY10). The NIH news sounds good until you get to:
The pot of money for new and competing extramural grants will fall 0.3% to roughly $4 billion, and the number of these grants will drop by 199 to 9052. And demand for grants could soar because of the many scientists who received temporary, 2-year funding through the $8.2 billion for extramural research that NIH received in the Recovery Act.
Indeed, Collins expects success rates—the chances that a submitted application will be funded—to slide in 2011.
The Chronicle of Higher Education has a great table showing the increase from FY10 to FY11 for individual ICs at the NIH and Directorates at NSF (keep scrolling down past the DoEd listings to “In Other Federal Agencies”). Nature likewise has a summary of who got what (including more detail on NSF).
You can also check out the 114-p Budget in Brief for a summary of all HHS budget components.
Maybe Congress will pass appropriation bills by this time next year … or maybe not.
Grantsmanship Downloads Page Added
01.3.10 by Michelle Kienholz
Happy 2010, everyone!
I’ve added a page (see top list of links in the right margin) with downloadable grantsmanship files … some from the NIH and NSF and a couple of writedit originals. One summarizes the shorter application format and enhanced review/scoring procedures, and the other is a big catch-all introduction to NIH terminology, policies, and whatnot for young investigators as well as an overview of early career stage funding mechanisms (fellowships, career development, diversity supplements). I’ll add more as I find them online or refine my own – suggestions welcome (as are critiques of what I’ve put up). Cheers!
Science Works For Us
11.18.09 by Michelle Kienholz
Literally, considering ARRA research awards are tax-payer funded.
ScienceWorksForUS, which highlights all aspects of stimulus funding for university-based research activities, is brought to you by the Association of American Universities, the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, and The Science Coalition. You’ll find the expected news feeds about the economic stimulus program generally, ARRA-funded research anecdotes, and research findings stemming from ARRA-funded efforts.
The level of detail at the state level is nicely organized: total dollars and number of awards plus links to individual universities (the Web pages on which they report their ARRA awards and whatnot), a breakdown by funding agency (NIH, NSF, DoE), and more state- and university-specific news releases related to ARRA-funded research. You can run your cursor over the US map to quickly compare who’s getting what out of this initiative and click on individual states for the aforementioned details.
As a reminder, NIAID invites you to contribute your own story of how ARRA funds have helped you, as does the US DHHS, which invites you to submit stories or comments about ARRA funding.
Stimulus Outcomes
10.14.09 by Michelle Kienholz
So, with one FY of ARRA/stimulus funding behind us, where and how is it going? Nature has an economical infographic showing how 7 federal agencies are spending their R&D stimulus dollars and also includes brief commentaries by 6 experts on “what concerns them most about the US stimulus spending and … ways to ensure that it benefits research and society in the long term.” Many touch on the problems of feast-famine cycles in research funding and how these hit young researchers particularly hard. I suspect Michael Teitelbaum (Sloan Foundation)’s essay on “Incentives for universities do not promote sustainable behavior” will resonate with many regular readers of this blog.
