. Overview of the Chemistry Division in the Directorate for Mathematical & Physical

Overview of the Chemistry
Division in the Directorate for
Mathematical & Physical
Sciences (MPS)
Tyrone D. Mitchell, Ph.D.
Program Director
Organic and Macromolecular Chemistry Program
Division of Chemistry
Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences
[email protected], www.nsf.gov
(703) 292-4947
Disclaimer …
NSF Update
NSF Vision
To enable America’s future through
discovery, learning and innovation
NSF Mission
• Promote progress of science;
• Advance national health, prosperity,
and welfare;
• Secure national defense.
NSF’s Strategic Goals

Discovery – Foster research that will advance
frontiers of knowledge: Emphasize areas of
greatest opportunity and potential benefit.
Establish the Nation as a global leader in
fundamental and transformational science and
engineering.

Learning – Cultivate a world-class, broadly inclusive science and
engineering workforce. Expand the scientific literacy of all
citizens.

Research Infrastructure – Build the Nation’s research capability
through critical investments in advanced instrumentation,
facilities, cyberinfrastructure, and experimental tools.

Stewardship – Support excellence in science and engineering
research and education through a capable and responsive
organization.
The Dragon and the Elephant: Understanding the Developing Innovation
Capacity in China and India
MPS is key to American competitiveness!
Sept. 2007 National Academies (STEP)
(http://www7.nationalacademies.org/step/china_india_web_presentations.html)
2005
National Academies
study urging
Federal action to
save US Science
and Technology
Leadership
•
Increase US talent pool
•
Strengthen basic research
•
Develop, recruit and retain the best and
brightest
•
Ensure innovation in America
•
ACI Emphases
2006
•
Tie fundamental discoveries to
marketable technologies
•
Facilities and instrumentation
•
World class science and engineering
workforce
•
Focus on Physical Sciences &
Engineering
•
Double NSF, DOE-OS, NIST over 10
years
•
Biggest federal response since Sputnik
2007
FY 1980
FY 2000
Arkansas
Maine
Montana
South Carolina
West Virginia
Alaska
FY 1985
FY 2002
Alabama
Kentucky
Nevada
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Puerto Rico
Vermont
Wyoming
U.S. Virgin Islands
FY 1987
FY 2001
Hawaii
New Mexico
EPSCoR Cohorts
FY 2003
Delaware
FY 2004
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Idaho
Louisiana
Mississippi
South Dakota
FY 1992
Kansas
Nebraska
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
http://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/programs/epscor/about.jsp
EPSCoR operates in those states that have historically received lesser amounts of Federal
research and development funding. The program focuses on states that have demonstrated a
commitment to develop their research bases and improve the quality of science and engineering
research conducted at their universities and colleges.
Cyber-enabled Discovery and Innovation
It’s a 2-way street:
”Materials enable CI” &
“CI will have an enormous
impact on the way we do
research”
www.mcc.uiuc.edu/nsf/ciw_2006/
http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/cyber/agrand.jsp
includes Office of International Science
and Engineering (OISE)
NSF Budget by Directorate
(Dollars in Millions)
BIO
CISE
ENG
GEO
MPS
SBE
OCI
OISE
OPP
OIA
USARC
NSF R&RA
FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals
576.78 $580.90
490.20
496.35
557.09
585.46
697.17
703.95
1,069.36 1,086.61
196.80
201.23
123.40
127.14
43.38
42.61
348.53
390.54
130.92
233.30
1.19
1.17
4234.82
4449.25
Change
Change
from
FY 2007
from
05 to 06 Request 06 to 07
0.7%
$607.85
4.6%
1.3%
526.69
6.1%
5.1%
628.55
7.4%
1.0%
744.85
5.8%
1.6%
1150.30
5.9%
2.3%
213.76
6.2%
3.0%
182.42 43.5%
-1.8%
40.61 -4.7%
12.1%
438.10 12.2%
78.2%
231.37 -0.8%
-1.7%
1.45 23.9%
5.1%
4,765.95
7.1%
FY 2008
Request
$633.00
574.00
683.30
792.00
1,253.00
222.00
200.00
45.00
464.90
263.00
1.49
Change
from
07 to 08
4.1%
9.0%
8.7%
6.3%
8.9%
3.9%
9.6%
10.8%
6.1%
13.7%
2.8%
5,131.69
7.7%
NSF Budget for 2008





FY2007
FY2008
NSF Total Budget
$5.917 B
P-$6.429 B
S-$6.553 B
H-$6.509 B
 FY2008 (Final)
B = billions
M = millions
$ Increase Recommended
President
Senate
House
511.8 M
636.2 M 591.8 M
8.7%
10.2%
10.0%
$6.065 B (147.8 M, 2.5%)
Good News for FY 2009
 The President's Budget request for FY 2009 is
now official, and the great news is: NSF is up
by 14% and CHE is up by 26%! That is an
increase in CHE's budget from $194.22M to
$244.67M -- an increase of $50.45M. Of this,
$12.50M was requested for Centers, and
$37.95M for the core and other programs.
 http://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2009/toc.jsp
Key Characteristics of MPS
 Most extensive & diverse scientific portfolio
 ACI-centered: fundamental discovery to
marketable technologies
 Largest budget: $1.25B FY08
 Develops & supports major facilities
 Diverse approaches: smaller individual PI
grants to larger centers/institutes
Ten-Year Funding History
MPS Subactivity Funding
(Dollars in Millions)
$300
$250
$200
$150
$100
$50
$0
FY98
FY99
DMR
FY00
FY01
PHY
FY02
CHE
FY03
FY04
AST
FY05
DMS
FY06
FY07
OMA
FY08
National Science Foundation
Directorate for
Mathematical and Physical Sciences
Division of
Astronomical
Sciences
Division of
Chemistry
AST
CHE
Division of
Materials
Research
DMR
Division of
Mathematical
Sciences
DMS
Office of Multidisciplinary Activities (OMA)
Division of
Physics
PHY
MPS Office of Multidisciplinary Activities
 Characteristics:
 Not a traditional ‘program’ function: does not
receive/evaluate external proposals; Advice/guidance from
MPS management including division directors
 Co-invests with MPS Divisions, other NSF Directorates,
and external partners to foster multidisciplinary activities
 Roles:
 Supports excellence and creativity of MPS community more
effectively
 Works as an investment capital resource and partner to
MPS Divisions to support joint ventures across
organizational boundaries
 Facilitates support of research and education projects not
readily accommodated by existing MPS structures
MPS by Division
(Dollars in Millions)
Change
Change
from
FY 2007
from
05 to 06 Request 06 to 07
2.4%
$215.11
7.7%
0.8%
191.10
5.8%
1.0%
257.45
6.1%
-0.4%
205.74
3.1%
4.1%
248.50
6.1%
0.3%
32.40
8.4%
1.6%
1,150.30
5.9%
FY 2008
Request
$232.97
210.54
282.59
223.47
269.06
34.37
1253.00
Change
from
07 to 08
8.3%
10.2%
9.8%
8.6%
8.3%
6.1%
8.9%
AST
CHE
DMR
DMS
PHY
OMA
Total, MPS
FY 2005 FY 2006
Actuals Actuals
195.11
$199.75
179.26
180.70
240.09
242.59
200.24
199.52
224.86
234.15
29.9
29.80
1,069.36 1,086.61
R&RA
4234.82
4449.25
5.1%
4,765.95
7.1%
5,131.69
7.7%
NSF
5480.78
5645.79
3.0%
6,020.21
6.6%
6429.00
6.8%
FY 2006 Annual Median Award Size and Mean Duration
yrs
$140,000
3.5
$120,000
3
$100,000
2.5
$80,000
2
$60,000
1.5
$40,000
1
$20,000
0.5
$0
0
PHY
AST
DMS
DMR
Median Award Size
CHE
Mean Duration
MPS
NSF
Scientific Opportunities

Physical sciences at the nanoscale

Science beyond “Moore’s Law”

Physics of the universe

Complex systems (multi-scale, emergent phenomena)

Fundamental mathematical and statistical science

Sustainability (energy, environment, climate)

Computational and Cyber-enabled Discovery and
Innovation

Interface between the physical and life sciences
MPS Funding Rate for Competitive
Awards / Research Grants
8000
100%
90%
7000
80%
6000
70%
60%
4000
50%
40%
3000
30%
2000
20%
1000
10%
0
0%
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Competitive Proposal Actions
Competitive Awards
Funding Rate
Percent
Number
5000
Division of Chemistry (CHE)
Inorganic, Bioinorganic, and Organometallic Chemistry
Organic and Macromolecular Chemistry
• Organic Dynamics
• Organic Synthesis
Physical Chemistry
• Theoretical and Computational Chem.
• Experimental Physical Chemistry
Education
Analytical and Surface Chemistry
Integrated Chemical Activities
• Chemical Instrumentation Programs
• Research Experience for Undergraduates
• Undergraduate Research Collaborations
• Discovery Corp Fellows (DCF)
•Centers for Chemical innovation (CCI)
Collaboratives
Centers
Other
Instrumentation
Disciplinary
Programs
Transformative
Research: The Chemical
Bonding Centers (CBC)
FY2005 – Phase I - $500K/yr (3 yrs)
Powering the Planet
Harry Gray, Caltech, PI
Molecular Cybernetics
Milan Stojanovic, Columbia, PI
Chemistry at the Space-Time Limit
Shaul Mukamel, UCI, PI
• “Big” problems in chemical sciences
Broad scientific interest
Public interest
High-risk/high-impact projects
• Agile and cyber-enabled
FY2007: Phase II - $3M /y (5 y)
Center for Enabling New Technologies
through Catalysis (CENTEC)
Karen Goldberg, U. Washington
CENTC brings together a group of
sixteen investigators from across the
United States to work on the
development of efficient, inexpensive
and environmentally friendly methods
of synthesizing organic material by way
of activation of strong bonds.
Projects focus on green chemical,
petroleum, pharmaceutical, and material
production and thus, have a significant
potential to increase US
competitiveness.
Undergraduate Research Collaboratives
3 competitions (’04,’05,’06) resulted in 5 full awards, each ~ $2.7M/5 years.
(No competition in 2008)
CASPiE (Center for Authentic Science Practice in Education)- centered at Purdue
U. (G Weaver) with a consortium of 2- & 4-year institutions in Indiana and Illinois.
Incl. remote instrumentation network.
REEL (Research Experiences for Enhanced Learning)- centered at Ohio State U. (P
Dutta) with a consortium of all (~14) of the public universities in Ohio plus Columbus
Comm. Coll. Impact ~15,000 students.
Northern Plains URC (M Berry)- centered at South Dakota U. - regional cluster incl.
community and tribal colleges.
University of Texas-URC (M Rankin)- A New Model for Teaching through Research.
Integrates 1st & 2nd year lab program (~25% of UT intro chemistry students/50%
minority students) with ongoing chemistry and biochemistry research programs at
UT Austin- a “vertical” collaboration model within a large R1.
Community Colleges of Chicago URC (T Higgins)- To determine factors that
encourage 2YC students to continue in science via traditional student/mentor
research, team research, and partnering with 4 y institutions for summer research.
2007 REU Program
NSF Division of Chemistry
Graz, Austria
Paris, France
Bangkok,
Thailand
76 sites in 39 states, the District of Columbia, France,
Thailand, Austria, and Germany.
03/16/2007
Germany
6
http://www.nsf.gov/
For the Research & Education Community
22 opportunities
of interest:
International
Research
Education
(Ethics)
Teaching
Mentoring
Postdoctoral*
*Also look at
Specialized
Information for
Postdoctoral Fellows
Responsive to Solicitation/Announcement
 What is the over-arching goal of the NSF program?
Know the audience for your proposal’s review - it is
a competition!
 What has been funded before?
 Search on awards
 What are the review criteria (i.e. what does the
solicitation say and what will the reviewers look for)?
NSF Merit Review Process
 By Mail and/or Panel
 Confidential
 Anonymous
Review Criteria
 Criterion 1: intellectual merit?
 Advancement of knowledge and understanding?
 How well qualified is the proposer?
 Impact of prior work?
 Exploration of creative and original concepts?
 How well conceived and organized?
 Resources?
 **new ** To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative,
original, or potentially transformative concepts?
 Criterion 2: broader impacts?
 Promotion of teaching, training, and learning?
 Broadening participation?
 Enhancement of infrastructure?
 Dissemination?
 Benefits to society?
Making Your Ideas Competitive
Transformative Research
 Press Release 07-097 (Aug. 9, 2007)
 The National Science Board defined
transformative research as "research that
has the capacity to revolutionize existing
fields, create new subfields, cause
paradigm shifts, support discovery, and
lead to radically new technologies."
Intellectual Merit
 Designing experiments
 Conducting
experiments
 Interpreting results
 Assessing value
Explicitly address Intellectual Merit and Broader Impact in both the Project
Summary and Project Description!
Broader Impacts
 Communication
 Education
 Underrepresented
Groups
 Industry
 Environment
 National security
 Health
 Quality of life
Explicitly address Intellectual Merit
& Broader Impact in both Summary and Project Description!
Project is Unique & with Added Value
 Does it sound like one of your existing grants in terms of title
or topic?
 Do the PI and co-PI’s overlap completely with existing
efforts?
 Is the added value in terms of criterion I? Criterion II? Both?
 Is it clear (regarding any overlap) and is the added value
well explained within the proposal?
 Does it include Education? Diversity? Outreach?
Proposal Deadline or Window
What does this mean?
1. Don’t be late  submit early in Window (mistakes can be corrected)
2. Do it correctly- make sure appropriate documents are attached
•
Know and follow the current Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) - it
changes! (It can be accessed from the NSF homepage)
• List collaborators & their affiliations in biosketch
• Include titles in your reference list
• Include Prior Support (if applicable) in your Project
Description according to GPG guidelines
• Number the pages in the Project Description
3. Address any additional requirements: Focused Research
Groups (FRG), GOALI (with industry), etc.
• Always add Suggested Reviewers without conflicts
Guidance
 Direct proposal to program with best fit:
 Most appropriate set of reviewers
 Present work as high priority for funding
 Exhaustively referenced
 Discussion with PD (e-mail, phone, in person) –
choose most appropriate forum
 Provide within your proposal:
 Rationale / motivation for research
and why it is important that you carry it out
 Broad context of work and possible impact
 Clear research plan
Interactions with NSF
 Have a history of innovative & brilliant science
and/or significant contribution/s in a broad sense
 Convey enthusiasm and knowledge
 Be a great reviewer / panelist
 Volunteer
 Respond to requests
 Provide detailed, timely and thoughtful comments on both
criteria and any additional criteria for the specific
solicitations/announcements
 Answers to Questions: NSF website, your university’s
Sponsored Research Office (SRO), your colleagues, and emails or phone calls to Program Directors at NSF
Responsibilities
see Grant Proposal Guide for details
1.
2.
3.
4.
Acknowledge NSF support (presentations, publications,
press releases)
Communicate significant accomplishments to PD (e.g.
Nature/Science articles, Covers of recognized journals,
press releases, etc.)
Deliver “highlights” of work as requested/needed (e.g. in
CHE we request one page power-point slides annually)
Submit annual (& final) reports on time

5.
1st No-Cost Extension through SRO; 2nd through NSF
Serve as a reviewer or panelist as appropriate & as your
time/schedule permits
Secrets for Success
 New and original ideas
 Sound, succinct, detailed focused plan
 Preliminary data and/or feasibility calculation
 Relevant experience
 Clarity concerning future direction
 Well-articulated broader impacts
• Match and justify the budget to the scope of the
proposed work - ask for what you need!
Thank You!
Questions?
Tyrone D. Mitchell, Ph.D.
[email protected], (703) 292-4947