Research and Funding
Strategies
Research Strategy
•
Always aim to do world-class work and structure research strategy and
proposals to reflect this
•
It is very unlikely that your nifty idea is new unless you are really familiar
with field
– Don’t start serious work unless you know current state of the art
•
It usually takes a long time to develop a fundable proposal
– Need to nurture future areas while “living off” current areas
– Currently I am developing multi-core research and I suspect it will dominate over distributed systems (Grids) 3-5 years from now
•
It took me 4 years from co-organizing a computational earthquake science
meeting in 1997 to obtaining NASA funding
– Several NASA projects funded since 2001 but all NSF proposals in this area turned down.
– NSF proposals were technically as strong as NASA ones but different reviewer base
– Note communities are surprisingly distinct; NSF does not acknowledge our work even though NASA gave it accolades
•
Sometimes it doesn’t work out: in 1997 I developed pretty innovative
web-based Crisis Management/Collaboration system; all follow up
NSF/NASA/DoD proposals turned down; finally got a DoD grant in 2005 in a
different area but based on contacts I made from previous work
– The rejected proposals were very good like accepted ones but not in areas reviewers related to as most work in this area from industry;
Collaborate
•
Funding agencies – especially NSF -- love collaborative
multi-institution proposals
–
Easier to get 20% of a $1M proposal with 5 institutions than one $200K
proposal
–
20 years ago I got a Caltech only proposal for $1.8M/year (mainly
people) – such days have past for me
•
Note very unlikely (statistically) that best work in any area
done locally so expect to need (inter)national collaboration
–
Only prepare IU or IUB only proposals if all components are world
class and
perceived
to be world class
•
Build long term partners; today’s research colleague is
tomorrow’s program manager at Darpa
•
Pursue an
agenda identified with you
in a collaboration
–
Once I developed an innovative technology; nobody took it seriously
as I was collaborating with a really great researcher in that technology
area; key people assumed he did work and there was nothing he could
do to change this perception
–
In Grid area, do not improve Globus; only Argonne/Chicago/USC can
get credit for this and there is nothing they can do to give you credit
–
Obvious lessons for students of well known faculty
Know your Funding Agencies
•
NSF:
The research and education community
•
NIH:
Not an expert but in between NSF and NASA in
style of successful proposals
•
NASA:
Work with laboratories (Goddard, JPL etc.)
•
DoE:
Work with laboratories (Argonne, Oak Ridge
etc.)
•
DoD/Darpa:
Must know the real intent of solicitation
and program manager who often has strong technical
impact on program
•
Industry:
Very erratic
Know your Reviewers
•
Reviewing involves “peer” review by mail from funding
agency, panels and agency program managers
–
Different agencies have different balances here
–
Varies from NSF peer reviewers and panels
–
to DoD program managers
–
Other agencies are in between
•
Many reviews are incorrect as the reviewers do not
understand your proposal and if it is too innovative, cannot
understand it
–
Example: My “best” proposals in 1995 for web-based
computing and web-based education were soundly
rejected edven though in retrospect “right-on”
–
Make your proposals exciting but not too far out
•
NSF OCI and CISE are computer/computational scientists;
NSF EHR are Cognitive Science/School of Education
–
Neither unit will easily fund researchers from the other
–
All my EHR proposals turned down except for a $50,000
The Interdisciplinary Disadvantage
•
In 1987 some NSF Computer Science Program Managers
were interested in my proposals but reviewers panned me
–
I was in Physics department but working on general parallel
computing
–
I left Caltech in a sulk and it took me around 15 years to be
accepted as a tolerable Computer Scientist after I
essentially stopped working in physics
–
It is perceptions not reality that sometimes counts
•
Informatics needs too be very careful not to be seen
as a Jack of all Trades
–
Preserve the disciplinary expertise to satisfy reviewers (for
tenure or proposals)
Glittering Diamonds
• Often reviewers judge proposals on people
involved and not the content (which they don’t
in fact understand because it is “too far out” or
an area outside their expertise)
• Thus good to put “glittering diamonds” on
proposals; researchers who are and are
perceived to be world class
• However reviewers note “fake collaborations”;
only put those really involved on proposal and
best to have pre-existing collaborations
The Institutional Advantage
•
Often artifacts – hardware, software, power – are very important and can
be leveraged for success
•
Argonne/Chicago/USC leverage Globus software
•
Open Science Grid and TeraGrid “own” certain Grid areas
– MIDAS owns epidemiology for NIH?
– DoE labs own DHS research …..
•
IU can leverage Internet2 NOC
•
SDSC NCSA leverage supercomputer infrastructure
•
I leverage “power” of “Alliance for Equity in Higher Education” which
represents 335 Minority serving institutions
– NSF funding and indeed project successes partnering with AIHEC, HACU and NAFEO
– In outreach look for systemic not point solutions
– e.g. in current NSF CPATH, do not write an IU proposal; write an (inter)national Informatics proposal
•
Create and nurture your artifacts and glittering diamonds
•
The School of Informatics as an innovative activity is an institutional
advantage – exploit it
– Our NIH grant helped by our recognized Grid expertise and unique ChemInformatics education
Further Principles and Issues
• Don’t waste time on hopeless idealistic proposals
• Safe strategy is to get started as a partner with one or more “Glittering Diamonds”
– Best to be funded as a servant in heaven rather than be rejected as a ruler in hell ….. – The Glittering Diamond is a perfect tenure reference
• Do not tabulate a lot of wishful thinking i.e. possible but not real activities • Publications and papers benefit from results with good graphics
• Have clearly stated ideas and activities in your proposal; make it clear you know competing work
• Focus – do not be too broad; quality better than quantity • Involve PhD not Masters students!
• Not important to be PI; co-PI role in many ways best
• If you put together a joint proposal, the PI must expect to do 95% of work; organize brainstorming sessions as they create links between collaborators and this shows in proposal quality
• Organizing specialized workshops is a good way to become known
• Letters of support of dubious value; all escalated so not useful for reviewer; letter writers are restricted from being NSF reviewers for your proposal
• Now you should be exploiting your current knowledge but thinking of the new thrusts that you will exploit 5 years from now
– I have made many mistakes here; early on I dismissed Grids as obviously wrong but it was me that was wrong as it evolved to tackle different problems where it is a good idea.
• Budgets take a lot of effort but remember even if proposal approved, agency will
