Document 6505950

How to Prepare a
Successful Discovery Grant
Application
A Workshop organized by the
Office of the VP Research in
collaboration with NSERC
September 14, 2005
Office of the VP Research
Agenda
9:00 – 9:20 am
General Information Session
Introduction/NSERC news
9:20 am –10:15 am
Discovery Grant Workshop
Grant application preparation. Transforming ideas into a
successful proposal.
10.15 – 10.30
Coffee break
10:30-12:00
Discovery Grant Workshop cont’d
The process of grant application review: a detailed look at how
NSERC Discovery Grant Selections Committees work, and
what they look for. Includes time for questions and
discussion.
12:00 pm -1:00 pm
Lunch and informal interaction
Due to scheduling problems, there will be no optional afternoon session for
informal review or discussion of attendee applications. However, any
attendee who would like to arrange such a meeting may do so for a
later date.
September 14, 2005
Office of the VP Research
1
Contributors
• Rawni Sharp, Team Leader, Research Grants and
Scholarships Directorate, NSERC
• Lindsay Eltis, UBC, GSC 32 (Cell Biology )
• James Little, UBC, GSC 331 (Computing &
Information Science – B)
• Jim Lim, UBC, GSC 04 (Chemical and Metallurgical
Engineering)
• Cyril Leung, UBC, GSC 334 (Communications,
Computers & Components Engineering)
• Anoush Poursartip, UBC NSERC Coordinator, Office
of VP Research, GSC 04 (Chemical and Metallurgical
Engineering)
September 14, 2005
Office of the VP Research
Format
• Presentation will be a combination of NSERC slides
and UBC slides in order to provide:
– The official NSERC view (the Team Leader)
– The personal view of UBC faculty from various disciplines
who have served/ are serving as NSERC GSC committee
members
– The personal view of the UBC NSERC coordinator
(previously NSERC GSC04 committee member/chair,
appeal consultant)
• The aim is simple: have you think as a committee
member
• Your feedback on the format is appreciated for future
years
September 14, 2005
Office of the VP Research
2
Prosperity and high quality of life for Canadians
Science and Engineering
Research Canada
vision and mission
Discovery
We
We invest
invest in:
in:
Innovation
Competitive
research in science
and engineering,
providing access to
new knowledge from
around the world
Our
Our goal
goal is
is Canadian
Canadian
excellence
excellence in:
in:
CREATING
KNOWLEDGE
Discovery Grants
for basic research
in the universities
We do this through
peer-reviewed
competitions
in three programs
EXCELLENCE
People
Highly skilled,
well educated
and capable of
lifelong learning
WORKING IN ALL AREAS OF
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Scholarships and fellowships
for undergraduate students,
postgraduate students,
postdoctoral fellows and
some university faculty
Productive
use of new
knowledge
in all sectors
of the economy
and society
USING NEW
KNOWLEDGE
Partnerships of
universities with
industry and other
sectors for project
research
NSERC also works towards its goals by exerting INFLUENCE beyond our program reach
Agenda
1.
New at NSERC
2.
2005 Competition Results
3.
•
Discovery Grants
•
Research Tools and Instruments
Preparing a Grant Application
3
NSERC Update
• President’s term is ending
• Reallocations Exercise
• NSERC Regional Offices
• Electronic submission of applications
Reallocations Exercise
• For 2006 and 2007 DG applications, check the Web to see
what reallocations funds are available from the
implementation of the 2002 Reallocations Exercise.
• Reallocations Exercise in its current format has been
terminated.
• Future allocation mechanism currently being developed.
4
NSERC Regional Offices
What they do:
• Ensure a visible presence in the region
• Promote participation in the programs
• Participate in activities to promote science and math education
Status:
• Atlantic – Moncton (N.B.), operating since July 2004
• Prairie – Winnipeg (Man.), operating since July 2005
• British Columbia – Location TBD, Opening late 2005
• Ontario & Québec – Location TBD, 2006-07
Electronic Submission of Applications
• Fall 2004: 68% of the applications were received
electronically
• Improvements for the 2005 competition:
• Increased technical capacity
• Better stress tests
• Pre-converted PDF attachments
5
Program Updates
• Form 180 – New Deadline: August 1
• RTI Changes
• Five-year Grants
• Reporting HQP – Required Consent
• Northern Research
• NSERC Prizes
Research Tools and Instruments – Categories 1, 2 & 3
Category
Amount requested from NSERC
Deadline
1
$7,001 to $150,000 *
October 25
2
$150,001 to $325,000
Moratorium
3
$325,000 and over
Moratorium
* NSERC accepts applications for equipment costs up to $250K
but only $150K can be requested from NSERC
6
Five-year Grants
• Discovery Grant - Standard duration is five years
• Smoothing Exercise is ongoing: Extending a portion of
four-year grants to five-year grants
Reporting HQP
Name
Type of HQP
Training
Years
supervised or
co-supervised
Title of project
or thesis
Present position
Consent obtained
Roy, Marie
Masters
(completed)
Supervised
1997-1999
(name
withheld)
Masters
(completed)
Supervised
1997-1999
Isotope
geochemistry
in petroleum
engineering
V-P (research), Earth
Analytics Inc.,
Calgary, AB
Consent not obtained
Isotope
geochemistry
Research executive
in petroleum
industry – Western
Canada
7
Northern Research
International Polar Year Projects
• Request for Proposal through SRO program
• One time initiative
• Deadline: November 7, 2005
Northern Research Supplements
• Up to $10K for logistical support associated with
research in the North
• Duration of supplement = Duration of DG
• Application deadline: Nov. 1 (same as DG)
• Separate application required
• Salaries are not an eligible expense
NSERC Prizes
Deadline
The Gerhard Herzberg Canada Gold Medal for Science and
Engineering for an individual who has demonstrated
sustained excellence and influence in research
The Brockhouse Canada Prize for interdisciplinary team
research achievements
E.W.R. Steacie Fellowships to enhance the career
development of outstanding and highly promising scientists
and engineers
April 30
April 30
July 1
8
NSERC Budget 2005-06
(millions of dollars)
Discovery
$388 - 45.0%
Innovation
$165 - 19.2%
People
$272 - 31.5%
Administration
$38 - 4.4%
Total: $863
Discovery Programs Budget 2005-06
(millions of dollars)
Collaborative
Health/Genomics
$4.4 - 1.1%
Discovery Grants
$308.9 - 79.6%
Research T ools and
Instruments
$14.0 - 3.6%
Subatomic Physics
$21.6 - 5.6%
1
M FA
$20.9 - 5.4%
SRO
$10.4 - 2.7%
Perimeter Institute
$5.0 - 1.3%
Total: $388
1
Other
$3.2 - 0.8%
MFA total includes Canadian Light Source funding from NRC ($3M) and Budget 2004 ($1M).
9
2005 COMPETITION RESULTS
Discovery Grants
Research Tools and Instruments
2005 Discovery Grants Results: All Disciplines
First Time Applicants
Disciplines
Returning Applicants
No
App.
Success
(%)
Avg. Grant
($)
No
App.
Success
(%)
Avg. Grant
($)
Life Sciences
295
50.8
27,102
694
71
34,531
Physical Sciences
195
70.8
30,871
485
79.4
38,023
Math, Stats
77
85.7
13,500
203
85.2
17,746
Computer Science
72
79.2
22,246
197
88.3
27,274
Engineering
223
73.5
22,581
688
77.9
29,019
Subatomic Physics
8
100
33,500
24
87.5
44.261
Interdisciplinary
13
61.5
27,138
27
85.2
25,483
Total for all GSCs
883
66.9
24,634
2318
77.9
29,677
10
2005 Research Tools & Instruments (RTI-1)
All RTI
RTI for FTAs
No. App.
Success
Rate (%)
Funding
($)
No
App.
Success
Rate (%)
Life Sciences
444
45.5
8,811,241
73
43.8
Physical Sciences
410
40.7
11,833,961
86
60.5
Math, Stats
15
66.7
445,276
0
0
Computer Science
57
50.9
1,412,111
8
75
Engineering
450
38.0
11,871,414
57
43.9
Interdisciplinary
14
64.3
345,999
1
0
Total for all GSCs
1390
42.3
34,720,002
225
51.1
Disciplines
Preparing a Successful Grant
Application
• A successful application has two
components:
– Content
• You satisfy the requirements laid out by the
funding agency
– Presentation
• You document and show that you satisfy the
requirements laid out by the funding agency
• You make it easy for this information to be
absorbed by those evaluating the proposal
September 14, 2005
Office of the VP Research
11
Preparing a Successful Grant
Application
• You have to play by the rules
– Positive aspect: level playing field
– Negative aspect: might not be your style
• Read the rules
• Understand the underlying rationale
– Be sympathetic to the rules/guidelines
– In a peer review system, you will get your turn to
be part of the selection process, and can then
influence the rules and guidelines!
September 14, 2005
Office of the VP Research
Are You Eligible?
1. Hold, or have a firm offer of, an academic appointment at a
Canadian university (minimum three-year term position)
2. Position requires independent research and allows
supervision of students
3. Researchers holding a position of any kind outside Canada
must spend a minimum of six months per year at an eligible
Canadian institution (NEW)
Inform NSERC when a change in your status occurs (including
sabbatical and leave periods)
12
Preparing a Successful Discovery
Grant Application
• The perception of the community is that getting and
maintaining an NSERC grant is very important: not
the only measure of a researcher’s worth by any
means, but it is influential (to NSERC’s dismay at
times…)
• An NSERC grant is a valuable source of research
funding, from low teens to over $100,000 per year.
No overhead, very few conditions or deliverables
compared to other opportunities
• If an average NSERC grant is 5 years, then you
typically write 6-7 applications
• To reach the high end of the distribution you have to
make steady progress
September 14, 2005
Office of the VP Research
Preparing a Successful Grant
Application
• The NSERC process is continuous, not once every 5
years!
• Three choices:
– Do what you think is right, and every 5 years, see if NSERC
agrees
– Slavishly follow NSERC rules and guidelines
– Some realistic mix of the above
• Do what you believe in, but document what you did.
Have a plan, a vision, a goal.
• We are not here to tell you what to do, but to try to
help you do it as effortlessly as possible
September 14, 2005
Office of the VP Research
13
Preparing a Successful Grant
Application
• The NSERC process is fair, as much as is
humanly possible
• Totally transparent
• Many layers of supervision and control
• Dedicated staff
• Expert committees with expertise, regional,
gender, and language balance
• Continuous feedback and soul-searching
September 14, 2005
Office of the VP Research
Form 180: Intent to Apply
• For Discovery Grants, Discovery Project Grants (Subatomic
Physics only), and/or University Faculty Award (UFA)
applications
• Used to initiate the competition process
• Can have adverse consequences if not submitted
• First time applicants who have not yet submitted
Form 180 should do so immediately
NEW DEADLINE: August 1
14
Intent to Apply
Form 180:
• Suggest GSC
• Summarize proposed research
• Suggest external referees
• List contributions (last 6 years*)
* from 1999 inclusively
Deadline: August 1
September 14, 2005
Office of the VP Research
The UBC Process: Paper
• signed in the following order by:
– Principal Applicant (and co-applicants if any)
– UBC Department Head (or Director of a School or
Institute)
– Faculty Dean (not for Applied Science, Science, Human
Kinetics)
– Director Research Services for the the President of UBC
• A complete, original copy must be presented to Research
Services for signature on behalf of The President
• in addition a complete copy of the proposal must be provided
for Research Services' records.
September 14, 2005
Office of the VP Research
15
The UBC Process: Paper
• Turnaround:
– Individuals or departments presenting applications for
signature will be called as soon as the forms are ready for
pickup. Whenever possible, applications received in the
Office of Research Services by noon will be ready after 4:00
on the same day, and applications received after 12:00 noon
will be ready after 10:00 a.m. on the next working day. In the
days immediately before a major deadline, please
present application no less than 3 working days before
to Research Services. Applicants from the Faculty of
Medicine should always allow for additional turnaround time
in the Office of the Dean of Medicine.
• Mailing: The applicant is responsible for duplication and mailing.
September 14, 2005
Office of the VP Research
The UBC Process: e-submission
•
•
NSERC Tutorial at http://www.nserc.gc.ca/forms/tut_e.htm
UBC details at http://www.ors.ubc.ca/funding/NSERC_eSub.htm
•
•
Allow at least three working days prior to NSERC deadline
Submit a copy with the usual required signatures to UBC Office of Research
Services
–
–
Abbreviated
By fax is OK
•
•
UBC ORS then approves electronically
You should check to ensure this has happened
•
Consult ORS website, help line, staff.
–
–
–
–
www.ors.ubc.ca
ORS help line 822-9100
Carolyn De Melo 822-8581 carolyn.demelo@ors.ubc.ca
Susan Leung 822-8595 susan.leung@ors.ubc.ca
September 14, 2005
Office of the VP Research
16
Grant Application Preparation:
Transforming Ideas into a Successful
Proposal
• We are not here to discuss the ideas per se
• Of all your ideas, which ones should you put
forward to the NSERC research grant? How
many of them?
– The more fundamental ones
– Those which can build into a long term vision and
activity
– Those which are the glue for more applied work
September 14, 2005
Office of the VP Research
Realism
• The magnitude of the proposal must be
consistent with who you are
• The $$ value of the proposal must be realistic
for the committee you are applying to
– Check the NSERC site, call the NSERC Program
Officer
• The activity must be consistent with the
proposal and the $$
• At the beginning of your career, you do not
have to solve all the world’s problems and it
is reasonable that you start slow
September 14, 2005
Office of the VP Research
17
A Complete Grant Application
Must include:
• Application for a Grant (Form 101) with supporting
documentation, if required
– EXTRA PAGES REMOVED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
• Environmental Assessment, if required
• Personal Data (Form 100) for applicant and ALL coapplicants with appropriate appendices
– EXTRA PAGES REMOVED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
• Samples of research contributions, if available
September 14, 2005
Office of the VP Research
Selection Criteria
• Merit of the proposal
FORM 101
• Excellence of the researcher(s
• Training of highly qualified personnel
(HQP)
• Need for funds
FORMS 100 & 101
18
The application
• Form 101 (Grant Application) focuses
on
– Merit of proposal criterion
– Need for funds criterion
• Form 100 (Personal Data form) focuses
on
– Excellence of researcher(s) criterion
– Training of HQP criterion
September 14, 2005
Office of the VP Research
FORM 101
Merit of the Proposal
• Originality and innovation
• Significance and expected contribution to
research
• Clarity and scope of objectives
• Clarity and appropriateness of
methodology
• Feasibility of program
19
Merit of the Proposal
• Originality and innovation
– Will the research make a new contribution to the field?
• Significance and expected contributions to
research
– What will be the impact?
– Will it advance our knowledge of the field?
– Will the results be appropriate for open dissemination, critical appraisal by
others?
• Clarity and scope of objectives
– Are there short, medium, long term goals?
– Has the applicant placed the research in a theoretical framework,
referenced appropriately?
– Are objectives specific, well-focused, realistic?
September 14, 2005
Office of the VP Research
Merit of the Proposal
• Scope of proposal
– Are all appropriate factors and areas of knowledge
addressed?
• Clarity and appropriateness of methodology
– Is it clear?
– Is it appropriate and up to date?
• Feasibility of program
– Can the applicant do it? Within the time?
September 14, 2005
Office of the VP Research
20
100 & 101
Need for Funds
• Appropriateness and justification of
budget
• Other sources of funding
ƒ Availability
ƒ Relationship to current proposal
Need for Funds:
The section so many ignore!
•
Appropriateness and justification of budget
– Use the online form, and then justify all the line-items. Be specific,
be accurate, be complete
– Beware of padding
• Beware of the gold-bricked computer syndrome
•
Availability of other sources of funding
– Perfectly OK, even desirable to have other sources of funding
– Differentiate between the different sources of funding
– Be very clear in explaining why it is not ‘double-dipping’
– Show ‘fruitful incrementality’
•
Special needs
– Why are you different? Explain…
September 14, 2005
Office of the VP Research
21
Additional Considerations
Within the framework of the selection criteria, the
committees consider factors such as:
• The potential/merit/plans of new applicants
• Applicant’s role in collaborations
• The context of Interdisciplinary/Engineering and Applied
Science
• Appendix C for Adjunct / Emeritus and Part-time Professors
Research Grant Application
Form 101:
• Write the research summary in plain language
– Theoretically for the general public, but a good intro/start for
anybody reading your proposal
– Not used to evaluate your proposal
• Make the whole proposal readable.
– Do not overfill, think of layout, perhaps include image(s)...
– Remember, there are two different audiences for your proposal:
• The expert external reviewer and internal reviewer
– Look up who is on your committee, it’s on the web!
• The general committee member, who may or may not be expert in
your sub-discipline
September 14, 2005
Office of the VP Research
22
Research Grant Application
Form 101:
•
Provide a progress report on related research
– What specific contributions have resulted?
– How were they published and communicated
– If previously funded, this is critical in showing good use of prior funding
– Remember the balance between progress report and proposed research.
Keep in mind the space limitation.
– Remember that much information can be put in your Form 100 and crossreferenced
•
Position the research within the field
– Show you know the relevant literature: be selective yet complete. ?A little
old, a little new…?
– Position your work
September 14, 2005
Office of the VP Research
Research Grant Application
Form 101:
•
Articulate short-and long-term objectives
– Convince the readers (both external reviewers and internal committee)
that this is a notable advancement or innovation or results of importance
– Realistic short and long term goals have been identified
•
Provide a detailed methodology
– Significant attention should be paid to methodology
– Identify danger/problem issues. Show that you have thought it through
carefully
– Discuss Feasibility
– Can it be done?
– Can you do it?
– In the time and with the resources?
September 14, 2005
Office of the VP Research
23
Research Grant Application
• Describe plans for training
– Identify level of people for different tasks
– Identify how else they will received training
– Give names where possible
– Show that you have thought of suitability and feasibility
– …
• Prepare realistic budget
– Remember “NEED FOR FUNDS” criterion
– Look at Reallocations opportunities
– Prepare and justify. Be reasonable and consistent
Deadline for receipt at NSERC: November 1
September 14, 2005
Office of the VP Research
Research Grant Application
•
Discuss any relationship to other research support
– Must provide clear and concise information on the conceptual and
budgetary relationship between this application and all other funding.
– You must convincingly show that you’re not ‘double-dipping’
– However, this is an excellent opportunity to
• provide more information on what you do…
• Show where possible the synergy and incrementality, the overall vision of
your work
•
Address previous GSC comments or external referee reports (if
applicable)
– No negativity please! If you disagree, lay it out cogently and
convincingly. Committees change, and it is accepted that external
referees comments are not always correct.
September 14, 2005
Office of the VP Research
24
100 & 101
Excellence of Researcher(s)
• Knowledge, expertise and experience
• Contribution to research
• Importance of contributions
• Complementarity of expertise and synergy
(group application)
Excellence of Researcher(s)
• Knowledge, expertise and experience
• Contribution to research
– What ideas have been generated?
– To what extent has the work advanced the field?
• Importance of contributions
– How has it influenced others (researchers and
end-users)
• Complementarity of expertise and synergy
(team)
September 14, 2005
Office of the VP Research
25
Guidelines for the Preparation & Review
of Applications in Engineering and
Applied Sciences
• Revised guidelines posted on Web site in
August 2004
• Indicators of excellence reflect the different
nature of research in engineering and applied
sciences
• Important to read before preparing applications
in engineering and applied sciences
September 14, 2005
Office of the VP Research
100 & 101
Training of HQP
• Quality and extent of past and potential
contributions
• Appropriateness of proposed work for
training
• Training in collaborative or
interdisciplinary environment
26
Training of HQP:
The other section so many ignore!
Research training is an integral part of university research
Includes undergraduate students, graduate students, post-docs,
technicians and professionals.
Quality and impact matter, not just numbers
Following factors:
•
Quality and extent of past and potential contributions
– Trainees to produce high-quality contributions, careers in all
sectors
– Trainees should be able to apply skills
– Indicators could be papers published, jobs they obtained…
September 14, 2005
Office of the VP Research
Training of HQP:
The other section so many ignore!
• Appropriateness of proposal for training
– Describe what makes it appropriate
– If not appropriate, you must justify
• Training in collaborative or interdisciplinary
environment
– Nowadays increasingly important. You should address
this and justify.
September 14, 2005
Office of the VP Research
27
Personal Data Form Tips
FORM 100
• List ALL sources of support (past four years)
• Describe five most significant research contributions
• List other research contributions (1999-2005)
• Describe contributions to training (1999-2005)
• Give other evidence of impact of work
• Explain any delays in research activity
Personal Data Form
Form 100:
•
Your opportunity to show your excellence and your contribution to
HQP
•
What you include reflects YOUR priorities
•
List all sources of support
•Past 4 years, current and applied for
•For new applicants include start-up funds from university
•
Describe 5 most significant research contributions
•Don’t have to be papers!
•Focus on quality and impact. Discuss why they are significant
September 14, 2005
Office of the VP Research
28
Personal Data Form
Form 100:
•
List other research contributions
•From 1999 inclusively (unless impact being felt now)
•Provide details on order of publications listed
•Inclusion of students in list of authors
•Your role in joint publications
•Do not mislead on status or type of papers. BE CONSERVATIVE.
Give details of journals, other rationale.
•Describe collaboration, technology transfer, computer codes, other
activities. Be complete but do not exaggerate. Be clear.
September 14, 2005
Office of the VP Research
Personal Data Form (cont’d)
•
Describe contributions to training
•From 1999 inclusive
•Table format
•Who, what, where are they?
•Quality vs quantity
REMEMBER:
YOU HAVE TO
GET
PERMISSION TO
NAME PEOPLE
AND GIVE
DETAILS!!!
•
Give other evidence of impact of work
•Awards and Honours
•Membership in committees
•Invited Presentations
•Position on program committees, editorial boards, other evidence of
stature in community
•
Explain any delays in research activity
•Patent filing delays, maternity/paternity or other family leave,
administrative or disability leave.
September 14, 2005
Office of the VP Research
29
Additional Considerations
• “New” applicants
– More emphasis on MERIT of the research
proposal and applicant’s POTENTIAL, less on
track record.
– Provide a strong, well-conceived and
formulated proposal
– Provide evidence of an intellectual ability to
make original contributions.
• From research contributions
• External Referee comments
• The application itself
September 14, 2005
Office of the VP Research
Additional Considerations
• Collaboration
– Increasingly important and common
– NSERC believes in collaboration and
interdisciplinarity as a means to greater
achievements in research. Don’t have to, but
you can…
– Even if a individual application, describe your
collaborative activities.
• Describe what your contribution is, but also why you
collaborate.
• If working together in a long-range collaboration,
then apply together
September 14, 2005
Office of the VP Research
30
Research Tools and Instruments –
Categories 1,2,3
1
Amount requested from
NSERC
$7,001 to $150,000
October 25
2
$150,001 to $325,000
Moratorium
3
$325,000 and over
Moratorium
Category
Deadline
Research Tools and Instruments
Grant Application
• Many GSCs try to give a good start to a new
applicant
– A consistent research grant and RTI grant
application can be a powerful combination
• You must hold or be applying for an NSERC
research grant
• Many people do not apply enough
– Apply if you have an urgent and pressing need
– You can re-apply if unsuccessful.
• Some people apply too much
September 14, 2005
Office of the VP Research
31
FORM 101
Research Tools & Instruments Grants Category 1
• What research is being done with equipment
• Justify each item
• Explain need and urgency of overall request
• Suitability of proposed equipment for
research program
Deadline:
• Indicate impact on training
October 25th
The Process of Review
• Overview of
– The process workflow
– The mechanics of the review process
• Discussion of the different committees
as represented by the panel
• Question, answer and discussion period
September 14, 2005
Office of the VP Research
32
Peer Review Process
Role of GSCs:
• Advise on committee assignments
• Select reviewers
• Evaluate proposals
• Make funding recommendations
• Prepare comments
• Membership suggestions
Peer Review Process
Role of NSERC:
• Advise committees on procedures
• Process application documentation
• Oversee competition process and
deliberations
• Ensure no conflicts of interest
• Provide feedback to applicants
33
The process workflow
• August 1st, Intent to apply (Form 180) submitted
– NSERC uses these, along with other input to decide which
GSC has expertise to review
• September/October
– Using Form 180, GSC Chair assigns application to generally
two committee members (called internal reviewers) whose
expertise is closest to the proposed research
– Using Form 180, one of the internal reviewers suggests
external referees from your list, NSERC’s database of names
and their personal knowledge of community
– GSC may also request consultation from another GSC
September 14, 2005
Office of the VP Research
The process workflow
• November
– GSC new members orientation in Ottawa
– GSC chairs meeting in Ottawa to coordinate and
exchange applications which may overlap between
committees etc.,.
• December/January/February
– GSC members read 5000+ pages…
• Very careful evaluation of those for which they are internal
reviewers
• Less intensive review of the others
– External reviewers respond and their comments are
circulated to committee
• An application can have from ~2 to 5 responses
September 14, 2005
Office of the VP Research
34
The process workflow
• February: GSC meetings in Ottawa
– Committee has many many applications (eg 100 150 research grant applications, as well as
equipment grant applications, and other specials)
• Typical time per application is 5-15 minutes
– The first internal reviewer presents assessment
based on 4 selection criteria. Second reviewer
follows by highlighting any differences of opinion or
adding information
– In depth evaluation is based on application,
samples, external referee reports, and consultations
– The external referee is important but only one factor.
It can and is sometimes ignored, whether positive or
negative
September 14, 2005
Office of the VP Research
The process workflow
• February: GSC meetings in Ottawa
– There is a discussion of the application and then a formal vote.
– Each committee has slightly different ways of doing this
– Problems, special cases, and many other issues are flagged
and revisited at the end
– The NSERC program officer provides procedural input
– Comments are prepared for unsuccessful candidates,
significant reductions, and some other cases
– External referee reports are always provided along with GSC
comments
– At the end of the process, there are checks for fairness,
consistency, etc.,.
September 14, 2005
Office of the VP Research
35
September 14, 2005
Office of the VP Research
Optional UBC Review Process
• Any UBC applicant may opt for an internal
review process by the NSERC Coordinator
– Focus on the criteria, but not on the details of the
science
• Candidates are encouraged to discuss with colleagues in
closely related areas
– Feedback on presentation, format, emphasis,
criteria, etc.,.
– ~1 week turnaround
September 14, 2005
Office of the VP Research
36
Final Advice
• Use the 2005 Web version of forms/guide
• Read all instructions carefully
• Follow presentation standards
• Ensure completeness of application
• Remember that two audiences read your application
• Ask colleagues for comments on your application
• Read other proposals
Research Grants Contacts
NSERC Web site
www.nserc.gc.ca
Discovery Grants
resgrant@nserc.ca
(613) 995-5829
Use of grant funds
casdfinance@nserc.ca
eBusiness
webapp@nserc.ca
NSERC staff
firstname.familyname@nserc.ca
37
UBC Contacts
• UBC Office of Research Services
–
–
–
–
–
http://www.ors.ubc.ca
ORS help line 822-9100
Carolyn De Melo 822-8581 carolyn.demelo@ors.ubc.ca
Susan Leung 822-8595 susan.leung@ors.ubc.ca
Yvonne Ng 604-822-8052 yvonne.ng@ors.ubc.ca
• UBC Office of VP Research
– http://www.research.ubc.ca
– NSERC Coordinator
• Anoush Poursartip 822-3665 Anoush.poursartip@ubc.ca
September 14, 2005
Office of the VP Research
2005 COMPETITION RESULTS
Discovery Grants
Research Tools and Instruments
38
2005 Discovery Grants Results: All Disciplines
First Time Applicants
Returning Applicants
No
App.
Success
(%)
Avg.
Grant
($)
No
App.
Success
(%)
Avg.
Grant
($)
Life Sciences
295
50.8
27,102
694
71
34,531
Physical Sciences
195
70.8
30,871
485
79.4
38,023
Math, Stats
77
85.7
13,500
203
85.2
17,746
Computer Science
72
79.2
22,246
197
88.3
27,274
Engineering
223
73.5
22,581
688
77.9
29,019
Subatomic Physics
8
100
33,500
24
87.5
44.261
Interdisciplinary
13
61.5
27,138
27
85.2
25,483
Total for all GSCs
883
66.9
24,634
2318
77.9
29,677
Disciplines
2005 Discovery Grants Results:
Life Sciences
First Time Applicants
Grant Selection Committee
(GSC)
Returning Applicants
No.
App.
Success
(%)
Avg.
Grant
($)
No.
App.
Success
(%)
Avg.
Grant
($)
(1011) Integrative Animal Biology
82
42.6
29,941
158
63.9
38,314
(32) Cell Biology
46
43.5
32,100
105
69.5
39,997
(33) Molecular & Dev. Genetics
31
45.2
34,979
82
68.3
40,894
(03) Plant Biology & Food Sci.
26
57.7
31,567
109
75.2
35,934
(18) Evolution & Ecology
64
56.3
22,531
135
77.0
28,308
(12) Psychology: Brain,
Behaviour and Cognitive Science
46
58.7
18,932
105
73.3
26,672
Total for Life Sciences
295
50.8
27,102
694
71.0
34,531
39
2005 Discovery Grants Results:
Physical Sciences
First Time Applicants
Grant Selection Committee
(GSC)
Returning Applicants
No.
App.
Success
(%)
Avg.
Grant
($)
No.
App.
Success
(%)
Avg.
Grant
($)
(08) Solid Earth Sciences
24
50.0
27,633
77
85.7
31,188
(09) Environmental Earth Sci.
41
65.9
19,060
103
73.8
25,113
(24) Inorganic & Organic Chem.
37
70.3
35,808
81
77.8
57,476
(26) Analytical & Physical Chem.
37
64.9
38,667
80
82.5
48,351
(17) Space & Astronomy
17
88.2
28,627
41
78.0
34,184
(28) Condensed Matter Physics
24
91.7
34,915
65
78.5
32,145
(29) General Physics
15
80.0
29,792
38
81.6
36,334
Total for Physical Sciences
195
70.8
30,871
485
79.4
38,023
2005 Discovery Grants Results:
Math, Stats & CIS
First Time Applicants
Grant Selection Committee
(GSC)
Returning Applicants
No.
App.
Success
(%)
Avg.
Grant
($)
No.
App.
Success
(%)
Avg.
Grant
($)
(336) Pure & Applied Math. – A
31
90.3
12,714
78
89.7
16,800
(337) Pure & Applied Math. – B
20
85.0
14,235
60
86.7
17,077
(14) Statistical Sciences
26
80.8
13,952
65
78.5
19,725
(330) Computing & Info. Sci. – A
34
70.6
21,083
92
88.0
25,016
(331) Computing & Info. Sci. – B
38
86.8
19,636
105
88.6
29,240
Total for Math, Stats & CIS
149
82.6
16,626
400
86.8
22,523
40
2005 Discovery Grants Results:
Engineering
First Time Applicants
Grant Selection Committee
(GSC)
Returning Applicants
Avg.
Grant
($)
No.
App.
Success
(%)
Avg.
Grant
($)
(334) Comm., Comp. &
Components Eng.
38
86.8
20,909
97
84.5
29,940
(335) Electro. & Elect. Sys.
Eng.
28
85.7
25,792
97
78.4
37,170
(20) Industrial Engineering
19
52.6
19,022
95
69.5
25,664
(04) Chem. & Metallurgical Eng.
44
84.1
25,892
109
88.1
34,934
(06) Civil Engineering
42
65.4
18,423
146
70.5
25,737
(13) Mechanical Engineering
52
65.4
21,803
144
78.5
26,828
Total for Engineering
223
73.5
22,581
688
77.9
29,019
No. Success
App.
(%)
Reallocations Spending 2005
Life Sciences
GSC
3
12
18
32/33
Proposal
$ Spent 2005
#2- New opportunities for knowledge discovery
166K
#3- Meeting the growing demand for HQP
90K
#2- Imaging & animal care costs
#3- Increased costs of training students
#4- Modern technologies
#5- Field research
#2- Number of new applicants
115.4K
25K
95K
219K
#3- Molecular biology
1011
#4- Animal care costs
219.3K
#5- Emerging technologies
41
Reallocations Spending 2005
Chemistry
GSC
Proposal
$ Spent 2005
#1- New applicants
24
#2- Meritorious early-career scientists
260K
#4- Interdisciplinary materials research
#1- New applicants to be competitive internationally
26
#2- Meritorious early-career scientists
267K
#4- Interdisciplinary materials research
Reallocations Spending 2005
Physics
GSC
Proposal
$ Spent 2005
#1- New applicants
165K
#3 - Synthesis & characterization of novel materials & the
fabrication of new structures
68K
28
#4 - Novel experimental and computational tools & methods
29
51.5K
Interdisciplinary materials research
28K
#1 - New applicants
25K
#2 – Photonics
52.5K
Interdisciplinary materials research
18.7K
42
Reallocations Spending 2005
Space and Astronomy & Subatomic Physics
GSC
17
19
Proposal
$ Spent 2005
#1 - “New Opportunities” PDF in key areas
96.5K
#2, 3, 4 - Science return for the highest priority projects
123K
#5 - Particle astrophysics
43K
#6 - Subatomic physics theory new researchers and
research environment
230K
#7 - Advanced technology development
63K
Reallocations Spending 2005
Earth and Environmental Sciences
GSC
Proposal
$ Spent 2005
08
#3 - Field Research
59.6K
09
#3 - Field Research
59.6K
43
Reallocations Spending 2005
Stats, Maths & Computing
GSC
Proposal
$ Spent 2005
#1 - Best researchers
14
69K
#2 - Emerging areas
336
#1 - New applicants
94K
337
#1 - New applicants
67K
330
#1 - New and Senior New applicants
305K
331
#1 - New and Senior New applicants
312K
Reallocations Spending 2005
Engineering
GSC
04
06
334/335
20
13
Proposal
$ Spent
2005
#1 - New technologies in Canadian resource industries
48K
#2 - Research in sustainable emerging technologies
112K
#1 - Research on infrastructure for sustainable development
140K
#2 - Research in smart systems and infrastructure
0K
#3 - Research in decision support systems
60K
#1 - Emerging and speculative research
210K
#2 - Exceptional innovation supplements
105K
#1 - HQP for e-business /e-society
60K
#1 - Research in biomedical engineering
160K
#2 - Fundamental research in alternative energy systems
24K
44
2005 Research Tools & Instruments (RTI-1)
All RTI
RTI for FTAs
Disciplines
No.
App.
Success
Rate (%)
Funding
($)
No
App.
Success
Rate (%)
Life Sciences
444
45.5
8,811,241
73
43.8
Physical Sciences
410
40.7
11,833,961
86
60.5
Math, Stats
15
66.7
445,276
0
0
Computer Science
57
50.9
1,412,111
8
75
Engineering
450
38.0
11,871,414
57
43.9
Interdisciplinary
14
64.3
345,999
1
0
1390
42.3
34,720,002
225
51.1
Total for all GSCs
2005 RTI-1 Results
Life Sciences
ALL RTI
Grant Selection Committee
(GSC)
RTI for FTAs
No.
App.
Success
Rate (%)
Funding
($)
No.
App.
Success
Rate (%)
(1011) Integrative Animal
Biology
101
42.6
2,356,590
17
35.5
(32) Cell Biology
77
49.6
1,724,195
11
45.5
(33) Molecular & Dev. Genetics
36
44.4
807,331
4
50.0
(03) Plant Biology & Food Sci.
87
41.4
1,769,324
6
66.7
(18) Evolution & Ecology
101
45.5
1,434,770
19
36.8
(12) Psychology: Brain,
Behaviour and Cognitive Sci.
42
54.8
719,031
16
50.0
Total for Life Sciences
444
45.5
8,811,241
73
43.8
45
2005 RTI-1 Results
Physical Sciences
All RTI
Grant Selection Committee
(GSC)
(08) Solid Earth Sciences
RTI for FTAs
No.
App.
Success
Rate (%)
Funding
($)
No.
App.
Success
Rate (%)
32
56.3
797,196
8
37.5
(09) Environmental Earth Sciences
68
48.5
1,720,197
12
66.6
(24) Inorganic & Organic Chem.
121
41.3
3,850,365
25
60.0
(26) Analytical & Physical Chem.
93
32.3
2,705,655
20
60.0
(17) Space & Astronomy
4
50.0
81,199
2
50.0
(28) Condensed Matter Physics
66
37.9
2,045,828
14
57.1
(29) General Physics
26
34.6
633,521
5
100
Total for Physical Sciences
410
40.7
11,833,961
86
60.5
2005 RTI-1 Results
Math, Stats & CIS
All RTI
Grant Selection Committee
(GSC)
RTI for FTAs
No.
App.
Success
Rate (%)
Funding
($)
No.
App.
Success
Rate (%)
(336) Pure & Applied Math – A
3
66.7
25,389
0
0
(337) Pure & Applied Math – B
4
50.0
146,817
0
0
(14) Statistical Sciences
8
75.0
273,070
0
0
(330) Computing & Info Sci. – A
31
58.1
926,572
5
60.0
(331) Computing & Info Sci. – B
26
42.3
485,539
3
100
Total for Math, Stats & CIS
72
54.2
8,857,387
8
58.6
46
2005 RTI-1 Results
Engineering
All RTI
Grant Selection Committee (GSC)
RTI for FTAs
No.
App.
Success
(%)
Funding
($)
No.
App.
Success
Rate (%)
(334) Comm., Comp. &
Components Eng.
49
42.9
1,612,563
6
33.3
(335) Electro. & Elect. Sys. Eng.
46
50.0
1,126,657
10
30.0
(20) Industrial Engineering
9
55.6
194,340
1
100
(04) Chem. & Metallurgical Eng.
139
33.8
4,156,954
18
50.0
(06) Civil Engineering
95
32.6
2,226,561
5
20.0
(13) Mechanical Engineering
112
39.3
2,554,339
17
52.9
Total for Engineering
450
38.0
11,871,414
57
43.9
47