Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: Readings, everyone and welcome to the division of environmental biologies, virtual office hour for the month.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: Our topic today
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: Opportunities for fresh water and marine environmental research, The
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: we have an excellent cast of experts to help us think through these opportunities we
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: and we can do some introductions. Jane, would you like to start us off.
Jayne Gardiner: Hi, everyone! I'm Jane Gardner. I'm. A program director in the Biological oceanography program over in Geo Division of Ocean Sciences
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: and Laura
Laura Lautz (GEO/EAR): Hi, everyone! I'm Laura Laouts i'm. In the Geosciences Director in the division of our sciences, and my primary program is hydrologic sciences.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: I'm Ricardo
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): Yes, Hi everyone. I'm Ricardo tell you i'm as Jane in
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: it's
Robyn Smyth: Hi, everyone i'm Robin Smythe, I'm: uh in Db's ecosystem science program
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: Chris
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: Hi Everyone I Chris Bala Krishnan also in A. Db. And the systematics and biodiversity Sciences program
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: that leaves me Jeremy Wojak. I'm a program officer in the population and community ecology cluster in the
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: as always, our virtual office hours are facilitated by Christina, Washington and Megan Lewis, who do all kinds of work behind the scenes to make sure these run smoothly for us,
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: and before we get going with today's topic, we just have a few announcements and reminders.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: Um! So you're here for this virtual office hour we have, uh, essentially one each month,
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: and in March we'll be talking about translating, foundational research and emerging technologies through civic engaged research. In April we'll talk about broadening participation in May, the career, solicitation,
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: and in June the Merit Review process, and how you can become involved in that process. If you are not yet.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: There's a couple of ways to stay up to date with happenings. In the division of environmental biology. We have a blog with the the Url listed there, where you can see posts on all kinds of relevant and pressing topics for the community, but also ah!
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: A section on our office hours, including recap posts. So if you do happen to miss a virtual office hour, you can find um. Sometimes slides are recording by curated questions and answers, and so you can derive a lot of information, even for a topic that you've missed.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: Or if you want to point your colleagues to
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: the recap from a office hour that you were able to participate. It's also a great idea.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: And then, beyond Deb. If you scroll to Nsf. Gov. And scroll to the bottom, there's a oranges banner. There that says, Sign up,
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: you click that button and pick the types of information you want to hear about from, and Nsf: It's always a shifting landscape with new opportunities. And this is a good way to to stay at the
of those.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: And if you're not yet reviewing as a reviewer or a panelist. There's a ah url there and survey monkey where you can describe yourself and your expertise, and it helps us become aware of who's out there in the community,
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: and we can tap you for those reviewing tasks which is helpful for us in the Merit Review process. But it's also
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: for particular early career and folks uh professional development.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: And then just one more slide before we get to our topic of the day. Here's a listing of some funding opportunities that may be of relevance to you who are attending here. First, note that the De B Core solicitation has no deadlines,
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: as is the case with biological oceanography.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: It's
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: in the coming months. There's a deadline for mid-career advancement in march
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: and Geos empowering broader academic capacity and education or embrace we'll talk about a bit about that later, but that deadline is in May
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: career. Deadline is in July,
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: And then note that biology and ocean sciences both have post-doc programs with deadlines in November.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: All right. With that, I think we can start in earnest, and Robin is going to lead us off.
Robyn Smyth: He's
Robyn Smyth: um. So you know folks here that are interested in, or that do study aquatic organisms and apart ecosystems. Now that these systems are embedded in a global hydrologic cycle, that links fresh water and solid water, and has no real boundaries.
Robyn Smyth: Uh yeah, in a bureaucracy like on the staff, we have to bring our programs down along some lines, even if those are fuzzy boundaries for administrative administrative reasons, so that a proposal, you know, does have to find someone's desk to land on, and someone has to manage those budgets. So we have to break this up a bit in order to in order to do that work. And so, when you go to submit your idea to Nsf. And you're asked to identify program
Robyn Smyth: that align with Dick, a topic or a habitat type or a taxa. And this can be confusing, I think, particularly to aquatic scientists whose research spans these Nsf programmatic bounces.
Robyn Smyth: So today our goal is to help clarify what we know to be confusing, and then hopefully demystify a bit. The process of co- review which happens with proposals that truly do span these
Robyn Smyth: next slide, Jeremy.
Robyn Smyth: So this diagram is just kind of a rough cut of how some of the programs that we have here at the virtual office of our today are aligning with each other. Um and in the core science, not necessarily special programs, but just to sort of walk you through some of this. If we start on the left side of this diagram with the Geos Earth Sciences division. We have the hydrologic sciences program. They consider hydrologic processes that are occurring on or beneath, or service,
Robyn Smyth: including the biosphere and the transport of nutrients and other constituents that might be of interest to ecological researchers.
Robyn Smyth: Um sort of moving down from here to the bottom of the diagram. We have Geos division of ocean sciences which includes the biological oceanography program. Um, where they consider biological oceanography and marine ecology in the open ocean, the deep ocean, the great Lakes, as well as estuaries and other coastal habitats
Robyn Smyth: moving. Continuing around in this direction to the right side of the diagram, we have some programs in other places in the Bio Division.
Robyn Smyth: So the the division of integrative organismal systems which um, you know you can is a program available to people asking questions at that organism scale, regardless of the habitat.
Robyn Smyth: And then in Deb we have clusters, evolutionary processes, and systematics and biodiversity sciences that are looking at evolutionary questions that can also occur in any kind of habitat. And finally, up to the top of our diagram, we have bio
Robyn Smyth: by division of environmental biology, ecosystem, science and population ecology clusters where where you can submit questions about fresh water, besides the great lakes, and also some work that's occurring in the coastal zone as well. So that's the particularly fuzzy area when it comes to Db's ecology programs and the biological oceanography programs that happening in the coastal zone.
Robyn Smyth: Um. So in that case, so you know, there's there's some overlap here in all these places, but when it comes to the ecology programs and the biological oceanography in the coastal zone.
Robyn Smyth: One way to look at it is whether the research questions are linked back to the land, or whether the questions are looking out towards the ocean, and that can be a first caught on which way to go on those questions. But um, you know, as with all of these. It's always uh fine to check in with a program, or if you're not sure when it comes to hydrologic sciences, that boundary is mostly with ecosystem sciences with both of these programs, looking at proposals that for people have hydrology and aqueous biogeochemistry,
Robyn Smyth: some of the work and these programs could go in either place
Robyn Smyth: it could also be co-reviewed, and that and the difference. There can be a ah bit of a preference But of the pi, whether you're in a biology program or a geology program, and we do a lot of co-review between ecosystem science and hydrologic sciences. You know at that at that interface there um evolutionary questions that are occurring in aquatic habitats, you know. Ah, also can be co-reviewed If there are marine programs, they can be co-reviewed with the biological oceanography program and evolutionary,
Robyn Smyth: and in more fresh water habitats can be co-reviewed with the population. Of commune ecology and ecosystems. As Well,
Robyn Smyth: um so those so you know we're. We're aware of these boundaries, and we navigate them all the time. And um, you know, if you're not sure like, I said before, it's you can always reach out and ask us um. And so in some cases we we might be able to advise. No, this sounds more like this program, or This sounds more like that program, and in other cases a a a proposal that's truly strands will be co- Review. And I'm going to turn it over to Chris. Now
Robyn Smyth: talk us through the Co- Review process.
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: All right. So Yes. Robin mentioned this word Co- review, and this question about this missed questions about This mysterious process, I guess, is is probably the kinds of questions I get most often from Pis. So i'm. Ah, happy to talk about it today, and to answer any questions that might come up.
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: And and although we're focusing on ah water related projects, co- Review is is much broader than that and we use it in all kinds of contexts. Many of our proposals are overviewed in Dv. And some programs over half of of the proposals that come in wind up in some kind of co- review. And so really it's any science that could make advances in multiple disciplines.
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: Might wind up being co- reviewed. So that's integrative and interdisciplinary science.
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: How does co-review work? It can work in in many different ways. But the key thing as Robin mentioned earlier, is that, or one of the key things is that the proposal has to start on somebody's desk, and that's the that's the program that you, as the P. I designate and submit it to. And then once that comes in whoever's desk it lands on, reads the proposal
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: uh and tries to um
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: think about whether there there might be opportunities for co review that would really help with the review process, and particularly ensure that adequate and appropriate relevant expertise is brought to the table to evaluate the science,
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: so that at that point that secondary program will be asked to co- review, and if they accept, then there is a number of different mechanisms that
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: that could happen. Sometimes a proposal might wind up getting evaluated in two separate panels. Sometimes a secondary program might just so suggest relevant ad hoc reviewers with specific expertise rather than taking it to panel.
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: Um. And And importantly, Ah co- Review opens the door for possible co-funding. So. But that means basically um the The two Um and Nsf programs that review. The proposal can split the cost of the project.
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: So ah! Another common question is whether you, as the pi can decide where your proposal gets co- reviewed, and the answer is not exactly, but you you can help. So at the end of the day
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: um program officers decide whether co- review is appropriate, but you can suggest um on the cover sheet when you submit programs that you think are are relevant for Co-view, and this is an extremely helpful thing to do, as we're trying to find the right expertise
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: to evaluate your proposals.
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: It's also helpful as has been mentioned to discuss research with program officers prior to submission, to to submit those one or two pages to get feedback on on really where your project is best suited. That is
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: perhaps our most important job that we have as program officers is to help guide you to the right places where you'll be most likely to be successful in applying for funding, and so as always be able to hesitate to reach out to us with those kinds of questions. Where should I submit my proposal.
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: So
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: he's
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: another really important point, and one that I think, is the leads to the most confusion. It is what happens after Co- Review. And the key thing that I think is often misunderstood is that it's It's not the case that
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: necessarily. That both programs need to love the project and place it in their highest funding category, or whatever in order for a project to be funded. So, after co-review, any number of outcomes can happen either of the programs could potentially decide to fund it,
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: or both programs could decide to fund it so, or both programs could decide to decline it. So all of the different combinations of Co-view and co-funding or not, are on the table,
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: and I think this mitigates these concerns that Ah Pis often have that it's. It's not advantageous to be to be co-reviewed that is, being exposed to so many reviewers might decrease the chances that your project might be refunded
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: rather by going through this core review process, you really do get the best and most suitable reviewers, you
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: your project, and and you have more, in fact, more opportunities for funding.
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: And so the the sort of benefits of core view again, can be in that well, and they're certainly in the quality of the review, but also in this potential for co-funding. And so what we, when we have looked at this, and we do look at this we don't find a difference in success. Rates between
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: reviewed in single panel, reviewed proposals, if anything. Occasionally it's advantageous Ah! To to to go through to have this Ah! These additional possibilities for getting funding from different programs.
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: So the most important take-home message from all of this is is the last one here, and that is
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: we don't really want to be forcing you to tailor your science to the arbitrary subdivisions, and they're not totally arbitrary, but the subdivisions that that do exist at Nsf We want your best science
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: and your most exciting ideas, and and we can figure it out, and you can help us figure it out by by talking to us. So we have a lot of different mechanisms from special special integrative programs, some of which were highlighted at the beginning and we highlighted later as well as co-review to deal with projects that don't fit. And again, we have lots of projects that don't fit into a specific cluster.
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: Um, but it's helpful. You know if you, if you do your homework, read program descriptions and see where you fit. But then talk to us, and we can help you get it there.
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: So then I think it is my turn to hand it off.
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: Yes,
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: I think so. Thanks so much, Chris. Um. So with the remaining time that we have. We're going to reserve a bunch of time for questions and answers, of course, but we'd like to just touch on a few opportunities in each of the areas that we've delineated one hundred and fifty.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: Um,
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: and so
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: um! There are the core programs. But there are also often what we sometimes call special programs ones that bridge boundaries within Nsf.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: A good one, a good exemplar for us to think through might be biodiversity on a changing planet.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: This may be of interest to you specifically, but it again serves as an exemplar of thinking through how you fit in special programs, just to give you a sense for battery on changing planet.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: It's meant to solicit proposals that will test novel hypotheses about functional biodiversity and connections to changing planet like changing climate or geology. Biological processes.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: It explicitly calls out for integrative research. And if you read that solicitation, you'll notice that both the biology, directorate and the Geological Sciences Directory are signatories, and including division of earth, sciences and ocean sciences in Geo and
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: and environmental biology and organismal biology in the eb.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: So when many units sign on to a solicitation.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: You could think of it as being a little less critical to draw these lines that we talked about before here you.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: The expectation is that you're going to be crossing boundaries and so fit within a core program is not really so critical.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: We can contrast That with another program. This is brc bio-building research capacity of new faculty in biology. Just very briefly it's it's meant for faculty in their first three years of tenure track positions
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: it's meant to build the capacity of faculty at non-ar one institutions and get them off to a good start.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: Um with an emphasis on undergraduate research. If you read that solicitation. It says that proposed projects are expected to focus on research from any area of biology that is supported by the Biology Directory.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: It sounds like a fairly straightforward line. But what that is asking you to do is to look at the specific biology programs and make sure that when you propose
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: would be funded by biology as opposed to Geo, or social and behavioral sciences, or math and physics, or some other program.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: Um. And so here,
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: finding sort of what what side of a line that you fit, and making sure that you fit some biology program is important. It affects the eligibility for this solicitation.
I think i'm going to pass the mic to one of our colleagues from ocean sciences.
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): So I I I will take the lead on uh on this one. Um.
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): So biological oceanography program, like it has been said before by Robin. We We support fundamental research in biological oceanography and marine ecology, and
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): it ranges all the way from asteroid to the to the Dc. And we also cover research in the Great Lakes.
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): The proposals must have a compelling ah frame, and they must be frame in questions that deal with with ecology in population, community, or ecosystem, and contribute significantly to an understanding of these ecosystems.
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): We don't we don't support applied.
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): Ah! Topics in general, things like Ah, pollution, restoration, engineering, Don't feed our program. The some of those objectives can be integrated as part of the broader impacts. But we, the fundamental question has to to address
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): uh some some uh
within an E. E. E ecological framework.
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): Um,
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): and, like it has been said before Bailey. The program supports interdisciplinary research, and we very frequently could review with other programs within ocean oceanography,
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): kind of physical oceanography or chemical oceanography and with the Biological Directorate
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): next like, please.
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): So who can apply really any scientists of educators that i'm in in a
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): very closely. Ah, the the Nsf proposal and award policy and procedures guide that. That's That's the the the framework. So I highly recommend everyone to to read one applying to
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): to to our program and to make clear that we Don't fund research activities by foreign organization or federal agencies unless
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): they they provide a unique and and critical service required for the success of the project. And that means that maybe when you have a super word of, of, of of a contract with with a foreign organization, or with the Federal agencies.
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): It it it! It has to go through scrutinity. Ah! To make sure that this is something critical, and cannot be reproduced by some some other lab within within the United States,
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): and and the second one is a repetition from the previous slide. And finally, when we don't have that lines. So
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): Yeah. So next slide, please.
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): So like in other programs, Geo. Embrace, we said we would talk a little bit about this. This is also a program focused for non our one institutions.
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): Ah! It goes across the the Geo direct rate, and it really tries to mitigate the many barriers that the faculty in in small institutions.
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): Ah, ah! Face! Ah! Once a meeting and a thing in Federal findings! Ah! Who can? Ah submit? Principal investigators who hold a primary appointment in an institution of higher education that is not
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): classified as a very high research activity. What we consider what we call an R. One institution.
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): Ah, there are two types of proposals that can be submitted, some seed proposals to to to offset the lack of resources. I mean, these are usually up to two hundred thousand dollars in a maximum of twenty, four month, and a growth. Proposals that are these are larger around four thousand four hundred thousand dollars and forty eight months that enable faculty to to
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): increase the the program, to buy out time from teaching and mentoring and and focus on on research. And, like. I said. This is fundamentally focused on tribal colleges and universities.
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): Ah! Historically, by black colleges, minorities, every institutions two-year colleges and primary undergraduate institutions so that we are trying to really what we're trying to increase the diversity of of of people So, meeting two or twenty, seven and and making work
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): the feel uh more fair for for all these institutions,
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): and the target date is May fifteen.
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): We usually have two target dates, but maybe one is in November that just passed, and the next one is in May.
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): Thank you.
Robyn Smyth: Thanks, Ricardo. And
Robyn Smyth: just a a plug here, and a reminder that neon has thirty-four aquatic sites, waitable streams lakes, and non-weightable rivers that that are collecting standardized data and and Nsf. Encourages the use and reuse of of neon data. So just a reminder that both sides are out there for the aquatic community,
Robyn Smyth: and I think that is pretty much it. I think, Jeremy, you wanna
Robyn Smyth: take us to the last one here so
Robyn Smyth: hopefully. Ah, what we've had to say helps a little bit. Break down the hydrologic cycle, or it demonstrate how we break it down here, and and the staff to fund aquatic research. And I think with that we will take your questions
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): Just one last thing, too, that I would like to say, if it possible that I forgot. And and Jeremy listened. But he didn't mention. We are always in need of of of program directors, rotators,
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): so please, if you Ah! Think that that you would feed, and you are interested in learning about Ah, how the system really works, and and the work that is done to support your your grant.
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): Ah, think about volunteering and and and coming to work for for a year or more in at Nsf. As a program director
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: Next, it takes everybody.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: So we have plenty of time for questions and answers. We can submit your questions via the Q. And a box ideally set yourself to anonymous.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: If you do see any question that you share, you can just hit the thumbs up icon, and it'll show us that it is a popular question.
We do have a couple of questions that have come in already.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: I'm
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: So here's a question. Our Our co-reviewed
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: proposals seem to be rejected more often than single discipline proposals. Is that the case?
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: Oh, and Chris, what do you think?
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: Yeah. Well, I I can't claim to be able to quantitatively evaluate that across all of the possible ways that one could have a co- review.
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: But when we've looked at this in De B we have we've not found that to be the case, and I think there's There's a couple of things I guess I would say, for one thing, for the last. I don't even know five, ten, probably even more years, I'd say
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: integrative work has been something that we in Bio have been pushing for, and so it would not be suiting our sort of
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: strategic goals if we were, if we were struggling to to fund those proposals. And so we. It really is a priority in Bio for us to do that, and then ah, secondly and again, I'm mostly speaking
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: for how this works, and by I don't want to over, generalize. And so any of the other programs.
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: Officers that are here can and chime in. But you know, when we're ah the what I and I But i'm totally sympathetic. I guess to this idea that you get a lot of different reviewers, and it's hard to please all of them. But one of the things about Nsf. Is that we we can.
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: We take we as a program. Officers take those reviews and and and and the panel recommendations, and we take them to make decisions. And So if you,
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: even if
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: one reviewer is is negative, that doesn't mean that your proposal, you know you can't be funded if if the proposal um fares well and program officers and the programs are excited about it, you know we can still
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: move it forward. And then the second thing is, as I said before we're splitting the cost. And so you ah, that sometimes can make it easier to fund. Ah co-reviewed proposals and so that's why we think when we've looked at the data. It doesn't really support this, this idea that these core view projects. Ah,
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: you're worse out
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: the other thing. This question also suggests that reviewers that are less familiar
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: might might be be problematic, and and this is purely anecdote on my
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: part. But I would maybe a social scientist or someone has actually looked at this. But my my intuition as a program officer is that actually, people that are a little bit further away from the science are actually more excited about it. They can't pick apart the little nitty-gritty details, and they love to see stuff that they're not familiar with. And so yeah, overall, I think Core view does not hurt, does not hurt.
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: Does anyone else have anything to add to that?
Laura Lautz (GEO/EAR): This is Laura. Could I add one one small thing just from a and a whole other director in another division. I just want to completely agree with everything, Chris just said in terms of success rates, and we have a lot of Rpi's have the same concern about kind of a double jeopardy scenario, where you have to do all on both panels, and I just wanted to add one anecdote that
Laura Lautz (GEO/EAR): I've seen a couple of times in our program where we have co-reviewed proposals that have been submitted to other programs, and they've actually done better in hydrologic sciences than they did in those other programs. And then we've elected to fund them. Even when the original program
Laura Lautz (GEO/EAR): I wasn't inclined to do so. So I think that's just a great example where maybe A. P. I had thought they found the best aligned program, but it turns out. There was another program that was more enthusiastic about the topic, and so that Co-review
um give the proposal an opportunity to be seen. But and and actually get funded in a case where I don't think it would have otherwise. So sometimes it can be really advantageous.
Laura Lautz (GEO/EAR): Of course it's all proposal specific, but I just wanted to provide that other scenario where you can see a potential benefit of Covid.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: I'll just before we go to the next question i'll.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: I'll add also, that to the extent that you can anticipate co-review you know, if it's pretty clear that your work is going to span a couple of boundaries. Then, being mindful of that, those different audiences as you write, the proposal text makes all the sense in the world,
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: and in general reducing jargon such that any scientific mind can read. Your proposal is probably a good practice
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: for them.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: Co-review or not.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: All right um
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: questions are pouring in at this point which is excellent.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: Um!
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: So for you, we've mentioned that some solicitations no longer have deadlines.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: And so, if somebody asks, do you recommend connecting with the grant managers or program managers.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: How do you decide? You know, basically when you're ready to apply without a deadline? What do you think, Ricardo?
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): Well, my suggestion is, it's It's always good to talk to to the program manager, to to have their opinion and to to make them a war aware of a of a proposal they are submitting. They can give you some some advice of of of
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): it's,
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): uncle, reviews, etc.
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): It is not required; but if you feel that that you are ready, that that the proposal is ready to go, and you have clear. Ah, it! And it is clear to you that it feeds in in a given program. There is no need for you to to contact the
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): the program manager in that program.
Jayne Gardiner: I just add something here quickly, So, and I think it sort of dovetails with another question. Um! And programs that have no deadlines. We convene several panels a year. We sort of accumulate a sufficient number
Jayne Gardiner: for a panel. Ah, and and typically, we've been averaging in Bios, for example, three or four panels a year. So we encourage you to submit your proposal when you're ready. Um! If and and you can expect that we will be able to provide you with your recommendation in about six months time.
If you have particular concerns about timeline. If you have anything
Jayne Gardiner: sort of like that ship, time, for example, included in your proposal, you should plan for a longer lead time there. So if there are any special considerations, please reach out to a program officer, but it's not required. Um that you do so
Jayne Gardiner: you can certainly submit if you feel it's it's appropriate to the program whenever that that proposal is ready to come in.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: Right. So our next question, What opportunities are there for funding long-term marine research.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: It's.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: And is it true that El tread long long-term research in uh environmental biology does not fund marine research
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): I can I can
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): answer, I i'm not familiar. I i'm a heritator. I'm sorry I apologize. I'm not familiar with uh ltr, but I know that that Ltrs that we have in the marine environment that we have several ones at this fund. We are only supporting
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): the invited uh renewals. We are not supporting new new new proposals for for long-term ecological sites research sites two hundred and fifty.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: We are
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): Yeah, i'll just add that Yeah, that's accurate. Um. The L. Tribe the ultrav is just in biology. So when you you're trying to get out into open notion habitats and things that wouldn't be covered by by the biology director that my understanding is that the hell trucks not a option in those habitats,
Robyn Smyth: and and there's very unlikely to be new opportunities for ltr sites anytime soon of any habitat type.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: All right, I found an interesting one.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: There are lots of great questions, but what funding opportunities are suitable for research questions that focus on synthesis
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: of already available or published data sets.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: I'm thinking of big data analytics,
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: What programs might be appropriate,
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: Chris, You want to give that one a shot. I can take it. I I think
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: I would say In general, there's a lot of interest in data reuse. So I think this is this is
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: one where probably any program would be interested in such projects. And so it's really a question of what the research questions are, and identifying your your home program of of interest.
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: The only other thing in terms of like specific programs that comes to my mind is is the opus program which was mentioned. I think, in one of the first slides opportunities for promoting understanding through synthesis. This this is a
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: Db. Specific
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: program. So division of environmental biology that really focuses on synthesis a lot of times. These are focused on an individual. P. I. Synthesizing their own body of research, but it doesn't It's not required that it be that so? If you,
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: if you, if you can, make a compelling case, that
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: your research is suitable for such a synthesis, then the opus in Deb might be a good fit for you,
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: anyone else.
Jayne Gardiner: Yeah, I'll just chime in that. We commonly get this question over an oce as well, and
Jayne Gardiner: you know, determining the right program should really be based on your questions. And you know we're sort of agnostic as to the approach we value the reuse of data
Jayne Gardiner: um to address new questions and advance the field. So we sometimes see. The question, you know, is, is your proposal going to be less competitive if it doesn't include ah novel experiments, for example, in either the lab or the field, and it it really is up to you as the pi to design the best approach, but it's the question. So it should be exciting. And and certainly, if if the existing data sets that are out there that you can reuse or appropriate
Jayne Gardiner: to address those questions. Then that's an appropriate approach to take, and one that can be quite competitive, because we certainly you know, value the use of reuse of those data versus one hundred and fifty
Jayne Gardiner: collecting new data. They're not, you know, well justified, for example,
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: excellent. Next question Um for aquatic biogeochemistry. Um
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: somebody mentions that they've been pointed to a ours geo biology and low-temperature geochemistry in the past.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: Can you speak to how to navigate proposals that may span this program as well. So there may be.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: It's
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: hydrologic sciences might be ecosystem science and
and geochemistry.
Robyn Smyth: Laura, do you want to take that one? First, and then I can follow up. Maybe
Laura Lautz (GEO/EAR): sure I can try. Um.
Laura Lautz (GEO/EAR): I mean, I I would say this is a great question, because the programs, hydrologic sciences, ecosystem sciences and low temperature. Geochemistry do have lots of points of contact, and do work together in to review and communicate a lot. So um! I wouldn't be surprised that one who works at the intersection of these different fields might
Laura Lautz (GEO/EAR): be able to submit proposals to any of them. Actually. And it kind of depends on maybe the audience who is most likely to be most enthusiastic about the given proposal.
Laura Lautz (GEO/EAR): I would say broadly, division of Earth sciences versus division of an environmental biology, and I don't want to speak for de but for division of Earth sciences
Laura Lautz (GEO/EAR): we're often focused on abiotic drivers. So in hydrologic sciences we're often interested in how water flow, paths or residence times might drive, let's say, transport of nutrients from terrestrial system to the ocean, or something like that. But it's more of how the hydrology affects the transport, and the
Laura Lautz (GEO/EAR): elements are kind of pat passively riding along that kind of abiotic system, for example. So we focus on hydrologic drivers in low temperature. Geochemistry. I think a lot of the Geochemistry is again kind of focused on abiotic processes. So things like weathering
Laura Lautz (GEO/EAR): soil soil. Chemistry, you know, maybe absorption, desorption to soils. And so some of these kind of processes that drive may drive water chemistry that are focused on like an abiotic,
Laura Lautz (GEO/EAR): biochemical reaction is what I would say, and so i'm not in the low temperature geochemistry program. But that is how I think about their program. I would also, you know, encourage you to read the solicitations for these programs, because that's the program officers trying to lay out for you the scope of the program, and so by reading them you may be able to see kind of different
Laura Lautz (GEO/EAR): of focus. So I hope that's helpful for thinking about the distinction between the geoscience program and the biology program.
Robyn Smyth: Thanks, or I'll just quickly add that. Ah, if if the questions are added in the ecosystem scale, or are you, you know, scalable to that scale, then aquatic, but by Geochron Street can definitely fit in ecosystem science. I think, if the
Robyn Smyth: if it's not if the links to ecosystem scale processes are less clear like It's a at a smaller scale. That might be,
Robyn Smyth: that's the case. But um, you know, feel free to check in with ecosystem sciences about aquatic biogeochemistry. And we do co- review with the low temperature geobiology program.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: All right, just on this point. We'll see if my colleagues agree with with this sort of anecdote. But um! There's been occasions where, in talking with the pi, you know, I've suggested a a different program, and and they'll say, you know I don't see myself as
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: insert blank, right, hydrologist, biogeochemist, marine biologist whatever,
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: and that's reasonable to think through. But instead of thinking of how you define yourself. Think about how other people would see your questions, and it may be that you're not a hydrologist. But you're asking really interesting hydrology questions in a specific project, and
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: more relevant to where a proposal ends up.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: All right. Let's see. We have knocked down a bunch of the questions.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: Um one. I think maybe Chris can can reiterate this one. So you, Chris, you mentioned that the Pi doesn't really decide on who to reviews a proposal that Nsf. Makes those determinations. But
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: how? And can A. P. I indicate
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: a potential program that might be an appropriate coordinating fit?
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: Yeah. So this is part of the cover page. So when you're submitting your proposal, there'll be an opportunity to the list.
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: It might be a pull down. I haven't done it on that it on the P. I. N. For some time on our side there's a section that says for consideration by Nsf. Organizational units and the different programs that the pi things might be relevant to show up in that box. So I imagine, on the Pi side it's either a pull down or a text box that you can fill in the programs that you think are so. This would be at the submission stage on the cover page.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: Thank you, Chris, and
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: we have sort of a summative question, right? We've talked about lots of hints that somebody's kind of putting it all together. They ask what is the best practice for determining programmatic or solicitation to apply to you
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: when reaching out to a program detector should I prepare a one-page summary and set up a meeting.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: Do you think we're at them?
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): I think that the best practice, first of all is to read the scope
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): of each uh uh program. Really that you are, you're considering, and which And to think about which one best feeds the research question that you are trying to address.
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): And the second thing is, yes, definitely send one page, or it has to be complete, but submitted to your program manager. Give them a little bit of time to read it,
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): to think about it, and then have a conversation with with them regarding how they see how the question is frame, and where they see
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): best feed a lot of times they they will give you guidance on ah, on on word to submit, but which other programs to to ah, to to contact, or sometimes they will say Yes, it's. It's completely square with within our program, and and we will be glad to to ah to consider it.
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): I don't know if anyone has something else to add.
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: I'll just. I'll just add that I put a link in the chat, not the Q and A. But chat, and that is from our deed blog, where we have a blog post for August about contacting a program. Observer
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: complement the information that we just heard in that last dance.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: Awesome.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: It's a little less direct. But another place to gather information is to search for
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: Nsf. Awards you just Google Nsf: Awards search a tool will pop up.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: If you look for keywords or the type of research that you're thinking about doing, you'll see
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: Prior awards and and
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: made those awards, and that can be a little bit of a indicator
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: not as good as talking with the program officer, but
it can be helpful.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: Um, excellent. Another question. Someone told me. We are not supposed to send a proposal back in right after rejection.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: Um, how long should we wait to resubmit
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: a rejected proposal?
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: Um, and particularly in Bios Jane, What do you think?
Jayne Gardiner: Yeah. So this is an oce sort of specific
Jayne Gardiner: a policy that we we have across ocean sciences, programs that we discourage immediate resubmission of proposals, and ask you to ah not to submit any earlier than one year from the date of submission of that declined proposal. This is to make sure you have
Jayne Gardiner: time to to digest that feedback and incorporate it. Um and resubmit it. We We recognize that there are um sometimes special circumstances extenuating circumstances that might apply. If that's the case, do you reach out to us? Um,
Jayne Gardiner: i'll ask. I'll get a colleague to drop a link in the chat. I I can't, but i'll. I'll drop the link to our policy, anyway, for you to take a look at, but we include this information. Ah, in the program comments that you receive with a decline proposal what the practices are around resubmissions.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: All right. We have a question from
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: so many thinking about their first Nsf proposal. So if you're a new pi, and you're submitting that first proposal is there a way to indicate that in a proposal somewhere to explain
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: of the lack of previous funding. Chris.
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: Yes, that um.
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: I like this question because I think it's a an opportunity to you
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: highlight the fact that yes, Yeah, we we as program officers sort of pay a lot of attention to people's careers, and we we know our Pis is in our Api community. Very well. So if you submit something, we will definitely know that it is your your first submission. We have, you know, when we're evaluating proposals we're looking at.
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: Um! Ah!
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: We often look at past and current support. That's a document that you will. You will ah submit your current impending support. There's a section in the proposal that asks for ah results from prior support. So you do have an opportunity to tell us in that section of results from prior support that you haven't had any. But I would say in general, you know we we're we're looking at all of these things, and we're particularly trying to be supportive of people who are reaching out to the Nsf. For funding for the first time. So
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: we try to ah ah support Ah! People at this particular stage, and ah, and and as a new as a new bi. That's ah! Another important time when you might want to talk to your program, officers and get get guidance on where your so prop proposal should be coming in.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: All right. I got a question from someone thinking factorially
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: A proposal is submitted to Bio and is co-reviewed by oceanography, and then declined
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: with the one-year cooling off period still be applied
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: check.
Jayne Gardiner: Sure. So this is an oce policy, and it applies based on the primary program that the proposal was submitted to. So if it was ah submitted to a program that is not oce, you would want to talk to that program about their policies about resubmission.
Jayne Gardiner: Yeah, this is also Ah, I could add a common question around things like data management plans, because so ce has some specific guidance there as well. Um or co-reviewed proposals follow the practices and policy of the the primary program that you're submitting to
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: all right I think we may have worked our way through all of the questions
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: I just want to pause, and if there's anything that any of our
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: panelists would like to say
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: means of wrap up.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: I'm sure we do have a great new question that just popped in, which is
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: worthy of tackling.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: Um!
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: How should you handle the situation where you contact two program officers, and they both suggest that you submit to the other program and list, you guys secondary.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: But it sounds like
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: a question born out of experience, perhaps,
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: and he wouldn't want to take a stab at that.
Robyn Smyth: I'd say, go with your gut
Robyn Smyth: whenever one feels better for you. Submit it, and it'll get worked out once it gets here. You can suggest. The other program is secondary, but
Robyn Smyth: well, we can figure it it out.
Laura Lautz (GEO/EAR): I was gonna say a kind of a related comment. Sometimes. Pis ask if they're not sure what where A proposal fits, whether they should email the program separately or together. Um, And that's a great question. I don't. I don't know that all of us would provide the same answer. But I I would generally say,
Laura Lautz (GEO/EAR): if it's two programs you're thinking about. It's great to email them at the same time, because many times, Um, you know, I've been approached about a fit to hydrologic sciences, and I just end up forwarding it to let's say ecosystem science to say, Hey, is this something that you guys would do and come to find. Well, they perceive the same email, and they'd already responded to it. Yeah, it's really nice when we can have a chance to coordinate, because we might have a conversation, and then just give you one nice, consistent answer instead of Yeah. I hate to hear that the Fbi has made it the bounce
Laura Lautz (GEO/EAR): around and received inconsistent advice. But we're human, too, and we might not know if you've inquired with another program, and we, you know we might just be making our best estimate of our proposals that really lie at that interface.
Laura Lautz (GEO/EAR): That that advice I submit to the other program might actually be reasonable advice that the hear from both program officers, I know can be really frustrating. So I would say, you can always approach those two programs at the same time to try to get them to coordinate their response. So you don't get that kind of confusing information and you're left wondering what you do.
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: Yeah, i'll just add, you know, One thing I mentioned earlier is that you know we don't
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: decide this until the proposal comes in right, and that's like It's off. Another dimension of this is that it's sort of hard to make a evaluation on it, even with a one-page or a two pager in hand. And so we we try to do the best we can and talk to the right people. But once the full proposal is, you know, we
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: really make sure to reach out to as many of our colleagues as we can. But again, that scenario where you give us some clues, and the submission itself might make sure that we don't miss things, because really
Chris Balakrishnan - BIO/DEB/SBS: the scope of disciplines that people are bridging these days is vast, and it's it's um. And so you know, it's good to hear from you where all you you think your your your stuff should be reviewed,
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: and as we near the top of the hour, I think we have time for one more question, and we have one for biological oceanography. Somebody's wondering about the number of proposals they should submit. It's increasing the number of proposals submitted, lowering the chance of one hundred and fifty
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: getting one funded. What do you think, Ricardo?
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): I I don't think it it. It It lowers the the chances of getting more and funded. What? What it does it's. Maybe you're competing with yourself for the funds at that point, so so sometimes we see a more than one proposal that has been submitted by by by A. P. I.
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): And Um, sometimes really the Sometimes they are submitted to two different programs. For example, we work closely with with chemical oceanography, and they have different proposals, and one is much more focused in the chemical and the other one in the biological,
Ricardo Letelier (GEO/OCE): and we call review, and we end up uh reviewing both proposals ultimately what you end up competing with yourself. But I think if The proposal is one of the proposal is good. We are not lowering the chances of of of having that proposal funded. Maybe Jane wants to add something.
Jayne Gardiner: No, I think that's that's great advice. Staggering your submissions. If you're thinking about submitting proposals on different topics, it's a great idea, and
Jayne Gardiner: just to keep in in mind that um. One of the things that reviewers do consider is is your capacity to take on new projects. So um that does sometimes factor into making a decision to fund or sort of how how we look at one proposal versus another one we're considering to at the same time is, you know, would you have the the capacity
Jayne Gardiner: in the bandwidth, and and so forth, to take on both simultaneously? Sort of thing,
Jayne Gardiner: especially when they're big projects? Um! And we see a trend currently towards
Jayne Gardiner: uh things, some some fairly large projects coming into our program.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: Right with that we are at the top of the hour, a huge thanks to our colleagues from outside of the division of environmental biology, to join us and help share their wisdom and insights from their programs.
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: Um! And thanks to our participants who came, and um
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: excellent questions, we will see you all next month
Jeremy Wojdak - DEB: at the next virtual office hours. Until then, take care, Thanks, Everybody.