From Mark Riley:
These past few weeks, I have visited with a number of program managers/officers for federal funding agencies including NSF, ONR, and AFOSR.
I would like to share observations on how best to interface with them and to garner support for our faculty’s research projects. These are most likely not new ideas but should serve as a good reminder of the differences between agencies and programs.
1) NSF does not support product development work and prioritizes basic science that addresses deep and fundamental questions. If development of a tool, process, or algorithm is needed to answer the big Research questions, that is fine, but the ultimate goal of advancing understanding is paramount.
2) NSF program managers have substantial discretion in how they run their program and to what degree they emphasize hypothesis-driven research vs. exploratory research. They typically will prefer if there is a well-crafted hypothesis, but its importance varies across program managers, even within the same division. Some PM’s pay little attention to the presence of an hypothesis while for others it is the foundation for their evaluation.
3) The types and required depth of broader impacts expected also depend on the program manager. In some cases, they expect to see outreach activities that engage K12 students or the general public; other program would rather that the emphasis be placed on the research being directly incorporated into the classroom or teaching laboratory.
4) DOD program officers can operate in a manner that it substantially different from that of NSF program manager. Some have the discretion to select projects on their own, that is, without a peer review or panel input. Building a strong relationship is critical. Their portfolios of research projects will often be goal driven and with targets that do not change much from year to year and hence their funded projects may not change much from year to year.
5) Some DOD program officers encourage research that is performed at very basic / fundamental levels (TRL’s 6.1-6.2) while others are focused on translational research (TRL 6.3 and higher). Talk with the program officer to see what is their goal. Even if they want fundamental research it needs to have potential utilization in the DOD mission to protect warfighters, preserve equipment and property, and save money. For background on Technology Readiness Levels (TRL’s) see: https://www.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/404585.pdf OR https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/scan/engineering/technology/txt_accordion1.html.
6) When engaging with a DOD program officer, start with a brief email introduction which references their program and a topic in one of their recent BAA’s and how your work may advance those activities. If they are receptive, follow up with a 1-2 page white paper and a request for a phone conversation a few days after they receive your white paper.
7) DOD-sponsored research often is performed at a very basic science level but the program officer will need you to justify how the work can be applied toward specific mission activities. For example, if you are studying biological systems in extreme environments, explain in realistic terms how the knowledge you gain could lead to ways to safeguard warfighters from extreme pressure, temperature, radiation, or similar stressor (not just that the knowledge may have some eventual use). That translational step does not need to be immediate but could require 5-10 years of progress.
8) ONR (Office of Naval Research) sponsors deep, fundamental scientific research but with an eye towards real application, especially in marine environments. Ships are big and need a lot of material and parts. Fabrication of parts on a rolling, high seas can be a tough environment and is ripe for investigation.
I hope that this has been helpful. Let me know if you would like to discuss.
- - - - - - -
This past week, I participated in the SciComm18 – scientific communication conference held in Lincoln. I would like to share an observation for improving scientific communication
We frequently hear of the need to avoid jargon when we communicate with broader communities that include non-scientists. Jargon is a shortcut that allows us to avoid repeating details of our shared understanding, but can lead to too many TLA’s (three-letter acronyms). Jargon can also get in the way of our proposals and papers being well understood within our scientific and engineering communities.
How can we recognize when our work has too much jargon?
Jargon can be identified using online tools such as the De-jargonizer: http://scienceandpublic.com/
This is a simple paste and analyze system that can help one to identify words in your writing that may not be accessible to a broader audience. (See the paper and abstract below.)
If you need to include jargon, then define the term before it is used. For example, compare the two sentences:
a) Apoptosis is the process of cell death in response to a stressor.
b) The process of cell death in response to a stressor is called apoptosis.
These have nearly the same words, but the second sentence when used in speach is easier to follow if you are not familiar with the term “apoptosis”.
In the first page of your proposal it is especially helpful to avoid jargon and write with the goal of scientists with a broad scope of training to understand the significance of your work.
I hope that this has been helpful. Let me know if you would like to discuss.
Regards,
Mark Riley, COE Associate Dean for Research
mriley3@unl.edu