WRITING A SUCCESSFUL NSF ANIMAL BEHAVIOR PROPOSAL
John A. Byers
NSF Animal Behavior Program Officer
Penny Kukuk
Former NSF Animal Behavior Program Officer
In the fiscal year 2000, the Animal Behavior Program at NSF has a budget that permits about 17% of proposals to be funded. Funding rates in the future may improve a bit, but it is likely that competition will remain keen. Based on our experiences serving as Program Officers (POs, = Program Directors) for the Animal Behavior Program at NSF, we wrote this essay to describe the process by which proposals are reviewed and evaluated for funding, and to describe the characteristics of successful proposals.
When proposals come to the BIO Directorate, they first go to a room where POs from the Division of Integrative Biology and Neuroscience (home of the Animal Behavior Program), the Division of Environmental Biology (home of the Population Biology and Ecology Programs), and the Division of Molecular and Cellular Biosciences look at them and assign them to programs. Each proposal must be seen by three POs who must agree on its assignment. The assignment is based on the content of the proposals. With just a few exceptions, proposals are assigned to the program suggested by the PI on the cover sheet. At this time and shortly thereafter, POs make arrangements with each other to co-review some proposals. A co-reviewed proposal goes through the review process in each Program, but one Program retains primary responsibility for tracking the proposal and for communicating with the PI.
After a proposal is assigned to a program, the PO sends it out for mail review, typically to about six reviewers. The PO then chooses a panel of 12-15 scientists that comprises the expertise needed to review the proposals. The PO assigns each proposal to three panelists: a primary reviewer, a secondary reviewer, and a reader, and sends proposal copies to them. The panelists usually receive copies of the proposals to which they are assigned about 4-6 weeks before the panel meeting at the NSF. During a panel meeting, each proposal is discussed. First, the primary reviewer presents the basic thrust of the proposal, summarizes the mail reviews, and gives his or her own evaluation. The secondary reviewer then adds and elaborates as appropriate, and the reader does likewise. The primary reviewer then suggests a category assignment (currently in the Animal Behavior Program, these are Outstanding, Fund if Funds Available, Not Ready, Decline). Discussion among the assigned reviewers and sometimes other panelists may change a proposal’s assignment up or down. The primary reviewer then writes a draft panel summary. It is reviewed by the other two assigned reviewers and the final version is signed by all three.
At the NSF, panel recommendations are advisory to the PO. The PO reads each proposal, reads the reviews and the panel summary, and consults notes made during panel discussion. Panel reviews and mail reviews almost always concur. The PO then makes a decision to fund or to decline, and if to fund, at what amount. Although the panel recommendations are advisory, the PO has chosen the panel and thus is likely to take their recommendations seriously. It is improbable that a PO will decide to fund a proposal that was ranked as Decline or Not Ready. A proposal has some chance of being funded if it is ranked as Fund if Funds Available, and a better chance if it is ranked as Outstanding.
Successful proposals usually share several characteristics. First, and most importantly, successful proposals start with a clearly stated question that is important within the field of Animal Behavior, and which also clearly connects in some way to the rest of biology. A proposal that asks a significant question but has flawed methods usually is ranked more highly than a proposal with perfect methods that asks a mundane or trivial question. A proposal that seeks to develop an understanding of a particular system may be elegant in experimental design and reductionist logic, but if it does not state the larger significance of the work, it is unlikely to be rated highly. This part of proposal writing is unquestionably the most difficult and the part that requires the most creativity. The statement of the research question is the main selling point of the proposal and is the great dividing point that separates most proposals into fundable versus not fundable categories. One of the most common mistakes PIs make is to propose research that is centered on an issue that is important to a particular species rather than a question of general interest over a wide array of animal groups. It is important, however, that the study system (species and context) be appropriate to answer the central research question. This should be well documented in the proposal.
The second characteristic of successful proposals is the clear presentation of hypotheses that will answer the research question. These hypotheses provide reviewers with the information they need to decide whether the actual research proposed would indeed address the central question. Reviewers will also be able to ascertain from your hypotheses whether or not you are planning to interpret your results correctly. It also helps to have a short explanation somewhere in the proposal that clearly spells out what interpretations you would make given alternative outcomes from your proposed work. The second major dividing point occurs here. If the PI states that support of hypothesis 1 will mean that the answer to the research question is “yes,” but reviewers see that an equally plausible interpretation is “no,” the proposal likely will be declined.
A subsidiary, but important, point of evaluation is the consideration of specific methods. Reviewers should be able to see, without significant effort, what data will be collected to test which hypotheses. How the data will be collected, and the anticipated sample sizes, should be clear. Reviewers should never have to search to find which data will be collected to test which hypotheses. Some proposals that state good questions but which have flawed methods are funded, especially when the flaws can be fixed in response to reviews.
Be sure to review the literature thoroughly and fairly, giving credit where credit is due. Present enough preliminary data to convince reviewers that you know what you are doing and that you are capable of doing the work well. This is especially important if you are proposing to use a technique that you have not used before. Don’t shoot yourself in the foot by submitting a proposal that does not conform to font size and margin rules, or that contains grammatical or spelling errors. These things color a reviewer’s perception of your abilities.
The proposal must be well organized. It is helpful to have clear subheadings in the introduction and methods and for them to appear in the same order in both sections. It is helpful if you include a section describing how you would statistically analyze and interpret possible results.
Use the fastlane system to suggest reviewers and to request that some persons not be used as reviewers. The Program Officer appreciates and uses these suggestions.
Be persistent. Most funded proposals represent the second, or third, or fourth revision of previously rejected attempts. In your revised proposal, write a reply to the previous reviews, in which you explain how you have changed (or why you have not changed) your proposal in response to criticisms. Make it clear that you have thought about and responded to the comments of reviewers and panelists.