UCR Research and Economic
Development Newsletter: June 22, 2014
Michael Pazzani
Vice Chancellor for Research
and Economic Development
Back Issues of Newsletter: http://reserach.ucr.edu/vcr/newsletters.aspx
Grant Opportunity Search: http://pivot.cos.com
·
HONING YOUR PROPOSAL WRITING SKILLS
·
NSF CAREER Proposals
·
Venture 101: Wednesday, June 25, 2:30
·
I think we now have a final time and date for the USDA
talk: July 21 at 10am
·
2015 Pew Scholars Program in the Biomedical Sciences
award. July 1.
·
Stupid Faculty Tricks
·
Bathing Beauties
HONING YOUR PROPOSAL
WRITING SKILLS
George A. Hazelrigg, aprogram
director at NSF has some hints on writing propsoals. Here are my favorite
exerpts. See http://poole.ncsu.edu/i/com/weblogs/research-development/Honing-Proposal-Skillls-1.pdf
for more.
It
should be totally obvious that the most important thing a reviewer wants to
know when he or she picks up a proposal is what it’s about. Ergo, for NSF, the
first sentence of paragraph one, page one should begin, “The research
objective of this proposal is...” In my experience, any other sentence used to
start the proposal results in a lower rating.
There
are many words that, to reviewers, mean “not research.” These include
“develop,” “design,” “optimize,” “control,” “manage,” and so on. If your
statement of your research objective includes one of these words, for example,
“The research objective of this proposal is to develop....,” you have just told
the reviewers that your objective is not research, and your rating will be
lower.
This information, and many
other proposal hints are contained in the attached Research Development &
Grant Writing News.
NSF CAREER Proposals
The CAREER is NSF’s most
prestigious award in support of untenured faculty who exemplify the role of
teacher-scholars through outstanding research, excellent education and the
integration of education and research within the context of the mission of
their organizations. See http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=503214
for the NSF solicitation. CAREER proposals are due July 21-24, 2014; the
exact deadline varies by discipline.
Randy Black in Research and
Economic Development and Mitch Boretz in BCOE have been providing feedback on
proposals. The most common area that needs attention are the educational
plan and the broader impacts and the most common mistake is treating these as
the same. Often, the educational plan will be targeted toward
existing UCR students and the education the PI delivered at UCR. The
broader impact plan will often encourage or assist members of underrepresented
groups who are not necessarily UCR students to pursue college
education. The following quote from the CAREER solicitation
describes the educational
NSF
… encourages all applicants to think creatively about how their research will
impact their education goals and, conversely, how their education activities
will feed back into their research. These plans should reflect both the
proposer's own disciplinary and educational interests and goals, as well
as the needs and context of his or her organization.
In general, it is better to
join an excising UCR broader impacts activity than to create your own.
See http://research.ucr.edu/WebDocs/RD/ProposalMaterials/NSF%20CAREER/Broader%20Impacts/Education%20Engagement%20Opportunities%2004152014.doc
for a list of activities that may be appropriate for a CAREER award. http://research.ucr.edu/OrApps/RD/proposals/Default.aspx
contains many resources for proposal writing and has a section specifically for
CAREER.
A second area of improvement
in CAREER proposals is the chair’s letter. The Chair’s letter presents an
opportunity to place the PI’s proposal and CAREER in context. The Chair’s
letter should
·
Verify that the PI in eligible for the program.
·
Show Strong Support for the research education, and broader
impacts of the CAREER proposal.
·
Describe how the PI’s goals mesh with those of the department
and university.
·
Describe the Commitment to the professional development of
the PI with mentoring
A typical letter might start
“UCR is committed to the success of its faculty. Dr. X was hired in
2014 and provided with “describe lab size and equipment”
Other items to include would describe
·
How the research of the PI fits within the research of the department,
college or university by joining an existing group of faculty with a
similar research emphasis, or bridging two established strengths, or creating a
new focus that will be expanding in importance.
·
Other support in addition to start-up fund provided by the
university, e.g., access to funds to recruiting new graduate students, etc.
·
The sabbatical system at UCR and how assistant professors may
take a sabbatical before tenure to work on their research.
·
How the department will support the education plan.
·
How the department or college supports the broader impact
plans.
A generic letter, appropriate
for all faculty in a department should be avoided. Listing facilities the
PI doesn’t need and outreach programs the PI is not participating is not helpful.
Reading the proposal and commenting on the specific research, education and
outreach plans is encouraged.
Here are some hints from an
NSF presentation on CAREEER proposals.
What makes a proposal
competitive?
•
A timely and
compelling idea that lies with NSF strategic goals
•
Sound
justification with testable hypothesis(es)
•
Clear, succinct
experimental design and realistic scope of work
•
Knowledge of
subject area, pertinent literature
•
PI experienced in
the methodology (or collaborating)
•
Preliminary data
or record of publication
•
Clear plan
•
Written clearly
and proofread
Most Common Flaws in a
proposal
•
No conceptual
framework (no big picture)
•
Results will not
advance current understanding or are incremental
•
Study is too
ambitious or too narrow in scope
•
Emphasis is on
(new) methods, not questions
•
Lack of
familiarity with latest advances in field
•
Lack of detail on
data analysis, modeling, or interpretation
•
Results will not
address the stated hypotheses
•
PI
qualifications/expertise not evident
•
Necessary collaborations
not documented
Last year, UCR’s success rate
was about 33% on CAREER awards. This year, I hope we can exceed that.
Finishing a draft early and getting feedback from colleagues on the
intellectual merits and grant writers on the education and outreach plans is
the best way to increase your chances of getting funded.
Venture Investing
101: 2:30 Wed June 25
Tim Hoerr CEO of Serra
Ventures and Managing Partner of Serra Capita will be visiting UCR on June 25
in collaboration with INSOCAL CONNECT. He will speak at 2:30 in the
Genomics Auditorium to introduce entrepreneurs and start-up companies to the venture
capital process by presenting essential elements of building a high performance
technology company
The Serra companies provide
early stage capital and a variety of strategic services to high tech start-up
companies. Serra invests in several areas related to UCR research
areas including information technology (personalization, computer vision,
security), devices (sensors, medical devices), materials, agriculture
technology and water filtration.
Note: This talk
requires registration. You may extend this invitation to potential
partners interested in commercializing technology. Send mail to VCREDadmin@ucr.edu to register.
Sonny Ramaswamy of USDA to
Visit UCR on July 21, 2014. Talk at 10am
Dr Sonny Ramaswamy will be
visiting UCR on July 21. He will speak at 10amam in the Genomics
Auditorium.
Dr. Sonny Ramaswamy was
appointed to serve as director of the USDA's National Institute of Food and
Agriculture (NIFA) on May 7, 2012. As part of USDA's Research, Education, and
Extension mission, he oversees NIFA awards funds for a wide range of extramural
research, education, and extension projects that address the needs of farmers,
ranchers, and agricultural producers. Prior to joining NIFA, Dr.
Ramaswamy served as dean of Oregon State University's College of Agricultural
Sciences and director of the Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station. He
received a Bachelor of Science in agriculture and a Master of Science in
entomology from the University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, India, and
his doctorate in entomology from Rutgers University.
Note, the talk was previously
planned for 9am, but we changed the time to 10am.
2015 Pew Scholars Program
in the Biomedical Sciences award.
The Pew scholars program
supports assistant professors of outstanding promise in science relevant to the
advancement of human health. The award provides $240,000 in flexible
support—$60,000 per year for four years.
- Each
interested applicant should submit pre-proposal materials—including a
research project summary, curriculum vitae, and a letter of support from
the chair of his or her division—to the office of sponsored research,
which will submit them to an internal selection committee for
consideration.
- These
materials must be submitted by July 1, 2014 to limited@ucr.edu
- Candidates
must have been awarded a doctorate in fields related to biomedical
sciences or medicine.
- As of
Nov. 1, 2014, candidates must hold full-time appointments at the rank of
assistant professor.
- On July
1, 2014, candidates must have been in such an appointment for less than
three years (not appointed before July 1, 2011), whether or not such an
appointment was on a tenure track.
Stupid Faculty Tricks
NSF’s Office of Inspector
general conducts investigations of scientific misconducts and improper use of
funds. A recent report http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2014/oig14002/oig14002.pdf
lists several examples of practices that should be avoided. To summarize:
1. Do not fabricate
data, do not use data that is suspected of being fabricated by others and do
not ignore data fabrication by colleagues.
2. Don’t use grant
funds for personal use.
3. Meeting a deadline
is not a good reason to plagiarize.
By the way, did you know
being “suspended from government programs” means that in addition to not being
allowed to submit proposal to a federal agency, you can’t get a federal loan
such as a mortgage or education loan for a child.
Postdoc and Mentor
Perpetuate Data Falsification and Fabrication In a Series of Published
Articles A former
postdoctoral researcher and his mentor at a Colorado university perpetuated the
apparent validity of research data after the postdoc had intentionally
falsified and fabricated the original study. After coauthors on the original
study were unable to replicate the postdoc’s research results, the mentor’s
college—without informing university-level administration— conducted an
informal inquiry and recommended that the issue be worked out in the
literature rather than through a formal investigation. Although the
mentor’s lab members had been able to repeat the results when the postdoc was
there, after he left they could not do so.
As a result of the inadequacy
of the college’s informal inquiry, we conducted our own on-site inquiry. We
recommended that the university conduct an investigation, which it agreed to
do. The university investigation focused on the postdoc’s reported isolation of
four compounds and the mentor’s continued use of the resulting data over
several years, despite mounting evidence of research misconduct presented by
lab members and other faculty members. The mentor’s failure to require
lab notebooks or to maintain instrumental data in his own lab complicated the
investigation; however, his coauthors, students, and other university
collaborators maintained sufficient records to enable the investigation to
proceed.
The university ultimately
concluded that the postdoc had intentionally fabricated data with respect to
the four compounds he claimed to have isolated as natural products.
Because the postdoc was no longer an employee, the university could take no
direct actions against him. The university also concluded that the mentor
was “reckless in his use of highly suspect data” in the face of the “loud chorus
of voices challenging the original” work. The investigation committee
recommended the retraction of eight publications and required that the mentor
receive instruction “in proper scientific laboratory protocols to
document techniques and procedures.” We agreed with the
university’s findings and recommended that NSF: debar the postdoc for
five years and the mentor for three years; terminate the former postdoc’s
active NSF awards; and require retraction of the papers identified by the
university and completion of training. Additionally, until five years
after the end of their respective debarment periods, we recommended NSF
require certifications and assurances; require submission of detailed
data management and mentoring plans with annual certifications of
adherence to those plans for new NSF awards; and bar both from serving
NSF as a peer reviewer, advisor, or consultant.
Former Professor
Debarred for Theft of Grant Funds
… A former professor of an Indiana
university used NSF grant funds to purchase items for personal use, and as a
result he was: suspended government-wide by NSF; indicted and pled guilty
to criminal conversion; sentenced to probation and home confinement; and
ordered to pay restitution to NSF. We recommended that NSF debar
the former professor and his company for ten years. Since the company and
the former professor had already been suspended for three years, NSF
debarred them for seven years. NSF also prohibited the former professor from
serving as an NSF reviewer, advisor, or consultant to NSF during the debarment
period.
PI Plagiarizes in
Funded Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) Proposal A professor at a Tennessee university plagiarized in a CAREER
proposal submitted to NSF. The professor asserted that he was rushed in
preparing the proposal and did not have time to properly edit his
submission. However, the same copied text appeared in proposals he later
submitted to other federal agencies, seeking support for the same research that
was already funded by the NSF CAREER award. The university made a finding of
research misconduct, required training in the responsible conduct of research,
and placed the professor under the mentorship of a senior faculty member.
We agreed with the university’s conclusions, and recommended that NSF impose a
three-year period of certifications and assurances, and a concurrent
prohibition from service to NSF as a reviewer, consultant, or advisor.
Bathing Beauties
Many people put out food for
birds, but water is just as important and can attract quite a variety of birds.
Here are some of the birds that have cooled off at my birdbath recently.
Cooper’s
Hawk
Hooded Oriole
Spotted Towhee
Western Bluebird
Michael Pazzani
Vice Chancellor for Research
and Economic Development
Professor, Computer
Science & Engineering
University of California,
Riverside
200 University Office
Building
Riverside, CA 92521
Assistant: Lila Basham-Casteloes
Email: VCREDadmin@ucr.edu