Link to materials on NSERC site
Also see chapter 6 of the NSERC peer review manual
Discovery Grant information portal
These are my general notes, from a combination of the McMaster Guide, the NSERC online meeting I attended and discussions with TM who served on the panel I am applying to.
- Make it easy for the readers to understand and remember your central points.
- Use suggested headings and sub-headings. Also use bold and italics to good use to help readers focus on important points.
- Avoid long continuous blocks of text. Short, concise sentences.
- While I am a new NSERC investigator, make it clear that I am not a new investigator. Play up the many grants I have held in the US system.
Explain the proposal in a language that an informed general public can understand
- 5 year budget
- seperate budget justification
It is very important to make clear that you have secured other funding, both in the past, present and future. I have heard from numerous investigators that "they like to fund researchers who already have an established track record of funding".
However for other funding you are applying for concurrently or in the near future, you need to make it clear how it complements, *but does not overlap with the proposed program grant that you are applying for for your NSERC discovery grant. So for each source of support make sure to explain:
- The conceptual relationship (if any) with the discovery grant.
- If there is any budgetary relationship.
This component is assessed by the advisory group. Evaluation Group members are advised to ask if your explanation of the conceptual and budgetary relationship or differences between other sources of funding and the current proposal is:
- clear
- comprehensive
- convincing
Conceptual overlap: conceptual overlap occurs when the ideas in the proposal appear to be the same ideas funded by other sources. Make clear which aspects make up the discovery program of research and what differentiates these aspects from activities supported through other grants. In other words, the applicant should clearly differentiate between the program of research covered by the Discovery Grant and other research programs or projects supported from other sources.
Budgetary overlap: applicants should explain how funding received from various sources is being used. The Discovery Grant is a grant-in-aid and usually does not pay for the entire research program. It is expected that other sources of funding will be required and the applicant should make it clear how these funds are being used.
#Scientific or Engineering Excellence of the Researcher:
###General points
- Establish knowledge, expertise and experience
- Quality of contributions and impact my research has made on both my research area, as well as other research areas.
- Importance of contributions used by other researchers.
Up to 5 from the past 6 years (i.e. to 2009). Contributions made more than 6 years ago but for which the impact is being felt now (inclusion in a code, etc.) may be included.
-
(TM) Help the reviewers of the grant to be able to pick which papers to look at.
-
For each contribution describe significance for the research community (changing how other researchers think about or study a problem). What is the significance to other researchers in the community? If the contribution was part of a collaboration, describe your role in the collaboration (what I did, how much work I did).
-
A contribution does not need to be a sinle paper, but can be a collection of papers on a specific topic (i.e. wing shape, genetic background effects, CGV).
-
(TM) Do not do 5 papers if possible. Make it 5 "topics" (GBE, Complex multidimensional traits, mapping, CGV, NGS workshops).
-
It should be ok to be integrative in the research contributions (playing up wing shape from various points of view of selection, genetics & genomics).
The evaluation committee considers the following elements.
-
Knowledge, expertise and experience of the researcher in the field.
- This includes "stature" in the field. i.e. awards and prizes recieved. Invitations to give lectures, write review articles, chair conference sessions, memberships on committees, editorial boards, advisory boards. Involvment with public outreach (radio, News articles).
-
Quality of contributions in terms of impact on research community.
- Accomplishments based on "quality" of recent contributions and overall "level" of impact to research. This includes papers, conference presentations.
- It is my job to convince those reviewing the proposal that these contributions are significant and subtantial.
- This is probably a good place to focus on not how often papers have been cited, but that the studies have been "singled out" in some important way.
- Since many papers are collaborative (either with students or external collaborators) the contribution that "I made" in this needs to be made clear.
- I need to make it clear what the direct (and tangible) impact was. Was it an intellectual contribution? A contribution to statistical modeling? Code?
-
Importance of contributions to, and use by, other researchers (end users).
- To what extent has this contribution advanced the field? Has it created a significant change in thought within the research area?
Include NESCent workshops invited to, symposia invited to, seminars. Being asked to serve on the executive committee for PanAmSEDB...
May bring up the predation study here (or below in additional information on contributions) in terms of its synergy with the wing shape work.
Provide explanations as appropriate concerning contributions listed on NSERC CCV. This can include.
- The nature of collaborations with other researchers.
- The rationale for author order in publications.
- The inclusion of students and post-docs in the list of authors.
- My role in joint publications
- The reason for selecting certain venues (journals or conferences) for dissemeninating research.
This may be a good place to bring up my involvment with dissemination of code and data. Depending on how I organize it, it can be in the first section as well.
Can I discuss pre-prints? If relevant and help the narrative.
- Note from (TM) - ~ 3 pages for new research directions and impact. At most 2 pages focusing on past results, background (Preliminary data)?
Note to self - Look at my summary notes on writing a short proposal (and organizing the proposal) that I used for NSF (full and pre-proposal). Some useful guidance on setting up the "critical need" component of this
Describe Recent progress in research activities related to the proposals. While I can not discuss this progress relative to previous Discovery grants, I can link it to my previous NSF and NIH funding.
Define both short & long term objectives for this program of research. Make sure the long-term vision of the program (that extends well beyond the 5 years of the grant) is made clear. Make the objectives for the NSERC discovery grant very clear (i.e. use bold or an enumerated list)
Place the proposed research in the context of state-of-the-art for the field of research. Use this to put everything in a global context (beyond my own research).
Describe both the methods to address the questions described in objectives (remember to review the central objectives for this proposal). Discuss briefly the expected outcomes for each question addressed. If there is room, also discuss alternative strategies to circumvent potential problems.
Notes from TM: Experiments, with expected results. 1-2 paragraphs. We anticipate this or this… If we have problems we will do this….
If the results from experiment 1 are X, we will do Y, if it is A we will do B.
Explain the anticipated impact and significance of the findings from this study. For both the broader research community, and also for my own future work.
Not sure where this goes, but: Mention in the 5 page research document where "related funding" (my NSF and NIH proposals) belong. How they are complementary, but do not overlap. Do highlight success with NSF and NIH. " While these grants are currently in review, I have been funding my lab via…"
-
A program of research must be "high quality" to be supported.
-
Genuine Research problems must be addressed. Make it very clear that there is a "critical need" to address the problem.
-
Originality and Innovation. To what extent does the proposal suggest and explore novel or potentially transformative concepts and lines of inquiry? (So in my case, making it clear that there is a critical need to understand what causes genetic & environmental effects background effects, and whether it is a heterogenous collection of genetic effects, or are there systematic effects. Also Testing my model to explain genetic background effects.
-
Significance of expected contributions.
- What is the likely impact on future research? (Advancing knowledge? Influence of direction of thought and activity?).
- What is the potential for notable advancement/innovation in the discipline?
- Will the results be appropriate for open dissemination?
-
Clarity and Scope of objectives. A "vision" should be of greater breadth and scope than simply plans and objectives. Clearly defined objectives (both long and short term) demonstrate "a more thought out" research plan than do simply stated objectives.
- Are there long and short term goals?
- Is the relationship between long and short term goals clear?
- Are the objectives specific, focused and realistic?
- Does the proposal articulate goals of sufficient breadth and scope in line with "high quality" research program?
-
Clarity and appropriateness of methodology
- Does the proposal clearly outline the methodology to be used?
- Is the methodology current and appropriate?
- Will the methodology contribute to the stated research goals?
- Has the applicant justified the methodological approach?
-
Feasability
- Will the applicant's expertise & proposed methodology allow objectives to be reached in the proposed time frame?
- Does the applicant have access to the necessary equipment and resources?
- Address need for additional expertise (or demonstrate sufficient expertise of the PI)?
- Has application outlined recent research progress related to the proposal?
- Is research framed with reference to other appropriate work?
Link to NSERC Policy and Guidelines for assessments of contributions to research and training
Describe how the projects are appropriate for HQP training. Discuss the relevance of the training plans for the research program and involvement of trainees on individual projects.
Make sure to explain expected outcomes in terms of both future knowledgde and the training value of the expected projects.
i.e. for me I can explain that in addition to "completing the project", the participants will get considerable experience coding in multiple programming langauges and advanced training in statistics, handling "big data" and genomics.
From TM - Not only "how I am going to train students" (multi-disciplinary), but whenever possible make it clear that graduate student 1 will focus on Experiment A in Aim 1....This makes it clear what the students are going to do.
Notes from RD Points for HQP - Include full names for talks with co-authors on the talk (research done by graduate students could be included). Making sure it is clear that my students have given lots of talks at international meetings.
DO not compromise - Spend significant space on HQP - where did people go. Make sure the name of the school is in there. Fix CCV and make everything clear.
Spell out names of students who will be doing the work in the NSERC proposal. What experiments that student will do.
Independent intellectual contribution to this project that these students will do….(balance this with stating what they will do). How can you do this, via having planned experiment...
At McMaster: School of Graduate studies - programs (2 files and a link). Departmental seminars, EEBB lunch seminars (informal seminars). Mathematical Biology. Animal Behaviour group (active weekly meetings). Post-doc coordination and training. Dean of graduate studies. Programs
- Have I demonsrated how training of HQP fits into the proposed program of research?
- How appropriate is the proposed training plan for a particular trainee? i.e. is the project suitable for an UG? PhD Student? Post-Doc?
- For technicians, explain how the work will contribute to the development of new skills.
- Can I mentor X number of trainees (do I have the capacity). Show That I have trained a large group before.
- Describe over-arching training philosophy.
- Training methods (group meetings, 1-1 meetings, journal clubs).
- Opportunities for students (writing, presenting at conferences, collaborating..).
Contributions to training HQP over the past 6 years.
- Discuss most important contributions to training (aggregate data on particular groups).
- Training in important or challenging areas (computational statistical methods, multivariate stats, genomics).
- For co-supervised students, describe role.
- This includes everything from UG projects, Technician training, PhD Students and Post-Docs.
From TM - Since my lab is still relatively young, I can absolutely talk (in addition to Grad students and post-docs) about the training of undergraduates, and where they have gone on to. Provide specific examples of the training of HQP in all cases.
Go into details. i.e. for SC I could write something like: "One PhD student who has finished, several post-docs in good jobs. SC has these papers, has given talks at the fly meeting (where only 10% of presentations are invited to give talks). Got press about the papers..."
- What was the quality and impact of past contributions to the training of HQP in the past 6 years.
- It is not solely assessed by number of trainees, but by quality and impact.
- Did I provide details on my role as a co-supervisor?
- Length of time for completion for students.
- Did the training lead to high quality contributions to knowledge? Publications? Conferences?
- Where have these past HQP moved onto for their careers.
- Science outreach activities are to be recognized as a valuable contribution to research and training.
Using headings below provide detailed explanation and justification for each budget item in the proposed expenditures.
- Give names (if known), categories of employment and proposed salaries.
- Briefly describe responsibilities of each individual (also see HQP section).
Give a breakdown and justify each item.
Provide details of the budget requested for materials and supplies. Explain major items (sequencing, fly food..).
Publication costs.
Provide a list of literature references in support of the proposal.
As best as possible, connect these to some of the research themes.
- In CCV, only use asteriks next to Graduate students.