Ecolog:
Very interesting; thanks, David, for the lead.
Would anyone care to comment on what they think "environmental biology"
means--for example, as distinguished from biology and its other subsets? Can
anyone tell me about the origin of the term and why it is apparently a
distinct discipline unto itself? I have looked at Wikipedia. It gives me
"Environmental Science," which is apparently a kind of "umbrella" science
that covers everything. This academic discipline sounds good, but I have
encountered a number of people with ES degrees that have stricken me as
being miles wide and fractions of inches deep. I'm certain that my sample
size is way too small to reach any such conclusion that would fit all
"samples" that I have encountered, so I would like to be educated on just
how these disciplines fit in and merge with, say, ecology.
And, I must add that I, also, am fairly wide and not very deep (I try to
know what I don't know and engage those who do on a case basis), so I'm
wondering how all these disciplines and sub-disciplines and sub-sub
disciplines fit together, and whether those of us with little bits of
knowledge and understanding can best serve science, humanity, and the earth
without causing damage and maybe contributing something useful. I have
encountered ES graduates who know everything and some who know that they
don't. I fit best with the latter, but should perhaps appreciate the former
more . . .
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Inouye" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 24, 2012 11:08 AM
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Fwd: DEB Communications and Program Information Update
Some of you who are not on the NSF listserv list
for the Division of Environmental Biology may be
interested in this information. See below for how
to subscribe to that list (which has very few messages per year).
David Inouye
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 11:46:47 -0500
Reply-To: BIO-DEB-PIS <[email protected]>
Sender: BIO-DEB-PIS <[email protected]>
From: The NSF Division of Environmental Biology <[email protected]>
Subject: DEB Communications and Program Information Update
To: <[email protected]>
List-Help: <http://listserv.nsf.gov/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=BIO-DEB-PIS>,
<mailto:[email protected]?body=INFO%20BIO-DEB-PIS>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
List-Owner: <mailto:[email protected]>
List-Archive: <http://listserv.nsf.gov/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=BIO-DEB-PIS>
Dear DEB Community of Scientists:
In 2011 the Division of Environmental Biology (DEB) made significant
changes to the core program review process for the 2012 funding year. These
changes (including the new pre-proposal requirement, a switch to an annual
deadline, and a cap on the number of proposals PIs can submit per cycle)
were made to protect the integrity of our merit review system, which was
increasingly compromised by steep increases in proposal pressure,
diminished participation of the community in the proposal review system,
and flat budgets. Sinking success rates and the constant churn of excellent
proposals were symptoms of a complex, system-wide problem that hit early
career investigators particularly hard.
We've since received considerable feedback from the community on those
changes -- including discussions with program officers and panel members at
NSF, discussions with many of you at professional meetings, and via
letters, phone calls and emails to various members of DEB and/or the BIO
directorate.
At NSF, we've collected multiple forms of data on these changes during the
past year, including formal surveys distributed to all DEB core program
panelists and statistics on invitation rates and funding rates across
various groups.The purpose of this email is to: A) provide you with
information on the results of our first complete cycle of the new system in
DEB; B) provide you with summarized information on community feedback so
far; and C) inform you of what the next steps will be for the DEB
community.
A) Division-wide Data
Preproposal Panels - Spring 2012:
Preliminary Proposals submitted: 1624 across 4
clusters
Panel recommendation for invitation: 395
Preliminary proposals invited: 3801
Overall Invitation rate: 23.4%
1invited proposals included some that panels did not recommend, in order to
balance our invitation portfolios
Groups of concern:
Early Career Investigators
Preliminary proposals submitted: 401
Preliminary proposals invited: 82
Invitation rate:
20.4 %
Primarily Undergraduate Institutions
Preliminary proposals submitted: 287
Preliminary proposals invited: 47
Invitation rate:
16.4%
Full Proposal Panels - Fall 2012:
Full Proposals submitted: 380
Panel Recommended for Funding2: 259
Panel Recommendation Rate2: 68%
Anticipated Overall Funding Rate3: 22%
2across three categories, High Priority, Medium Priority, and Low Priority
for Funding
3 based on our currently available budgets, which are 80% of 2012 budgets.
Proposals funded from Fall 2012 panels include Full Proposals that followed
from Preliminary Proposals, CAREER proposals, OPUS proposals, RCN
proposals, and proposals co-reviewed with other programs.
Groups of Concern:
Early Career Investigators
Full Proposals Submitted: 82
Recommended for funding: 29
Success Rate:
35%
Statistics for Early Career Investigators over past 5 years:
Fiscal Year
Success Rate
# proposals
% total submissions
This table didn't format correctly in the
forwarded message. You should be able to see it
at the list archive
<http://listserv.nsf.gov/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=BIO-DEB-PIS>
(which doesn't seem to be available this afternoon).
Primarily Undergraduate Institutions
Full Proposals submitted: 47
Recommended for funding: 18
Success Rate:
38.3%
Statistics for PUIs Over the past 5 years:
Fiscal Year
Success Rate
# proposals
% total submissions
This table didn't format correctly in the
forwarded message. You should be able to see it
at the list archive
<http://listserv.nsf.gov/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=BIO-DEB-PIS>
B) Community Feedback:
Having completed one cycle, a few common themes have emerged from community
feedback received thus far. The following qualitative conclusions come from
panelist surveys. DEB will be disseminating more comprehensive,
quantitative results of these surveys in early 2013.
General Feedback on the New System:
· Feedback both in favor of and against the new review system.
· Support, although not uniform, from early career PIs - helps
them rrespond to administrative pressures re: grant-writing and better
manage their time.
· Mixed feedback for PI cap/limit; in panelist surveys, the
majority was in favor.
· Suggestions for skipping pre-proposal stage for highly ranked
but unfunded full proposals.
· Concerns regarding change to annual cycle and/or timing of
deadlines.
Feedback on Pre-Proposal Review:
· Broad support for the use of a shortened pre-proposal format
(four pages â?~adequateâ?T).
· PIs need better guidance on structure and content of
pre-proposals.
· Reviewers need better guidance on review criteria unique to
pre-proposals.
· Concerns about adequacy of panel review only
Feedback on Full Proposal Review:
· Less time wasted by reviewers and PIs on non-competitive
proposals.
· More external reviews received allowed better evaluation of full
proposals at panel.
Input from individuals via letters and telephone calls has been mixed on
each of the points above.
C) Next Steps
It is our responsibility to communicate with our community more
effectively, to explain the drivers and constraints that DEB was responding
to with the new system, to correct misconceptions, and to listen to
community concerns and ideas for the future. As such, we are planning a
number of ways to continue to share information and solicit your opinions
over the next few months.
First, we wish to hear from as much of the DEB community as possible, so
that we have a thorough view of common themes that emerge across all
sectors of DEB science. To that end:
· We will continue to seek input from panelists at each panel.
· A quantitative survey addressing satisfaction and concerns will
be distributed to the DEB PI community in early 2013.
· We will schedule a number of virtual "town halls.â?
· We have received approval from NSF leadership to pilot a DEB
blog, on which we can quickly share information and relevant data on the
new review process, and provide a venue for public feedback and
cross-community interactions.
· We will hold sessions at major professional meetings.
· As always, we welcome any other forms of input, ranging from
emails to phone calls to letters, and we are open to any additional ideas
you have about how we could engage the community in a meaningful dialogue.
Second, we will be writing and disseminating - in early 2013 ââ?" a more
substantive analysis and quantitative evaluation of the first cycle of the
new system. Our sense (from some published articles, letters, and emails)
is that significant gaps in understanding remain about why changes were
implemented at NSF, and what the various consequences of these changes
might be. This analysis will provide a more comprehensive discussion on
these topics, as well as deeper analyses of the potential effects on PIs
and on DEB science in general.
Time is of the essence in terms of receiving community feedback and making
any changes to the new system. We will need to begin revisions to the new
solicitation for the 2014 cycle beginning in June 2013. This is because NSF
requires new solicitations to be published at least 90 days before
deadlines, because it takes several weeks for solicitations to be approved
at all levels within NSF, and because any changes considered must be
discussed within DEB and with the Biological Sciences Directorate.
We welcome your feedback and input. Please be on the lookout for further
announcements concerning upcoming opportunities to join the discussion. As
always, individual Program Officer contact information can be found
<http://www.nsf.gov/staff/staff_list.jsp?org=DEB&from_org=DEB>on the DEB
website and general inquiries may be sent to
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected].
Sincerely,
The Division of Environmental Biology
N.B.- This message was sent via a Listserv that cannot receive replies.
Please use the contact information above to communicate directly with DEB.
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1430 / Virus Database: 2637/5483 - Release Date: 12/24/12
