Dear Leslie, Agreed on all points.
But poor procedures can make the bad situation caused by flat budgets substantially worse. I very much hope that the report on the questionnaire doesn't wind up being a defense of a one-cycle-per-year format. Such a stance would, in my opinion, meet a widespread negative reaction from the DEB scientific community. Cheers, Tom Thomas J. Givnish Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany University of Wisconsin givn...@wisc.edu http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html On 11/20/13, "Rissler, Leslie" wrote: > A few quick things in regard to the comments below. > > 1. DEB did institute a Small Grants Program, see Program Solicitation NSF > 13-508 and NSF 14-503. Relevant wording: "Small Grants: The Division welcomes > proposals for Small Grants to the core programs via this solicitation. These > awards are intended to support full-fledged research projects that simply > require total budgets of $150,000 or less. Small Grant proposals follow the > same two-stage review process and will be assessed based on the same merit > review criteria as all other proposals to this solicitation." > > 2. NSF has nothing to do with the setting of Indirect Costs. > > 3. The formal survey that DEB sent to the ecological and evolutionary > communities on 17 April 2013 (to over 19,660 individuals) which assessed the > communities' satisfaction with aspects of the new proposal process in DEB and > IOS has been analyzed. We are in the process of writing that paper for > submission to Bioscience by the end of the year. > > 4. NSF does listen to the scientific community and tries very hard to do > what's best for science. Flat budgets and the subsequent sinking success > rates are the real problems. > > > _______________ > Dr. Leslie J. Rissler > Associate Professor > Department of Biological Sciences > MHB Hall Room 307 > University of Alabama > Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 > > 205-348-4052 > riss...@as.ua.edu<mailto:riss...@as.ua.edu(javascript:main.compose()> > www.ljrissler.org > > > On Nov 20, 2013, at 10:34 AM, malcolm McCallum > <malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org<mailto:malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org(javascript:main.compose()>> > wrote: > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > WARNING: Your email security system has determined the message below may be a > potential threat. > > It may pose as a legitimate company proposing a risk-free transaction, but > requests money from the victim to complete a business deal. > > If you do not know the sender or cannot verify the integrity of the message, > please do not respond or click on links in the message. Depending on the > security settings, clickable URLs may have been modified to provide > additional security. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ------------ Suspicious threat disclaimer ends here ------------ > > I agree with you on most of this. Personally, I'ld like them to do > one thing differently than you suggest, use pre-proposals all the > time, but have two cycles. By doing this, it would allow the initial > screening to eliminate the huge pile of generally unfundable > submissions. The bad thing for the proposers though is that their > feedback would be much less extensive, so future success may be > reduced. Currently, or at least I heard that most people get rejected > on the first submission. but, the % success on resubmissions is much > higher. > > I think its pretty obvious that the biggest problem is manpower. > > David Hillis (UT-Austin) has for some time been promoting that it > would be more beneficial and productive for NSF (and other agencies) > to award more smaller grants than a few giant ones. Apparently, there > is research demonstrating that small grants actually give more bang > for the buck. Personally, i think this would be an interesting > approach, but i'm pretty convinced it would never happen. > > If NSF just abandoned funding indirect costs, that would make a huge > difference. And, frankly most indirect costs are real costs, but I'm > not sure that going above 10-20% negotiated rate is valid. Some > schools get substantially higher rates which simply eats up money > intended for research and dumps it in other areas. Even breaking up > indirect costs to eliminate the chaff might be seriously considered. > > > > On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Thomas J. Givnish > <givn...@facstaff.wisc.edu<mailto:givn...@facstaff.wisc.edu(javascript:main.compose()>> > wrote: > Arguably, the changes DEB itself has installed in the NSF review process over > the past two years are also likely to damage the American scientific > enterprise. In order to relieve pressure on staff and reviewers, DEB has gone > to a once-a-year cycle of pre-proposals, with at most two pre-proposals per > investigator, and with ca. 30% of submissions allowed to go forward with full > proposals. The once-per-year aspect is deadly, in my opinion and that of > every senior ecologist and evolutionary biologist I've spoken with. The > chances of going for more than two years without support – whether for > justifiable cause, or a wacko review or two from a small pool of screeners – > are quite substantial. No funding for two or three years = lab death for > anyone pursuing high-cost research w/o a start-up or retention package in > hand. Lab death can hit both junior and senior investigators; the forced > movement to a once-a-year cycle means that the ability to respond quickly to > useful reviewer comments and erroneous reviewer claims is halved. The role of > random, wacko elements in the review process (and we all know very well those > are there), is probably doubled. And the ability to pursue timely ecological > research is substantially reduced by doubling the lags in the system. The > full proposal for those who are invited effectively increases the > proposal-writing workload for many of the best scientists. We have been > saddled with a system that is sluggish, slow to adapt, more prone to > stochastic factors, and more ensnarling of the top researchers in red tape. > We can and must do better. > > My advice: Return to two review cycles per year, no pre-proposals, and make > the full proposals just six pages long. Total review efforts will most likely > be reduced over even the current experimental approach, and writing efforts > by successful proposers will be greatly reduced. One incidental advantage: by > reducing the amount of eye-glazing detail on experimental protocols – which > we are not in any case bound to follow if we receive the award – we might > reduce the core temptation to which (alas) many reviewers and panel members > are prone, of playing gotcha with minor details of protocol while giving > short shrift to the innovative or possibly transformational value of the > studies being proposed. > > > Thomas J. Givnish > Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany > University of Wisconsin > > givn...@wisc.edu<mailto:givn...@wisc.edu(javascript:main.compose()> > http://secure-web.cisco.com/auth=11gZHa535JwsQxbwSEr6k4Z7lhNe_t&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbotany.wisc.edu%2Fgivnish%2FGivnish%2FWelcome.html > > > On 11/20/13, malcolm McCallum wrote: > That is false logic. > There have been numerous studies demonstrating the remarkable over-all > productivity of American scientists. However, that does not mean > that the system for funding is the reason. In fact, it is quite > possible, and i'ld argue very likely that these same individuals would > be remarkably more productive if not devotion time to grantsmanship. > A point I should also offer is that this is not coming from someone > who has difficulty with grantsmanship. heck, I was a proposal writer > for a major not-for-profit and managed their grants program during the > entire time. I'm just pointing out what is frank logic. you have a > trade-off with time you devote to professional activities. If you are > spending time doing data collection, then that same time cannot be > used for other things. Likewise, if you are using it to get proposals > prepared, you are not collecting, analyzing data or preparing > manuscripts aat the same time. You must divide your time among these > activities. I've long thought it would be wise for science > departmetns to hire a professional grantwriter who specializes in > science grants, particularly for non-research funding. A good > grantwriter is worth his/her weight in gold because he/she understands > the system. > > I don't think anyone does this though! :) > M > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 4:14 PM, <mcnee...@cox.net> wrote: > Well, politics certainly interferes with the furtherance of science, as do > the mechanics you describe. > > But, hmmm....... . Do European institutions excel relative to the U.S. in > scientific progress? Many of them do have funded institutions, with funded > laboratories within them. > > David McNeely > > ---- malcolm McCallum <malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org> wrote: > Well, first they disbanded political science research, and now they > are trying to do the first steps to slowing science. The person at > NSF who approves funding must justify such. why? that way the > congress can go after that person, exert pressure on the scientific > process, and turn it into a political instead of a scientific process. > > http://secure-web.cisco.com/auth=11VhhOSQtKEdEz06TS5c1ffs0_8Nwz&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.sciencemag.org%2Feducation%2F2013%2F11%2Frepublican-plan-guide-nsf-programs-draws-darts-and-befuddlement-research-advocates > > These developments are interesting to me because when NSF was first > being conceived there were those who felt the concept would slow > science by turning it into a search for funding rather than a search > for facts. More and more, we are becoming important for the money we > can bring in rather than our contribution to the greater good. > > >From the Mark Gable Foundation (A short story in the compendium, The > Voices of Dophins, by Leo Szilard) published in ???? > (http://secure-web.cisco.com/auth=11wmc9vGN-TkP5mBYTzzUEm7edx8tN&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbooks.google.com%2Fbooks%3Fid%3Dxm2mAAAAIAAJ%26printsec%3Dfrontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false), > when Mark Gable asked how to slow science, this was the answer > provided: > > "Well," I said, " I think that shouldn't be very difficult. As a > matter of fact, I think it would be quite easy. You could set up a > foundation, with an annual endowment of thirty million dollars. > Research workers in need of funds could apply for grants, if they > could make out a convincing case. Have ten committees, each composed > of twelve scientists, appointed to pass on these applications. Take > the most active scientists out of the laboratory and make them members > of these committees. And, the very best men in the field should be > appointed as chairmen at salamries of fifty thousand dollars each. > Also have about twenty prizes of one hundred thousand dollars each for > hte best scientific papers of the year. This is just about all you > would have to do. Your lawyers could easily prepare a charter for the > foundation. As a matter of fact, any of the National Science > Foundation bills which were introduced in the Seventy-ninth and > Eightieth Congresses could perfectly well serve as a model." > "I think you had better explain to Mr. Gable why this foundation > would in fact retard the progress of science," said a bespectacled > young man sitting at the far end of the table, whose name i didn't get > at the time of introduction. > "It should be obvious," i said. "First of all, the best scientists > would be removed from their laboratories and kept busy on committees > passing on applications for funds. Secondly, the scientific workers in > need of funds would concentrate on problems which were considered > promising and were pretty certain to lead to publishable results. For > a few years there might be a great increase in scientific output; but > by going after the obvious, pretty soon science would dry out. Science > woudl become something like a parlor game. Some things would be > considered interesting, others not. There would be fashions. Those > who followed the fashion would get grants. Those who wouldn't woudl > not, and pretty soon they would learn to follow the fashion, too." > **** > In other words, scientists would not take chances, because that risks > getting grants, they would not do long-term research because it is > slow to payoff, they would spend most of their time managing grant > money, evaluating other people's research, and not doing it > themselves. scientists would follow fads whether that is good or not, > at the cost of other fields. In a lot of way, this was a prophetic > two pages that has in a lot of ways come true. Imagine how much work > you could get done if your had a line item budget that covered the > costs of your research and you did not have to spend time writing > proposals, managing grants. How much money would be saved in research > if 10-80% of the funded grand did not go to indirect costs and similar > places? > > Understand, I know we are where we are, and each of us must work in > the current system as it exists, and that it isn't changing. However, > this story certainly nailed many problems to the wall that arise when > you have competitive funding instead of line items. > > > > -- > Malcolm L. McCallum > Department of Environmental Studies > University of Illinois at Springfield > > Managing Editor, > Herpetological Conservation and Biology > > > > "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - > Allan Nation > > 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert > 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, > and pollution. > 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction > MAY help restore populations. > 2022: Soylent Green is People! > > The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) > Wealth w/o work > Pleasure w/o conscience > Knowledge w/o character > Commerce w/o morality > Science w/o humanity > Worship w/o sacrifice > Politics w/o principle > > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any > attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may > contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized > review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not > the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and > destroy all copies of the original message. > > -- > David McNeely > > > > -- > Malcolm L. McCallum > Department of Environmental Studies > University of Illinois at Springfield > > Managing Editor, > Herpetological Conservation and Biology > > > > "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - > Allan Nation > > 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert > 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, > and pollution. > 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction > MAY help restore populations. > 2022: Soylent Green is People! > > The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) > Wealth w/o work > Pleasure w/o conscience > Knowledge w/o character > Commerce w/o morality > Science w/o humanity > Worship w/o sacrifice > Politics w/o principle > > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any > attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may > contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized > review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not > the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and > destroy all copies of the original message. > > -- > > > > -- > Malcolm L. McCallum > Department of Environmental Studies > University of Illinois at Springfield > > Managing Editor, > Herpetological Conservation and Biology > > > > "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - > Allan Nation > > 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert > 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, > and pollution. > 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction > MAY help restore populations. > 2022: Soylent Green is People! > > The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) > Wealth w/o work > Pleasure w/o conscience > Knowledge w/o character > Commerce w/o morality > Science w/o humanity > Worship w/o sacrifice > Politics w/o principle > > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any > attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may > contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized > review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not > the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and > destroy all copies of the original message. --
