06Jan / 2017

DEB Numbers: FY 2016 Wrap-Up

Fiscal year 2016 officially closed out on September 30. Now that we are past our panels in October and early November, we have a chance to look back and report on the DEB Core Program merit review and funding outcomes for FY 2016.

This post follows the format we’ve used in previous years. For a refresher, and lengthier discussions of the hows and whys of the metrics, you can visit the 2015, 2014, and 2013 numbers.

Read on to see how 2016 compares.

FY2016 Summary Numbers

The charts below all reflect proportions of DEB Core Program projects through each stage of the review process: preliminary proposals, full proposals, and awards.

In the review process leading to awards in FY2016:

DEB reviewed 1502 preliminary proposals received under the DEB Core Programs solicitation and LTREB solicitation in January 2015, about 26% of which were invited to the full proposal stage.

The preliminary proposal invitees were joined at the full proposal stage by 1) Direct submissions to DEB under the CAREER, OPUS, and RCN solicitations, and 2) Projects shared for co-review by another NSF program. Altogether 524 full proposals were reviewed in DEB during October and November of 2015.

From this pool of full proposals, DEB made awards to 133 projects (technically, these were 202 separate institutional awards but for analysis purposes we count collaborative groups once, i.e., as a single proposed project).

Below, we present and discuss the Division-wide success rate and some selected project demographics that were concerns coming in to the preliminary proposal system. The demographic numbers are presented as proportions for comparison across the review stages. However, the progressive reduction in size of the denominators from preliminary proposals (1502) to awards (133) means each step becomes more sensitive to small absolute changes.

Success Rate

Success rate is a function of the number and size of requests submitted by the research communities and appropriated funding levels. The success rate for research proposals in the DEB Core Programs (Figure 1) has stabilized (even rebounded somewhat) since the preliminary proposal process was instituted. This stabilization emerges from:

Stable award numbers: Since FY 2013 the number of Core Program awards has consistently been between 131 and 136 funded projects[i].
Reduced request numbers: The initial wave of new people “testing the waters” by submitting a preliminary proposal is subsiding. As PIs became more familiar with the process, total submissions have dropped by about 10% across the last three years. With stable award numbers, fewer submissions translate directly into a 10% increase in overall success rate from 7.3% in FY2013 to 8.1% for 2016.

Figure 1: DEB Core Program success rates from fiscal year 2007 through the present. Prior to fiscal year 2012, there were two rounds of full proposal competition per fiscal year. Preliminary proposals were first submitted in January 2012, initiating the 2-stage review process and leading to the fiscal year 2013 award cohort.

Calculation Notes:

Preliminary proposal success rate is calculated as the number of invitations made divided by the number of preliminary proposals submitted.

Full proposal success rate is calculated as the number of awards made, divided by the number of full proposals reviewed.

Note that post-2012, under the preliminary proposal system, the set of full proposals reviewed is ~80% invited full proposals and ~20% CAREER, OPUS, RCN and co-reviewed proposals, the latter of which are exempt from the preliminary proposal stage.

Overall success rate is calculated as the number of awards made divided by the total number of distinct funding requests (i.e., the sum of preliminary proposals submitted plus the exempt CAREER, OPUS, RCN, and co-reviewed full proposals).

Reminder: Elevated success rates (in 2009 and 2012) were due to:

a one-time ~50% increase in funding for FY2009 (the ARRA economic stimulus funding) without which success would have been ~13-15%; and,
a halving of proposal submissions in FY2012 (the first preliminary proposal deadline replaced a second full proposal deadline for FY2012), without which success would have been ~8-9%.

Individual and Collaborative Projects

As seen in Figure 2 below, there was little year-to-year change in the submission and funding success of single investigator projects. While the proportion of single investigator preliminary proposals increased slightly, there was a small decrease in both the full proposal and award groups. As a reminder to readers: the gap between the proportion of single investigator projects in the preliminary proposal and full proposal stages is due to the single-investigator proposals in the CAREER and OPUS categories. The CAREER and OPUS proposals are not subject to the preliminary proposal screen and make up a relatively larger portion of the full proposals. Similarly, the absence of CAREER and OPUS proposals at the preliminary proposal stage lowers the single investigator proportion of the preliminary proposal counts relative to the historical full proposal baseline.

Figure 2: The proportion of DEB Core Program projects lead by a single PI over time and at the different stages of merit review.

The proportion of collaborative proposals in our award portfolio rebounded from last year’s drop and is near the all-time high for both full proposals and awards. This is consistent with the general trend toward greater collaboration over the past decade and beyond.

Figure 3: The proportion of DEB Core Program projects with two or more different institutional participants over time and at the different stages of merit review.

Readers may notice that the collaborative and single-investigator groupings don’t sum to 100%. The remainders are intra-institutional multi-PI arrangements; such projects are certainly intellectual collaborations, but they are not a “collaborative project” per the NSF PAPPG definition (Figure 3).

Early Career Scientists

The best identifier of researcher career stage is a metric we calculate. It is the difference between the year that the PI obtained their Ph.D. (a self-reported by the PI) and the current date. This number can be used as a proxy for how long each individual has been in the population of potential PIs.

Figure 4: Distribution of degree ages among PIs on DEB Core Program full proposal submissions.

Figure 5: Full proposal success rates for PIs on DEB Core Program proposals by degree age. Figure displays annual data and a 4-year mean for the period of the preliminary proposal system in DEB.

Little changes in the profile of submitter- and awardee-degree ages from 2013 through 2016. Moreover, success rate improves slightly with degree age. Success rates climb slowly from 20% for the newest PhDs, to 30% at 35 years post PhD. Note: PIs more than 35 years post-PhD comprise ~5% or less of the total PIs on proposals and awards. Although more experienced PIs have a somewhat better individual success rate, the PI population skews toward the early career group. Thus, early-, mid-, and later-career PIs wind up with similar representation in core program award decisions.

Gender & Predominantly Undergraduate Institution (PUI) Status

Another concern heading in to the preliminary proposal system was that there would be unintended consequences for different categories of submitters. Two years ago we saw a small change in award numbers lead to a visually jarring drop in the representation of female PIs among DEB awards, as well as a jump in the proportion of PUI awardees. Last year, we saw the pattern reversed. In addition to the apparent negative correlation between the proportion of female PI awardees and PUI awardees that has appeared, the award data just appears noisier than it was under the old system. But, as we stated in last year’s 2015 Wrap-up post:

We conclude that we are witnessing a small numbers effect; 131 awards is simply not a sufficiently large “sample” to be representative of the population across all of the potential decision-making variables and concerns. PUIs are a minority component of the proposal pool (~18%). Female PIs are a minority component of the proposal pool (~30%). Beginning Investigators are a minority component of the proposal pool (~20%). Proposals that fall into two categories are an even smaller fraction of the proposal pool (~6%) and proposals that fit into all three are even smaller yet (~1%).”

Which now brings us to 2016.

Figure 6: The representation of female PIs and predominantly undergraduate institutions in DEB Core Program proposals and awards. These two groups were noted by the community as groups of concern that would be potentially impacted by the pre-proposal system.

Once again, we see the same pattern in the representation of female PIs and PUIs in the award portfolio: one goes up, the other down. As best as we can determine, our previous conclusion still provides the best explanation: with only 133 projects awarded, it’s a small numbers problem.

The longer-term pattern for both groups is not affected by these latest numbers. The proportion of female PIs has been increasing between by 0.5-1 percentage points per year. The proportion of primarily undergraduate institutions has held steady and there’s a ~4 percentage point gap from the full proposal to the award stage. The PUI gap pre-dates the preliminary proposal system and this group was not intended to be impacted by the preliminary proposal process, so we didn’t expect change.

Moreover, we note that the proportion of PUI preliminary proposals is growing. This represents a small absolute increase but is exaggerated by the reduced total number of preliminary proposals. While there has been no corresponding change in full proposals and awards, if these preliminary proposals represent new entrants to competition then we would expect some lag in those later-stage metrics. Should this development persist, it would be interesting to see if there is any effect on the representation gap between PUIs in preliminary proposals and DEB Core Programs awards. This gap is something that would likely be worth a deeper examination in the future.

Concluding Thoughts

Since the implementation of the preliminary proposal system in January 2012, we have not seen major departures from pre-2012 trajectories across measures of our portfolio with respect to PI or institution demographics or collaborations. Four years in, we have not seen indication of Division wide changes, especially any worsening of submission and award proportions among any of these major groups of concern. Success rates appear stable across multiple years for the first time in recent memory. However, the overall climate for awards remains poor due to continued funding stagnation. If there is any bright side to that fact, funding woes at least appear to not have been amplified for any particular subgroup in recent years. But, the limited purchasing power of program budgets means our ability to support the full diversity of the research community will continue to be tested and subject to difficult trade-offs.

[i] During the 13 years before preliminary proposals, DEB Core Program award numbers fluctuated quite a bit; they regularly rose or fell by 20-30 (and as many as 80!) awards per year.

Permalink

07Dec / 2016

Fall 2016 DEB Panels status: “When will I have a decision?” edition

DEB’s full proposal panels finished in early November (for those full proposals submitted back in July and August). So, when will you receive review results?

Some of you may have already heard from us. Others will be hearing “soon” (as detailed below).

Right now, all of our programs have synthesized the recommendations of their panels, considered their portfolios, and come up with their planned award and decline recommendations. These are then documented, sent through administrative review, and finally signed off, “concurred,” by the head or deputy for the Division.

DEB’s first priority is processing the decline notices. We’re trying to get your reviews back to you to provide as much time as possible to consider your options for January pre-proposal submissions.

For potential awards, it’s a bit more complicated. We expect award recommendation dates to be later this year than typical. At present, NSF is operating under a temporary budget measure, called a Continuing Resolution (or CR). The current CR runs through December 9, 2016. We won’t have significant funds available to cover new grants until a longer-term funding measure is enacted.

So, while we have a prioritized list of award recommendations, we don’t yet have the funds needed to take action on those recommendations. Moreover, we don’t know how much funding we’ll actually have available so uncertainty is part of the plan. Thus, between “definite award recommendation” and “definite decline recommendation” we have a recommendation gray zone.

How are we handling this?

If your proposal fell into the definite decline group, then you’ll be getting an official notice from DEB. Once the formal decline recommendation is approved, the system updates the proposal status in FastLane and queues up a notification email. We are planning to have all declines approved by December 20, 2016. Note: our IT system sends the notification emails in batches at the end of the day[i]. Thus, if you are frequently refreshing FastLane you will likely see the news there before you get a letter from us.

If your proposal fell into the definite award group or the gray zone, you will first be getting a call or email from your Program Officer. They will be letting you know what the plan is for your particular proposal and how you can get things ready (e.g., submitting budget revisions or abstract language) for an eventual award. Formal action, including the release of reviews, cannot happen until we have funding available. However, folks in this group should also hear from their Program Officers by December 20.

After December 20, if you have not received any communication from us, first check your spam folder and then look up your proposal number and give us a call. But please remember, the lead PI for a proposal or collaborative group is the designated point of contact; if you’re a co-PI you need to get in touch with the lead PI and have them inquire.

[i] We’re not totally sure why this is, but suspect it has to do with email traffic volume and security features: discriminating an intentional batch of emails from an account taken over by a bot.

Permalink

18Oct / 2016

Preliminary Proposal Evaluation Survey Reminder

TL;DR

Check your inbox.

Check your spam folder.

Complete the survey!

End the reminder messages.

Background (if the above doesn’t make sense to you).

This is about the Preliminary Proposal system in use in both NSF BIO’s Division of Environmental Biology and Division of Integrative Organismal Systems.

We are in the midst of an external evaluation of the effects of this system on the merit review process.

We posted an initial notification letter about stakeholder surveys. And, copies of this letter were sent out to everyone in the sample ahead of the formal invitations.

The formal survey invitations with the active survey links were sent out by mid-September from the evaluator, Abt Associates.

Reminder emails are also coming out and will continue to do so at regular interviews while the survey remains open and incomplete.

If you have been receiving these messages, please complete the survey. If your colleagues have been receiving these messages and have not completed the survey, encourage them to do so.

If you received an invitation to take the survey,

Please take the 10 or so minutes to register your responses via the link in the email.
Remember that these are single-use individualized links.
Your response matters. This isn’t a census: your invitation is part of a stratified random sample selected for inference to the population.

Thank you for your participation!

Permalink

27Oct / 2015

FYI: Merit Review Survey requests, check your inbox

Many (most?) of you likely have gotten an email from NSF asking you to take part in an upcoming survey. This is a legitimate request. The email from NSF shouldn’t have an actual link to the survey; it’s just a notice that you will receive an invitation. The actual invitation should follow today; it will be from NSF’s contractor, Insight Policy Research, and contain a link to the online survey.

This is an NSF-wide survey of investigators and reviewers. The survey is intended to help NSF to learn more about the impact of its merit review process on proposers and reviewers. This is something that NSF has done at intervals since 1976. The last time this was done was roughly a decade ago and we’ve referenced the resultant report, called the IPAMM and published in 2007, on this blog several times. Please help us out by taking some time (est. 30 minutes) to complete the survey.

Nearly all individuals who have submitted proposals to and/or reviewed for NSF in the past few years are being invited to participate in the survey. NSF is hoping for substantial response rates so that results are representative of all of the academic disciplines that receive awards from NSF, of a broad spectrum of research and educational organizations, and of many different demographic groups

If survey participants have specific questions about the survey, the invitation email includes an email address for Insight’s Help Desk, surveyhelp@insightpolicysurvey.com .

Note: This survey is separate from the planned assessment of the DEB and IOS preliminary proposal system. We are still working on obtaining a contractor to conduct our targeted assessment. However, please take both opportunities to provide input to NSF to ensure that the agency-wide survey captures the opinions of our communities as well as our later targeted review is expected to do.

Permalink

27Oct / 2015

FYI: Merit Review Survey requests, check your inbox

If survey participants have specific questions about the survey, the invitation email includes an email address for Insight’s Help Desk, surveyhelp@insightpolicysurvey.com .

Permalink

22Oct / 2015

Panel Summaries: Panelist Guidance and PI Expectations

We’ve previously posted about what we are looking for in strong individual reviews of proposals. After receiving individual reviews, most proposals handled by DEB are brought to a panel meeting. After discussing a proposal, the panel prepares a document called the Panel Summary. In this post, we describe Panel Summaries, our goals in what we want them to communicate, and the steps DEB has recently taken to improve them.

What are Panel Summaries? (short version)

A Panel Summary is the written record of the review panel discussion of a proposal.

When you hear back from DEB about a proposal, you typically receive several documents in FastLane:

all individual reviews (generally at least 3 from panelists and ad hoc reviewers),
a context statement describing the program and review process employed,
a Panel Summary and/or a Program Officer comment explaining the program decision.

The Panel Summary is the justification of the panel’s recommendation to the Program and to the PI. It is the most important document the PI receives. It acts as a bridge between the reviews and the panel’s recommendation, helping the PI to understand how and why the panel came to its decision.

What are we hoping to see in a well-written Panel Summary?

The single most important point to keep in mind for crafting a useful Panel Summary is that it needs to provide evaluative statements about a proposal and to justify those statements with specific details and feedback. However, this is not easy to do given that variation in proposals, reviews, panel discussions, and panelists’ writing styles all contribute to the Panel Summary. [This is why Panel Summaries are one of the items we’ve been monitoring and seeking to better manage and improve under the preliminary proposal system. More on this below.]

A good Summary is clear and concise in regards to the panel evaluation. It provides a consensus advisory statement from the panel to NSF about the merits of a particular proposal after consideration and discussion of all viewpoints. As with individual reviews, the panelists are asked to consider the proposal in light of the NSF merit review criteria and any additional criteria applicable to a specific program or funding opportunity. Program Officers and staff also provide feedback during the panel meeting to ensure that Summaries are complete and compliant with policies (e.g., confidentiality).

As far as style and approach, our previous advice on crafting individual reviews applies here too. But keep in mind that a Panel Summary differs from an individual review in that it is a summary of panel discussion, not of the individual reviews – This is another important point. The other major difference between an individual review and a Panel Summary is the context in which they are written. While your individual review is written prior to the panel, alone, and in an environment of your choosing, Panel Summaries are written in the midst of a panel with several other panelists who must sign-off on the final product providing advice.

What steps are we taking to encourage useful Panel Summaries?

For many years now, DEB has been providing panelists with a template for completing Panel Summaries. Ongoing evaluation has motivated us to modify the template and provide additional instructions to panelists on the purpose of a Panel Summary.

The purpose of the new template is to provide greater clarity for both the panelists and the PIs as to what we expect to see in each of the sections of a Summary.

DEB Panel Summary Template provided to panelists during Fall of 2015.

The new template features familiar headings that outline the major points to be considered by the panel and couples those with brief prompts (in red italics) that are intended to be kept in the document so that both panelists and PIs will have constant reminders of what we are asking of panelists in each section of the template.

In addition to this template, which will be provided to each panelist as a document file, panelists will also receive hard-copy guidance documents for their panel work-spaces that reiterate our verbal instructions about writing strong and complete Panel Summaries. This guidance document includes short example phrasings, and call-out boxes to highlight common issues with content, style, and formatting. You can read it for yourself below:

DEB Panel Summary Guidance handout for Fall of 2015

By putting these documents out here, we are hoping you, our community members, who are both our PIs and panelists, can be partners with us in maintaining awareness of what we are looking for in high quality Panel Summaries. We think establishing clarity and mutual understanding of the role of panel summaries before you find yourself in panel or receiving a decision from a Program Officer will contribute toward a culture that demands and provides high quality review documentation for everyone.

Permalink

22Oct / 2015

Panel Summaries: Panelist Guidance and PI Expectations

What are Panel Summaries? (short version)

A Panel Summary is the written record of the review panel discussion of a proposal.

When you hear back from DEB about a proposal, you typically receive several documents in FastLane:

all individual reviews (generally at least 3 from panelists and ad hoc reviewers),
a context statement describing the program and review process employed,
a Panel Summary and/or a Program Officer comment explaining the program decision.

What are we hoping to see in a well-written Panel Summary?

What steps are we taking to encourage useful Panel Summaries?

The purpose of the new template is to provide greater clarity for both the panelists and the PIs as to what we expect to see in each of the sections of a Summary.

DEB Panel Summary Template provided to panelists during Fall of 2015.

DEB Panel Summary Guidance handout for Fall of 2015

Permalink

31Aug / 2015

The Top 13 Questions on NSF IACUC Documentation

Many people in the DEB community work with vertebrate animals, and therefore require approval from their Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs) to conduct their research.

Since NSF does not oversee or regulate animal research, it is important for investigators to know that a project’s IACUC approval must be adequately documented before program officers can recommend an award for funding. In this blog post we offer answers to common questions regarding the NSF documenting procedures for IACUC protocols[1].

Where can I find information on NSF guidelines regarding IACUCs?

The place to find information is the NSF Grant Proposal Guide (GPG). The GPG contains an entire section on IACUC approval and how to document it in your proposal (Chapter II Proposal Preparation Instructions, D. Special Guidelines, 7. Proposals Involving Vertebrate Animals on page II-28). The GPG is the official policy; this post provides tips intended to help you to efficiently identify and comply with the existing policy.

Where in the proposal is IACUC approval documented?

On the proposal cover page there is a box that should be checked if the proposal includes use of vertebrate animals. Immediately following there is a space to provide the IACUC protocol approval date as well as the Public Health Service (PHS) Animal Welfare Assurance number. The PHS number has to do with your institution’s authorization for vertebrate research and is separate from a particular IACUC approval date or protocol number. Each institution usually has a single, unique PHS number and each protocol/proposal usually has a single, unique IACUC approval number.

What if I have a current IACUC protocol that encompasses the type of work that I am proposing to do in the NSF proposal that I am submitting?

Most proposals submitted to do work with vertebrate animals include preliminary data in the proposal. Presumably, this means that the PI has an approved IACUC protocol to work with vertebrates. If that is the case, we strongly urge investigators to indicate both the IACUC protocol approval date as well as the PHS assurance number for the institution if they need to check the vertebrate box for the proposed work.

If the box for vertebrate animals is checked, and an IACUC approval date and PHS Assurance number are provided on the proposal cover page then no additional IACUC documentation is required for the proposal to be recommended or an award processed (although the program officer may still ask you to email a pdf of the IACUC approval). When the officer from your institution’s Sponsored Research Office (SRO) signs off on the proposal, they are affirming that the approved protocol exists and is congruent with the work outlined in the NSF proposal. It is important to note that this IACUC protocol must still be current at the time of the proposal submission and an approved protocol for the project must be maintained for the duration of the award[2] (most IACUC protocols expire after 3 years).

What if I do not have an approved IACUC protocol for the proposal I am submitting?

If your IACUC protocol is not yet approved, you can indicate that the IACUC approval is “pending” on the cover page. If you fall in this category, here are a few things to keep in mind:

IACUC committees at large, research-oriented institutions tend to meet regularly and be efficient, whereas those at smaller institutions may take months to consider a protocol. Some don’t meet at all during the summer – which is exactly the time when DEB is under the most pressure to get awards processed. If you have not yet started the IACUC approval process, please be aware of the timelines and recognize that proposals cannot be recommended for funding and awards cannot be processed without this approval.
Once granted, NSF must receive a signed letter from your institution indicating this IACUC approval. Since this document affirms that the protocol is consistent with the work outlined in the proposal, the letter must include your institution’s PHS Assurance number, the IACUC approval date, and it must specifically reference the NSF proposal title and number.

What if the research I am proposing to do will take place outside of the United States?

Even if the planned work will take place outside of the U.S., IACUC approval from your home (U.S.) institution is still required since the award is being made to that institution. Often local approval from an international institution will also be necessary. Note that IACUCs vary widely in the extent to which they attempt to regulate research on animals in foreign countries. The bottom line is that you should ask the IACUC at your institution about how they handle international projects that use animals.

If the NSF proposal is for a fellowship or for an individual (e.g. postdoc), how is the documentation for the IACUC different?

For fellowships and proposals to individuals[3], even if there is an IACUC approval date and PHS Assurance number documented on the proposal cover page at the time of submission, a signed letter from the institution must still be submitted to NSF. The letter must include the IACUC approval date, the institution’s PHS Assurance number, and it must specifically reference the NSF proposal title and jacket number. This letter is needed because the award is going to an individual and not an institution.

What if I am applying for a fellowship or award to an individual and I plan to conduct this work outside of the United States?

If the proposal is to fund an individual (not an institution) and the proposed work is to take place outside of the U.S., then a signed letter from the appropriate official at the foreign institution must be submitted to NSF that confirms that the work will comply with applicable laws in that foreign country and that it will adhere to the International Guiding Principles for Biomedical Research Involving Animals.

If I am applying for an REU (or any other award supplement) will I need to resubmit IACUC documentation?

Supplements to existing awards generally do not require a separate IACUC approval letter. However, if the IACUC approval on the parent award is more than three years old or if the scope of the project has changed substantially, then a new IACUC approval letter is required.

If the scope of the work has changed, in lieu of resubmitting an entirely new IACUC protocol (which would add work for you and your institution’s IACUC committee) an amendment to your existing IACUC protocol may suffice. An amendment is typically much easier to prepare and be reviewed than a new protocol. Check your institution’s IACUC policies to see what types of revisions they recognize as appropriate for a protocol amendment.

If I am submitting a collaborative proposal with multiple institutions will each institution need a separate approved IACUC protocol?

If research with vertebrates will occur at an institution, then that institution must have their own current and approved IACUC documentation – this includes work conducted by a non-lead collaborative institution and work conducted under a subaward. In rare and special circumstances a lead institution may oversee animal work conducted by affiliates of a collaborating institution. However, if you think this case applies to you, we recommend contacting the NSF animal welfare Officer (see contact information below).

My proposed research entails using multiple species and type of vertebrates. Will one IACUC protocol be sufficient?

Depending on the nature of the work, one IACUC may not be sufficient to cover the entire scope of your work. Please confirm with your institution’s IACUC that all of the work is being covered.

I am submitting a proposal to NSF, but I am not sure if the vertebrate animal work in the proposal actually requires IACUC approval (e.g., the research involves only observations of vertebrates in the field).

Ask your institution’s IACUC whether the proposed work warrants IACUC approval. If the IACUC does

not think one is needed, we recommend that you procure an email from the chair of the IACUC committee (using their institution email) stating that IACUC approval is not necessary for the scope of the proposed work. It is always safer to have the committee make this decision rather than making the decision on your own.

What about preserved specimens — will I need an IACUC to work with non-living vertebrate animals from a natural history collection?

IACUC approvals are only necessary for living vertebrate animals.

My proposal doesn’t include vertebrate animals in a research capacity, but my broader impacts outreach activities do involve vertebrate animals. Will I still need IACUC approval?

Most likely IACUC approval is still necessary in this circumstance. Please contact the NSF animal welfare officer for additional information.

Additional resources for model species can be found here:

The Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (the Guide)

And resources for taxon specific wild/non-model species can be found here:

Guidelines to the Use of Wild Birds in Research

Guidelines to the American Society of Mammalogists for the Use of Wild Mammals in Research

Guidelines for the Use of Fishes in Research

Guidelines for the use of Live Amphibians and Reptiles in Field and Laboratory Research

The NSF Animal Welfare Officer is Dr. Anne Maglia. Specific questions that are not outlined in this blog post or in the GPG can be addressed to amaglia@nsf.gov and (703) 292-8470.

[1] Most of what is written in this blog post about IACUC preparation also can be applied to Institutional Review Board (IRB) protocols, which are required for research involving data collection on human subjects.

[2] Remember that it is the investigator’s responsibility to provide updated IACUC approval documentation on any existing NSF award before the protocol on file expires.

[3] DEB rarely handles these types of proposals, but such opportunities relevant to DEB researchers are found elsewhere in NSF so we decided to address it here.

Permalink

31Aug / 2015

The Top 13 Questions on NSF IACUC Documentation

Many people in the DEB community work with vertebrate animals, and therefore require approval from their Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs) to conduct their research.

Where can I find information on NSF guidelines regarding IACUCs?

Where in the proposal is IACUC approval documented?

What if I have a current IACUC protocol that encompasses the type of work that I am proposing to do in the NSF proposal that I am submitting?

What if I do not have an approved IACUC protocol for the proposal I am submitting?

If your IACUC protocol is not yet approved, you can indicate that the IACUC approval is “pending” on the cover page. If you fall in this category, here are a few things to keep in mind:

IACUC committees at large, research-oriented institutions tend to meet regularly and be efficient, whereas those at smaller institutions may take months to consider a protocol. Some don’t meet at all during the summer – which is exactly the time when DEB is under the most pressure to get awards processed. If you have not yet started the IACUC approval process, please be aware of the timelines and recognize that proposals cannot be recommended for funding and awards cannot be processed without this approval.
Once granted, NSF must receive a signed letter from your institution indicating this IACUC approval. Since this document affirms that the protocol is consistent with the work outlined in the proposal, the letter must include your institution’s PHS Assurance number, the IACUC approval date, and it must specifically reference the NSF proposal title and number.

What if the research I am proposing to do will take place outside of the United States?

If the NSF proposal is for a fellowship or for an individual (e.g. postdoc), how is the documentation for the IACUC different?

What if I am applying for a fellowship or award to an individual and I plan to conduct this work outside of the United States?

If I am applying for an REU (or any other award supplement) will I need to resubmit IACUC documentation?

If the scope of the work has changed, in lieu of resubmitting an entirely new IACUC protocol (which would add work for you and your institution’s IACUC committee) an amendment to your existing IACUC protocol may suffice. An amendment is typically much easier to prepare and be reviewed than a new protocol. Check your institution’s IACUC policies to see what types of revisions they recognize as appropriate for a protocol amendment.

If I am submitting a collaborative proposal with multiple institutions will each institution need a separate approved IACUC protocol?

My proposed research entails using multiple species and type of vertebrates. Will one IACUC protocol be sufficient?

Depending on the nature of the work, one IACUC may not be sufficient to cover the entire scope of your work. Please confirm with your institution’s IACUC that all of the work is being covered.

I am submitting a proposal to NSF, but I am not sure if the vertebrate animal work in the proposal actually requires IACUC approval (e.g., the research involves only observations of vertebrates in the field).

Ask your institution’s IACUC whether the proposed work warrants IACUC approval. If the IACUC does

What about preserved specimens — will I need an IACUC to work with non-living vertebrate animals from a natural history collection?

IACUC approvals are only necessary for living vertebrate animals.

My proposal doesn’t include vertebrate animals in a research capacity, but my broader impacts outreach activities do involve vertebrate animals. Will I still need IACUC approval?

Most likely IACUC approval is still necessary in this circumstance. Please contact the NSF animal welfare officer for additional information.

Additional resources for model species can be found here:

The Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (the Guide)

And resources for taxon specific wild/non-model species can be found here:

Guidelines to the Use of Wild Birds in Research

Guidelines to the American Society of Mammalogists for the Use of Wild Mammals in Research

Guidelines for the Use of Fishes in Research

Guidelines for the use of Live Amphibians and Reptiles in Field and Laboratory Research

The NSF Animal Welfare Officer is Dr. Anne Maglia. Specific questions that are not outlined in this blog post or in the GPG can be addressed to amaglia@nsf.gov and (703) 292-8470.

[2] Remember that it is the investigator’s responsibility to provide updated IACUC approval documentation on any existing NSF award before the protocol on file expires.

[3] DEB rarely handles these types of proposals, but such opportunities relevant to DEB researchers are found elsewhere in NSF so we decided to address it here.

Permalink

09Jun / 2015

Are small grants doing well in review?

In contrast to the trend of decreasing numbers of preliminary proposals, we have seen a rapid increase in the category of Small Grant preliminary proposals (these are also included in the total counts in our previous post).

DEB Small Grants	2012	2013	2014	2015
Submitted	N/A	83	95	126
Invited	N/A	20	25	29
Invite Rate	N/A	24%	26%	23%

We attribute this to a growing awareness of this option to submit preliminary proposals with total budgets under $150K. Small grants came about in the second year of the preliminary proposal system in response to a long-standing desire, expressed by numerous voices in our communities, for some sort of “small” category. DEB realized it was particularly appropriate in the case of the preliminary proposal system in order that reviewers be able to adjust their expectations for the scope of a project relative to the expense without requiring the extensive preparations of a full budget. We added the category to our solicitation for the 2013 preliminary proposal deadline.

We’ve had lots of positive feedback on this option, but also recognize that awareness still needs to be improved among both applicants and reviewers. This year, 8% of all preliminary proposals were identified as small grants.

Small Grants are found in all four clusters and are generally on the increase, but we also think feedback, such as this post, is necessary to successfully integrate this idea into our communities and maintain enthusiasm for this option. We would not be surprised to see these numbers grow to the point where SGs make up as large a part (or larger) of the preliminary proposal pool as Predominantly Undergraduate Institutions or Beginning Investigators.

Since 2013, we’ve funded 22 awards based on invited full small grants (9 of 18 in 2013, 12 of 24 in 2014, and 1 of 1 in 2015 thus far[1]), for a 51% success rate at the full proposal stage. This is roughly twice the success rate of full proposals without the SG designation.

[1] Not everyone who received an invitation eventually submitted a full proposal (individual reasons vary). Also, we have an award already based on a 2015 preliminary proposal because instead of inviting a full proposal, DEB determined this project was appropriate for the EAGER mechanism and invited the team to submit an EAGER proposal allowing for quick turnaround of an award.