In the past, successful returning applicants were somewhat assured of a fairly steady level of funding. NSERC rules allowed for up to a 50% reduction in award for returning applicants, but this has rarely been applied. Generally, the expectation is that if you are successful, you will be funded at either the same or a slightly higher level than your previous Discovery award. Times sure have changed.

The DG2008 pooled success rate was 71%. The DG2009 success rate declined to 63.5% and more telling, the variation in award level scatter plot actually shows scatter. (See this post for a link to the statistical analysis.) DG2009 marked the first step of a phased change in the evaluation process for Discovery grants. (See this post for more discussion on these changes and links to official FAQs.) To briefly recap, the Grant Selection Committees (GSCs) are no more. They have been replaced with Evaluation Groups (EGs). The EG implementation is new for this competition, however, DG2010 will be the second year of implementing the funding level ‘binning’ system (a method for scoring applications based on their budget request, as either high, low or normal.)

This year will also be the first year for the separation of the evaluation and funding level decision steps. (Last year the GSCs implemented binning and made the funding decisions – this year the EGs get to scorecard and a separate group sets the funding level.) Theoretically, this new system will reduce cronyism by funding applications based purely on relative score, however, I suspect that the phase-in of this process will be a slow and somewhat painful experience for applicants used to the current system.

While the creation of EGs seems like a big deal, it will probably be the easiest change to swallow as it will allow for more flexible review of applications. The more difficult element for applicants will be building a budget that does not damage their chances for application success by scoring too high or too low on the evaluation indicator scorecard. The next few posts will be dedicated to providing suggestions on how to build a normal (?) budget.

Last week, I covered a few general, but still important topics in the grant preparation process.

Discovery 2010 – Important Links included a list of links to important instructions and other sources of information.

Discovery 2010 – making your plan includes a list of the tasks involved in Discovery grant preparation to help prepare a work plan to the (now) 5 week away deadline.

DG2010 – proposal structure describes the necessary parts of the written proposal and provides a suggested structure for headings within the five page document. There is also some discussion of the different information that should be provided on HQP in the proposal and the CV attachments.

DG2010 – Selection Criteria & Indicators builds on the proposal structure post and provides additional links and discussion of how to relate the proposal to the selection criteria and evaluation indicators. The evaluation indicator matrix is a new document for this competition that provides an “at a glance” reference to how reviewers will score the applications.

DG2010 – presentation guidelines jumps back into the mundane details of what the free-form attachments need to look like and also discusses the challenge of selecting an appropriate font.

This week will include a discussion of some of the changes to the DG program as well as begin a series on developing a grant application budget.

AKA – the boring details that are also very important.

• Page = 8.5″ by 11″, portrait, single column, single sided

• Margins = 3/4″ or 1.9cm around
• Font = Times New Roman 12 pt (or a comparable font) ** to ensure that font size stays acceptable do not allow page scaling in the pdf **
• Spacing = single spaced (6 lines per inch)
• Condensed font and spacing = not allowed
• Enter your name and PIN at the top of every page (OUTSIDE THE SET MARGINS)
• Number pages consecutively following the forms

Sometimes it is preferential to choose a sans-serif font (Arial, Verdana) rather than a serif font (Times New Roman) because it is easier on the eye to read on screen, however, note that Arial 12 point is larger than TNR 12 point! So choose your font carefully. (Serif fonts generally have extensions and flares on the ends and corners of letters.)

A grant application is a very targeted document. It is used to determine whether your research will get funding. A business plan for your research program, if you will. As with any funding request, whether it be from a granting agency, a bank or a venture capitalist, you have to make sure that you give the funder the information that they are looking for so that they know you will give them what they want.

In the case of NSERC, they want to “make Canada a country of discoverers and innovators for the benefit of all Canadians. The agency supports university students in their advanced studies, promotes and supports discovery research, and fosters innovation by encouraging Canadian companies to participate and invest in postsecondary research projects. NSERC researchers are on the vanguard of science, building on Canada’s long tradition of scientific excellence.”

Canadian scientist = check!
Discovery research on the vanguard of science = read all about it in my proposal!

NSERC helps applicants by clearly spelling out the criteria evaluators/reviewers are measuring applications against. Print out a copy of the selection criteria and the evaluation indicators and look at them often to make sure that you are addressing each of the selection/evaluation points. I cannot stress how important this is.

Of course your research is important and significant, but if you don’t tell your reviewers why it is important and significant and how it will deliver on NSERC’s key goals, they aren’t going to help you out by approving you for funding.

For your Discovery grant proposal, NSERC says:

Using the headings below and in a maximum of five (5) single-sided pages [snip], describe the research to be supported. Provide details on:

• your recent progress in research activities related to the proposal and, in addition for renewals, the progress attributable to your previous Discovery Grant;
• the objectives of your research program – both short- and long-term;
• literature pertinent to the proposal;
• methods and proposed approach;
• anticipated significance of the work; and
• training to take place through the proposal (if none, explain why).

Images and graphics are included in the above-mentioned page limitations.

From: Form 101 Discovery Grants Program Instructions

Taking this information, I generally suggest the following headings to subdivide the required information:

• Research objectives
• Background
• Recent progress
• (restate the objectives with or without a heading)
• Proposed Research
• Significance of Research
• Training

Now, this isn’t exactly the order they suggest, but I find that it lends itself to a better flow of ideas. Sometimes background and recent progress can be intertwined, but it is important to explicitly state what you have achieved recently in the proposal (hence the separate section). You can certainly use the organization and headings that you prefer (as long as they ‘conform’ to requirements).

Occasionally I am asked, “why do I have to talk about training highly qualified personnel (HQP) in my proposal? I talk about training in my CV”. The distinction here is that your CV talks about past and current training, while your proposal talks about continuing and future training. For example, “Over the five years of this research plan, I anticipate the training of 3 MScs, 2PhDs, 1 PDF and 5 undergraduate summer students. Students graduating from my lab will have extensive experience in x, y and z, which are in high demand in the most important field on the planet.” Quantify it, spell it out, explain the significance and make it easy for your reviewers to immediately understand your output.

It is also important to pay attention to the selection criteria (you have to scoll down to find them) and the evaluation indicators (scroll down to download the pdf of the indicator matrix) to ensure that you are addressing all of the reviewers questions in a concise and easy to understand way.