Whats new at NSERC? Lise Dsabrais Program Officer, Engineering - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

What’s new at NSERC?

Lise Désabrais Program Officer, Engineering Research Grants and Scholarships June 5, 2012

Impact of Federal Budget 2012 on NSERC

• Investment of $15M per year for our

Strategy on Partnerships and Innovation

• Discovery, Scholarships and Innovation

programs fully protected

– “programming in support of basic research, student scholarships, and industry-related research initiatives and collaborations are preserved. 3

Budget 2012: Investment in the Granting Councils

p.74

“The granting councils will be pursuing operational efficiencies and reallocation of funding from lower-priority programs to generate savings. The Government will fully reinvest 2012–13 savings in priority areas of the granting councils, particularly in industry-academic partnerships.” (p. 73)

Budget 2012: Planned Reductions in Departmental Spending

Planned Savings—millions of dollars 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Ongoing Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada 15.0 30.0 30.0 30.0

Discovery $396M - 36.7% People $304M - 28.2% Administration $51M - 4.7% Innovation $329M - 30.4%

NSERC Expenditures, 2010-11

Total: $1.079 Billion

• Major Resources Program

– Program will no longer be accepting new applications at this time. – Commitments for existing instalments will be honoured. – Program is currently under moratorium.

Impact to Discovery Suite of Programs

• Research Tools & Instruments

– There will be one final competition in 2013 at a reduced funding level as compared to previous competitions. – Commitments for existing RTI Grants will be honoured. – The research community is encouraged to explore other avenues for funding research tools and instruments, including NSERC’s many programs that allow for the purchase of equipment, among other expenses. – Additionally, requests for smaller scale equipment can be incorporated into larger scale funding requests to the Canada Foundation for Innovation, where appropriate.

Impact to Discovery Suite of Programs

Networks of Centres of Excellence programs

Business-Led NCE (4 Active Networks)

– Permanent (Budget 2012), with $12M / year budget.

Centres of Excellence for Commercialization and Research (22 Active Centres)

– Ongoing budget remains $30M / year. – Ongoing portfolio estimate: 10 centres at $3M / centre / year

Networks of Centres of Excellence (13 Active Networks)

– Annual budget reduced 28%, from $74.5M to $53.36M / year – Reductions are not spread evenly across the agencies

New Initiatives

G8 Research Councils Initiative on Multilateral Research Funding and Belmont Forum – International Opportunities Fund

• NSERC will offer up to 1.5 million euros over three years for the

Fresh Water Security theme and will be supporting researchers in the natural sciences and engineering only.

• Canadian researchers interested in the Coastal Vulnerability theme

can participate as collaborators but must use their existing research funds.

• Consortiums must consist of partners from at least three participating

countries, bring together natural and social scientists and demonstrate clear links to research users including policy makers, industry, non-governmental organizations, communities and others.

New Initiatives (cont’d)

Climate Change and Atmospheric Research initiative

• Recently launched.
• Will provide $35 million over five years to a small

number of large, collaborative proposals ($500,000 – $1 million).

• Letters of Intent are due May 17.

Refer to www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/Media-Media/ NewsRelease-CommuniqueDePresse_eng.asp? ID=344

11

Chairs for Women in Science and Engineering (CWSE) Program

To increase the participation of women in science and engineering, and to provide role models for women active in, and considering, careers in these fields. There are 5 Regional Chairs:

British Columbia/Yukon: Elizabeth Croft - (U of British Columbia) Prairies: Annemieke Farenhorst - (U of Manitoba) Ontario: Catherine Mavriplis - (U of Ottawa) Québec: Nadia Ghazzali - (Université Laval) Atlantic: Tamara Franz-Odendaal - (Mount Saint Vincent)

Coming Later this Year

• The second Discovery Frontier process is
• underway. It will provide $4 million over four

years to ONE large, collaborative initiative. The theme for the call is still to be determined.

• CCA report due at NSERC summer 2012
• Review of the Discovery Grants Program

13

Discovery Grants 2012 Competition

Results and Statistics

15

2012 DG Competition – preliminary data

Number of applications Evaluation Group Discovery Grants Research Tools and Instruments 2011 2012 2011 2012 1509- Civil, Industrial and Systems Engineering 304 258 98 90 1510- Electrical and Computer Engineering 269 291 116 103 1511-Materials and Chemical Engineering 187 193 173 164 1512-Mechanical Engineering 223 219 150 142 Total applications in all Evaluation groups, including Engineering 3482 3513 1592 1541

Discovery Grants Overall Results – 2012 Competition

Data

1

Success rate (%) Average Grant Early Career researchers (ECR) 62 $26,740 Established Researchers (ER) applicants who held a grant (ER-R) 78 $33,354 applicants not holding a grant

2 (ER-NHG)

36 $26,964

• 1. Includes Discovery and Subatomic Physics (Individual and Team) grants.
• 2. Includes returning established unfunded applicants and experienced researchers submitting a first

applications

2012 Consolidated Engineering Discovery Grants Results

17

Renewals Others Success Rate 64.83% 78.99% 33.57% Average Grant $24,084 $28,817 $21,432 $ Awarded $ 2,263,920 $ 12,132,000 $2,036,000 All Engineering Evaluation Groups Early Career Researchers Established Researchers

18

2011/2012 Mechanical Engineering Discovery Grants Competition Results

Discovery Grants Established Researchers Renewals Other Established Researchers Early-Career Researchers 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 Number of Applications 130 118 67 64 26 37 Number of Awards 89 87 18 28 15 18 Success Rate 68% 74% 27% 44% 58% 49% Average Grant $30,876 $28,230 $24,556 $21,357 $24,600 $25,944 Total Budget $2,748,000 $2,456,000 $442,000 $598,000 $369,000 $467,000

19

Research Tools and Instruments (RTI) 2012 Competition Results

Number of Applications 1,538 Total amount requested $125.2M Engineering Applications 499 $ awarded Engineering $8.6M Funding rate 19.9%

20

2011/2012 Mechanical Engineering Research Tools and Instruments (RTI) Grants Competition Results

Discovery Grants Early-Career Researchers All Other Applicants 2011 2012 2011 2012 Number of Applications 13 11 138 131 Number of Awards 3 3 31 25 Funding Rate 26% 27% 23% 19% Total Budget $241,995 $280,229 $2,623,392 $2,020,790

21

2012 Summary of Recommended Grant Amounts and Distribution of Applications in the Mechanical Engineering Evaluation Group

Discovery Accelerator Supplements

• 125 Discovery Accelerator Supplements in 2012;

75 in targeted areas and 50 in non-targeted areas

• Provide substantial and timely additional resources

to accelerate progress and maximize the impact of highly original and innovative research programs.

• Recipients must meet the objectives of the

supplement program;

– Explore high risk transformational concepts – Great potential for major breakthroughs

9 DAS awardees from EG 1512; 6 in targeted areas and 3 in non-targeted areas

Applying to the Discovery Grants Program

24

Eligibility to Apply

To be eligible, you must:

• hold, or have a firm offer of, an academic appointment at a

Canadian institution (minimum three-year term position) as of November 1, 2012;

• be in a position that requires independent research and

allows supervision of highly qualified personnel (HQP); and

• spend a minimum of six months per year at an eligible

Canadian institution (if holding a position outside Canada).

Requirements can be found on NSERC’s Web site.

25

Eligibility of Subject Matter

• Discovery Grants support:

– research programs in the natural sciences and engineering (NSE); and – interdisciplinary research that is predominantly in the NSE

Significance, impact, advancement of knowledge or practical applications in NSE.

• The following eligibility guidelines can be found on

NSERC’s Web site:

– Selecting the Appropriate Federal Granting Agency – Preparation and Review of Applications in Interdisciplinary Research

• Consult NSERC or your research grants office (RGO).

Applications deemed more appropriate for another agency will be rejected. This can happen at any time during the competition cycle (F180 onward).

26

The Conference Model

• The 28 former Grant Selection Committees (GSCs)

were replaced by 12 EGs in 2010.

• Similar to a scientific conference, several sessions
• ccur in parallel streams.
• Members are assigned to various sections on the

basis of the match between members’ expertise and the subject matter.

– Members may participate in reviews in several EGs.

• Flexibility allows applications at the interface

between EGs to be reviewed by a combination of members with pertinent expertise from relevant groups.

27

Twelve Evaluation Groups

• Genes, Cells and Molecules (1501)
• Biological Systems and Functions (1502)
• Evolution and Ecology (1503)
• Chemistry (1504)
• Physics (1505)
• Geosciences (1506)
• Computer Science (1507)
• Mathematics and Statistics (1508)
• Civil, Industrial and Systems Engineering (1509)
• Electrical and Computer Engineering (1510)
• Materials and Chemical Engineering (1511)
• Mechanical Engineering (1512)

Mechanical Engineering - Research Topics - 1512

• ENB01 – Building Systems
• ENB02 – Fluid Mechanics
• ENB03 - Energy Systems
• ENB04 - Nuclear Eng.
• ENB05 - Heat Transfer
• ENB06 - Combustion
• ENB07 – Fluid-Structure

Interaction

• ENB08 - Aerospace and

Aeronautical Engineering

• ENB09 - Design and

Manufacturing

• ENB10 – Industrial

Automation

• ENB11 - Mechanical

Characterization; Modeling; Testing and Monitoring

• ENB12 - Biomechanical

Engineering

• ENB13 - Mechanical

Systems & Instrumentation

Joint Reviews with EG 1512

• The Notification of Intent (NOI) to apply for a Discovery Grant is

now mandatory

• NOI must be submitted directly by the applicants to NSERC via

the On-line System by the August 1st, 2012 deadline

• An applicant who has not submitted an NOI by this date will be

ineligible to submit a full application in November 2012

• Decision made to improve our planning process and delivery of

the Discovery Grants Program

• Should not be seen as drastic measure as there is already a high

degree of compliance (~ 1% do not submit a F180)

Notification of Intent to Apply (NOI) for a Discovery Grant – FORM 180

31

Notification of Intent to Apply for a Discovery Grant (Form 180) – Why?

Used to identify:

• the most appropriate EG to review the application;
• the need and potential benefits of a joint review

between EGs;

• the external referees for the application; and
• mandate eligibility issues.

32

Notification of Intent to Apply for a Discovery Grant (Form 180) – When and What?

• Deadline: August 1

– Electronic submission only – Mandatory: if not submitted by deadline, full application will not be accepted

• Includes:

– Form 180, listing up to five research topics in priority order – List of contributions in the last six years – List of co-applicants and their contributions (for team grants)

33

Life Cycle of a Discovery Grant Application

August 1 Submission of Form 180 September to October Initial assignment to EG and contacting of referees November 1 Submission of grant application Mid-November Applications sent out to referees Early December Evaluation Group members receive applications February Grants competition March to April Announcement of results

Evaluation of Discovery Grant Applications Antony Hodgson, Univ. of British Columbia Larry Kostiuk, University of Alberta Section Chairs, Mechanical Engineering Evaluation Group (EG 1512)

Discovery Grant: Evaluation Criteria

• Scientific or engineering excellence of the

researcher(s)

• Merit of the proposal
• Contribution to the training of highly qualified

personnel (HQP)

Scientific or Engineering Excellence

• f the Researcher(s)
• Knowledge, expertise and experience
• Quality of past and potential contributions to

research (past six years)

• Impact of contributions (e.g. to what extent have they

advanced the field, influenced direction of thought in the target community?)

• Team applications: Complementarity of expertise and

synergy (e.g. added value)

– Ratings will reflect an assessment of the blend of individuals)

Personal Data Form: Tips

• List all sources of support
• Describe up to five most significant research

contributions

• List all other research contributions (2006-12)
• Describe contributions to HQP training (2006-12)
• Clearly define your role in any collaborative research

and joint HQP training

• Give other evidence of impact of work
• Explain any delays in research activity or particular

circumstances that might have affected productivity

• r contributions to HQP training

Form 100

Merit of the Proposal

• Originality and innovation (novel or potentially

transformative concepts and lines of inquiry?)

• Significance and expected contributions

to research; potential for technological impact

• Clarity and scope of long & short term
• bjectives (well focused and realistic?)
• Clarity and appropriateness of methodology

(e.g. appropriate and up-to-date?)

Grant Proposal: Tips

• Write summary in plain language
• Provide a progress report on related research
• Position the research within the field
• Articulate short- and long-term objectives
• Provide a detailed methodology

Form 101

Merit of the Proposal (cont’d)

• Feasibility

– can objective be reached within the proposed time frame? – Appropriate reference to other work in the field?

• Extent to which the proposal addresses all relevant

issues (including the need for varied expertise)

• Appropriateness and justification of the budget

– 2-page limit, must be realistic and clearly demonstrate no duplication of funding

• Relationship to other sources of funding (onus on the

applicant to fully explain, no page limit)

Grant Proposal: Tips

• Describe plans for quality HQP training
• Prepare realistic budget
• Discuss relationships to other

research support

• Consider recent evaluation comments/

recommendations (previous Messages to Applicant)

Form 101

Contributions to the Training of HQP

• Quality/Impact and extent of past contributions to

training during the last six years

• Contribution to training at all levels (undergraduate to

postdoctoral, technicians, research associates) For undergraduates: Explain the nature of their training, how long was

the training and what was the outcome of the research

• Role of co-supervision, when appropriate, should be clearly

described

• Researchers with a non-academic background in research

and training, training can be considered over the last ten years

Contributions to the Training of HQP

Indicators: Move on to careers in all sectors

• within reasonable amount of time - delays should be

explained Papers published with the students

• Proposed plan for the training of HQP

– Detailed training plans Indicators: – Appropriateness to train particular types of students

Name Type of HQP Training and Status Years Supervised or Co-supervised Title of Project

• r Thesis

Present Position

Consent Received from Marie Roy

Roy, Marie Masters (completed) Supervised 2003-2005 Research Isotope geochemistry in petroleum engineering V-P (research), Earth Analytics Inc., Calgary, AB

Consent Not Obtained from Marie Roy

(name withheld) Masters (completed) Supervised 2003-2005 Course Isotope geochemistry Research executive in petroleum industry – Western Canada

Reporting HQP

Reporting HQP

• Make sure the numbers in the table on the

first page match the names and status of the students listed in the other table

• Include as much information as possible
• Your student’s names should be in bold font

in the list of contributions

A Complete Discovery Grant Application Includes:

• 1. An electronic Application for a Grant (Form 101) with

supporting documentation* (respect page limits!)

• 2. An electronic Personal Data Form (Form 100) for the

applicant and all co-applicants

• 3. Include samples of Research Contributions (reprints,

pre-prints, thesis chapters, manuscripts, patents, technical reports, etc.)

• 4. Be sure to include all required Appendices

* Note that applications, including samples of research contributions, are to be submitted electronically this year

47

Evaluation Process Overview

• Two-step process separates merit assessment from

funding recommendations.

• Merit assessment uses six-point scale to evaluate:

– Scientific or Engineering Excellence of the Researcher(s); – Merit of the Proposal; and – Contributions to the Training of HQP.

• Applications grouped in “bins” of comparable merit.
• Funding recommendations: similar overall ratings within

an Evaluation Group (EG) receive comparable funding, with possible modulation related to the cost of research.

• Greater consistency in process between EGs and

between competition years.

48

Two-Step Review Process

Funding "Bins" A (L, N, H) B (L, N, H) C (L. N. H) D (L, N, H) . . . N O P

Exceptional Outstanding Very Strong Strong Moderate Insufficient Excellence of researcher Merit of proposal Contribution to training of HQP

Cost of research High Normal Low

Funding "Bins" A (L, N, H) B (L, N, H) C (L. N. H) D (L, N, H) . . . N O P

Exceptional Outstanding Very Strong Strong Moderate Insufficient Excellence of researcher Merit of proposal Contribution to training of HQP

Cost of research High Normal Low

Merit assessment Funding recommendation

Implementation of the Conference Model and the Rating Indicators

Chair Program Officer First Internal Reader Reader Reader Second Internal

Excellence Outstanding Outstanding

Outstanding

Outstanding Very Strong

Conflicts?

Merit Outstanding Very Strong

Very Strong

Very Strong Very Strong HQP Outstanding Outstanding

Outstanding

Very Strong Very Strong COR Factor: N N

N

N N

50

Discovery Grants Indicators

Research Tools and Instruments (RTI) - Category 1

• Deadline date – October 25
• NSERC will accept requests up to $150,000

(equipment value can be up to $250,000)

• Must already hold or be submitting an

application for an NSERC research grant (not necessarily a Discovery Grant)

RTI Applications: Tips

• Describe the research that will be done with the

equipment

• Explain the need and urgency of the request
• Justify each item
• Illustrate the suitability of the proposed

equipment for research program

• Indicate the impact on HQP training
• Give alternative configurations and

pricing options

Final Advice

• Use the 2010 Web version of the forms and Guide
• Consult the indicators rating scale and the Peer

Review Manual (Chapter 6)

• Read all instructions carefully and follow

presentation standards and page limits

• Remember that more than one audience reads

your application

• Ask colleagues and/or your Research Grants Office

for comments on your application

• Read other successful proposals
• Ensure completeness of application

Resources

• F180, F100, F101 Instructions
• Peer Review Manual, Chapter 6
• Policy and Guidelines on the Assessment of Contributions

to Research and Training

• Guidelines for the Preparation and Review of Applications

in Engineering and the Applied Sciences

• Tips on Applying for a Discovery Grant (Video)
• Demystifying the Review Process for NSERC Discovery

Grants (Video)

NSERC Contacts

Evaluation Group (EG) Program Officer firstname.lastname@nserc-crsng.gc.ca Deadlines, Acknowledgement of Applications, Results Your university Research Grants Officer (RGO) Your Account, Grants in Aid of Research Statement of Account (Form 300) Your university Business Officer (BO) NSERC Web site www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca Discovery Grants (including eligibility) resgrant@nserc-crsng.gc.ca 613-995-5829 Use of Grant Funds casdfinance@nserc-crsng.gc.ca On-line help webapp@nserc-crsng.gc.ca