• Demographics Committee member: James Lowenthal
• Contacts: NSF AST Division (703-292-8820): Jim Ulvestad and Daniel Evans (Data).

For specific business related to the CAA OIR System Committee, please contact Vern Pankonin (vpankoni@nsf.gov). For specific business related to CORF meetings, contact Tom Gergely (tgergely@nsf.gov) or Glen Langston (glangsto@nsf.gov)

Policy is to adhere to 6 AAAC principles: Best science, global coordination, open data, open access, opportunity to contribute, reciprocity.

No current limit on number or frequency of proposals, though under active discussion. Featured on AST homepage.

Generally, AST resists cutting highly-ranked proposals; preference is to fund the best science identified, rather than the most people. But the details of each proposal's budget are thoroughly examined and trimmed if appropriate to accomplish the proposed science.

Summary of other NSF division policies from Jim Ulvestad:

1. From Physics Division, Program Solicitation 14-576: Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or Co-PI: None. However, the Physics Division strongly encourages single proposal submission for possible co-review rather than multiple submissions of proposals with slight differences to several.
2. From Division of Materials Research, top level web page: DMR discourages the submission across DMR's program of more than one proposal from the same Principal Investigator during the DMR Annual proposal-submission window each fall.
3. From Division of Chemistry, top level web page: CHE discourages the submission of more than one proposal from the same Principal Investigator during the proposal-submission window. Note that proposals that are a duplicate of, or substantially similar to, a proposal already under consideration by NSF from the same submitter are subject to return without review. This also applies to proposals that were previously reviewed and declined and have not been substantially revised as well as to duplicates of other proposals that were already awarded.
4. Math also claims to discourage multiple proposals.

Annual:

• Astronomy and Astrophysics Research Grants (AAG)
• Major Research Instrumentation Program (MRI)
• Advanced Technologies and Instrumentation (ATI)
• NSF Astronomy and Astrophysics Postdoctoral Fellowships (AAPF)
• Mid-Scale Innovations Program (MSIP)
• Theoretical and Computational Astrophysics Networks (TCAN)

• AST budget as % of MPS budget in FY2015 (FY2010): $236M/$1296=18.2% ($246M/$1368M=18.0%) – relatively stable
• AST budget assumption: FY15=Request, 1%/yr growth thereafter
• FY14-FY19: ALMA+DKIST+LSST wedges projected to grow at expense of Individual Investigator + Mid-Scale grants
• AAG = NSF AAG Astronomy and Astrophysics Grants:
  • ~40% of $ goes to personnel (15% senior, 10% postdocs, 15% students), stable over 2004-2014
  • # of proposals in 1993/2003/2013: 298/360/758 (max = 732 in 2014)
  • AAG budget 1993/2003/2013: $17.1M/$32.4M/$42.4M
  • Proposal funding rate 1993/2003/2013: 29.5/36.8/15.4 % (max = 50.4% in 1990)
  • 2013 awards by gender: 75% male, 25% female (same ratio as applicant pool)
  • Average proposal cost 2004/2013: $93K/$150K (by eye from chart)
  • Median # of submissions as PI/Co-I over last 5 years: 2 (by eye from chart)
  • Median # of submissions in 2014: 1 (by eye from chart)

Dan Evans' preliminary notes on availability of data inserted [in square brackets]

• Number of senior researchers on proposal
  • per year, per category of PI, per funding requested [Dan - OK]
• Compare success rates of different sorts of proposals
  • per PI category [Dan - cannot evaluate], per number of senior researchers [Dan - OK], per number of proposals submitted in the last 5 years [Dan - OK], per funding requested [Dan - OK]
• Years between proposals
  • cross correlate to success rate, PI category, # of senior researcher
• Do younger researchers rise through the ranks (is researcher on proposal and then becomes PI later)?
  • Number of years between first appearance as senior researcher on a proposal to PI [Dan - cannot evaluate]
  • What number or fraction of the community is supported by soft money? [Dan - difficult to evaluate but I have a few ideas on how to get to what fraction of AAG money goes to soft money researchers.]​

Questions on nature of community support [Dan - difficult to evaluate just by looking at AAG data]

• What number or fraction of the community is supported by research projects/missions?
• What number or fraction of the community is supported by institutions?
• What number or fraction of the community can or does serve as PI?
• What number or fraction of the community is part of smaller groups (1-3) vs larger groups?

• Are there other sources of scientific support for the community?
• How much of the science support for the community comes through missions or other stable sources relative to competed 3-year proposals?
• What fraction of the money for competed research is distributed to various types of institution (labs, universities, centers, industry)?

Questions on individual support [Dan - difficult to evaluate just by looking at AAG data]

• How many grants of typical size are required to support an individual investigator?
• How many sources of support does the typical investigator (PI, CoI, student) rely upon?
• How many investigators/students participate in the average proposal?

Career questions

• How many awards have gone to first-time PIs? [Dan - OK]
• How much of the typical award supports the PI? CoIs? Students? [Dan - OK]
• What is the age (in career) distribution of PIs? Proposers? [Dan - OK]
• What is the age (in career) distribution of the relevant community? [Dan - OK]

Competition Questions [Dan and Jim can provide input on these]​

• What is the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable success rates?
• What factors determine what the acceptable boundary is? (program staff, reviewers, community, fairness, etc.)
• Does the success rate/number of proposals make any difference in program allocations by agencies?

Questions about Impact on People [Dan - difficult to evaluate just by looking at AAG data]​

• What anecdotal evidence do we have about the impact of funding rates?
• What quantitative information can we find about people entering or leaving the field?
• What are the off-ramps (retirement, leaving the field, working part time, etc.) for each discipline and how many are using them?
• What are the on-ramps (students, from other fields, shifting research focus, etc.) for each discipline and how many are using them?

• Click on Resources