Go to the U of M home page
School of Physics & Astronomy
Assay and Acquisition of Radiopure Materials

User Tools

Trace:
aaac:nsf_astronomy

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
aaac:nsf_astronomy [2014/11/06 23:39] – [Funding Policies and Philosophy] james.lowenthalaaac:nsf_astronomy [2014/11/21 06:24] (current) – [Links to Existing talks, trending graphs, relevant information] prisca
Line 7: Line 7:
  
 Policy is to adhere to 6 AAAC principles: Best science, global coordination, open data, open access, opportunity to contribute, reciprocity. 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:   Summary of other NSF division policies from Jim Ulvestad: 
Line 16: Line 20:
   -  **Math** also claims to discourage multiple proposals.   -  **Math** also claims to discourage multiple proposals.
 ==== RFP and Proposal structure and frequency ==== ==== RFP and Proposal structure and frequency ====
 +
 +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)
 ==== Selected Questions and Available Data ==== ==== Selected Questions and Available Data ====
  
Line 21: Line 33:
   * AST budget as % of MPS budget in FY2015 (FY2010):  $236M/$1296=18.2% ($246M/$1368M=18.0%) -- relatively stable   * 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   * AST budget assumption: FY15=Request, 1%/yr growth thereafter
-  * FY14-FY19: ALMA+DKIST wedges projected to grow at expense of Individual Investigator + Mid-Scale grants+  * FY14-FY19: ALMA+DKIST+LSST wedges projected to grow at expense of Individual Investigator + Mid-Scale grants
   * AAG = NSF AAG Astronomy and Astrophysics Grants:    * AAG = NSF AAG Astronomy and Astrophysics Grants: 
     *    ~40% of $ goes to personnel (15% senior, 10% postdocs, 15% students), stable over 2004-2014     *    ~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)     *    # of proposals in 1993/2003/2013: 298/360/758 (max = 732 in 2014)
-    *    AAG budget 1993/2003/2013: 17.1/32.4/42.4 ($M)+    *    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)     *    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)     *    2013 awards by gender: 75% male, 25% female (same ratio as applicant pool)
Line 33: Line 45:
  
 === General Data we need (over the last 10 years) === === General Data we need (over the last 10 years) ===
 +Dan Evans' preliminary notes on availability of data inserted [in square brackets]
   * Number of senior researchers on proposal    * Number of senior researchers on proposal 
-    * per year, per category of PI, per funding requested +    * per year, per category of PI, per funding requested [Dan - OK]
   * Compare success rates of different sorts of proposals    * Compare success rates of different sorts of proposals 
-    * per PI category, per number of senior researchers, per number of proposals submitted in the last 5 years, per funding requested+    * 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    * Years between proposals 
     * cross correlate to success rate, PI category, # of senior researcher     * 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)?    * 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 +      * 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?+      * 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.]​
  
-Nature of community support questions+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 research projects/missions?
Line 54: Line 67:
   * What fraction of the money for competed research is distributed to various types of institution (labs, universities, centers, industry)?    * What fraction of the money for competed research is distributed to various types of institution (labs, universities, centers, industry)? 
  
-Individual support questions+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 grants of typical size are required to support an individual investigator? 
Line 62: Line 75:
 Career questions Career questions
  
-  * How many awards have gone to first-time PIs?  +  * How many awards have gone to first-time PIs? [Dan - OK] 
-  * How much of the typical award supports the PI? CoIs? Students? +  * How much of the typical award supports the PI? CoIs? Students? [Dan - OK] 
-  * What is the age (in career) distribution of PIs? Proposers? +  * What is the age (in career) distribution of PIs? Proposers? [Dan - OK] 
-  * What is the age (in career) distribution of the relevant community?+  * What is the age (in career) distribution of the relevant community? [Dan - OK]
  
-Competition Questions+Competition Questions [Dan and Jim can provide input on these]​
  
   * What is the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable success rates?   * What is the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable success rates?
Line 74: Line 87:
  
  
-Questions about Impact on People+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 anecdotal evidence do we have about the impact of funding rates?
Line 82: Line 95:
 ==== Links to Existing talks, trending graphs, relevant information ==== ==== Links to Existing talks, trending graphs, relevant information ====
   * Click on **[[AAAC:nsf_astronomy:resources|Resources]]**    * Click on **[[AAAC:nsf_astronomy:resources|Resources]]** 
 +  
aaac/nsf_astronomy.1415338776.txt.gz · Last modified: 2014/11/06 23:39 by james.lowenthal

Page Tools