View NIH application details at

• http://www.nih.gov

The mission of the Department of Energy's Office of Science is to Deliver the remarkable discoveries and scientific tools that transformour understanding of energy and master and advance the national, economic, and energy security of the United States.

DOE Mission

http://www.er.doe.gov/index.htm

DOE Office of Science• The Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic

research in the physical sciences in the United States, providing more than 40 percent of total funding for this vital area of national importance. It oversees – and is the principal federal funding agency of – the Nation’s research programs in high-energy physics, nuclear physics, and fusion energy sciences.

• The Office of Science manages fundamental research programs in basic energy sciences, biological and environmental sciences, and computational science. In addition, the Office of Science is the Federal Government’s largest single funder of materials and chemical sciences, and it supports unique and vital parts of U.S. research in climate change, geophysics, genomics, life sciences, and science education.

Crown Jewels• Multi-program Laboratories:

• Argonne National Laboratory • Brookhaven National Laboratory• Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory• Oak Ridge National Laboratory • Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

• The other five are single-program national laboratories:

• Ames Laboratory • Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory • Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility • Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory • Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

Five Interdisciplinary Programs

• Advanced Scientific Computing Research

• Basic Energy Sciences

• Biological and Environmental Research

• Fusion Energy Sciences

• High Energy Physics

• Nuclear Physics

FAQ: http://www.sc.doe.gov/sub/about/faq.htm

TOC

· Face Page (Form DOE F 4650.2) including authorizing signatures

· Budget Page(s) (Form DOE F. 4620.1) · Project Description · Biographical Sketches · Facilities and Resources· Bibliography of literature · Statement of current and pending support · Assurances and certifications

Electronic submission and preapplication

Evaluation Criteria

New and renewal applications will be subjected to formal merit review and will be evaluated against the following criteria which are listed in descending order of importance as set forth in 10 CFR Part 605:

1. Scientific and/or technical merit or the educational benefits of the

project; 2. Appropriateness of the proposed method or approach; 3. Competency of applicant's personnel and adequacy of proposed

resources; 4. Reasonableness and appropriateness of the proposed budget; and 5. Other appropriate factors, established and set forth in a notice of

availability or in a specific solicitation.

Foundations and Industries

http://foundationcenter.org/

• Thousands of philanthropist organizations• Billions of $ to be given• Most important thing is to find a match

between organization and your topic• Alternatively alter your goal to fit the

organization• Most of the applications are quite short,

decisions taken by smaller groups who look for things other than science

http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/topfunders/top100assets.html http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/topfunders/top100giving.html

Rank Name/(state) Assets

As ofFiscal YearEnd Date

1. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (WA) $29,153,508,000 12/31/05

2. The Ford Foundation (NY) 11,615,906,693 09/30/05

3. J. Paul Getty Trust (CA) 9,618,627,974 06/30/05

4. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (NJ) 9,359,361,000 12/31/05

5. Lilly Endowment Inc. (IN) 8,360,760,584 12/31/05

6. The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation (CA) 7,336,131,000 12/31/05

7. W. K. Kellogg Foundation (MI) 7,298,383,532 08/31/05

8. The David and Lucile Packard Foundation (CA) 5,788,480,930 12/31/05

9. The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation (NY) 5,586,112,000 12/31/05

10. John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation (IL) 5,490,449,000 12/31/05

The list below includes the 100 largest U.S. grantmaking foundations ranked by the market value of their assets, based on the most current audited financial data in the Foundation Center's database as of October 12, 2006. Fiscal records will be updated when more recent audited financial information is obtained.

http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/topfunders/top100assets.html

Rank Name/(state) Total Giving

As ofFiscal YearEnd Date

1. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (WA) $1,182,826,639 12/31/03

2. Lilly Endowment Inc. (IN) 462,336,723 12/31/03

3. The Ford Foundation (NY) 431,643,480 09/30/03

4. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (NJ) 390,600,294 12/31/03

5. The Bristol-Myers Squibb Patient Assistance Foundation, Inc. (NJ) 297,134,526 12/31/02

6. The David and Lucile Packard Foundation (CA) 277,891,647 12/31/03

7. Merck Patient Assistance Program, Inc. (NJ) 244,000,295 12/31/02

8. The Pew Charitable Trusts (PA) 238,534,822 12/31/02

9. The Starr Foundation (NY) 209,301,410 12/31/02

10. John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation (IL) 195,573,328 12/31/02

Top ten US foundations

Rank Name/(state) Total Giving

As of Fiscal Year End Date

1. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (WA) $1,356,327,000 12/31/05

2. Merck Patient Assistance Program, Inc. (NJ) 519,998,639 12/31/04

3. The Ford Foundation (NY) 516,907,177 09/30/05

4. The Bristol-Myers Squibb Patient Assistance Foundation, Inc. (NJ) 506,639,972 12/31/04

5. Lilly Endowment Inc. (IN) 427,465,199 12/31/05

6. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (NJ) 372,500,000 12/31/05

7. The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation (CA) 319,916,093 12/31/05

8. Janssen Ortho Patient Assistance Foundation, Inc. (NJ) 289,783,393 12/31/04

9. The Annenberg Foundation (PA) 251,663,628 06/30/05

10. Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation (CA) 225,986,140 12/31/04

Industries

• Handsome big grants!• To solve a specific problem• Industry comes to you than you go to them (or you

induce them to come to you)• Short proposals (1-2 pages at times)• No forms to fill but contracts• More specific on deliverables (no guarantees)• Less “how to do” details• Comes with many Intellectual property issues• Less freedom to publish and support students• Co-ops

ZEN IN THE ART OF GRANTSMANSHIP

(or, This Ain't About Money, It's About Attitude):

A GRANTSEEKER'S GUIDE

http://www.mindspring.com/~bozartmt/zen_in.html

Visit this site to read more about grantsmanship

Final advice• What Every Good Proposal Should Contain

The Need - You must demonstrate that the proposed activity is needed and that this need is not being met elsewhere. Who is the potential audience, what is the geographic area to be served, why is this need not being met already, how many people will be served, etc.

The Plan - You must explain how you intend to meet this need. What you will do, what is your timetable, why is this the best way to do it, how it will be promoted, what criteria will you use to determine if it was successful, etc. You should be clear and SPECIFIC! Your goal is to prove your project is fail-safe. Anticipate and propose solutions to the potential objections and problems.

Why You? - You must demonstrate why you are the most logical means by which this plan can be carried out. Even if the granting agency accepts that there is a need and your plan can meet it, why should they believe that you are capable of carrying it out successfully? What are your special skills and resources, what is your past history of activities in this area, how successful have you been in the past, what has been the size of your past audience, how many people have been involved in your activities in the past? Be especially sure that you identify the particular personnel who will have primary responsibility, and provide resumes if appropriate.

Budget - You must demonstrate that this plan can be carried out (by you!) at an acceptable cost. This means a detailed budget, providing both income and expense projections. The more detailed and specific you are (within reason), the better.

My three simple rules

• Know who you are!• Know who you want to be!• Learn how to get from here to there!

Concluding Remarks

What did I learn from teaching this course?

A BIG THANK YOU to you all!!!

• For taking this class• Attending it so regularly• You were very eager to learn• Being attentive• Submitting all assignments on time• Finishing final proposal on time• Reviewing other proposals • Participating in panel meeting

Something about Reviews

• You might be the first time grant writers• You all are first time reviewers, panel members• More about learning process than the outcome• If someone criticized your proposal, do not take

it personally• You have to learn from criticism and improve• Do not try to find who wrote, what and why?• This is how it is supposed to be the Real World!

2004-2005

• Meghan McGee : NSF Graduate Fellowship

• Veronica Brieno Rankin: Visiting Fellowship for Acknowledged Research Leaders via Land and Water, Australia

• Valerie Fuchs: NSF Graduate Fellowship (special coaching)

Acknowledgments

• Anita Quinn, Lisa Jukkala, Jackie Huntoon, Dave Reed, Peter Larsen

• Victor Busov, Bruce Seely, Seth Donahue

• Faculty reviewers

• You all!

Remember..

• What you learnt in this class and practice to make it perfect!

• Hall of Fame! Do email me when you get your first grant

• Have a Merry Christmas and Happy to New Year!

Grades