Funding Your Research

Getting Started, Getting Funded
Micah Altman
Director of Research, MIT Libraries
Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution

Outline for this talk
 Background
 Research Grants
 Planning
 Targeting
 Writing and Submission
 Review
 Management
 Other Types of Funding
 Resources
[1/29/2013]
Source: Wikimedia Commons
2

4 Steps
[1/29/2013]
 Develop an original idea for a research project that
solves some part of an important problem
(bonus points for cleverness)
 Do your homework – target a funder who is
interested in that problem
 State the problem clearly for the reviewers:
 How it is important
 What you intend to do
 Why you chose to do that
 Be persistent, meticulous and systematic in writing
submission and review
3

[1/29/2013]
The MIT libraries provide support for all researchers at MIT:
 Research consulting, including:
bibliographic information management; literature searches; subject-specific
consultation
 Data management, including:
data management plan consulting; data archiving; metadata creation
 Data acquisition and analysis, including:
database licensing; statistical software training; GIS consulting, analysis & data
collection
 Scholarly publishing:
open access publication & licensing
libraries.mit.edu
4

Background
[1/29/2013]
 Sponsored Activities
 Characteristics of Research Grants
 Common Myths
 Guiding Principles
Background Planning Targeting Writing
Review Management Other Resources
5

Sponsored Activities
Award/Grant
Collaborative Agreement
Cash In-kind
Donation
Contract
Cash In-kind
Corporate Sponsorship
Sponsorship Types
“ ‘What’s on second?”
Supported Activities
Endowment
General Operations
Challenge Money
Employer matching
Annual funds
Naming
Events
Research
Seed/Pilot Projects
Community Services
Fellowships & Scholarships
Consulting
Evaluation
Licensing
Direct Services
[1/29/2013]
6

Research Grant Features
[1/29/2013]
 Primary goal is scientific understanding
 Peer-reviewed (in some way)
 Wide discretion over objectives, methods
 Judged retrospectively
 Most technical
 Most competitive*
7

The “Secret Handshake”*
[1/29/2013]
 Develop Professional Networks
 Networks of colleagues to review
proposals
 Networks of collaborators for
better projects
 Networks of program officers
 Referrals to other funders
 Insights into peer review
 Insights into funding priorities
 Comments and feedback
* Credit to Stu Shulman for this
term.
8

Common Myths
 Myth: Grants are something for nothing.
 Myth: Writing proposals is a trial by fire.
 Myth: You need to know someone to get a grant.
 Myth: You need to be at a big prestigious institution.
 Myth: Collaborating gives you more time.
 Myth: One size fits all.
 Myth: Grants are few and huge.
[1/29/2013]
9

Guiding Principles
 Grants are rational agreements
 Harmonize funder mission, program goals, and project goals
 A successful proposal makes a compelling argument
 Reaching goals will make a great difference in areas about which the funders care
deeply
 Project plan to each these goals is clear, thoughtful, firmly grounded: scientifically,
financially, organizationally
 Project proposer (individual, group, institution) is well-prepared to carry out the plan
 Get Organized
 A successful proposal has many “working parts”, track each one
 Watch the calendar
 Collaboration requires extra time
 Write to facilitate review
 Above all, write clearly
 Address your writing to the reviewers:
peer reviewer, program officer, and board
"Less than 10% of the proposals my foundation receives fits our guidelines –
and the one's that don't fit are rejected"
[Karsh & Fox 2006, pg. 81]
[1/29/2013]
10

A Preview of Review
[1/29/2013]
 The purpose of planning is to make a good project
 The purpose of writing a proposal is to communicate to reviewers effectively.
 Reviewers may include:
 Peers in your sub-field
 Peers in your field
 Peers in other fields
 Methodological specialists
 Program officers
 Executives
 Boards
 After reading your proposal a reviewer should be able to explain to others the answers
to questions like these:
 How do you know there is a need for what you propose?
 Who or what would be affected, how much, in what ways?
 How urgent, in relationship to what communities?
 What other ways of addressing problem have been tried?
 What happens if project is not implemented now?
 Why are you best suited to do work?
 What insight makes this solvable?
 What is innovative about it?
 How will the project be used in the future? Will it be of lasting value?
11

Warm-Up
Consider the following scenarios:
You propose to [pick one]…
… create a database measuring international conflict
… to develop method for applying voice stress
analysis to measure attitudes
… conduct a survey on the voting behavior of
bloggers
… develop a measure of industrialization based on
satellite imagery
… add your own idea
 Answer the following:
 Describe a proposal in two sentences…
 Think of 2 different sectors (federal government,
state government, foundation, corporation,
individual) or substantive areas (education, policy,
science, etc.) to whom you could propose these
ideas
 How would an abstract of your proposal differ for
each sector?
HOMEWORK
Locate 2-3 funders in each of these
sectors who seem most likely to be
receptive. Write a 1-2 paragraph
abstract for each funder.
[1/29/2013]
[Source: http://andreymath.wikidot.com/
. Creative Commons Sharealike
Licensnce]
12

Planning
[1/29/2013]
 Timeline of the proposal process
 Taking Stock
 Ongoing Readiness
 Preliminary Research
13

Timeline of Proposal
Funding
Initial
announcement
Budget
adjustment
Account Setup HR Annual Reports Extensions
Review
Internal Review
Funder
Administrative
Check
Individual
Review
Panel Review
Program Officer
Recommendati
ons
Board Approval
Submission
Collaboration
Title,
Abstract
Personnel
Budget
Administrativ
e Approvals
Scientific
Portion
Internal
Review
Rewriting
Targeting
Identifying Funders Networking
Identifying Funding
Opportunities
Reading RFP
Preliminary research
Collaborations Literature Pilots
Taking Stock
Projects Institution
[days-weeks]
[months-year]
[days-
months]
[month++]
[1-2 weeks +
(Internal)]
[6 mths + (Funder)]
[Start: weeks-
months]
[Project: up to 5
[1/29/2013]
14

Timeline @MIT
[1/29/2013]
1. Proposal must be created in COEUS prior to
submission
2. Proposals should be reviewed with admin/financial
officer – plan time for review.
3. Proposals must be approved by DLC
(Departmental/Laboratory/Center Administration) –
Allow time for review.
4. Proposal must be submitted to OSP
5 Business Days prior to official deadline
Note: Occasionally, funder will limit the number of
submissions to an RFP per institution. In this case MIT VP
of research & Deans determine an internal review process
and deadlines. If you are targeting a limited opportunity,
contact OSP as far in advance as possible to learn the
internal submission dates.
15

Review Your Research Program
[1/29/2013]
 SWOT:
 Strengths
 Weaknesses
 Threats
 Opportunities
 Readiness
 Literature reviews
 Pilot projects/data collection
16

Do You need Money?
[1/29/2013]
 Need for funding…
 What projects need funding to test feasibility?
 What projects need funding to launch?
 What ongoing projects need funding to continue in future?
 Can funding dramatically change impact of ongoing projects?
 Could you accomplish your goal with in-kind resources? Special support
may be available for…
 Computing?
 Surveys?
 Publicity?
 Research design & statistical help?
 Advantages
 No indirect cost
 Low administrative cost
 Easier to obtain
 Sometimes allows grants to individual directly
 Disadvantages
 Has to be what you would have bought anyway
 Can’t be used for your time/RA time, etc.
 Smaller, less prestigious
17

In-Kind Research Support
[1/29/2013]
 Supercomputing
 Amazon EC2 Grants aws.amazon.com/education/
 XSEDE www.xsede.org/how-to-get-an-
allocation
 Data Archiving
 IQSS DVN dvn.iq.harvard.edu
 ICPSR www.icpsr.org
 SDSC www.sdsc.edu
 Survey time
 Protogenie www.protogenie.com
 Tess www.tessexperiments.org
 Ads
 Google Grants (AdWords) www.google.com/grants
 Commercial Software
 Techsoup www.techsoup.org
18

Your Status
[1/29/2013]
 Educational Requirements
 Ph.D. in hand (usually)
 Faculty Status (usually)
 Term of Employment
 Award typically made to university
 What happens if you move?
 Ownership of Intellectual Property
 New/Early Investigator Status
 Diversity Status
19

PI-Authority
[1/29/2013]
 “Principal Investigator” (PI) Authority =
authority to take ultimate responsibility for the conduct of the
research for the institution
 A PI may or may not be
 Primary author of the proposal
 Primary author of the resulting publications
 Primary person managing the project
 Other paid roles in a sponsored project
 Co-PI - responsible for some portion, usually paid
 Senior staff, paid
 Technical staff
 Student
 Postdoc
 Co-authorship is orthogonal
 Co-author on proposal and/or publications is possible w/out pay
 Co-authorship does not necessarily imply responsibility for conduct of
project
20

PI Status @MIT
[1/29/2013]
 At MIT three categories of people have automatic PI
Status: Faculty, Senior Research Scientists (SRS),
and Principal Research Scientist (PRS).
 In order to be a PI when holding any other
appointment at MIT, the individual's Department
Head must request and receive permission from the
relevant Dean for that individual to be a PI on a
specific project.
 MIT requires that anyone beyond faculty, SRS, or
PRS must provide confirmation of approval from
their Dean for PI status for each protocol application
(there is no blanket PI Status).
http://web.mit.edu/policies/5/index.html
21

Conflict of Interest @MIT
[1/29/2013]
 MIT REQUIRES disclosure of outside activities and
interests to designated Institute officers, including
financial interests, that might give rise to conflicts
 Conflict of interest statements must be entered in
COEUS prior to submission
coi.it.edu
22

Your Institutional Eligibility
[1/29/2013]
 Status: 501(c)3, public/private, Carnegie
classification.
 Special programs eligibility:
 NSF: EPSCOR, RUI, ROA, “Broadening Participation”
Grants
 DOE- FaST (Faculty and Student Teams)
 NIH IDEA
 Federal Compliance:
 Human subjects, Vertebrate animals, Inventions and
patents, Debarments and suspension, Drug-free
workplace, Lobbying, Delinquent federal debt, Misconduct
in science, Civil Rights, Handicapped Individuals, Sex
discrimination, Age discrimination, …
23

Institutional Positioning
[1/29/2013]
 Competitive advantages
 Stakeholders
 Collaborations with other institutions
 Policies:
 Sponsored research: approvals, permitted sponsors, P.I.
authority
 Space & time
 Human Resources
 Financials and Indirect costs
 Publication and intellectual property policies
 Decision Makers: Chairs, Deans, Sponsored
Research Office (S.R.O.), Human Resources H.R.,
etc.
24

Institutional Support
[1/29/2013]
 Types of support for sponsored research
 Sponsored research office
 Financial, H.R. Support
 Training and review
 Development and targeting
 Culture: seed money, tenure and promotion, course load
 Support resources
 Level 1
 Who: Chair, Finance officer/Business officer, Statistical Consultant,
Research Coordinators/Assistants
 What: space, time, research funds, pilot funds, approval , editing , review,
logistics, information tech, statistical expertise
 Level 2
 Who: dean, financial officer, development, office of sponsored research,
IRB, HR, IAUC
 What: contract negotiations, indirect costs, application forms and checks,
funding prospects, approve human protocols, job description, pay ranges,
rules and policies, training
25

Award Support @ MIT
[1/29/2013]
 OSP Department Contacts:
osp.mit.edu/about-osp/staff/by-department
 MIT Office of Foundation Relations
foundations.mit.edu
 Department Admin/Financial Officer
26

Active Preparations
[1/29/2013]
 Ongoing Readiness
 Action Research
 Preliminary Results
“Chance favors the prepared mind.” -- Louis Pasteur
27

Ongoing Readiness
 Organization
 Maintain calendar of project & sponsor deadlines
 Review opportunities regularly
 Materials
 Bio's up to date, in funders formats
 Keep up to date on facilities
 Collaboration
 Should be integrated into your research, not a response to an
RFP
 Networking: with colleagues, funders, decision makers,
stakeholders
 Familiarize yourself with support staff: OSP, staff, counsel
 Build support: other communities served
"Nothing new that is really interesting comes without
collaboration" -- James Watson
[1/29/2013]
28

“Action Research”
[1/29/2013]
 Action research is…
 an iterative inquiry process: planning, action, evaluation
 integrated in engaging in the practice of an activity
(teaching, politics, writing, etc.)
 incorporates problem solving and empirical measurement
of problem solving methods
 collaborates with community of practice
 Can be used to jump start proposals
 Research conducted in course of teaching, etc
 Questionnaires
 Informal in-class experiments
 Market surveys
29

Preliminary Results
[1/29/2013]
 Presentation of some smaller set of data
 A prototype
 A pilot experiment
 A sub-sample
 The proposed approach applied to a different population
 …
 Why?
 Establish working collaborations
 Publish articles explaining and/or vetting methods, data,
approaches
 Show capability to do research
 Show feasibility of approach
 Show competence with required methods
 Review literature, understand competing approaches
 Reveal interesting puzzles for investigation
30

Exercise: Planning
[1/29/2013]
 IN CLASS
 What are strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, and threats for your:
 Organization?
 Research program?
 Proposed project?
 HOMEWORK:
What resources are available to you to
support your funding search from:
 Your university?
 Your department?
 Yourself?
 Other sources?
Licensnce]
31

Review: Planning
[1/29/2013]
 Start now! You need time to…
 Engage collaborators
 Structure proposal for review
 Prepare submission materials
 Obtain internal approvals
 Examine your research portfolio
 Strengths, weaknesses, threats,
opportunities
 Identify where funding will have the most
impact
 Identify institutional resources
 Prepare as well as plan
 Cogent summaries of your research projects
 Data! … Anecdotes, action research,
scientific puzzles, pilots, and preliminary
results
32

Targeting
 Types of sponsors
 Finding Sponsors
 Finding Opportunities
[1/29/2013]
33

Sponsors
Sponsor Types
Federal State and Local Foreign
Government
Public Community Family Private Corporate
Foundation
Sponsorship Office Community Relations
Corporate
Individual
Sponsors
“ ‘Who’s on first?”
[1/29/2013]
34

Philanthropic Giving
[1/29/2013]
Source: Frumkin
2006
35

Major Science Research
Funding
[1/29/2013]
 Sources for funding statistics and trends:
 Foundation Center:
foundationcenter.org/findfunders/statistics/
 American Academy for Advancement of Science (AAAS)
Reports: aaas.org/spp/rd/fy09.htm
 Consortium of Social Science Organizations (COSSA)
Reports: cossa.org/advocacy/budgets.shtml
36

Funding Sources @MIT
[1/29/2013]
Source:
Institutional
Research, Office of
the Provost
web.mit.edu/ir/financ
ial/re.html
37

Selected Sci Sponsors
[1/29/2013]
 Major Federal Funders of Science Research
 National Science Foundation (NSF):
 National Institutes of Health (NIH):
 Department of Energy:
 Depart of Defense:
 NASA
 Federal Funders of Social Science, Education,
Humanities
 Dept of Education (social sci, education)
 NEH (small funder, but large proportion of humanities funding)
 NIJ
 See http://osp.mit.edu/grant-and-contract-
administration/sponsor-information
38

Selected Sci Sponsors
[1/29/2013]
 Top Foundations Funding Science in 2010
See: http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/statistics/
39

Selected Soc Sci Sponsors
[1/29/2013]
 Top Seven Foundations Funding Social Science in
2010
40

Foundation Trends
[1/29/2013]
 Funding Distribution 2009
 Patterns
 Large foundations more likely to fund science, public
policy
 Science more likely to be funded if policy relevant
 8 out of 10 fields experienced foundation fund decline
2008-9
Source: http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/statistics/
41

Foundation Funding
Distribution
[1/29/2013]
 Average/Median Foundation Grant in related fields 2008
 Social Science $197K/$50K
 Education $171K/$30K
 Public Affairs $137K/$30K
 Large100 Foundation Funders in related fields 2008
 Social science: $181M, 709 awards
 Higher education: $1087M, 2792 awards
 Public affairs: $1259M, 6665 awards
 Medium 1200 + Foundation Funders in related fields
2008
 Social science: $304M, 4126 awards
 Higher education: $1297M, 6888 awards
 Public affairs: $1255M, 11664 awards
42

NSF Profile
[1/29/2013]
Total Research Budget $6.5 Billion (FY 10 est.)
Focus Basic Research in Sciences and Engineering
Eligibility U.S. Nonprofit Academic Institutions, (SBIR only Small Businesses)
Submission process Open programs.
Open request for proposals.
Fixed and variable deadline schedules.
Main description = 15 pages.
Review process • Mixed & extensive peer reviewed.
• Usually ad+hoc, panel, and P.O. review
• Reviewers score proposal. Score’s assign broad categories (e.g.
highly competitive, competitive, non-competitive). Program officers
have discretion inside categories. Budget for program fixed in advance.
• 6 month review time
Programs of interest for soc
sci
FY08 actuals: Social Behavior and Economic ($223M), Education and
Human Resources ($845M), Office of Cyberinfrastructure ($185M)
RAPID (quick response), EAGER (small highly innovative/high risk)
Overall success rate Varies by program 18-40%. Many programs ~ 20%.
Award length • Up to five years in most programs
• Most programs average 3-4 years, Median 2.66 Years (Ry10)
Median award $108K (FY 09 , includes dissertations awards & indirect costs)
Useful URL’s • Grants: nsf.gov/funding
• Award Statistics: dellweb.bfa.nsf.gov
• Award Database: nsf.gov/awardsearch
43

NSF By the Numbers
(FY2010)
[1/29/2013]
 Median award $: ~123,391
 Average award duration, in years: 2.9
 Proposals: 55542
 Awards: 12996
 Rejections reconsidered: 37
 Proposals funded after formal reconsideration : 2
 Proposals informally revised and resubmitted: (a lot  )
 Average number of proposals per pi before award: 2.3
 Percentage of awards to top 10 research universities: ~12%
 Percentage of awards to top 100 research universities: 75%
 Proposal funding rate: 23%
 (Top 100 Universities: 26% , 17% for other PHD ranting institutions)
 Percentage of NSF PI’s with more than one grant: 20%
 Overall funding rate % of PI’s over 3 years: 37
 Average months of salary support for PI’s: ~1.1
[Source: NSB FY2010 Report on NSF’s Merit Review Process]
44

NIH Profile
[1/29/2013]
Total Research Budget $ 31 Billion (FY 10 est.) (not including ARRA)
Focus Health & Medicine
Eligibility U.S., Small business, Non-profit, Governments
Submission process Open program announcements (PA’s).
Open special initiatives (RFA’s).
Fixed deadline cycles.
Main description = 13 pages. (for R01, shorter for some other
proposals)
Review process • Uniform & extensive peer reviewed.
• Standing panels + ad hoc reviewers + triage + institute approval.
• Panel scores proposal. Institute determines fundable threshold.
Funding awards made at different times during fiscal year (may receive
award later, if funding available)
Programs of interest for soc
sci
$10 Billion for Behavioral/Social Science
Methodology and Measurement in the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Sociobehavioral Analysis in
Aging, NIH/HHS Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ); NIH/HHS: Ethical, Legal,
and Social Implications (ELSI); Retirement Economics; y; Information Technologies and the Internet
in Health Services and Intervention Delivery; Research on Research Integrity
Overall success rate 22% (FY10 – R01’s )
Award length • Up to five years
• Most programs average 3-4 years
Average award $419K (FY 10, research projects – R01, direct costs only)
Useful URL’s • Grants: grants.nih.gov/grants/oer.htm
• Contracts:
45

NIH/NSF Tips
[1/29/2013]
- Submit to individual institute/program
- Multiple/parallel submission usually ok within one
organization – as long as you notify program officers
- Keep to the letter on all guidelines
for length
(i.e.. maximum length=minimum length),
deadlines,
headings,
etc.
- Research program officer/panelists
- Inquire with program officer for clarification on
submissions after reading the RFP thoroughly
46

Foundations as Sponsors
[1/29/2013]
 56000 Foundations*
 Many are small, no website
 Proposals are similar in structure, but generally briefer
 Alignment of project with foundation interest is critical
 Proposals are shorter
 Typically a proposal acts as the capstone to a series of
discussions with the foundation
 3-10 Pages not unusual
 Review varies
E.g. – at a larger foundation
 Very small grants are within discretion of program officer
 Small grants require review by multiple program officers
 Large grants require program officer to invite (ad-hoc) peer
review, then review by foundation board
* National Center for Charitable Statistics, based on IRS Businees
Master File
47

Approaching Foundations
[1/29/2013]
 Use foundation directories to locate
 Work to get a referral to a program officer or board
member
 From someone on your board
 Sponsored development officer
 Another foundation officer
 If no referral …
 The very largest foundations will issue RFP’s
 Or send a letter of inquiry prior to proposal
 If letter of inquiry is not desired
 Then don’t inquire about funding, but
 Do send a related publication and a summary of your work
 Do offer to discuss your work with them
 Network, network, network
 Discuss plans with program officer
 Proposal is culmination of these repeated discussions
(typically short)
48

Foundation Alignment
[1/29/2013]
Source: Frumkin
2006
49

Industrial Sponsors
[1/29/2013]
 Mutually beneficial when fundamental research can
rapidly translated to commercial products
 Special issues:
 intellectual property
 communication & culture
 agreement negotiation
 establishing peer-to-peer relationship
 Publications
 See:
 http://osp.mit.edu/grant-and-contract-
administration/information-for-industrial-sponsors
 http://osp.mit.edu/grant-and-contract-
administration/industrial-collaborations-and-agreements
50

Crowd Funding
[1/29/2013]
 Advantages : Low overhead, direct-to-researcher
 Disadvantages: Smaller, Less prestigious, Less
general
theopensourcescienceproject.com
peer reviewed, science
research
fundscience.org science research
spot.us journalism research
kickstarter.com any cause except charity
sponsume.com any cause
indiegogo.com any cause
rockethub.com any cause
justgiving.com charity only
51

Finding Sponsors
 Professional Organizations
 Chronicle of Philanthropy
 Professional Societies
 Sponsored Research Offices
 Academic/Scientific Lobbying Groups
 Foundation Directories
 The Foundation Center
 Guidestar
 Sponsor Websites
 For Example:
 Nsf.gov,
 NIH.gov,
 www.fordfound.org
(These and many more are listed in the resources section)
[1/29/2013]
52

Finding Opportunities
[1/29/2013]
 Subscribe to funder and association mailing lists
 Funder Website
 Special Programs
 Read Chronicle of Philanthropy, Association newsletters
 Targeted search of databases
 Geographic area
 Funding amount
 Award type
 Awardee eligibility
 Past Awards
 Funders Sites
 FOIA (freedom of information act)
 Foundation Tax Forms
 Funding Databases
53

Graduate and Postdoc
Opportunities
[1/29/2013]
 Limitations and Opportunities
 Cannot be the principal investigator of most grants as a PI/Grad student
 May be a Co-PI on a dissertation improvement grant
 May still co-author with a more senior colleague and be paid as grad, postdoc,
staff, or consultant
 Co-authorship is not an official status, but may be very practical
 Many fellowship/postdoc opportunities linked to career stage:
 First and 2nd year graduate students
 Summer funding
 Dissertation improvement
 Postdoctoral fellowships
 How to find…
 Foundations, federal funding sources
 Often obtained through social networks – sponsored by particular departments,
research centers
 Others are announced through bulletins (website, email list, newsletters)
sponsored by professional associations (APSA, AER, ASA, etc.)
 Writing
 Same overall structure as a grant proposal, similar strategies apply
 Different expectations on length, formatting, level of detail
54

Internal Funding @MIT
[1/29/2013]
 Graduate/Undergraduate Public Service Grants
web.mit.edu/mitpsc/whatwedo/grants
 MISTI – International Science and Technology Initiatives
web.mit.edu/misti/
 Alumni Supported Education/Teaching Funding
web.mit.edu/alumnifunds/
web.mit.edu/darbeloff/
 Graduate Fellowships
odge.mit.edu/finances/fellowships/odgefellowships/
 International Fellowships and Grants (Starr, Luce,
Carnegie)
web.mit.edu/cis/fo_cisfg.html
 Department/School Funds/Fellowships
Examples: CAMIT, SHASS, Aero
55

Seeking Foundation
Funding @MIT
[1/29/2013]
 MIT Office of Foundation Relations
foundations.mit.edu
 Be aware:
 Some large foundations are managed, should consult
with foundation relation office before contacting:
foundations.mit.edu/for-grant-seekers/portfolios/
 Indirect cost underecovery
 Foundations typically pay no or little overhead,
 Funds for "underrecovery" must be identified from internal
sources and committed before submission
 Faculty should work with department heads, administrative
officers, Foundation Relations staff, and school development
officers
56

Funding Information @MIT
[1/29/2013]
 OSP-Licensed External Funding Database:
www.researchprofessional.com
 Foundation Relation Office Licensed External Funding
(Contact the Foundation Relations Office for Access)
granstation.com
 External Graduate Fellowships:
odge.mit.edu/finances/fellowships/external/
 CIS Fellowship Database (includes postdoctoral)
web.mit.edu/cis/dbsearch.html
 MIT Venture Mentoring Service
http://web.mit.edu/vms/
57

Some Notable Fellowships
[1/29/2013]
 Early Graduate Work
 Javits (D.O.E.), Soros, NSF Graduate Research Fellowships, Ford Foundation,
See:
http://www.gsas.harvard.edu/current_students/fellowships_for_1st_or_2nd_year_of_graduate_study.php
 Mid-Late Graduate Career
 Fulbrights: http://www.gsas.harvard.edu/current_students/fulbrights.php
 Harvard summer funding:
http://www.gsas.harvard.edu/current_students/graduate_summer_standard_application_2.php
 Internal Harvard funding:
http://www.gsas.harvard.edu/current_students/dissertation_completion_standard_application_2.php
 NSF Doctoral Dissertation Improvement:http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2001/nsf01113/nsf01113.htm
 Separate applications through each NSF program
 NIH Support for Individual’s doing Doctorates:
http://grants.nih.gov/training/F_files_nrsa.htm
 Also see the HU graduate support database and others on my site:
http://gsasgrants.fas.harvard.edu/ggg.cgi
 Postdoctoral fellowships
 Most postdocs are administered and awarded through individual institutions and research groups…
 NSF postdoctoral opportunities:
http://www.nsf.gov/funding/education.jsp?fund_type=3
 NIH Postdoc for Individual Applicants
http://www.nigms.nih.gov/Training/IndivPostdoc/
 Also see the HU postdoc database and others on my site:
http://gsasgrants.fas.harvard.edu/pdg.cgi
58

Reading RFP’s
[1/29/2013]
 First Reading: Eligibility Requirements
 Project objectives
 Eligibility
 Deadlines
 Award levels
 Second Reading: Structure and content
 Outline of proposal
 Special requirements
 Additional Technical Requirements
 Third Reading: Search for intellectual foundations &
referent
 Referenced theories, reports
 Key ideas, terminology
59

Unstated requirements
[1/29/2013]
 Meta-Requirements:
 Effectiveness
 Accountability
 Legitimacy
 Grey Zones:
 How program serves both the founder and recipient interests
 Hot-button issues at funder
 Amount of in-kind cost-sharing
 Reputation of your organization and staff
 Reasonable salaries on budget
 Percentages of secretarial, support personnel
 Things may hide in the boilerplate
 Simultaneous submissions
 What to do:
 Talk to colleagues
 Talk to program officers
 Examine previous projects funded by the same program
60

Exercise: Reading an RFP
[1/29/2013]
 Read the RFP included in the handout.
 (Also available here:
http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?od
s_key=nsf08550)
 Identify the following
 Eligibility requirements
 Structure and content requirement
 Intellectual foundations, key ideas
 Domains/expertise of likely reviewers
 Draft a generic outline of a response to the RFP
HOMEWORK
 Read background information about NSF and the
directorates sponsoring this program at the NSF
website
 What are the core missions of these
organizations?
 What are the key stakeholders?
 What are some likely unwritten requirements?
61

Review: Targeting
- Use online sources to identify…
- The top funders in your area
- Smaller funders with a special
interest in “your” problem
- Monitor
- Funder mailing list and web sites
- Professional associations and
aggregated funding databases
- Analyze particular programs and
“RFP’s”
- - What are eligibility requirements?
- - What is expected structure and
content of proposal?
- What are intellectual foundations?
- Examine previous funded projects, and
talk with colleagues and funders to find
“unstated” requirements
[1/29/2013]
Licensnce]
62

Writing & Submission
[1/29/2013]
 What to write
 Outlines of Proposals
 Writing Strategies
 Nuts and bolts
 Materials and Special Sections
 Managing the Submission Process
63

Proposal Components
[1/29/2013]
 Main Description & Summary
 Titles
 Abstracts
 Executive Summaries
 Description (Main)
 Supporting Material
 Budgets
 Management Plans
 Data Management Plans
 Appendices
 Collaboration Support
 Budgeting
 Letters & Memoranda of Endorsement, Support, Agreement
[Source: NIH]
64

Main Description
[1/29/2013]
 The Main Project Description
 Organization
 General Writing Strategies
 Writing Tips
 Outline
65

Proposal Organization
[1/29/2013]
 In most cases organize around outcomes
 When outcome may be small compared to method, organize
around method
 If for general operating support, etc. organize around recent
accomplishments, awards, present and future programs
 For awards, some fellowships, focus around accomplishments
and future promise
 Know your disciplinary approach:
[Lamont 2009]
 Comprehensive – attention to details, context
 “knowledge for knowledge’s sake”
 Constructivist – giving voice, reflexivity
 “knowledge for social change”
 Positivist – generalization, hypothesis testing
 Utilitarian – positivist focused on instrumental knowledge
66

[1/29/2013]
What we’d like reviewers to think…
67

Simple Proposal Outline
[1/29/2013]
 State your central research question
 Explain how it is important
 Say what you plan to do
(be realistic)
 Say why you plan to do it
(and how the literature supports it)
Other materials support this:
 References – support importance & the “why” of your plans
 Bio – supports your ability to carry out the “what”
 Budget, Timeline – supports the “what”
68

Heilmeier's Catechism
(yeah! Wikipedia)
[1/29/2013]
69
 What are you trying to do? Articulate your objectives
using absolutely no jargon.
 How is it done today, and what are the limits of current
practice?
 What's new in your approach and why do you think it will
be successful?
 Who cares?
 If you're successful, what difference will it make?
 What are the risks and the payoffs?
 How much will it cost?
 How long will it take?
 What are the midterm and final "exams" to check for
success?

More detailed proposal
outline
[1/29/2013]
1. Introduction (Specific Aims) - 1 page
1. Broad long term objectives: broadest use of findings, vision
2. Objectives (specific aims): problems to be addressed
3. Hypotheses/research questions: testable/answerable
4. Research rationale: why do this research now?
2. Background and Significance (literature review, conceptual framework) – 2-3 pages
1. Establish importance of objectives
2. Put hypotheses in coherent context
3. Highlight intellectual merits
4. Justify research design and methods
3. Preliminary Studies
1. Relationship between this project and your prior research
2. Demonstrate mastery of required methods
3. Use pilot data to highlight interesting puzzles, preliminary results
4. Research design and methods
1. Explains completely how each hypothesis/question will be tested
2. Should be naturally connected to background and significance, preliminary studies
3. Most detailed/painstaking section
4. Important to note alternative designs, procedures, methods, etc. and justify why current one
chosen
70

Detailed Research & Methods
[1/29/2013]
 Project design
 Type of design
 Enough information to determine appropriateness
 Simpler designs and quantitative designs preferred
 Subjects/Case
 Characteristics of sample population
 Selection mechanism
 Amelioration of attrition and nonresponse
 Benefits to subjects
 Instruments
 Instruments to be used
 Reliability and validity
 Measurement levels
 Procedures
 Sufficient detail for replication of major aspects…
 Alternatives con
 Measurement levels
 Data cleaning and correction
 Methods of analysis
 Relate to hypotheses
 Statistical methods and models
 Effect size, power and significance
 Expected results
 How will data be interepeted
71

Qualitative Research
Methods
[1/29/2013]
 Careful attention to:
 Connection between theory, data, and constructs
 Alternative explanations
 Negative cases and falsifiability
 Operationalization of constructs
 Expected findings
 What counts as data; how it will be analyzed; how it will be collected
 Generalizability beyond selected cases
 Required: cultural fluency, language skill, contextual knowledge, methodological
proficiency
 Some potential advantages of qualitative approach
 Behavior and opinions that are not well understood my be difficult to quantify
 Theory and hypothesis formation
 May be more appropriate for sensitive/vulnerable populations
 Process tracing can be used to expand set of observable implications of theory
 Investigation of substantively/theoretically significant cases
[See: Workshop on Interdisciplinary Standards for Systematic Qualitative
Research Report, http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/ses/soc/ISSQR_workshop_rpt.pdf ]
72

Variation: Dissertation
Proposal
[1/29/2013]
 Typically same structure, review as other research
grants
 Reflects smaller projects than faculty proposals:
 Often shorter duration
 Smaller $$: e.g.,
 Shorter proposal: e.g. 10 pages
 Tend to ask for resource not available at the university,
such as: travel for field work, data collection, data
purchase, specialized analysis services, special
equipment
 Programs vary widely – check details of the individual
program
 Does not require PI status
 Some are awarded to individuals, not institutions
 Others are awarded to faculty advisor, with student as CO-PI
73

General Reviewer Questions
[1/29/2013]
 How do you know there is a need for what you propose?
 Who or what would be affected, how much, in what ways?
 How urgent, in relationship to what communities?
 Is this a priority for your institution/research program?
 Who else is working on issue locally/nationally?
 What other ways of addressing problem have been tried?
 Why should these particular needs/population receive attention now?
 What happens if project is not implemented now?
 Why are you best suited to do work?
 How you have capacity to initiate this effort?
 How do you know this is feasible?
 What insight makes this solvable?
 Synergies – complements other work
 Stakeholders, critical communities, incentives to involvement?
 Relationship to literature? Does the literature support the approach
taken?
 How will the project be used in the future? Will it be of lasting value?
74

On Originality/Innovation*
[1/29/2013]
 Innovation is sometime required, always helpful
 Reviewers are often open to different forms of innovation:
 New approach
 New question
 New data
 New perspective
 New connections
 New argument
 New synthesis
 New importation into a discipline
 Your proposal should state clearly what is original.
*Credit to Lamont 2009 for highlighting these
75

How to be original
(like everyone else…)
[1/29/2013]
(According to Ayres and Nalebuff 2003)
 Imagine the unconstrained solution –
what if you had unlimited time, brains and $?
 Look at how similar problem is solved in other domains
 Look for applications of a solution in your domain to other
problems
 Identify the fundamental constraints that any solution would
satisfy
 Identify externalities
 Try flipping portions of earlier approaches
 (According to Ron Hale Evans 2006)
 Permute ideas: Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Modify, Put to another
use, Eliminate, Reverse
 Impose artificial constraints on solution
 Identify analogies and systematically list correspondences
76

Writing Organization
[1/29/2013]
 Outline format
 Organize outline in exact form as implied by RFP
 Answer every question in the RFP, address every topic.
 Keep order of answers the same as in RFP.
 Topic Outline Paragraph
 First line of each paragraph summarizes single topic
 Collection of first lines coherently summarizes section
 Sections summarize argument
 Be consistent in style, terminology
 Answer possible objections
 Customize for every funder
77

Writing for Reviewers
[1/29/2013]
Write to make it easy for reviewers…
 Funnel, Focus, and Highlight*
 Funnel from general to specific
 Focus on your proposed research
 Highlight innovations, key decisions, and answers to
RFP questions
 Inverted pyramid summarization
 Title summarizes project
 Lead sentence summarizes project
 Abstract summarizes
 Executive summary
 Outline & Topic Sentence Structure
 Section headings and sub-headings follow logical
outline
 Use expected headings and ordering
 Short summary paragraphs at end
 Topic sentences
 First sentence in paragraph summarizes paragraph
 Topic sentences form outline of section
 Highlight key points
*[Writing Successful Science Proposals by A. J. Friedland, C.L.
Folt]
78

Writing Style Goals
[1/29/2013]
Clarity
 The Common Prerequisite.
 Concision
 Force
 Positivity
 Inclusion
 Include reviewers as audience
 Include community as beneficiaries
 Invite funders to become part of solution
… but do not assume common knowledge
79

Writing Style Tips
[1/29/2013]
 Use active & specific language (not passive &
vague)
 Avoid negativity about project ("will" not "would",
"expect" not "hope")
 Use strong action words
 Groups of three adjectives. Then support them with
facts.
 Avoid first person singular/plural (where possible)
 Topic sentence structure
 Simple sentences – only one dependent clause
 Avoid unnecessary synonyms
 Avoid unnecessary jargon
 Lots of headings
 Numbered and bulleted lists
 Short paragraphs
 Write as you should speak
 Don't exaggerate
 Keep value judgments, political views, humor,
controversial issues out
 Italics/bold to highlight key issues
 Avoid abbreviations, acronyms
 Do not assume common knowledge
"Vigorous writing is concise" –
Strunk & White
[Source: Library of Congress]
80

Including Figures
[1/29/2013]
Use images, pictures, & charts for…
 Clarity – show things that are hard to describe
 Concision – images portray complex structure
 Demonstrate Preliminary Results
 Proof of concept
 Inter-ocular impact
Beware of…
 Clip-art
 “Chartjunk”
 Unfaithful reproduction
(color, fine detail, formats, …)
81

Supporting Materials
[1/29/2013]
 References and citations
 Titles and Abstracts
 Pre-proposals
 Other supporting materials
 Project Plans
82

References and Citations
[1/29/2013]
References support significance and rationale.
 Citations
 Use citation to establish background, significance, methods, approach, etc.
 Usually 1-3 citations are sufficient to establish a point
 Usually citations should be < ~10 years old
 On controversial topics, cite opposing views as well
 Generally appropriate to cite reviewers’ related work
 Use a consistent format in both citations and references
 Read all work referenced
 Reference items should include:
 all authors in publication sequence
 article and journal title or book title
 volume number & page numbers
 year of publication
 URL, if available, including access date
 References should not include:
 parenthetical remarks/annotations
 works not cited
(Note: Follow the RFP, even if it differs from this.)
83

Titles and Abstracts
[1/29/2013]
Titles and abstracts summarize your proposal for different forms
of review.
 Titles
 Specific – guide choice of reviewers
 Active – set reviewer expectation
 Avoid cute titles & politically sensitive words
 Abstract
 May be the only thing read at some stages of review
 Capture:
 Problem being solved, and why its importance
 Essence of approach, and why its clever
 Research rationale, and why its timely
 [If possible] Comparative advantage of investigators
 NSF: Should address intellectual merits and broader impacts explicitly.
(in separate paragraphs, with italics…)
 Executive Summary
 Usually not included. Longer version of abstract.
84

Pre-Proposals
[1/29/2013]
Pre-proposals summarize your project for different
reviewers.
 Letter of intent
 Usually quite short < page.
 Guides program officer in creating the reviewer pool in
advance.
 Pre-proposal
 Part of a multi-stage competition
 Establish eligibility, vision, preparedness
 Detailed rationale and approach should be put in full
proposal
85

Other supporting materials
[1/29/2013]
 Letters
 Bios/CV’s
 Facilities
 Appendices
86

Bios
[1/29/2013]
 Establish qualifications
 Establish preparedness for the research
 Clearly distinguish education, publications, positions
held, projects/grants completed
 Where space is limited -- avoid padding with
conference activity, editorial responsibility (etc.),
minor honors, unless directly relevant
 Stick to requested format of RFP
87

Letters
[1/29/2013]
 Reference
 Positive evaluation of your past work / promise of future work
 Most appropriate for fellowships/awards
 Not appropriate for research projects
 Endorsement
 General positive evaluation of proposed project
 Most useful when it shows acceptance from perceived rivals, or broad-based
community acceptance
 Support
 Makes commitment to provide some service or resource
 Can be very useful (more than endorsement) when the supporter is not funded by
the grant
 Agreement (also called Letter/Memorandum of Understanding)
 From partners, consultants, contractors funded on the grant
 Confirms availability, pricing, scope of work
 Logistics
 On letterhead
 Line up early
 Consider supplying supporting writer with a proposed outline for their letter
88

Budgeting Process @MIT
[1/29/2013]
See: osp.mit.edu/grant-and-contract-administration/preparing-and-submitting-a-
proposal/budget-development
1. Faculty/Research Staff effort:
1. Adhere to NIH caps
2. Special language for AY effort of less than 10%
2. Graduate Students/Postdocs:
1. Salaries and tuition subsidies (if any) set by school/DLC
2. Restrictions on use of Federal research grants for Postdoc funding
3. GRA tuition subsidy may be used as cost sharing (within limits)
3. F&A Rate
1. Annually negotiated
2. Excludes tuition, capital expenditures, major equipment and subaward expenses
over $25K
3. Non-Research activities carry separate rate
4. Research F&A rate is not reduced for any funder.
4. Underrecovery
1. If funder will not support F&A rate, PI must identify & commit internal
funding to recover difference
89

Appendices
[1/29/2013]
 Put in what RFP asks for
 Minimize other material
 Reviewers might not read
90

Project Plans
[1/29/2013]
Project plans are your project from different
participants/stakeholders points of view…
 Budgets/Budget Justification
 Dissemination Plan
 Project Management Plan
 Data Management Plan
 Evaluation Plan
 Human subjects
 Postdoc mentoring plans
 Animal Use
91

Budgets
[1/29/2013]
A budget is your project from the financial perspective.
 Basic Categories:
 Internal People & benefits people costs (health insurance, etc.)
 PI
 Staff
 Grad/Ugrad/Postdoc
 Consultants
 Participants
 Big equipment (over $5K)
 Other “direct” costs (laptops, staples, travel)
 Supplies
 Travel
 Etc
 “indirect” costs/overhead
92

How Much to Budget?
[1/29/2013]
 Budget what you need to carry out the science
 Budget what you need
 Make it clear how each budget item supports the scientific
plan
 Do’s and Don’ts
 Do estimate costs based on current typical costs
 Don’t cut corners
 Do talk to the program officer about unusual expenses or
exceeding suggested limits
 Do prepare for budget reduction
 What would you leave out or scale down?
 How would the results be diminished?
 Would the project still be feasible?
93

Budget Tips
[1/29/2013]
 What staff? Experience, education, training? Market salaries?
 Major Categories – May be limited flexibility to move between categories
 Staff
 Consultants
 Equipment
 Travel
 Stipends
 Indirect
 not easily traceable to a specific costing object
 Indirect policies vary – accountant vs. foundation vs. federal
 Disallowed – personal entertainment, alcohol, bribes, development staff
(fundraising), and other foundation specific disallowables
 Avoid miscellaneous categories (even if labeled "contingency")
 Don't round numbers very much
 Multiple institution Logistics
 Collaborative budget – each institution manages their part
 Subaward – all money flows (and is taxed) through one institution, other institutions
have sub-budgets
 Consultant/contract – limited fee-for-service payment to individual or institution
94

Dissemination
[1/29/2013]
Dissemination is your project from the community
stakeholder perspective.
 Articles/books
 Reviews
 Web site
 Conferences
 Training/short courses
 Learning modules
 Community involvement
Sponsors may have additional requirements
 Particular forms or forums
 Open access
95

Management Plan
[1/29/2013]
A management plan is your project from the operational perspective.
 Who
 Staffing
 Scientific and project management
 Org chart
 When
(typically year by year, maybe quarterly)
 Major milestones:
 objectives, evaluations, milestones
 Deliverables
 External deadlines
 Staff recruitment
 Participant recruitment
 Marketing/dissemination
 (Occasionally) Risk Management
 How will milestones/deliverables be measured
 Major risks to schedule
 Amelioration and contingency
96

Evaluation Plan
[1/29/2013]
 Involve evaluator from beginning. May need to write this
part
 Basics:
 Who will conduct? What/who will be evaluated? How will
evaluation data be collected? Who will interpret? When How
will it be distributed?
 Standards: Accuracy; Feasibility (realistic/frugal/prudent;
Propriety (legal/ethical); Utility (participants/end user)
 Formative vs. summative
 Qualitative vs. summative
 Internal vs. external
 Measurement tools / instruments
 Document everything
 Periodic reports
 See: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2002/nsf02057/start.htm
97

[1/29/2013]
Data Management Plan
 When is it required?
 Any NIH request over $500K
 All NSF proposals after 12/31/2010
 NIJ
 Wellcome Trust
 Any proposal where collected data will be a resource beyond the project
 Safeguarding data during collection
 Documentation
 Backup and recovery
 Review
 Treatment of confidential information
 Overview: http://www.icpsr.org/DATAPASS/pdf/confidentiality.pdf
 Separation of identifying and sensitive information
 Obtain certificate of confidentiality, other legal safeguards
 De-identification and public use files
 Dissemination
 Archiving commitment (include letter of support)
 Archiving timeline
 Access procedures
 Documentation
 User vetting, tracking, and support
One size does not fit all projects.
98

[1/29/2013]
Data Management Plan
Outline
 Data description
 nature of data {generated, observed, experimental
information; amples; publications; physical collections;
software; models}
 scale of data
 Access and Sharing
 Plans for depositing in an existing public database
 Access procedures
 Embargo periods
 Access charges
 Timeframe for access
 Technical access methods
 Restrictions on access
 Audience
 Potential secondary users
 Potential scope or scale of use
 Reasons not to share or reuse
 Existing Data [ If applicable ]
 description of existing data relevant to the project
 plans for integration with data collection
 added value of collection, need to collect/create new
data
 Formats
 Generation and dissemination formats and procedural
justification
 Storage format and archival justification
 Metadata and documentation
 Metadata to be provided
 Metadata standards used
 Treatment of field notes, and collection records
 Planned documentation and supporting materials
 Quality assurance procedures for metadata and
documentation
 Data Organization [if complex]
 File organization
 Naming conventions
 Quality Assurance [if not described in main proposal]
 Procedures for ensuring data quality in collections,
and expected measurement error
 Cleaning and editing procedures
 Validation methods
 Storage, backup, replication, and versioning
 Facilities
 Methods
 Procedures
 Frequency
 Replication
 Version management
 Recovery guarantees
 Security
 Procedural controls
 Technical Controls
 Confidentiality concerns
 Access control rules
 Restrictions on use
 Responsibility
 Individual or project team role responsible for data
management
 Budget
 Cost of preparing data and documentation
 Cost of permanent archiving
 Intellectual Property Rights
 Entities who hold property rights
 Types of IP rights in data
 Protections provided
 Dispute resolution process
 Legal Requirements
 Provider requirements and plans to meet them
 Institutional requirements and plans to meet them
 Archiving and Preservation
 Requirements for data destruction, if applicable
 Procedures for long term preservation
 Institution responsible for long-term costs of data
preservation
 Succession plans for data should archiving entity go
out of existence
 Ethics and privacy
 Informed consent
 Protection of privacy
 Other ethical issues
 Adherence
 When will adherence to data management plan be
checked or demonstrated
 Who is responsible for managing data in the project
 Who is responsible for checking adherence to data
management plan
99

Data Management Plans Examples
(Summaries)
[1/29/2013]
 Example 1
 The proposed research will involve a small sample (less than 20 subjects) recruited from clinical facilities in the
New York City area with Williams syndrome. This rare craniofacial disorder is associated with distinguishing facial
features, as well as mental retardation. Even with the removal of all identifiers, we believe that it would be difficult if
not impossible to protect the identities of subjects given the physical characteristics of subjects, the type of clinical
data (including imaging) that we will be collecting, and the relatively restricted area from which we are recruiting
subjects. Therefore, we are not planning to share the data.
 Example 2
 The proposed research will include data from approximately 500 subjects being screened for three bacterial
sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) at an inner city STD clinic. The final dataset will include self-reported
demographic and behavioral data from interviews with the subjects and laboratory data from urine specimens
provided. Because the STDs being studied are reportable diseases, we will be collecting identifying information.
Even though the final dataset will be stripped of identifiers prior to release for sharing, we believe that there remains
the possibility of deductive disclosure of subjects with unusual characteristics. Thus, we will make the data and
associated documentation available to users only under a data-sharing agreement that provides for: (1) a
commitment to using the data only for research purposes and not to identify any individual participant; (2) a
commitment to securing the data using appropriate computer technology; and (3) a commitment to destroying or
returning the data after analyses are completed.
 Example 3
 This application requests support to collect public-use data from a survey of more than 22,000 Americans over the
age of 50 every 2 years. Data products from this study will be made available without cost to researchers and
analysts. https://ssl.isr.umich.edu/hrs/
 User registration is required in order to access or download files. As part of the registration process, users must
agree to the conditions of use governing access to the public release data, including restrictions against attempting
to identify study participants, destruction of the data after analyses are completed, reporting responsibilities,
restrictions on redistribution of the data to third parties, and proper acknowledgement of the data resource.
Registered users will receive user support, as well as information related to errors in the data, future releases,
workshops, and publication lists. The information provided to users will not be used for commercial purposes, and
will not be redistributed to third parties.
 FROM NIH, [grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/data_sharing_guidance.htm#ex]
100

Data Management Consulting:
Libraries @MIT
[1/29/2013]
 The libraries can help:
 Assist with data management plans
 Individual consultation/collaboration with researchers
 General workshops & guides
 Dissemination of public data through
 DSpace@MIT
 Referrals to subject-based repositories
For more information:
libraries.mit.edu/guides/subjects/data-management/
<data-management@mit.edu>
101

Postdoc Mentoring Plan
[1/29/2013]
 NSF Requirements:
 Separate section
 “mentoring activities”
 May include: “career counseling; training in preparation of grant
proposals, publications and presentations; guidance on ways to
improve teaching and mentoring skills; guidance on how to
effectively collaborate with researchers from diverse
backgrounds and disciplinary areas; and training in responsible
professional practices.”
 Recommended (based on HU HMS)
 Training/initiation provided
 Frequency/duration of advisor meetings (to discuss
research/career)
 Opportunities for scientific/community development
 Travel support details
 Mentored grant writing/article writing opportunities
 Performance evaluation
102

Human Subjects
Background
[1/29/2013]
 Fundamental goals:
beneficence, respect for persons, justice
 Fundamental procedures:
 Informed consent
 Systematic assessment of the benefits and risks to the subject
 Fair procedure for subject selection
 Institutional Review Board (IRB) review prior to start of research
 Elements of informed consents
 Consent is a process, not a form
 Document is teaching tool, not legal instrument
 Describe overall experience, benefits
 No waivers of rights
 Special Classes of Subjects
 Women, Minorities, Children representativeness -- should be included if
no scientific basis for exclusion
 Prisoners, Children, Fetuses, Cognitively Impaired – additional informed
consent considerations
103

Human Subjects
Management Plan
[1/29/2013]
 Human subjects
 General Involvement of humans
 Does research involve humans?
 Is it exempt?
 Recruitment
 Methods
 Population
 Representativeness (gender, age, ethnicity)
 Treatment of special populations
 Risks
 Types of risks & justification
 Consent
 Amelioration
 Monitoring
 Status of IRB Review
104

IRB Review - Scope
[1/29/2013]
 Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval needed for all human
subjects research if:
 Federally-funder
 Or at an institution receiving federal funding and giving a “general
assurance”
(almost all Universities)
 Human subject: individual about whom an investigator (whether
professional or student) conducting research obtains
 (1) Data through intervention or interaction with the individual, or
 (2) Identifiable private information.
 Human subjects research includes many social science methods:
 Surveys
 Behavioral experiments
 Educational tests and evaluations
 Analysis of private information from human behavior
(even e-mail, logs of web-browsing activity… )
 See
www.hhs.gov/ohrp/
105

Research not requiring IRB
review:
[1/29/2013]
 Non-research: non generalizable, no publishable results
intended
 Non-funded: institution receives no federal funds for
research
 Not human subject:
 Historical information – no living people described
 Observation only AND no private identifiable information is
obtained
 Human Subjects, but “exempt” under 45 CFR 46
 use of existing, publicly-available data
 use of existing non-public data, if data is individuals cannot
be directly or indirectly identified
 research conducted in educational settings, involving normal
educational practices
 taste & food quality evaluation
 federal program evaluation approved by agency head
 observational, survey, test & interview of public officials and
candidates (in their formal capacity, or not identified)
 Caution not all exempt is exempt…
 Some universities require review of
“exempt” research
 Some research on prisoners, children,
not exemptable
 See:
www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guid
ance/decisioncharts.htm
106

IRB Review Process
[1/29/2013]
 Working with IRB
 Decentralized process -- IRB develops its own set of rules, procedures, precedents
 Do not argue with IRB -- work with them
 Use standard forms if available from IRB –
otherwise find from large medical school
 Much social science project review can be expedited (not the same as “exempt”):
 Non invasive data collection: documents, records, voice, video, other observational data
 Much behavioral and opinion data
 However, judgment up to IRB, must still be reviewed
 Most funders …
 Do not require full review and approval of submitted proposals, however…
occasionally reviewers may have significant doubts about whether IRB review
could be granted to proposal without major changes – in which case they may
reject
 Do require relevant issues to be addressed in proposal
 Will require IRB approval before awarding grant money
 May require a statement from IRB that proposal is under review/will be reviewed if
funded
 Your institution may choose to require IRB review prior to submission
107

Human Subjects @MIT:
COUHES
[1/29/2013]
See:
web.mit.edu/committees/couhes/
 Proposal must be approved before any human subjects
research project begins
 PI and all people working on research project require
human subjects training – available online
 Must apply for exempt status – do not assume
 Applications for full review must be submitted
approximately 3 weeks prior to committee meeting:
 COUHES meets approximately monthly.
 Expedited review available for specified classes of research
web.mit.edu/committees/couhes/dates.shtml
108

Freedom of Information @MIT
[1/29/2013]
 Provost Approval for Classified Research
 Separate policy for Lincoln lab
http://web.mit.edu/policies/14/14.2.html
109

Animal Use
[1/29/2013]
 Use of vertebrate animals (with some exceptions)
requires approval and separate plan
 Should include Animal Experimentation Protocol in
proposal
 Approval from Standing Committee on the Use of
Animals in Research and Teaching (IACUC)
110

Animal Use @MIT:
CAC
[1/29/2013]
See:
web.mit.edu/comp-med/restrict/cac/
 Proposal must be approved before any research
project involving vertebrate animals begins begins
 PI and all people working on research project require
human subjects training – training course available
 Applications for full review must be submitted
approximately 4 weeks prior to committee meeting:
 CAC meets approximately monthly.
111

Managing the Process
[1/29/2013]
 Create a checklist & Timeline
 Include
 Things you need to write/prepare
 Things you need others to prepare or assist with
(e.g. letters of support, budget details)
 Approvals from administrators, sponsored research office, IRB,
etc.
 Contact collaborators and approvers early
112

Timelines and approvals
@MIT
[1/29/2013]
Submission Approvals
 DLC Administration
 Reviews: Space/Equipment
 Reviews: PI status/policy
 Confirms: Office of Foundation Relation
Approval
 Submits to OSP through COEUS
 School Administration (Dean’s Office)
 Reviews: space/cost sharing/ undereovery
 Assures PI status
 Reviews request for 5-day internal deadline
waiver
 Office of the Provost
 Approvals for classified research
 OSP
 Reviews proposal, budgets, and supporting
documentation for compliance with sponsor solicitation,
federal and MIT policies
 Works with the PI and DLC in preparing the Small
Business Subcontracting Plan, if required
 Reviews Conflict of Interest Disclosure
 Prepares and executes Non-disclosure Agreements
(NDAs), Memorandum(a) of Understanding (MOUs),
Teaming and Collaboration Agreements (consulting with
other MIT offices as appropriate), if necessary
 Ensures proper institutional sign-offs on proposals and
financial commitments, such as F&A underrecovery and
cost sharing
 Contact the Development office or any other MIT
office that needs to approve a proposal before
submission
 Submits proposal
Project Initiation Approvals
 COUHES (IRB) Approval
 Must be obtained before research begins for new
projects – not generally required for submission of
new projects
 Required before submission for continuing
research project involving human subjects
 Required for any “human subjects” research even if
“exempt”
 Training requirements
 Best practice to seek guidance before submission
 CAC Approval
 Must be obtained before research begins using
vertebrates
 Training requirements
 Best practice to seek guidance before submission
 HR
 Reviews position descriptions
113

Exercise: Authorship
[1/29/2013]
 What are your expectations of
authorship in the following
situations? When and how would
you communicate these?
 You develop a hypothesis that you
present at an informal seminar. A
colleague suggests that:
 (a) you propose a grant on it,
 (b) refers you to an article with a
method that could be used to test
the hypothesis,
 (c) provides data they produced for
you to test the hypotheses,
 (d) outlines a novel method to test it,
which you eventually adopt
114

Review: Writing
[1/29/2013]
 Aim to WOW reviewers:
 Significant problem
 Clever idea
 Capable team
 Focus, Funnel, and Highlight
 Focus on your proposed solution
 Funnel from general to specific
 Highlight key facts, ideas, answers
 In writing, strive for clarity above all
 Organize using outline, topic sentences
 State your central research question
 Explain how it is important
 Say what you plan to do
 Say why you plan to do it
 All other parts of the proposal support or summarize
 Bios, letters – support your capacity to carry it out
 Budgets, management plans – supports what you plan to do
 Titles, abstracts, letters of intent – summarize your proposal
115

Review Overview
[1/29/2013]
 Forms of Review
 Reviewers as Audience
 Researcher, Review Thyself
 Dealing with Rejection
 Revision
116

Forms of Review
[1/29/2013]
 Program officer
 Usually some amount of discretion to give small awards
 May act as “tie-breaker” for awards in “competitive middle”
 May select reviewers
 May act to balance awards across subject areas, geographic
regions, etc.
 Peer Review
 Study Sections – medium-term (several years) reviewers for a
program
 Ad Hoc Panels – panels formed for that RFP round only
 Ad Hoc Reviewers – individual written reviews, separate from
panel, additional subject matter experts
 Board
 Review program officer and/or peer reviewers
 Often review based on abstracts of proposals, summary
reviewer reports
117

Criteria
[1/29/2013]
 Explicit
 Significance
(to discipline, to scholarship, to society)
 Originality/Innovation
(approach, question, data, perspective, connections, argument, synthesis, interdisciplinarity)
 Approach/Methods
(Quality, Cleverness, Feasibility, Scholarship, Rationale)
 Investigator
(Publication record, comparative advantage, mastery of methods)
 Environment/facilities
(adequacy, unique advantages)
 Broader impact
(education, infrastructure, societal impact, dissemination)
 Implicit
 Clarity
 Scholarly dissemination/publication
 Alignment with program goals, institutional goals
 Factual Accuracy/correctness
 Proper role of theory
 Awareness of theoretical background of program, reviewer where these intersect proposal
 Evanescent Criteria [Lamont 2009]
(Cleverness/Elegance/”Hot” Topics &
Approaches/Flair/Excitingness/Humility/Determination/Authenticity)
118

Reviewers as Audience
[1/29/2013]
 A panel review process
1. Primary reviewers (on panel) and ad-hoc reviewers:
read proposals, write reviews, score proposals
2. Remaining panelists may read proposal, reviews
3. Proposals receiving preliminary scores below threshold may be streamlined/screened (e.g., NIH)
4. Primary reviewers summarizes reviews for panelists; discuss; adjust their score; establish
recommended range for scores
5. Panelists ask clarifying questions, may skim reviews, assign scores
6. Score’s are based on sum or all panelists
7. Panel chair/p.o. summarizes panel discussion
8. Scores used to broadly categorize proposals
(e.g. not noncompetitive/competitive/highly competitive)
9. Program officer may select in middle category
10. Board/directors may set funding thresholds
11. Board/directors may approve proposals based on abstracts and review summaries
 Dynamics
 Mix of backgrounds: subject specialists, generalists, other fields, methodologists, maybe
applied/educators
 Most of your scores may come from reviewers who have not read proposal
 Much reading is during discussion – skimming quickly for clarification
 Unanimity of reviewers on excellent proposals is usually sufficient for panel recommendation, but is
rare
 Very important to have at least one primary reviewer excited/champion proposal
 Very important to not have a reviewer or panelist identify what they believe to be fatal flaws
119

Researcher, Review Thyself
[1/29/2013]
 Self Review
 Think like a reviewer
 Use question lists
 Collegial Review
 Find representative reviewers
 Reciprocate
 Share question list
120

Specific Sample Questions
[1/29/2013]
 Are project’s broad objectives precisely stated and appropriately restricted?
 Are goals stated, and relation to objectives clear?
 Are project aims stated as objectives rather than methods?
 Are research hypotheses or research questions relevant to each aim?
 Do aims & hypotheses foretell data collection, and give clues to project design?
 Does background and significance provide a good argument for project?
 Does it establish significance of area? Significance of the problem being solved by project?
 Does it establish the viability/need for approach chosen?
 Methods: Is this clearly connected to aims and supported by background?
 Participants:
generalizability, sample size, recruitment proc, inclusion/exclusion , assignment , reimbursement,
other agreements, demographics?
 Apparatus/questionnaire/instrumentation – is it described in complete detail?
 Setting – is this described enough to provide replicability?
 Procedure – are participants, project experience, randomization, controls explained?
 Data management: management, entry, reliability techniques, storage, backps, archiving
 Are descriptive stats, transforms, models and how these address hypothesis explained?
 Is it clear what results are expected and how they will be interpreted? Has significance, effect size
and power been explained?
 Is revised proposal responsive to reviewers?
 If you are building a resource – how will that be sustained after the funding runs out?
121

NIH Reviewer Questions
[1/29/2013]
Restatement of significance, preparedness, originality rationale!
 1. Significance. Does the proposed project have commercial potential to lead to a marketable
product, process or service? Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to
progress in the field? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge,
technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the
aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative
interventions that drive this field?
 2. Investigator(s). Are the PD/PIs, collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If
Early Stage Investigators or New Investigators, do they have appropriate experience and training?
If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced
their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary
and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure
appropriate for the project?
 3. Innovation. Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice
paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation,
or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions
novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new
application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions
proposed?
 4. Approach. Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to
accomplish the specific aims of the project? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and
benchmarks for success presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the
strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed?
122

NSF – Intellectual Merits
Review
[1/29/2013]
These are restatements of significance, preparedness,
innovation, rationale!
 How important is the proposed activity to advancing
knowledge and understanding within its own field or
across different fields?
 How well qualified is the proposer (individual or team) to
conduct the project? (If appropriate, the reviewer will
comment on the quality of prior work.)
 To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and
explore creative, original, or potentially transformative
concepts?
 How well conceived and organized is the proposed
activity?
 Is there sufficient access to resources?
123

NSF – Broader Impacts
[1/29/2013]
These are societal, educational and other “community”
impacts:
 How the project will integrate research and education by
advancing discovery and understanding while at the
same time promoting teaching, training, and learning;
 ways in which the proposed activity will broaden the
participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender,
ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.);
 how the project will enhance the infrastructure for
research and/or education, such as facilities,
instrumentation, networks, and partnerships;
 how the results of the project will be disseminated
broadly to enhance scientific and technological
understanding; and potential benefits of the proposed
activity to society at large
124

Dealing with Rejection
[1/29/2013]
 Put aside for a few days
 If no specific review comments, or very
unclear:
 Arrange call with program officer
 Information only – do not argue, rebut, or
clarify your proposal
 Ask for clarification of reviewer judgment
 Check again – meet organizational and
proposal goals?
 Reviewer variability
 Reviewer comments – champion, pivotal
issues?
 Is there a problem with proposal, or just
couldn't fund for other reasons?
 Did proposal address guidelines? Can this
be stronger?
 Would you suggest we apply again? Time
frame?
 Any other suggestions for improvements?
 Thank program officer
 Read Comments
 Ask Colleague to Read
125

Reading Reviews
[1/29/2013]
 Identify Most Common Issues
 not strongly connected to sponsor/program goals
 not addressing significant piece of problem
 unoriginal research
 unfocused research plan
 unacceptable scientific rationale
 insufficient experimental detail
 unrealistic approach
 overly ambitious
 not aware of relevant work
 not experienced in essential methods
 uncertain future
 Be wary of faint praise
126

Do you resubmit?
[1/29/2013]
 Resubmission Practices
 Some funders have no official resubmission
 often ok to submit a revised proposal
 no need to submit formal response
 likely to get different reviewers
 NIH – allows a formal revision
 formal response needed
 likely, but not guaranteed to get same reviewers
 can still submit a “new” proposal after, re-titled and revised
 Evaluate
 Other opportunities
 Importance to funders
 Irreparable flaws
 Decisions:
 Irreparable flaws (been done or won’t work)  RETHINK
 Problem is important to funder + program open  RESUBMIT
 Problem not important to funder  SUBMIT ELSEWHERE
127

How to Resubmit
[1/29/2013]
 Respond to every comment
 Reinforce each positive comment
 Correct all errors
 Add any suggested citations
 Address each miscommunication
 Be specific
 Quote verbatim reviewer comments in response
 Use change tracking to show all changes
 For more general responses, note page numbers
 Reviewer is always right
 Formal dispute process sometimes exists
-- but resubmitting always more successful
 Don’t rebut -- arguing in response is not productive
 Reviewer remains right if they change comments after resubmission (!)
 Treat reviewer errors as miscommunication
 In response acknowledge miscommunication
 Address communication from new angle
 Generally best to address both in comments and in text
128

Exercise: Critiquing
 Identify who will review before submitting
(peers, program officers, a board of
directors)
 Write so that a reviewer can sell your
proposals to others (his colleagues, her
board…, congress)
 Review yourself first!
 Use a checklist of reviewing questions
 Ask colleagues for review
 Respond to critiques systematically
 Identify whether retargeting is needed
 Respond to all comments
 Act as if all critiques can be resolved –
perhaps as miscommunications
[1/29/2013]
129

Review: Review (Review)
 Homework:
Critique a sample proposal...
 There are many sample proposals
available from the resource listing
at:
Pick one, and work to identify:
 How can the proposal be better
organized?
 What should be highlighted?
 How can the proposal be better
focused?
 Are there essential elements
missing? [1/29/2013]
130

Managing Funded Projects
[1/29/2013]
 Funded! – What to do.
 Project Management Overview
 Reports and Responsibilities
" But of a good leader, who talks little, When his work is done, his
aim fulfilled, They will all say, 'We did this ourselves. " – Tao
131

Funded!
[1/29/2013]
 Re-read your proposal!
 Identify all deliverables, timelines, milestones
 Identify new risks
 Notify all decision makers and collaborators
 “Thank you”s and press releases…
 Award is to the institution!
 Don’t Spend Yet
 Re-budgeting
 Arrival of funds
 Accounts and record keeping
 The fun begins
 Financial
 Personnel
 Space
[Source: Ellen Weber, Creative Commons]
132

Post Award Support @MIT
[1/29/2013]
Follow up with …
 Chairs & Deans: space, resource commitments
 Department finance officer
 DLC
 OSP
 Human Resources: hiring on the grant
Checklist
 Account setup
 Pre-award spending
 Charges to the award
 Rebudgeting
 Financial Auditing
 Submission of substantive reports
133

Project Management
Overview
[1/29/2013]
 Preparing
 Staffing – HR
 Space – HR/Deans
 Financial – Financial Office/OSR
 (Re)-Planning
 Risks Analysis
 Timeline
 Milestones
 Deliverables – including dissemination activities
 Ongoing Management
 Continuous integration
 Constant communication
 Project data collection
 Quantitative Performance Estimation
 Active Risk management
 Expense / Cost Sharing / Effort Reports
 Substantive reporting
 Finalizing
 Extensions
 Spending down budget
 Data
 Reporting
Tips:
 Get a book
 Constant
communication
 Active risk
management
 Live by milestones
 Continuous project
data collection and
estimation
 Back up everything
 Never return money
 Get to know HR, OSP,
finance, etc.
134

Reports and
Responsibilities
[1/29/2013]
 Financial Reports
 To funder
 Usually required to be through office of sponsored research
 – spending by time/categories
 -- personnel effort reporting
 To you – spending vs. targets
 – “burn rate”
 -- category balance
 Substantive Reports
 Progress reports – usually annually
 Final report – usually end of project
 What you should track
 Acknowledgement of award in publications, presentations
 Citations to research
 Press/media coverage
 General responsibilities
 Financial
 Research conduct & directions
 Correct effort reporting
 Human subjects and ethics
135

Review: Management
 Review your proposal
 Communicate immediately but
don’t spend
 Track and measure your project
progress
 Actively manage risks to your
project
[1/29/2013]
136

Other Types of Proposals
[1/29/2013]
 In-Kind Research Support
 Research Infrastructure Grants
 Center Grants
 Instrumentation Grants
 Construction Grants
 Non-Research Grants
 Non Grant Support
 Cooperative Agreements
 SBIR/STTR
 Corporate Sponsorship
 Individual Gifts
 Contracts
137

In-Kind Research Support
[1/29/2013]
 Supercomputing
 Amazon EC2 Grants aws.amazon.com/education/
 Teragrid www.teragrid.org
 Data Archiving
 DVN dvn.iq.harvard.edu
 ICPSR www.icpsr.org
 Survey time
 Protogenie www.protogenie.com
 Tess www.experimentcentral.org
 British Election Study polmeth.wustl.edu/retrieve.php?id=790
 Ads
 Google Grants (AdWords) www.google.com/grants
 Commercial Software
 Techsoup www.techsoup.org
138

Research Infrastructure
[1/29/2013]
 “How the rich get richer”
 Build research infrastructure to produce more research indirectly
 Requires a significant number of already sponsored funded users and projects
 In practice, usually requires a demonstrable and significant institutional commitment
 Instrumentation grants
 Difficult to fit in typical grant
-- need for instrument, return of borrowed instrument is not compelling
 Include: training, quality control, external review, maintenance
 Sometimes better luck approaching foundations
 Construction grants
 Official cost estimates required
 Expansion of research capacity required
 Program project grants
 Group of productive funded researchers
 Share common research goals
 Different experimental approaches
 Benefit from share resources, group interaction
 Center grants
 Benefits of common infrastructure
 Benefits of collaboration
139

Non-Research Funding
[1/29/2013]
 Differ in funder / funder goals
 Funder interested in problems/service to particular
communities
 Proposal must address community needs/problems
 Differ in reviewers
 Non-academic/less academic
 Practitioners
 Foundation philanthropists
 Proposal in structure to research grants, but …
 Describe program rather than hypothesis & methods
 Stronger emphasis on sustainability
140

Outline - non-research grant
[1/29/2013]
 Need
 Description of problem
 Quantitative measures of problem
 Inadequacy of current solutions
 Goals and Objectives
 Goals
 Objectives
 Timeline
 Measurement
 Program Description
 Target population
 Activities
 Staffing/resources
 Partnership
 Who
 What
Evaluation
Formative
Summative
Budget Narrative
Personnel
Other direct
Cost-share
Indirect
Sustainability
Organizational Capacity
Facilities/resources
Reputation/awards
Results of past
programs/evals
141

Contracts
[1/29/2013]
 Requires investment of time, expense
 Much more constrained in terms of methods, objectives
 Funder likely to own work product and data
 Often requires continuous reporting
 Requires more active management
 Establish connections
 local officials who can vouch for your organization
 individual & institutional collaborators & consultants
 supply expertise, track records, familiarity with funder processes
 Finding Contracts
 Check fedBizOpps (www.fbo.gov)
 Check federal register (can monitor through tgci.com)
 Attend bidders conferences
 Warning: should have officer of university sign/approve contracts --
otherwise you may be bound, but not have the authority to carry out contract
142

Outline –
proposal to individual donor
[1/29/2013]
 Short 3-6 page proposals
 Still contain all major elements of a proposal
 May put in business terms: description of business
(project); marketing plan (outreach); competition
(other approaches); personnel (staff); financials
(budgets); metrics (evaluation)
 Avoid: giving away too much (naming right, control of
project decisions)
143

Cooperative Agreements
[1/29/2013]
 Elements of grant and contract; closer to grant
 Scope and flexibility more limited than research
grant
 Substantial sponsor financial involvement
 Provide assistance/establish relationships
 Often involved doing research with sponsor staff
scientists
144

SBIR/STTR
[1/29/2013]
"Greed is, for lack of a better word, good"– Gordon Gekko
 Grants to commercialize research ideas by small business concerns (SBC’s)
 Eleven federal agencies participate, including NIH, NSF, and DOD
 Generally less competition than for research grants, more freedom than
contracts.
 A well prepared proposal is a significant advantage.
 Not limited to your own research inventions
–as long as intellectual property issues dealt with.
 SBIR = “Small Business Innovation Research”
 PI required to be > 50% employed by small business concern
 STTR = “Small Business Technology Transfer Research”
 PI must have a formal appointment/commitment to business; not required to be employed by
SBC
 PI at least 10% effort on project
 Part of research must be conducted in SBC controlled space
 Phases
 Submit phase I first., then phase II -- combined Phase I/Phase II proposals favorably received.
 Phase II requires business plans, commercial commitments are helpful.
www.sbir.gov
145

Venture Funding @MIT
[1/29/2013]
 MIT Venture Mentoring Service
http://web.mit.edu/vms/
 Matches MIT entrepreneurs with skilled volunteer
members
 Assistance for broad range of business activity,
including product development, marketing,
intellectual property law, finance, human resources,
and founders issues.
 Offered without charge to MIT students, alumni,
faculty and staff in the Boston area.
146

Funding Your Research

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Destacado

Destacado (20)

Similar a Funding Your Research

Similar a Funding Your Research (20)

Más de Micah Altman

Más de Micah Altman (20)

Último

Último (20)

Funding Your Research

Notas del editor