What
is the general process for considering whether or not to fund research proposals?
We
only have enough money to fund about 12 percent of the proposals we receive.
First, we send all proposals out for external (adhoc) review by experts in the
field. After we get those reviews back, we hold a review panel with about 15
experts from the US and Canada, here at NSF. Those panelists sort the proposals
into A B and C categories according to external reviews and their own
assessments of the proposals' merits. Their sorting serves as a recommendation
to the program officer, who then makes his/her own decision on what to
recommend for funding.
We
consider many factors in deciding what gets funded, including the quality of
the proposal, the theoretical importance of the work, the experience and
capability of the investigators, and other factors such as geographic and
institutional diversity, and portfolio balance.
What
is the strangest proposal you have seen since you have been at the NSF?
For
reasons of confidentiality, I cannot comment on proposals that were not funded.
But there have been some odd ones, as well as some that are really far-reaching
and innovative, but maybe just not ready for prime time.
What
does a typical day look like for you- morning until bedtime?
I
ride my bicycle into work by 9 in the morning, catch up on emails, meet with
colleagues about proposals that they are interested in funding, have phone
conferences with investigators and potential investigators, attend training
sessions, attend departmental meetings and brownbag talks, and try to shoehorn
in some reading on my own interests, which are in embodied cognition,
attention, and (lately) Bayesian statistics. My primary work activities involve
reading proposals, writing justifications for proposal declines and awards,
soliciting adhoc reviewers, and running review panels for my program
(Perception Action & Cognition) and other programs.
After
work, I take a bicycle ride on a local canal path or trail, or go out to dinner
with colleagues and other people I know in the area. Washington DC has a lot to
see and do.
Will
you return to the University of Kentucky after your three year assignment at
the NSF?
Yes.
My main challenge will be to resume my research program, and to leverage my
experience at NSF into some kinds of activities that will help UK be more
competitive in getting federal funding.
Has
working at the NSF changed your view on science and how it is administered at
the governmental level?
Yes,
very much so. I have had a couple of federal grants (NIH and NSF) but knew
almost nothing about things work in DC. I've also learned a lot about the
political process; NSF is an independent branch of the federal government. At
the science level, I have been exposed to so much new stuff in Cognitive
Science and other behavioral sciences, including economics, geography, and
anthropology. I've gained a real appreciation for other ways of seeing the
world. Academics tend to get compartmentalized into their own subfields, so
this has been great exposure.
About
Lawrence Gottlob
Dr.
Lawrence Gottlob is a program director at the NSF in the area of Perception, Action & Cognition . He is an
experimental psychologist who studies visual attention and cognitive aging. He has
been at UK since 2001 and is an associate professor in the Department of
Psychology. His PhD is from Arizona
State and he did a postdoc at Duke University.
Posts
