- Some things have gotten better. We can work from our own laptops, and I think we're finally to the point where everyone at these things is computer literate and can use the online review system. The program officers do a good job making sure that the reviews get in on time (ahead of the meeting).
- Some things remain the same. I'm still mystified at how few people from top-ranked programs (e.g., Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Cornell, Cal Tech, Berkeley) I see at these. Maybe I just don't move in the right circles.
- Best quote of the panel: "When a review of one of my papers or proposals starts with 'Author says' rather than 'The author says', I know that the referee is Russian and I'm in trouble."
- Why does the new NSF headquarters have tighter security screenings that Reagan National Airport?
- The growth of funding costs and eight years of numerically flat budgets has made this process more painful. Sure looks like morale is not great at the agency. Really not clear where this is all going to go over the next few years. There was a lot of gallows humor about having "tax payer advocates" on panels. (Everyone on the panel is a US taxpayer already, though apparently that doesn't count for anything because we are scientists.)
- NSF is still the most community-driven of the research agencies.
- I cannot overstate the importance of younger scientists going to one of these and seeing how the system works, so you learn how proposals are evaluated.
Energy : Thoughts after a NSF panel. Alternatif Energy
I just returned from a NSF proposal review panel. I had written about NSF panels back in the early days of this blog here, back when I may have been snarkier.