---
name: nsf-grant-guide
description: "Navigate NSF grant applications, program selection, and strategies"
metadata:
  openclaw:
    emoji: "💰"
    category: "research"
    subcategory: "funding"
    keywords: ["NSF grant", "grant writing", "funding", "research proposal", "broader impacts", "NSF program"]
    source: "wentor-research-plugins"
---

# NSF Grant Guide

A skill for navigating the National Science Foundation (NSF) grant application process. Covers program selection, proposal structure, the dual review criteria (Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts), budget preparation, and strategies for improving funding success.

## NSF Proposal Structure

### Required Sections

```
1. Cover Sheet (generated by Research.gov/FastLane)
2. Project Summary (1 page max)
   - Overview
   - Intellectual Merit statement
   - Broader Impacts statement
3. Project Description (15 pages max for most programs)
   - Introduction and background
   - Proposed research plan
   - Broader impacts plan
   - Timeline and milestones
4. References Cited (no page limit)
5. Budget and Budget Justification
6. Biographical Sketches (3 pages per PI/co-PI)
7. Current and Pending Support
8. Data Management Plan (2 pages max)
9. Facilities, Equipment, and Other Resources
10. Supplementary Documents (letters of collaboration, etc.)
```

### Project Summary Template

```
Project Summary (1 page, three separate sections):

Overview:
  "This project will [what you will do] to address [problem].
   We propose [approach/method] that will [expected outcome].
   The work will be conducted over [duration] at [institution]."

Intellectual Merit:
  "The intellectual merit of this project lies in [contribution
   to knowledge]. Specifically, this work will advance understanding
   of [topic] by [how]. The proposed approach is innovative because
   [novelty]. The PI has expertise in [relevant qualifications]."

Broader Impacts:
  "The broader impacts include [societal benefits]. Specifically,
   the project will [education component, broadening participation,
   infrastructure, dissemination, or societal benefit]. These
   activities will benefit [who] by [how]."
```

## Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts

### The Two Review Criteria

```python
def evaluate_merit_criteria() -> dict:
    """
    NSF's two merit review criteria and their elements.
    """
    return {
        "intellectual_merit": {
            "definition": (
                "The potential to advance knowledge within and across "
                "fields of science and engineering."
            ),
            "elements_reviewers_consider": [
                "What is the potential for the proposed activity to advance "
                "knowledge and understanding within its own field or across fields?",
                "To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore "
                "creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?",
                "Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities well-reasoned, "
                "well-organized, and based on a sound rationale?",
                "How well qualified is the individual, team, or organization to "
                "conduct the proposed activities?",
                "Are there adequate resources available?"
            ]
        },
        "broader_impacts": {
            "definition": (
                "The potential to benefit society and contribute to the "
                "achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes."
            ),
            "examples": [
                "Training and mentoring students (especially underrepresented groups)",
                "Curriculum development and educational outreach",
                "Public engagement with science and technology",
                "Partnerships with industry, government, or community organizations",
                "Infrastructure for research and education",
                "Broadening participation of underrepresented groups in STEM"
            ],
            "common_mistake": (
                "Do not treat broader impacts as an afterthought. "
                "Reviewers and panels weight this criterion equally with "
                "intellectual merit."
            )
        }
    }
```

## Finding the Right Program

### Program Selection Strategy

```
1. Browse NSF Directorates and Divisions:
   - BIO (Biological Sciences)
   - CISE (Computer & Information Science & Engineering)
   - ENG (Engineering)
   - GEO (Geosciences)
   - MPS (Mathematical & Physical Sciences)
   - SBE (Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences)
   - EDU (STEM Education)

2. Use NSF Award Search (nsf.gov/awardsearch):
   - Search by keyword to find funded projects similar to yours
   - Note which program funded them

3. Read program solicitations carefully:
   - Check eligibility requirements
   - Note submission deadlines (some are annual, some rolling)
   - Check page limits and special requirements

4. Contact the Program Director:
   - Send a 1-page summary of your idea
   - Ask if it fits the program scope
   - This is expected and encouraged by NSF
```

## Budget Preparation

### Common Budget Categories

```
A. Senior Personnel:
   - PI and co-PI salary and fringe benefits
   - Summer months for academic-year faculty (typically 1-2 months)

B. Other Personnel:
   - Graduate research assistants (stipend + tuition)
   - Postdoctoral researchers
   - Undergraduate students (REU supplements available)
   - Technical staff

C. Fringe Benefits:
   - Rates set by your institution's sponsored programs office

D. Equipment:
   - Items over $5,000 (institution-specific threshold)

E. Travel:
   - Domestic and international conference travel
   - Fieldwork travel

F. Other Direct Costs:
   - Materials and supplies
   - Publication costs
   - Participant support (stipends for workshop attendees)
   - Subawards to collaborating institutions

G. Indirect Costs (F&A):
   - Negotiated rate between your institution and the federal government
   - Typically 50-60% of modified total direct costs
```

## Tips for Competitive Proposals

### What Panel Reviewers Look For

```
1. Clear, specific research questions (not vague goals)
2. Feasibility: Can this actually be done in the proposed time?
3. Preliminary results that demonstrate competence and viability
4. Well-integrated broader impacts (not bolted on)
5. Appropriate budget (neither padded nor unrealistic)
6. Strong team with complementary expertise
7. Awareness of potential pitfalls and contingency plans
```

### Common Reasons for Rejection

```
- Research plan is too ambitious or too incremental
- Broader impacts are vague or disconnected from the research
- Insufficient preliminary data to justify the approach
- Writing is unclear, disorganized, or hard to follow
- Budget is poorly justified
- Wrong program (proposal does not match the solicitation)
- Missing required elements (data management plan, etc.)
```

## Timeline

Start preparing at least 3-4 months before the deadline. Allow 2 weeks for institutional review and submission through Research.gov. Request letters of collaboration early. Have colleagues outside your subfield review a draft for clarity. Most successful PIs submit revised versions of previously declined proposals, so treat a rejection as feedback for the next submission.
