REPORT pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
Recent Trends in Chemistry Instrumentation Requests by Undergraduate Institutions to NSF’s RUI Program Erin E. McDougal† and Bert E. Holmes*,†,‡ †
Division of Undergraduate Education, National Science Foundation, Arlington, Virginia 22230, United States Department of Chemistry, University of North Carolina—Asheville, Asheville, North Carolina 28804, United States
‡
ABSTRACT: The type of chemistry instruments funded as part of the Research in Undergraduate Institutions (RUI) Program at the National Science Foundation is summarized for proposals funded in 2006 2010. The data provided report on the success rate of RUI proposals, the average size of awards, the average duration of awards, and the percentage of the budget allocated to instruments. Information is given both for new and for experienced principle investigators. KEYWORDS: First-Year Undergraduate/General, Second-Year Undergraduate, Upper-Division Undergraduate, Laboratory Instruction, Laboratory Equipment/Apparatus FEATURE: Instrumentation Topics for the Teaching Laboratory
n recent articles in this Journal, a five-year overview from 2005 2009 was given of proposals that requested an instrument for use in teaching undergraduates and were submitted by Departments of Chemistry to the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI) Program,1 and the Major Research Instrument (MRI) Program.2 Analysis of the MRI Program focused on proposals submitted from faculty teaching at undergraduate institutions. Research-active faculty at predominantly undergraduate institutions (PUIs) also seek research support from the Research in Undergraduate Institutions (RUI) Program and often the proposal includes funds to purchase instrumentation. Frequently, these instruments are intended to do double duty serving both the instructional laboratories and the research laboratory of the principle investigator, or PI. In this report, we will give an overview of the RUI Program, a six-year summary (2005 2010) of the type of chemistry instruments funded by RUI, and the success rate of RUI proposals submitted to NSF from undergraduate institutions.
I
support for a postdoctoral fellow, and in 2011 a Data Management Plan needed to be included in all NSF proposals. Similar to the MRI Program, the RUI proposals are submitted to discipline-specific divisions at NSF. Faculty members in departments of chemistry and biochemistry submit proposals to the Chemistry Division (CHE), the Division of Material Research (DMR), and the Molecular and Cellular Biosciences Division (MCB). Therefore, this analysis includes RUI awards made to chemists by all three divisions. Because the operations of different disciplines may vary, it is advisable for potential PIs to contact the appropriate NSF program officer regarding expectations of the RUI program.
’ GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE RUI PROGRAM, 2005 2010 Table 1 shows for the past six years the average dollar amount for all RUI awards, the average award if equipment was requested, the average amount requested for equipment, the average number of PIs, the duration, and the number of awards distributed among the different NSF divisions that support chemistry faculty. Awards that included equipment requests in the budget (Budget Line D—Equipment, where each item with a cost exceeding $5000 must be listed) are identified as awards with instruments. During the past six years, there have been 204 awards to chemistry faculty, with 78% of those funded by the NSF Chemistry Division. Of the 204 RUI awards, 127 (62.2%) awards requesting equipment were granted. The average dollar requested for equipment was $30,962 per award that made a request, and the largest budget for equipment was $103,530. Several awards had requests for equipment in the $80,000 95,000 range; however, many more awards requested equipment with a cost of $20,000 ( 5000. It does appear that over the past six years the number of RUI awards each year has been steadily
’ HISTORY OF THE RUI PROGRAM In 1982, the Council on Undergraduate Research (CUR) proposed to the National Science Board, the governing body of NSF and policy advisors to the President and to Congress, that the RUI Program be established by Congress.3 One year later, RUI came into existence and in 1985 the CUR Newsletter4 published a description of the new RUI program. The current RUI solicitation is NSF 00-144 and it replaced NSF 94-79. Thus, the expectations of the RUI program have remained relative consistent compared to other NSF programs. However, faculty do need to remain aware of changes in the NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide so that critical items are not neglected in the RUI proposal. For example, in 2010 the requirement was added for a postdoctoral mentoring plan if the proposal requested Copyright r 2011 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
Published: October 25, 2011 4
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed200681j | J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 4–6
Journal of Chemical Education
REPORT
Table 1. Summary of RUI Awards to Faculty in Chemistry and Biochemistry Departmentsa Average for All Average for Awards Average Inst Average PIs/ Average Duration CHE Awards,
DMR
MCB
Total Awards
Fiscal Year
Awards, USD
with Inst, USD
Award, USD
Co-PIs, N
(months)
N
Awards, N awards, N (with Instrument)
2005
275,717
284,663
36,058
1.35
48.8
22
0
2
24 (19)
2006
243,238
275,391
22,559
1.25
48.1
22
1
2
25 (14)
2007
267,792
282,544
26,755
1.20
44.7
24
2
8
34 (20)
2008
295,873
299,452
42,800
1.35
35.5
26
5
6
37 (22)
2009
250,947
227,751
23,714
1.20
31.9
38
1
4
43 (27)
2010
274,224
277,855
33,888
1.20
26.1
28
6
7
41 (25)
a
Inst., Instrument; PI, Principle investigator; CHE, Chemistry Division; DMR, Division of Material Research; MCB, Molecular and Cellular Biosciences Division; N, number, USD, U.S. Dollars.
Table 2. Comparison of Awards with Equipment Support for New and Experienced PIsa
a
Fiscal
Awards to Average Award to Average Award to Average Inst Award Average Inst Award Budget for Inst Budget for Inst
Year
New PIs, %
New PIs, USD
Exp PIs, USD
to New PIs, USD
to Exp PIs, USD
New PIs
2005
50
265,448
307,858
27,480
45,589
10
15
83
69
2006
48
242,350
289,352
19,703
26,367
7
9
67
46
2007
59
247,646
321,755
33,137
18,954
13
6
55
64
2008
51
289,562
307,840
48,384
35,090
17
11
63
58
2009
60
231,035
288,147
23,611
23,920
12
8
69
53
2010
56
251,369
321,183
38,473
24,144
15
8
73
44
for New PIs, % for Exp PIs, % with Inst, %
Exp PIs with Inst, %
Inst., Instrument; PI, Principle Investigator; Exp, experienced, USD, U.S. Dollars.
Table 3. Distribution of Instrument Types in RUI Awards to Faculty in Chemistry and Biochemistry Departmentsa Instrument
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
Total
Spectrophotometer
4
5
2
7
3
3
24
Microwave Reactor
1
1
2
0
2
1
7
Computational Hardware
4
2
1
3
4
4
18
Chromatography
4
1
5
3
2
5
20
Laser System
2
1
1
2
1
1
8
Photolysis System
1
1
1
1
1
0
5
Microscope/Centrifuge
1
1
2
0
2
1
7
DSC/TGA X-ray System
0 0
0 0
1 0
1 0
3 1
0 1
5 2
General Total Number per Year a
2
2
5
5
8
9
30
19
14
20
22
27
25
127
FY, Fiscal Year; DSC, Differential Scanning Calorimeter; TGA, Thermal Gravimetric Analysis.
increasing from around 25 awards in 2005 2006 to about 40 awards in recent years. The average award amounts to $267,965 and has an initial duration of typically two or three years. However, most award applicants requested at least a one-year unfunded extension so that the average duration of awards made in 2005 2007 is about four years. Awards made after 2008 are still active and have not needed to request the extra one or two years of unfunded extension. Most were single investigator awards, although about one out of every three or four awards had a co-PI. The column on the far right of Table 1 reports the total number of awards each year; the number in parentheses is the number of awards requesting equipment. Table 2 shows data for awards that had requested an instrument. The percentage of all awards to new PIs each year is just over 50% and, as expected, the average dollar award to new PIs, $252,389, is about $15,000 less than the average of all awards and
about $54,000 less than the $306,023 average award with an instrument to experienced PIs. However, the average dollar amount requested for equipment is somewhat larger for new PIs, especially in the 2007 2010 time frame. This may reflect the realization that new PIs need equipment to set up and initiate a research program. Consistent with this trend is the larger percentage of the total budget allocated to equipment for new PIs compared to experienced PIs. The last two columns in Table 2 illustrate that, in general, a larger percentage of new PIs requested equipment compared to experienced PIs. Many faculty are interested in funding rates for proposals submitted to the Chemistry Division at NSF. During the NSF Town Hall meeting at the Spring 2011 ACS National Meeting, the funding rates for all research proposals submitted to the Chemistry Division for fiscal year 2010 were summarized as follows: For new PIs or for experienced PIs who were not funded 5
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed200681j |J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 4–6
Journal of Chemical Education
REPORT
from the previous two submissions, the funding rate is 17%. For PIs who were previously funded but subsequently received one declination, the success rate is 44%. Renewals have a 54% success rate and are proposals from PIs who have been supported by the Chemistry Division and are requesting subsequent support. In 2010, the Chemistry Division received 1644 research proposals and the overall funding rate was 24%. RUI proposals, regardless of whether or not an instrument was requested, have success rates similar to the overall success rates within the Chemistry Division at NSF.
(5) NSF RUI Web site. http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ. jsp?pims_id=5518&org=CHE&sel_org=CHE&from=fund (accessed Oct 2011).
’ HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 2005 2010 OF THE INSTRUMENTS FUNDED BY THE RUI PROGRAM FOR CHEMISTRY AND BIOCHEMISTRY FACULTY Table 3 summarizes the types of instruments requested in RUI awards for the period 2005 2010. Spectrophotometers include UV visible, IR, microwave, fluorometers, and so on: this is the most frequently requested instrument category. The next most frequently requested category of instruments was chromatography, including gas-, liquid-, and ion-chromatographs. Nearly 15% of all award applications requesting support for an instrument also requested computer hardware (workstations or clusters), illustrating the growing importance of computational chemistry. It is likely that these computational resources will be heavily used in traditional teaching courses. The “general” category includes rotary evaporators, incubators, constant temperature shakers, hydrogenation systems, vacuum gloveboxes, solvent purification systems, and so on. ’ CONCLUSION Nearly two-thirds of all RUI awards support equipment acquisition associated with the research project. At many undergraduate institutions, these instruments will also be used for some specialized laboratory experiments and the computer workstations or clusters will likely enjoy significant use by students in traditional classroom settings. As with the MRI program, PIs submitting to RUI must have a strong track record of productivity evidenced by publications in research journals. PUI chemistry faculty considering submitting an RUI proposal are encouraged to visit the Web site5 for the CHE, DMR, or MCB division to learn about funded RUI proposals, or to call the appropriate NSF program officer with specific questions about the proposed research.
’ AUTHOR INFORMATION Corresponding Author
*E-mail:
[email protected].
’ REFERENCES (1) Hixson, S.; Chang, E.-W.; Holmes, B. E. Recent Trends in Instrumentation Requests to NSF’s CCLI Chemistry Program. J. Chem. Educ. 2010, 87 (3), 247. (2) Phelps, R.; Holmes, B. E. Recent Trends in Chemistry Instrumentation Requests by Undergraduate Institutions to NSF’s Major Research Instrumentation Program. J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 136. (3) Doyle, M. The New NSF RUI Program. CUR Newsletter 1983, 4 (1), 12. (4) Mohrig, J.; Crampton, S.; Fuller, J.; Doyle, M. Review of the First Year of the NSF-RUI Program. CUR Newsletter 1985, 5 (2), 45. 6
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed200681j |J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 4–6
