Amos G. Horney
Air Force Office of Scientific Research Washington, D. C.
I
I
Proposals for Significant Researth in Chemistry
M a n y investigators with significant research ideas find it necessary to seek supporting funds from agencies outside of their own. A high proportion of available funds for this purpose is obtainable through many of the various Federal agencies. The usual method of obtaining funds from such agencies is a request in the form of a research proposal. Although each agency has its special interests, suggested formats and its own mode of selecting the research which it will support, there is also much in common among them. I n fact, representatives of the various Federal agencies supporting basic chemical research have informal meetings twice a year to discuss policy, procedures and problems of mutual interest. These agencies also frequently exchange lists of official proposals. The purpose of this paper is to give the reader an insight into the special interests and mode of selection used by one of these Federal agencies-namely, the Directorate of Chemical Sciences, Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR). The use of this information in preparing a proposal may increase the reader's chances of obtaining support from any agency. Here, however, is an example of a proposal received within the government some time ago which probably did not receive support. Details are left to the imagination of the reviewer: ."United States Government, Attn.: President Dwight D. Eisenhower: We are seeking finance to build equipment for space rorkets. Our estimate is for a request of $8,000,000 now. Thank you in advance. Very truly yours, Signed. . . ." Research proposal requests successful in obtaining funds from AFOSR, Chemistry,, generally have gone through three steps: (1) a revlew of a preliminary proposal, (2) a review and evaluation of an official proposal, (3) a final evaluation in terms of funds available. Case histories of proposals going through these steps will be given after a preliminary discussion of the nature of the "new science" which AFOSR seeks to support through its Directorate of Chemical Sciences. In a military sense the ability to prevail is directly related to the technologies of the day. These were spawned by the science of a previous day. The science of today and the "new science" of tomorrow are the indispensable foundations for the revolutionary weapons of the future. The Air Force draws upon a large per cent of our total national resources, including our This article is based on a paper given before a joint session of the Divisions of Petroleum Chemistry and Chemical Education a t the 141st Meeting of the American Chemical Society, Washington, D. C., March, 1962.
110
/
Journal of Chemicol Education
national reservoir of scientific knowledge. Therefore, the Air Force must put at least a minute portion of its funds into creating new science. The mission of the Directorate of Chemical Sciences is to promote the creation of new chemical areas on the frontiers of known science. How is this done? It is done primarily by selecting investigators through their research proposals which have been submitted for consideration, and then encouraging them with funds and by other means. Proposal Cose Histories
In response to inquiries for an expression of AFOSR research interests, a list of researches assisted by the Chemical Sciences Directorate and a "guide" for preparing preliminary proposals are sent to the questioner. With a slight modification here is a quotation from that guide: The Air Force Office of Scientific Research can accept only unsolicited a'ginal proposals for basic research. AFOSR is not interested in telling investigators what they ahould do, for the best ideas originate in the minds of the men actually involved in research. Our primary interest is in the ability of the investigators and in their research preferences. Contrary to the expectations of some, AFOSR seeks originality and novelty of approach-does not mtomstiedly decline the unconventional. If our philosophy were to he summed up in one sentence it would he: 'If you are seeking predictable results, i t is not basie research.' AFOSR may best learn of your interests by a letter or a brief. An elaborate presentation is not desirable; however, good science is required.
The selection process is carried out, as previously mentioned, in three steps: Informal Proposol
Step 1. The investigator himself generally submits an informal proposal outlining a four-year program, stating his research objectives, the scientific significance of his objectives, his specific plans for starting and the approximate cost for each of the first two years. The informal proposal is given immediate staff review. Please note why Dr. A is uusuccessful in thefirst case as staff comments are quoted:
..
Goodexploratory but not basic research. others aredoing this reasonable obkind of thing and have been for some time jectives, old approach . . . some of the species mentioned are interesting but the objective seems to be more technique perfection than gathering new knowledge.. .. This is just an exploration of some cryogenic techniques which will probably not. give anything new to the principles of chemistry. . . . Dr. A might find something about properties of the molecules cited, but his objectives do not seem to include new fundamental understandinn.
...
letter mailed in less than two weeks after his proposa1 was received, Dr. A was that his proposal seemed insufficiently competitive, when
In
considered along with many others, to make it worth while for him to take the time and trouble to prepare an official one. Officiol Proposol
Step 2. I n a second case Dr. B submitted an informal proposal which in the staff opinion warranted more extensive review. Dr. B was informed by letter that an official proposal was welcome but the competition for available funds was keen. The formal proposal was received and acknowledged, and the investigator advised that technical evaluation would take approximntcly t11n.e months. It was sttbmittrd for tinal rvuluutiotl atvl then discuswd by thr r w i w r r s in one of our semiannual committee sessions. As I quote remarks from the final evaluation, note why Dr. B was unsuccessful: One reviewer said: The proposal from Dr. B has been carefully prepared . . . proposes a general reinvestigation of all the chemistry of X . However, I was unfavorably impressed by several items in the proposal. (1) The structure of the X Grignard is discussed, as if i t were possible to determine the structure of a compound in mobile chemical equilibrium by chemical means. Perhaps the structure is not important; perhaps only the reactions are significant. B u t if one wishes to find the structure, i t must be done by physical measurements, e.g., by NMR spectroscopy, fallowing the methods published by J. D. Roberts. (2) The mechanism for the alkylation of X with Y seems unrealistic. The authors aught a t least to have considered the possibility of an oxidation reduction chain, with attack on the X by an aldehyde obtained by dehydrogenation of the alcohol. These examples suggest to me that Dr. B is more ambitious than skilled.
..
Regarding Dr. R's proposal another reviewer remarked : Am I perhapa unjustly suspicious of a proposal which (a) tries to entice the interest of the Air Force by listing as potential uses of chemistry part of the subject index of Chemical Abstmcts, and ( b ) outlines as a serious investigation for three people (with the principal investigator giving only 25% of hi8 time) s, l i f e time project in X chemistry? I am particularly disturbed by an apparent unfamiliarity with previous work in X chemistryto cite only two examples, both the nitrosation of X and studies on its role in the Diels-Alder reaction have been studied, but no references are given. P e r h a p more disturbing is the failure to mention Dr. M's work on the alkylation rextion with alkoxides. This proposal is too broad, amorphous, unrealistic, and uninformed.
A letter expressing sincere regrets to Dr. B, two months after receipt of his official proposal, stated that it was not sufficiently competitive with the many fine proposals under consideration for his research to be included with funds available. Third case: In January, 1959, Dr. C inquired whether AFOSR had an interest in a new inorganic polymer. I n response to his inquiry Dr. C was told yes, if the idea was new and gave promise of opening up a new area of chemistry. On the other hand, if it was an idea similar to the extensive program being carried out by other agencies or was not different in approach from the large program sponsored by others, the answer would be no. Dr. C's preliminary proposal was received. He outlined a four-year investigation with a cost estimate for each of the first two years. Then, after receiving an encouraging response, he submitted an official proposal through his University channels. I now call your attention to the character of the remarks made by our evaluators. One said:
...
Dr. C is a. young man well thought of by his eollel~gues his proposal concerns new work . . . the field is thoroughly interestI am confident that a lot of nicenew inargsnicehemistry ing. will come out of this. . . even though he casts his discussion in terms of polymers.
.. .
Another reviewer said: The proposal is clear, interesting.. . should yield interesting information . . . claim of polymers of high thermal and chemical stability. . . is justsed . field intriguing . investigator qualified . . . budget reasonable.
..
..
Assignment of Priority
Step 3. Our staff prepared briefs of the proposals received from Dr. B and Dr. C and briefs of the evaluations. These, along with others, were reproduced and used a t the semiannual final review committee meeting. At this meeting all the official proposals at hand were considered and assigned an order of priority. To the extent that funds are available the procurement papers are later initiated. The investigations, with funds for two years, start about nine months after the initial inquiry. Ten or 12 months after the research is under way, it is our custom to request the budget for the second two years. Procurement action is then started, nine months in advance of expiration date, to extend the period of investigation for the final two years. Generally we support an investigator four years. Further support requires another competitive proposal. The case histories related emphasize the time and importance which we give to evaluation and selection of capable investigators with significant ideas on the frontier of new science in chemistry. Evaluators are a vital part of our competitive proposal selection process. They are distinguished research scientists whose combined interests cover most of chemistry and its border areas. Our relation with these men is unique because not one of them receives research funds from AFOSR. The Scientific Payoff
So far a method of selecting significant new research areas has been discussed, but the mission of AFOSR, as previously mentioned, is also to encourage the maiimum of the selected investigators. This is done in the following ways: 1. By research awards through grants and contracts. 2. By generally granting support for four years a t a time, so the researcher can concentrate on his research rather than the preparation of yearly requests. 3. By encouraging the researcher to direct his own work, to publish as he sees fit, and to requires. minimum of useloss reporting and other paper work. 4. By advising when necessary on the routes through governmental procedure on equipment, on travel, and concerning foreign assistance. 5. By morel support in visiting, in listening to accamplisbments, and in listening to and showing appreciation far their research problems. 6. Bv sunnestine ..,. ., other sources of funds to investieators with idem ".hide our tireas oi r w c h intcrcst or bqond'bur means. i. Hy nouwlimrs explaining to rhe in\wtigaror why sonic proposals arc nor sufficiently cornprtit~vcand rim fail to obtain support
Summary data on AFOSR support may be of interest. Our budwt in the fiscal vear 1963 was about 3 million dollars; -2.7 million, fiscal year 1962. For a number of prior years it was approximately 2 million dollars. Volume 40, Number 3, Morch 1963
/
1 11
Accepting publications as an indication of merit and using papers appearing in 1960 and 1961 in three selected journals as a sample, our support is acknowledged in 129 papers or over 31/a% of the total appearing in these three journals: 1960-61 J . Am. Chem. Sor. J. Phys. Chem. J. Chem. Phgs.
Number 54 22 53
Per cent 2.37 2.59 4.24
The purpose of this paper is not to solicit additional proposals, but to describe one procedure for the selection of excellent investigators with significant research ideas. The author hopes it will be of assistance to those seeking research support. In some circles it is stated and believed that all good research, all excellent investigators receive ample
1 12
/
journal o f Chemicd Education
support. This is contrary to my experience. Although AFOSR Chemistry adds 25 to 30 new investigators to its program each year, over three times that many, requesting 5 to 6 million dollars, now remain without our support. The fate of these can be estimated on the basis of earlier experience. I n the six months ending August 1, 1961, from 144 informal proposals requesting 10 million dollars, 57 official proposals requesting 4 million dollars received final review and 33 of these requiring 1.8 million dollars were selected as excellent. Yet in September 1962, 18 months after many of the requests were prepared, about half of the 33 were still wit,hout funds from any source. This situation is a national tragedy, since these researchers are not yet creating that "new science" of tomorrow.
