Chemical Education Today edited by
Michelle M. Bushey
Recent Trends in Chemistry Instrumentation Requests by Undergraduate Institutions to NSF's Major Research Instrumentation Program
Department of Chemistry Trinity University San Antonio, TX 78212
by Randy Phelps Office of Integrative Activities, National Science Foundation, Arlington, Virginia 22230, United States by Bert E. Holmes* Division of Undergraduate Education, National Science Foundation, Arlington, Virginia 22230, United States and Department of Chemistry, University of North Carolina at Asheville, Asheville, North Carolina, 28804, United States *
[email protected],
[email protected].
In 2009, the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Course, Curriculum and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI) Program became the Transforming Undergraduate Education in STEM (TUES) Program. A recent article (1) offered a five-year overview of proposals submitted by U.S. chemistry departments requesting support for an instrument for use in teaching laboratories to that program (2). The article noted that many undergraduate institutions with outstanding research programs involving undergraduate students obtain instruments from the Major Research Instrument (MRI) Program (3). Because engaging undergraduate students in high-quality research is an essential step in teaching them to become scientists, instruments secured by the MRI program serve both a teaching and research function. Futhermore, most instruments (GC/MS, NMR, etc.) have department-wide applications and should also be used in traditional teaching laboratories. In fact, in a section titled Integration of Research and Education, the MRI solicitation (3) states: One of the principal strategies in support of NSF's goals is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects, and activities it supports at academic and research institutions. These institutions provide abundant opportunities where individuals may concurrently assume responsibilities as researchers, educators, and students and where all can engage in joint efforts that infuse education with the excitement of discovery and enrich research through the diversity of learning perspectives.
It is apparent that the MRI program expects instruments to serve the dual function of teaching and research training. In this paper, we will give an overview of the MRI Program, a five-year summary of the type of chemistry instruments funded by MRI, and the success rate of MRI proposals submitted to NSF from undergraduate institutions. Faculty in departments of chemistry may also request research instruments from the Chemistry Research Instrumentation and Facilities Departmental Multi-User Instrumentation (CRIF:MU) Program (4) housed in the Division of Chemistry at NSF. Thus, funding results from the CCLI, CRIF:MU, and MRI Programs will be compared to aid chemistry faculty in deciding which of these programs is most suitable for them. The Major Research Instrumentation Program started in 1992 as a component of the Academic Research Infrastructure Program and became a separate program in 1994. As an 136
Vol. 88 No. 2 February 2011
_
_
NSF-wide program, it is designed to improve the condition of scientific equipment for research and research training in U.S. academic institutions in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines. Proposals are accepted from institutions of higher education and from not-for-profit, nondegree-granting institutions (museums, professional societies, and research laboratories). The Office of Integrative Activities (OIA) administers the MRI Program and OIA proportionally distributes MRI funds to individual research directorates based on the proportional dollar values of the proposals they are reviewing. The allocation to each directorate is then divided into one pool for Ph.D.-granting and the nondegree-granting institutions and a second pool for non-Ph.D.-granting and minority-serving institutions. The Chemistry Division is housed within the Mathematics and Physical Sciences Directorate. The MRI Program has two tracks: one for acquisition, and a second for development of shared research instrumentation. No more than two proposals seeking acquisition of new research instruments may be submitted by an institution in response to a solicitation. As with all proposals to NSF, the merit review criteria include intellectual merit and broader impacts but reviewers are also to evaluate the management plan for MRI proposals. In 2005, the requirement for cost sharing by the institution was removed as was the NSF support for operations and maintenance costs for the instruments. The America COMPETES Act of 2007 required that institutional cost sharing be a requirement starting in 2008 and the operations and maintenance costs were once again eligible NSF costs. However, non-Ph.D.-granting institutions are not required to provide cost sharing. Historical Overview, 2005-2009, of the MRI Program for all STEM Disciplines The appropriated funding to MRI from the U.S. Congress for the time period 2005-2009 is given in Table 1 for each fiscal year (FY). The actual funding by NSF is typically 10% higher than the appropriated funding owing to cofunding by the research divisions or by EPSCoR (Office of Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research)(5) .Normally, the MRI competition has a submission deadline of the fourth Thursday in January. In 2009, Congress appropriated an additional $300 million to MRI as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc This article not subject to U.S. Copyright. Published 2011 by the American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc. Journal of Chemical Education 10.1021/ed101113t Published on Web 01/11/2011
Chemical Education Today Table 1. Comparative Data for MRI Proposals to NSF, Requested and Awarded, 2005-2009 Amounts by Fiscal Year Categories
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Appropriated funding (millions of U.S.$)
$88.8 M
$88.2 M
$89.7 M
$93.2 M
$100 Ma
Number of proposals submitted
784
769
774
810
801b
Number of awardsc
259
235
222
225
187b
Funding, percent
33.25%
29.56%
28.98%
27.44%
24.87%b
Average request size of funded proposals, U.S.$
$437,704
$484,427
$518,777
$556,114
$576,135
Average duration of project, years
2.53
2.59
2.41
2.55
2.59
Average number of PIs per proposal
3.12
3.28
3.33
3.35
3.47
Number of awards to non-Ph.D.-granting institutionsd
110
92
87
84
74b
Funding for non-Ph.D.-granting institutionsd, percent
39.43%
32.97%
34.52%
27.27%
25.0%b
131
130
117
130
111b
28.79%
27.66%
24.68%
27.37%
24.95%b
Number of awards to Ph.D.-granting institutions
d
Funding for Ph.D.-granting institutionsd, percent a
b
Does not include $300 million in funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). Does not include proposals funded using the ARRA appropriation. c Typically 80% of all funded awards are for acquisition of an instrument and 20% are for development of an instrument. d Does not include awards to nondegree-granting institutions; for example, in 2005, 18, 110, and 131 awards were made to nondegree-granting, non-Ph.D.-granting, and Ph.D.-granting institutions, respectively.
Table 2. Comparative Data for MRI Chemistry Proposals to NSF, Requested and Awarded, 2005-2009 Amounts by Fiscal Year Categories Total chemistry funding
2005
2006
2007
2008
$12.37 M
$11.08 M
$12.55 M
$10.80 M
2009a $21 Ma
Number of proposals
121
115
132
130
138
Number of awardsb
39b
31b
29b
30b
58a,b
Funding, percenta
32%
27%
22%
23%
42%c
Average request size of funded proposals, U.S.$
$320,845
$373,094
$434,325
$387,817
$445,912
Number of proposals from non-Ph.D.-granting institutions
58
47
57
69
88
Number of awards and percentage funded, non-Ph.D.-granting institutions
24 (41%)
12 (26%)
12 (21%)
15 (21%)
35 (40%)
Average amount of awards to non-Ph.D.-granting institutions, U.S.$
$262,736
$181,422
$315,112
$274,540
$267,447
Number of proposals from Ph.D.-granting institutions
63
68
75
61
50
Number of awards and percentage funded, Ph.D.-granting institutions
12 (19%)
18 (26%)
15 (20%)
13 (21%)
21 (42%)
Average amount of awards to Ph.D.-granting institutions, U.S.$
$344,382
$450,309
$506,720
$392,564
$548,816a
a Includes approximately $10 M from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 resulting in a funded percentage of 40% rather than 21% that would have been expected without ARRA funding. All 138 proposals in this column were submitted in January 2009. b The total number of awards includes grants to nonprofit organizations in addition to the non-Ph.D.-granting and Ph.D.-granting institutions shown here. For example, in 2005, 24 awards were made to non-Ph. D.-granting institutions, 12 awards to Ph.D.-granting institutions, and 3 awards to not-for-profit, nondegree-granting institutions. c Percentage of awards to all types of institutions.
(ARRA) and $100 million of that was allocated to the ongoing FY 2009 and $200 million was made available to a second MRI solicitation with a due date of August 10, 2009. The 2010 MRI solicitation had a deadline of April 21, 2010. To provide an unbiased comparison across all five years, the 2009 data in Table 1 does not include projects funded with ARRA monies. In Table 1, awards to institutions offering baccalaureate and master degrees (non-Ph.D.-granting institutions) are compared to institutions awarding Ph.D. degrees. Table 1 shows that during the past five years the number of proposals submitted in all disciplines to MRI has been nearly constant, varying between 770-810 proposals. Despite a 12% increase in appropriated dollars between 2005 and 2009, the number of awards has declined by more than 25% because the mean size of an award has increased from $438K to $576K. In general, the duration of an award is 2.5 years and there are just
over three principal investigators (PIs) and co-PIs on each award. The number of awards to Ph.D.-granting institutions is between 20-50% greater than the number of awards to non-Ph.D.-granting institutions. However, the percentage success rate is higher for nonPh.D.-granting institutions for 2005-2007 and equal to Ph.D.granting institutions for 2008-2009. Historical Overview, 2005-2009, of the MRI Program for Chemistry Table 2 shows that each year over the past five years 128 ( 14 MRI proposals have been submitted by faculty in departments of chemistry. Similar to other disciplines, the funding percentage has declined as the award size grew and the award size is smaller for non-Ph.D.-granting institutions compared to Ph.D.-granting institutions. However, for the five-year period, more total awards were
This article not subject to U.S. Copyright. Published 2011 by the American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc. Journal of Chemical Education
_
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
_
Vol. 88 No. 2 February 2011
_
137
Chemical Education Today Table 3. Comparative Data for Instruments Awarded via MRI to Non-Ph.D.-Granting Institutions, 2005-2009 Numbers of Awards, by Fiscal Year Instrument
2005
NMR (300-600 MHz)
8
MS (TOF, MALDI, triple quad)
3
2006
2007
3
3
2008 3
1
GC-MS
2009 22 4
1
1
2
LC-MS
4
2
1
1
7
Spectrometer (fluorescence, etc.)
1
1
2
3
FT-IR, Raman, laser system, etc.
1
1
Calorimeter (isothermal, DSC, TGA, etc.)
1
1
Microscope (AFM, SEM, etc.)
1
1
Capillary electrophoresis
1
Computer cluster
2
AA, ICP, HPLC, ICP-MS X-ray diffraction Total
3 2
5
1
2
1
4
1 1
7 1
1 1
3
1
2
3
9
24
12
12
15
67a
a Includes proposals submitted in January and in August 2009, and funded with American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) monies, of which 18 were non-ARRA proposals.
made to non-Ph.D.-granting (98 awards) versus Ph.D.-granting institutions (79 awards). This is in sharp contrast to the 2005-2009 data in Table 1 where there were 38% more awards to Ph.D.-granting institutions (619 awards) compared to 447 awards to non-Ph.D. granting institutions. Furthermore, for chemistry departments, the award size has fluctuated significantly from year-to-year while the award size steadily increased for all disciplines; see Table 1. As an example, the award size for chemistry was $181K in 2006 but $315K one year later for non-Ph.D.-granting institutions, and for Ph.D.granting institutions, it was $392K in 2008 compared to $549K in 2009. Note that data for FY 2009 include proposals submitted to the MRI solicitation with a January 2009 deadline and the funding rate was higher than prior years because the funds available were more than double the amount in previous years owing to support from ARRA. The funding rate in 2005 for non-Ph.D.-granting institutions was double that for Ph.D.-granting institutions, but since then, the funding rate is essentially identical for both types of institutions.
the number of instruments, just one entry appears in Table 3 in cases where more than one instrument was requested. The percentage of funded non-ARRA proposals is slightly higher for MRI (≈25%) compared to CCLI (≈20%), as is the total size of the award. The CRIF:MU Program funded 149 proposals during the 2005-2009 time frame, but only 6 of these awards were to non-Ph.D.-granting institutions. Thus, CRIF: MU is not an effective avenue for faculty at non-Ph.D.-granting institutions. If an undergraduate institution has a track record of engaging undergraduates in research coupled with a strong publication record by the faculty, then MRI should be considered for acquisition of research instrumentation, especially high-cost instruments. The instrument should be robust enough to use in traditional teaching environments but also have the resolution or sensitivity needed to acquire research quality data.
Historical Overview, 2005-2009, of the Instruments Funded by the MRI Program for Chemistry and Comparison to CCLI and CRIF
Erin E. McDougal is thanked for her skill in searching NSF databases; her results provided most of the data for Tables 1-3.
Table 3 shows the types of instruments funded by MRI awards during the past five years by the Chemistry Division at NSF. There were 130 total instruments funded and 49 of these were supported by ARRA. Similar to CCLI (1), the most frequently funded instrument was an NMR (300-600 MHz), but with MRI, all 39 NMRs were superconducting and 24 of these instruments were 400 MHz. Because proposals to CCLI were limited to either a total request of $150,000 or $200,000, it was also much more common to find higher-cost instrumentation such as high-resolution mass spectrometers (8 MSs), LC/ MS (15), and X-ray diffraction instruments (18) supported by MRI. A few proposals requested a cluster of instruments with a common function, such as isothermal and differential scanning calorimeters (DSC). In order that the number of awards matches
138
Vol. 88 No. 2 February 2011
_
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
_
Acknowledgment
Literature Cited 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, 247–249. 2. NSF Web Site about the TUES Program. http://www.nsf.gov/ funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5741&org=DUE&from=home (accessed Dec 2010). 3. NSF Web Site about the Major Research Instrumentation Program. http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5260 (accessed Dec 2010). 4. NSF Web Site about the CRIF:MU Program. http://www.nsf.gov/ funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=13579 (accessed Dec 2010). 5. NSF Web Site about EPSCoR. http://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/programs/ epscor/about.jsp (accessed Dec 2010).
This article not subject to U.S. Copyright. Published 2011 by the American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc. Journal of Chemical Education
