Post #3631970

@mattblaze@federate.social @SRDas@mastodon.online @SteveBellovin@infosec.exchange As a program officer making scientific grants, I was acutely aware of the grad student funding dilemma. Whenever possible, on a site visit for example, I took time to meet with grad students. They are often doing a great deal of the work, have lots of ideas, and a very likely the people you want to respond to future Requests for Proposals. When I decided to fund a proposal, I always included language that indicated intent to extend a grant/contract “subject to available funds”, progress, etc. and I followed through. I got criticized for this in my organization for a variety of reasons but never reversed. Here is the reason why: I spent the sponsors’ (NASA, DARPA, other government tech programs) money “wisely.” That meant I “delivered high quality research results.” I attribute this to the effort I made to forge mutual understanding and trust with PIs, communication, enthusiasm, and reciprocal personal commitments to excellence. To professors and grad students who are writing and working on grants, I highly recommend getting to know the program officer for an RFP and exactly what they hope to achieve. This kind of clarity means a better proposal for everyone’s benefit. When sponsored research funds are under extreme pressure as they are today, it could make the critical difference for acceptance of your proposal. Good luck to all of you, and remember that luck favors the well-prepared.