By Invitation Only: The Next Step in Funding the Joshua Tree Genome Project

Aug 02, 2017

462

By Invitation Only: The Next Step in Funding the Joshua Tree Genome Project

Hard at work on the full proposal
Back in January we wrote to you about preparing a proposal for the National Science Foundation. 
Now, we have some encouraging news to share. 

Don’t break out the champagne yet though. 

Last month we received the good news that our proposal had been ‘invited for a full proposal’!  

As research funding has become more and more competitive, the National Science Foundation has turned to using ‘preliminary proposal’ system. Each January scientists from around the country put together short summaries of their latest and greatest research ideas. From the hundreds of preliminary proposals they receive, about eight dozen (approximately 25%) will be invited to submit a full proposal. 

And….. (drum roll, please!)… our proposal was one of the lucky ones invited to prepare a longer form description of our research proposal. So, while the rest of you are out enjoying the summer sun (or hiding from triple digit heat if you live in the Mojave), here at the Joshua tree genome project we’ve been hard at work trying to make the best possible case for our work. In a little less than a week we will send off our full proposal. And then we will wait…

We probably won’t hear a final funding decision until December at the earliest, and statistically, our chances are slim. But, at the moment, our thoughts are occupied with all the things that we will do if we were funded. 

Here is a partial list of what we have in mind:

Completing, assembling, and annotating the full Joshua tree genome. 
Surveying genetic diversity across the entire range of the Joshua tree.
Common garden experiments to identify genes involved in climate adaptation.
An expanded citizen science program with Cal Native Plants.
Public Lectures at the Desert Institute.
Research internships for underrepresented minority students. 
Outreach to public school teachers in southern California.

It’s a long and ambitious list. We hope that it’s enough to make our work stand out. Wish us luck!

KristineLavo, pennyruddie, and 19 others like this.

2 comments

Join the conversation!Sign In

Denny LuanBacker

Is this the first time that you've done these pre-reviews? I'm interested to hear if the process changes at all - if it will simplify or be faster for reviewers/submitters?

Aug 03, 20171

Jeremy B. YoderResearcher

This would have been, I think, the fourth pre-proposal I've been involved with at NSF. That portion of the process wasn't necessarily bad — it's kind of nice to "pilot" an idea in brief form before putting in the time to build a full detailed proposal — but the whole two-stage process was slower than it used to be, with just one opportunity to submit full proposals each year. There are, apparently, some possible changes in the works, but I don't know what details of those have been decided on yet.

Aug 03, 20172

Denny LuanBacker

I'm really curious to know where all the rejected pre-proposals go.

Aug 03, 20170

Jeremy B. YoderResearcher

Well, I think most people whose pre-proposals are rejected use the reviewer comments that they receive to revise and resubmit in the next year — or come up with a totally new project to submit instead. (I've done both, really.) But I'm sure there are projects that never get resubmitted.

Aug 03, 20171

Christopher Irwin SmithResearcher

Like Jeremy, I've been through this process multiple times before, both as a principal investigator (i.e., the person writing the grant) and as a panelist (i.e. the people reviewing grants). My feeling is that the pre proposals really are just a rate-limiting step on federal funding. They double the work that the investigator must do, and halve the number of full proposals that are considered. Now being at the full proposal stage, there is a kind of 'monty hall' effect where it seems like the odds of funding are dramatically improved (what if I told you that there was a donkey behind door number two? Now do you want to stick with door number one, or switch to door number three?). However, the reality is that the overall rate of funding is extremely low, and preproposals just slow down the rate at which funding requests can be considered.

Aug 03, 20171

Denny LuanBacker

That's a funny analogy, since monty hall actually has a dominant strategy. Which leads to another question, this must mean that PIs everywhere are trying to meet as many pre-proposals as possible and then doubling down where appropriate. What *should* happen is if you get a pre-proposal rejected, you should just send it to Experiment!

Aug 03, 20170

Christopher Irwin SmithResearcher

Well, submitting our preproposal to Experiment is essentially we did. We just went to experiment first, and then went to NSF.

Aug 03, 20170

Jeremy B. YoderResearcher

What Chris said — but I'd add that it's not so straightforward to swap between NSF and Experiment. The budget for a typical NSF proposal is much, much bigger than most folks are able to raise through crowdfunding platforms — they usually supports people's salaries or graduate student stipends, and sometimes major equipment purchases. Experiment gave us enough funding to get the genome project well underway, and it helps us demonstrate to NSF that a lot of people care about Joshua trees — so it's a good first step toward the larger project.

Aug 03, 20170

Dylan GoldadeBacker

Best of luck!!

Aug 02, 20171

About This Project

The Joshua Tree Genome Project

Willamette University

Joshua trees are perhaps the strangest plants in the world. Their long, spindly branches form twisted candelabras that have become an iconic image of the western American landscape. Ecological modeling suggests that global warming could drive Joshua trees to extinction. We propose to sequence the Joshua tree genome. This powerful research tool will help identify genes that have allowed Joshua trees to adapt to desert environments, and which could help them survive climate change.