Division of Chemistry (CHE) Response to Findings and

Recommendations of the Committee of Visitors

February 7-9-2007

The Division of Chemistry is grateful to the COV for their thoughtful
work and

participation, and especially to Geri Richmond, the Chair, for her
leadership. The

engagement of all participants was evident, the environment was open and
the process

proceeded with the highest integrity. CHE thanks Morris Aizenmann for
serving as the

COV monitor on behalf of MPS, and MPS leadership Tony Chan and Judy
Sunley for

their advice, participation and receptivity.

1\. The COV urged CHE to develop a Strategic Plan to guide the Division
over the next

few years as well as further into the future. The vision for the
Strategic Plan is broad and

includes intellectual pursuits as well as workforce development, tool
development and

organizational excellence. The COV urged CHE to include topics such as:
scientific

goals and benchmarks to allow measurement of progress, how to better
articulate the high

value of the current research that is being done, goals for the chemical
workforce

including students, postdoctoral fellows and the professoriate, goals
for grant size, grant

duration, number of grants and special funding modes such as SGERs and
Creativity

Extensions, guidelines to determine the optimal mix of single
investigator grants and

other modalities such as small groups and centers, goals for Division
staffing and

succession planning, and a plan for broadening participation of
under-represented groups

in all Division activities. The COV also urged CHE to consider a
strategy for continued

improvement and transparency of merit review: recruitment of diverse and
competent

reviewers, educating reviewers about programs and NSF review criteria,
educating PI's

about merit review, and the training and mentoring of program officers.
The COV also

urged CHE to include a strategy for robust support for instrumentation
and instrument

development, assessment of effects of the loss of cost-sharing, and
education of the

community about instrumentation issues and opportunities.

The COV urges CHE to develop and implement assessment tools as part of
the Strategic

Plan. These would be applied to assess new programs such as the CCIs,
CRCs, CRIFCyber,

and URCs. The COV recommends that CHE assess the use of the "Broader

Impacts" review criterion by reviewers and program officers, and assess
the success of

the broader impacts aspects of funded work. With the new submissions
windows for

unsolicited proposals, the COV would like to see an assessment of how
the new structure

works out for the community and the Division.

Finally, the COV urges CHE to consider its strategic partnerships, such
as with other

disciplines and with other countries.

RESPONSE: The Division of Chemistry agrees that developing a Strategic
Plan is an

excellent idea. The Division Strategic Plan will align with those of the
NSF and the MPS

Directorate. The Division will produce a timeline within one month for
the steps to be

taken in formulating the plan. The vision is that there will be a great
deal of community

input (e.g. Town Halls and a website open for comments from the public).
The Division

leadership has already contacted the NIGMS to coordinate with their
current strategic

plan exercise. Since the time of the COV, the Division's "Plan for
Broadening

Participation" has been approved by the NSF administration for public
distribution, and

this will become part of the Strategic Plan. CHE aims to complete its
Strategic Plan by

the end of 2007, and will attempt to make significant progress in
achieving the goals by

the time of the next COV in 2010.

**FY2008 Response:** The Division of Chemistry has moved promptly to
draft *Strategic Directions: 2008-2012* that is currently available for
review by the community. Eight critical issues were identified using a
SWOT analysis and extensive community input via Town Halls, Dear
Colleague Letters, the web and comments via email. These critical issues
include advancing American competitiveness, communicating the value of
chemistry and chemical research to the public, increasing global
engagement, increasing grand challenge research through centers,
broadening participation, addressing funding needs of investigators
across career stages, assessing the impact of the broader impacts review
criterion, and updating the Division of Chemistry structure.

The Division's Plan for Broadening Participation is an important and
integral component of *Strategic Directions: 2008-2012*. We expect that
*Strategic Directions: 2008-2012* will be finalized no later than
September 30, 2008.

2\. The COV recognized that the ability to tackle transformational
fundamental chemistry

is being severely compromised by the shrinking dollar in CHE grants.
There is a sense in

the report that the grant size (and therefore the supported research
group size) is

subcriticial.

RESPONSE: This is a serious matter and the Division recognizes the
problem and the

challenge. This will be addressed in the Strategic Plan.

**FY2008 Response:** Strategic Directions: 2008-2012 recognizes the
challenges of optimizing our investments considering grant size,
duration and success rate. Programs may consider the use of Small Grants
for Exploratory Research (SGERs) and Creativity Extensions to encourage
potentially transformative research. The new funding modality of the
Centers for Chemical Innovation was developed specifically to address
grand challenge, potentially transformative research.

3\. The COV strongly endorsed the continued emphasis on single
investigator grants.

The COV warns that new funding modalities such as Collaborative Research
in

Chemistry (CRC) should be watched carefully so as to not erode the
single investigator

grants. On the other hand, some members of the COV believe that the
establishment of

centers may be one way to expand Chemistry's reach, a goal that all
supported provided

that single investigator grants are not eroded.

RESPONSE: The Division is sensitive to the community's concern about
preserving the

single investigator "core" but is also sensitive to an increasing number
of younger PIs

who favor research work in small and large groups. The current plan is
to continue to

offer the community the possibility of submitting the best scientific
ideas in all areas

through one of three modalities: as single investigators, as small
groups and as larger

groups (in centers). The ultimate balance of these three funding
modalities will be

monitored closely but it will be determined by proposal pressure and
quality and thus by

the chemistry community. The Division believes that increasing the
number and nature of

interdisciplinary centers is important, both to provide strong
scientific synergism and to

increase the Division's ability to increase its funding level.
Increasing the number of

chemistry centers will only be considered if budgets grow so as not to
erode existing

single investigator grant support. The issue will be carefully addressed
in the Strategic

Plan.

**FY2008 Response:** The Division remains firmly committed to supporting
small collaboratives as part of our core research activities. As part of
our "Structure" discussion in *Strategic Directions: 2008-201I,* the
Division has decided to transition collaborative research into the
disciplinary research programs and discontinue special solicitations for
collaboratives. Future COV's will be asked to evaluate the Division's
internal processes to ensure that both individual and collaborative
proposals receive a thorough and fair review and that the disciplinary
programs are maintaining a healthy the balance of individual and
collaborative awards in the portfolio.

4\. The COV very strongly recommends that the Division examine its
written feedback to

the PIs and improve the communications so that the PIs, especially ones
that are declined,

have enough information to improve their proposals. The COV repeated the
advice from

the 2004 COV, namely that some version of the Review Analysis be sent to
the PI. The

COV repeated the criticism of the 2004 COV that some panel summaries
were

inadequate and the value-added of panels was questioned in some cases.

RESPONSE: The Division will look into the matter of sending "Program
Officer

Comments" or a version of the Review Analysis to the PIs (edited to
remove confidential

or sensitive information). There are workload issues that are associated
with writing

"Program Officer Comments" (these would have to be quite carefully
written due to

sensitivity, confidentiality and legal reasons), and the idea will be
re-examined now that

the present staffing structure is somewhat improved over that in 2004.
The Division will

address the criticism related to panel summaries and will implement new
measures (in

addition to those undertaken after the 2004 COV) to improve the quality
and depth of

these documents. The Division will carefully scrutinize the use of
panels to be sure there

is value-added.

**FY2008 Response:** A few CHE programs will pilot the use of "Program
Officer Comments" in Spring 2008 to provide timely and useful feedback
to the PI. Community response and PI workload impacts will determine if
this is an effective communication tool. All Program Officers remain
committed to clear and open communication with their PIs and encourage
direct PI-PO conversations via email, telephone and in-person visits.

5\. The COV repeated the 2004 COV opinion that the Broader Impacts
review criterion is

sometimes not addressed and there is confusion about it on the part of
the PI's and the

reviewers. They said that further education by CHE and MPS is essential
to clarify what

is meant by Broader Impacts, and how broadening participation plays in.

RESPONSE: CHE has tried very hard to inform the chemistry community
about Broader

Impacts, including a symposium held at the National ACS Meeting in
Washington DC in

August of 2005 and a page on the CHE web site. The Division will
continue to develop

outreach and disseminate the materials that have been prepared to
educate the community

about Broader Impacts, including broadening participation. CHE has led
and will stay

involved in the conversations throughout the Foundation about the
Broader Impacts

criterion and broadening participation, and will examine this important
issue in its

Strategic Plan.

**FY2008 Response:** CHE has launched a pilot assessment of broader
impact activities. We expect that this assessment will inform both the
division and the community. CHE has also provided an updated Dear
Colleague letter (NSF 08-044), sample Highlights focusing on Broader
Impacts, and other materials.

6\. The COV strongly supports the Research Experience for Undergraduates
Program and

the Instrumentation Programs, and believes that the Instrument
Development Program

should be augmented.

RESPONSE: The Division agrees with the COV about the importance and
impact of the

REU program and increased the level of support for FY 2007
substantially. Future

budgetary increases will be considered. CHE will also respond to
proposal pressure in

the Instrument Development Program and continue to fund meritorious
proposals with

budgets deemed appropriate by the reviewers and Program Officers. CHE
will develop

outreach with regard to advertising the Instrument Development
opportunities.

FY2008 Response: Instrument Development continues to be an exciting and
productive area for CHE. A workshop focused on identifying opportunities
for instrument development at the chemistry-biosciences interface is
planned for summer 2008. This workshop is cosponsored with NIH and the
NSF Division of Biological Infrastructure.

The Division maintains its strong support of the REU Program. A growing
part of our REU portfolio is international REU Programs (iREU). In FY08,
we are supporting six international REU Programs, sending 60 US students
to great research opportunities in eight different countries.

7\. The COV is in favor of increasing the number of on-site permanent
Program Officers.

RESPONSE: We are in the process of selecting 3 (maybe 4) permanent
program officers

and that will increase the number to 8 (maybe 9), essentially half the
total number of

program officers. The Division will consider increasing the number of
permanent

program officers by an additional 1-2 in the future, but considers a
50:50 ratio of

permanent:rotator to be a good initial goal. The present focus is having
Program Officers

on-site (versus off-site at their home institution) so that the Division
can provide

leadership in the many interdisciplinary and cross-cutting activities in
the MPS.

FY2008 Response: CHE was able to increase the number of permanent
program officers to eight over the past year and is currently
advertising for additional permanent staff. We continue to seek
excellent chemists as rotational and permanent CHE staff.

8\. The COV challenged CHE to achieve 80% of proposals finished in 6
months.

RESPONSE: Bring it on!

**FY2008 Response:** CHE is delighted that it was able to meet this
challenge in FY2007, finishing 82% of its 1579 actions in less than six
months.