ASP Frequently Asked Questions

A. While there is no hard and fast line between the two programs, and there might be certain activities that would be pertinent to both programs, some general guidelines are offered here that might be helpful in deciding whether a potential research activity is better suited to one program or the other.

ASP is concerned with characterizing the chemical, microphysical, and optical properties of aerosols and clouds, and the processes governing these properties and their evolution, including the influence of aerosols on cloud microphysical properties relevant to their influence on radiative transfer. Thus ASP concern includes such phenomena as cloud droplet activation, precipitation development, chemical and microphysical transformation in clouds, and removal of aerosol particles in precipitation. ASP will address the sources, chemical and microphysical transformation, transport, and removal of aerosols that affect atmospheric radiation directly, or indirectly through modification of cloud properties, and the ascription of aerosol constituents to sources and source classifications ( e.g., anthropogenic vs. natural ).

ARM is concerned with atmospheric radiation generally, and with atmospheric properties affecting this radiation, and with characterization of these properties, for both clear-air and cloudy skies. With respect to aerosols, these properties include, for example, such aerosol optical properties as light scattering coefficient, light absorption coefficient, and phase function, and such cloud properties as cloud particle phase, number concentration, size distribution, effective radius, and single scattering albedo. ARM is concerned also with the processes that are responsible for clouds and cloudiness and for cloud microphysical properties affecting radiative transfer and cloud persistence, and consequently with the role of aerosols in these processes. ARM is thus concerned with the radiative influences of atmospheric aerosols rather than their sources and the processes responsible for their properties and geographical distribution.

From this it might be concluded that certain kinds of activities might well fit into either program, depending on the focus of a given study: e.g., determining aerosol optical properties as input to radiation transfer calculations ( ARM ) vs. for evaluation of the ability of a chemical transport model to calculate these properties ( ASP ); or studying processes governing cloud drop activation and cloud microphysical properties as input to radiative transfer calculations ( ARM ) vs. for evaluation of models of aerosol influences on cloud microphysical properties ( both programs ) vs. their influence on transformation and deposition of gaseous and particulate species ( ASP ).

Q. How will abstracts and proposals be handled between the two programs?

A. The ARM and ASP program managers have agreed to share abstracts of proposals relating to atmospheric aerosols and their radiative influence with each other and provide feedback to proposers regarding which program is more appropriate for their proposal. Similarly, when aerosol proposals are submitted to one program, but are a better fit with the other program, they may be reviewed by the more appropriate program. In other words, proposers will not be penalized for submitting to the "wrong" program. Of course, if a proposal really doesn’t fit within the scope of either program, it may be declined as being out of scope, without being submitted to merit review.

Q. What is the range of budgets suitable for a project within this Program?

A. The simple answer is that the budget should match the requirements of the research. As noted on the ASP website http://www.atmos.anl.gov/ASP/ASPPreannouncementInfo.pdf the total funding of the Program is limited:

"It is expected that approximately $10m will be available to ASP in FY 2005 funding. It is expected that approximately $6m will be available to proposals from DOE laboratories, and approximately $4m will be available to applications from the private sector and non-DOE agencies."

Within the overall constraint of $10m, we will fund as many highly-rated proposals as we can.

Further insight regarding the scope of individual projects may be gained from the breakdown of funding for the last two ASP funding cycles as presented in the following table. It should be noted that these amounts are not limits, and the reconfigured program may very well differ from this funding profile. It is anticipated that the fraction of total Program expenditures on infrastructure activities ( for research aircraft and instrumentation deployment for field campaigns ) will be somewhat higher than in the past, closer to 20% or more of the total funding.

ASP Funding Category	% of Funding	Science Team Awards ( $ )
		Smallest	Average	Largest
DOE Laboratories Infrastructure	14.2%
DOE Laboratories Science I	31.7%	90k	160k	260k
DOE Laboratories Science II	22.6%	300k	390k	600k
Universities and Other Federal Agencies	31.5%	80k	140k	240k
Total	$ 10 m

Science I projects are typically small, single-PI-based projects, with larger awards for projects involving instrument development or laboratory measurements. Science II projects are typically more integrated projects involving multiple investigators and/or field measurements. While these have typically been at the DOE laboratories, the private sector and other federal agencies are not precluded from submitting larger, more integrated proposals.

Q. What will be the breakdown of funding between DOE-Lab and non-DOE-Lab Projects?

A. It is required that proposals from DOE laboratories, other federal agencies, and the private sector be reviewed and competed separately. All science proposals received, that fall within the scope of the announcement, regardless of organization, will be subjected to the same rigorous peer review for scientific merit. The final allocation of funding will be determined after all three sets of proposals have been peer reviewed.

Q. What fraction of proposals can be expected to be funded?

A. Clearly the answer to this depends on the number and caliber and mix of proposals received. In the last two ASP funding cycles, for atmospheric chemistry ( ACP ) and environmental meteorology ( EMP ), the selection rates were 26% and 17% respectively. The sum of these two funding cycles is probably representative of the program as a whole, with 163 proposals received, and 38 proposals funded, for a selection rate of 23%. Because ASP has a new scientific focus with broader community interest, we anticipate a larger number of proposals than in the past, and given that our budget is relatively flat, we therefore anticipate a smaller selection rate.

Additionally, it might be possible, subsequently, to fund some proposals received in response to the original announcement, which were recommended for funding but deferred due to budget limitations.

Q. What is the expected duration of awards?

A. We anticipate that both peer-reviewed research awards and internally-reviewed infrastructure awards will be made for three years. If additional funds become available before the end of the first three-year cycle, then we would expect to publish an additional announcement and make additional three-year awards.

Q. What is the expected mix of awards and program balance?

A. We expect to support a mix of small PI-based projects and larger, more integrated projects. Clearly we cannot fund a large number of large proposals, but we expect to fund as many highly-rated proposals of both types as we can. We also expect a balance of awards between the four functional categories, i.e., laboratory measurements, field measurements, modeling studies, and instrument development.

Q. What is the best way of submitting multiple-investigator proposals: as a set of related proposals or as one integrated proposal?

A. Larger projects can be submitted either as integrated proposals, or as a suite of smaller proposals that are closely related but submitted as separate proposals. These could be reviewed and considered for funding both separately and collectively. Proposers of such projects should indicate what other proposals are part of a given suite. The "collection" of closely-related proposals should offer value in addition to separate funding, but each such proposal should not depend on the others for its basic value.

Q. What is the recommended route for collaborations between DOE labs and non DOE labs?

A. Unfortunately, we are not allowed to mix "collective" proposals from DOE labs with any from non-DOE organizations. However, we do encourage collaborative projects, either through formal or informal means. Formal collaborative proposals between DOE lab scientists and non-DOE lab scientists should be submitted from the organization requiring the larger amount of funding, and the budget sheets should include and explain any subcontracts. These proposals will be peer-reviewed in the category of the proposing organization ( DOE labs, other federal agencies, or the private sector ). Alternatively the proposers may cross-reference their proposed activities as indicated in the previous question.

Q. Is it possible to propose two or more funding levels?

A. Proposals from scientists in the DOE laboratories (only) may have two funding levels for a given proposal, with the higher level having a more ambitious scope of work. This simply gives us more flexibility in selecting the best mix of highly-rated proposals. Due to the way grants are administered by the DOE Office of Science, only one funding level is allowed for proposals from universities and other federal agencies.

Q. Is there a mechanism for negotiation of funding level?

A. Sometimes, if we do not have the resources to fully fund a highly-rated proposal, we may negotiate a reduction in funding with ( potentially ) a reduction in scope of effort. Historically, this occurs most often for DOE lab projects. We encourage all proposers to submit realistic budgets.

Q. What is the mechanism for achieving program balance and assuring relevancy of projects in the Program?

A. We do not fund proposals that do not score well in the review for scientific merit. We generally fund the highest-rated proposals in each category, provided they also score well for relevancy and are consistent with our need for program balance. We rarely skip over highly rated proposals, but will do so if there is good reason, e.g., if there is an even higher-rated proposal to do similar research or if a proposal does not score well for relevancy.

Q. Can you comment about the integrity of the review process?

A. We make every effort to assign competent and appropriate expert reviewers who do not have conflicts of interest. We carefully scrutinize reviews and where there are unusual ( anomalous ) scores we will usually conduct additional reviews. The process is not perfect, because people are not perfect, but it is as fair and as effective as we can possibly make it.

A. There are no special formatting requirements for the abstracts due March 17th. We would prefer they be no more than two pages. They are not required, but they would be helpful in two ways, namely ( 1 ) we can provide feedback in terms of scientific scope and appropriateness and ( 2 ) based on the number and mix of abstracts received we can begin to identify reviewers and prepare for the peer review. Budgets are not needed at this stage.

Q. To what extent will radiation transfer measurements and modeling be included in the program?

A. As the focus of the program is examination of the climate influence of tropospheric aerosols, quantification of aerosol influences on atmospheric radiation and attribution of these influences to aerosol components, including suitable radiation-transfer modeling, are within the scope of the program. Given the complexities of determination and calculation of forcing under partly cloudy sky conditions, for example, examination of aerosol radiative influences will likely be limited to documentation of aerosol influences on optical depth and to calculation and parameterization of aerosol radiative forcing under rather idealized geometries.

Q. To what extent does budget influence the selection process?

A. The budget should reflect the cost of doing the proposed work. Budget is a consideration, but most proposals are selected on the basis of scientific merit and relevancy. If the budget for an otherwise meritorious proposal is deemed unreasonable, then we will enter into a discussion with the principal investigator to resolve budget issues.

Q. How do I budget costs for field projects when it is not yet decided where the projects will take place, how frequently, and for what duration?

A. This is a really tough issue. In a normal research cycle we would to some extent be able to better anticipate upcoming field studies. With our new scientific focus, it is more difficult to do that. There are a number of upcoming opportunities, e.g., multi-agency studies in the planning stages, but it is not clear yet which of these may figure into our program. We need to be driven much more by the science than simply opportunities to take measurements. Our advice is simply to describe the kind of measurements and field study context needed to support the science being proposed and budget accordingly, as best you can. Once the Science Team has been formed, the Science Steering Committee will evaluate upcoming multi-agency field studies, and we will likely develop field campaigns of our own. It is then up to the Program Director to commit resources to specific field studies to facilitate the most urgent research, and for Science Team members to adapt to those field study opportunities.

A. We would not preclude your conducting field measurements at your home institution or in conjunction with other-agency or multi-agency field campaigns, provided such studies materially advance the science that is the thrust of your proposed research. However, we are unlikely to support such activities if they result in your effort as a whole becoming isolated from the bulk of ASP studies or focus or if their budgetary consequence is such as to appreciably impact those studies. With respect to field studies, our plan is to conduct studies that will enable us to advance the science as much as we can with our limited resources. This generally means conducting campaigns identified with ASP, in which the bulk of the ASP investigators can participate, contribute capabilities, share results and findings, and contribute to the interpretation, perhaps in conjunction with other programs or agencies. We thus anticipate working closely with ARM and conducting studies in conjunction with ARM sites. We also anticipate working with other agencies and leveraging multi-agency campaigns such as the upcoming Mexico City study. But we are reluctant to make formal commitments to particular studies until we have a Science Team in place and can see what makes the most sense for ASP.

A. This is awkward situation. Normally, we would have a Science Team in place and have plans for specific field campaigns that could be considered in writing a proposal. But because ASP is being refocused, the "new" Science Team is not yet formed and we can only guess at what field studies might be embraced by the newly refocused program. We haven’t committed yet to any ASP field studies beyond the current fiscal year ( 2004 ). We anticipate that a potential upcoming Mexico City Study is a likely venue for ASP, but we cannot commit to that until our new Science Team is formed and we see what our requirements and priorities shall be.

Once the Science Team is selected and funded, we will have a Science Team Meeting and put together a Science Steering Committee. There will be full discussion of the science requirements for field studies and an evaluation of upcoming multi-agency field study opportunities. We anticipate that we will then commit to participate in one or another of the multi-agency campaigns, or develop our own field study and invite multi-agency participation in that project. Consequently, we suggest you focus on the science to be undertaken in your proposed work, and indicate how you would participate in or support an ASP field study, or utilize data from such a study, in some more generic sense rather than linking your proposal to a specific study that we haven’t yet committed to.

Q. How does the ASP proposal review process work ?

A. Official guidance is provided directly through the ASP "Announcement" and the DOE Office of Science website at http://www.science.doe.gov/grants/. Following is "unofficial" guidance. There will likely be two stages to our review of proposals. All proposals that are complete, received on time, and which seem to fall within our scope of interest will be subjected to a formal external peer review for scientific merit. Only those proposals that emerge favorably from the merit review will be considered in the second stage. The second stage will likely consist of a panel review for relevancy, programmatic balance, and programmatic fitness.

Guidelines for the formal merit review process are determined by the DOE Office of Science and are published at http://www.science.doe.gov/grants/process.html. Each accepted proposal will be reviewed by at least three qualified external reviewers, according to the basic evaluation criteria, namely ( 1 ) Scientific and/or technical merit or the educational benefits of the project, ( 2 ) Appropriateness of the proposed method or approach, ( 3 ) Competency of applicant's personnel and adequacy of proposed resources, ( 4 ) Reasonableness and appropriateness of the proposed budget, and ( 5 ) Other appropriate factors, established and set forth in the ASP solicitation. Of course, reviewers will be screened to ensure their qualifications and to ensure there are no apparent conflicts of interest.

The second stage review will be a panel review conducted by the Program Director. The main concern in the second stage is to ensure that the resulting ASP Science Team is suitably focused and balanced, starting with the proposals that emerged from the merit review with the highest scores.

( a ) Relevancy refers to how a proposed effort contributes to our program goals, especially in the sense of actually reducing uncertainties in aerosol radiative forcing of climate. Thus it would be quite helpful if it is clearly demonstrated in a proposal how the results from the proposed work can be utilized.

( b ) Programmatic balance refers to "balance" between the various functional components of the program ( laboratory studies, field studies, modeling, and instrument development ) and "balance" between the various scientific components of interest.

( c ) Programmatic fitness refers to our ability to integrate or coordinate a proposed effort with the bulk of the program. For example, proposed efforts that have a particular geographical focus or which do not relate to ASP field studies may not be as useful to us.

Panel members are expected to include ( 1 ) program managers from DOE and other federal agencies with an interest in aerosol radiative forcing of climate and ( 2 ) a number of non-federal scientists with aerosol-climate expertise. The panel will simply provide a forum for discussion and recommendations. Actual funding decisions will be made by the DOE Program Director, once the merit review results and panel member recommendations are fully considered.

Q. How should my project interact with other projects in ASP?

A. Much of the focus of ASP will be centered on the conduct and interpretation of field measurements and the development and evaluation of models using data from the field projects. A strong proposal will indicate what measurement or modeling capabilities the proponent intends to contribute to these field studies or to their interpretation and will indicate what anticipated measurements or models (of others) his or her proposed activities will rely on or will contribute to.

A. The expectation for ASP is that the great majority of the projects (exception being mainly lab studies) will include as a major component of the funded activities participation in ASP field studies, by coming with ones own instrument(s) to the ground site(s) and/or aircraft; by participation in design, conduct, and interpretation of the field measurements, and by modeling the time and location of the field study, with pertinent comparisons to or other utilization of observations.

It is anticipated that ASP field studies will be conducted in campaigns of several weeks' duration, during which there will be multiple overpasses of A-Train satellites and others, as well as the domain being in the field of view of geostationary satellites. Certainly ASP investigators and others are encouraged to compare data from in-situ measurements and ground-based (and possibly aircraft-based) remote sensing with pertinent data from satellites. Certainly a plus of a given ASP measurement would be that it could be used to "validate" a satellite measurement so that that measurement could be used with greater confidence elsewhere, but the primary driver of ASP activities will be their ability to meet ASP objectives, with such satellite validation being a secondary consideration.

Additionally it might be expected that some ASP investigators will conduct measurements or model runs at times and/or locations other than those of ASP field campaigns as a part of their project, individually or in some coordination with others. Again comparison with pertinent satellite data would be encouraged.

A. Decisions regarding times and locations of field projects will be made by the Program Director, in consultation with the Science Steering Committee and Leadership Team, after discussion by the Science Team and with input from a larger community. It might be expected that some or all ASP field studies will be conducted in conjunction with similar studies conducted by other programs (especially including the DOE ARM Program) or other agencies, perhaps by co-location, or perhaps by, for example, ASP being located closer to source regions and another agency focusing its efforts more downwind.

Likewise any ASP investigator who as part of his/her project wishes to make use of satellite derived data products to enhance characterization of the properties and distribution of aerosol materials and pertinent transformation processes would be encouraged to put forward ASP measurement strategies that would enhance the opportunity to do this.

A. ASP would welcome the participation in the science team by scientists knowledgeable of the science benefits that result from such coordination, whether as a funded ASP investigator or as investigator with non-ASP support. ASP would welcome the participation in our planning activities of individuals knowledgeable about overpass schedules and other operational issues. Other things being equal it makes excellent good sense to conduct measurements at the times and locations of overpasses of pertinent satellites. Many satellite instruments have a rather broad swath, so it would seem that coordination would be simply a matter of timing and having the aircraft over a suitably representative area at the time of the satellite overpass, but it is recognized that for some prospective instruments such as satellite lidars, much closer coordination would be necessary. ASP would thus welcome further input on these issues at the field project planning stage. Inclusion of such coordinated activities, as driven by science objectives, might well be a component of a proposal and might well enhance such a proposal.

Programmatic questions may be addressed to the Program Director, while questions pertaining to scientific scope may be addressed to either the Program Director or the Chief Scientist. We will try to provide answers in future FAQ's so that they are available to all interested parties. For this reason email is probably the best way to submit questions.

peter.lunn@science.doe.gov

Peter Lunn
Program Director for Atmospheric Science
Climate Change Research Division
U.S. Department of Energy, SC-74
1000 Independence Avenue SW
Washington DC 20585-0002
Phone 301.903.4819 Fax 301.903.8519

ses@bnl.gov

Stephen E. Schwartz
Chief Scientist for the DOE Atmospheric Science Program
Atmospheric Sciences Division
Environmental Sciences Department
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Upton NY 11973
Phone 631.344.3100 Fax 631.344.2887

Office of Science

Office of Biological and Environmental Research