More generally, remind taxpayers why science matters. It is commonly noted that NIH awards end up having multiplicative benefits for the American economy. Comparable attempts to substantiate the value of NSF funding would be great to see. (12)

The operational costs at NSF are low -- less than 10% of the Congressional appropriations. Most appropriations are returned to universities in the United States, ultimately benefitting students in all regions while promoting an educated workforce. (13)
nsf-gov-resources.nsf.gov/files/Budget...

Be mindful that NSF employees have been alerted that more staffing reductions may be imminent. Program officers are actively planning for contingencies by integrating as much redundancy as possible into the review system (which is admittedly challenging when they’re already spread thin). (10)

If you are invited to submit a draft of an abstract, recognize that abstracts are written for public audiences (i.e., taxpayers), not your academic peers. Make it clear why this study is worth doing. Avoid jargon. Think big picture. Minimize potential for misinterpretations. (9)

If your proposal is recommended for an award, the turnaround time for documentation might be rapid. Cuing up an IRB protocol in advance could be worthwhile. Relatedly, if any principal investigators have current awards, submit your annual reports on time because overdue reports are hurdles. (8)

When you submit a proposal, include suggested reviewers. These are visible only to NSF staff and will be kept confidential. For a program officer who is learning quickly about a new scientific community, these suggestions are hugely valuable entry points into the realm of possibilities. (7)

If you are preparing to submit a proposal, please consult the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide: www.nsf.gov/policies/pappg Misconceptions about proposal requirements abound, but the policy office is very thorough in the PAPPG. Answers can often be found within. (6)

NSF is perpetually aiming to broaden its pool of evaluators across geographical regions and institutional types. If you must decline an invitation to join the review process, consider nominating like-minded colleagues or former students who can contribute similar expertise. (5)

Suggest alternatives. Owing to the attrition, it is possible that program officers will be covering new subject areas and learning about the respective scientific communities as they go. Almost invariably, they are broad-minded generalists who learn quickly, but with the timeline, please help. (4)

Accordingly, if you are invited to participate in the evaluation process, please reply as soon as you can. Even if initial responses hedge on the possibility of helping (“It’s probably 50-50 that I can do this. Let me check and I’ll update you in 3 days”), those are helpful updates for planning. (3)

Recognize that the evaluation timeline for the spring cycle has been greatly condensed. Panels were postponed and need to be rescheduled. To meet the timeline for funding in the fiscal year, recommendations from program officers are typically due by mid-July. The next few months will be intense. (2)

Also for early-career researchers, although program officers cannot share examples of funded proposals with you (except through FOIA), principal investigators *can* and often will share their proposals. See the award database and then reach out to funded researchers. (22)
www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/...

Every June, NSF tends to get a slew of inquiries from principal investigators who had already started drafting a proposal without considering what program would review it. Program officers are normally happy to help find a good fit, but they'll be multitasking and slower to respond this summer. (21)