I wonder if there’s a way to find out what NSF public servant person or committee set up the funding categories to exclude already-existing successful projects, and if they have any plans to fix it.

Ira of SciFri says “NSF [National Science Foundation] has turned us down for continuing funding”.

I sent the above email saying “WTF”, or words to that effect.

Al DeSena of NSF interpreted our concern narrowly, saying “Science Friday funding was not discontinued. If you look at the abstracts of our active awards, you’ll see that Ira has an award that runs from 2009 – 11.”
…which is true, or half-true for 2011 – SciFri’s NSF funding ends in mid-2011.

From all this, & Greg L.’s comment that “the ‘We’ll fund you big for five years [then you’re on your own]’ style of funding has become more and more common, and is absurd”, sounds like that’s what happened to SciFri – the turn-down was a non-extension of NSF funding.

DeSena’s email makes an effort to mollify, saying few proposals are funded, & many worthy innovative ones fail to get funded, for budget reasons.

Then DeSena mentions a different, more suitable funding area:

“the ISE program has a “project type” called Broad Implementation, which was designed to allow for “scale up” of work that has already proven its impact. This new project type was added to try to address [the need for] “funding already-successful outreach efforts.”

Q – But what would need to be “scaled up” about SciFri? (Besides the _duration_ of funding…)

I guess we need to know if SciFri has applied for Broad Implementation funding to continue the existing show, and if it does so, what’s the likelihood that it’d get the grant (since there’s no “scale-up” required); & if probable, then was there sufficient notice provided to let the SciFri folks realize that they needed to apply there?

From Program Solicitation NSF 10-565 (link), I see from the Synopsis that the Program:
“…supports innovation in anywhere, anytime, lifelong learning
– through investments in research, development, infrastructure, and capacity-building
– for STEM learning outside formal school settings.”

I’m inferring from this synopsis – and please correct me if I’m wrong – that the reason Science Friday’s funding was discontinued, was that the radio show wasn’t considered to be “innovation”.

If I’m wrong about this, please set me straight.

If I’m correct, wouldn’t the ISE Program’s “it must be innovative” funding requirement have the effect of _precluding_ funding of already-successful science outreach efforts?

And if so, isn’t ISE falling short of its mission?
(isn’t ISE supposed to _foster_ “unprecedented energy… to promote public understanding of–and engagement with–STEM”? (link))

At the same time, NPR has said the same thing, telling us that if we want to stay on the air, etc, we now have to raise all our own money. Despite what listeners may think, NPR only gives us about 10 percent of our funding.

mean that NPR is reducing funding, or only that it can’t come up with any more funding than it already provides? It’s not entirely clear.