1. The Problem

As an applicant to NSF, you have a vested interest in satisfying the BI Criterion because you want funding. Reviewers - especially those who haven't written a NSF proposal for a while - don't have the same investment. Although most try to do a good job, the BI Criterion can be ignored entirely or misapplied, which can decrease your chances at getting funded.

Within a research field, most of us can come to a fair agreement about what constitutes intellectual merit. If you aren't familiar with a journal, for example, you can gauge its quality by looking up its ISI impact index. Few reviewers have such a knowledge base when it comes to BI.

2. Thoughts on Writing your BI

The most important thing in writing the BI part of your grant is to speak to your program manager. Ask him or her to point you to an example of a funded proposal from that program that had what he or she considers a strong BI. Ask whether it is appropriate for you to include budget for your BI. (If you are going to throw a small conference, for example, are you going to fund it through that grant or through a separate grant?)

Make sure you look at the BI literature put out by your division. You may find clues about what is important.

Another strategy is to explain in your BI section why what you are doing fulfills the BI Criterion. Write the review for the reviewer. Quote the BI Criterion and associated literature. Make it easy for the reviewers to recognize that you have valid BIs.

Don't overlook BIs that are inherent in your research. One of my projects uses magnetic nanoparticles to treat cancer -- that's a benefit to society any congressperson can appreciate. If your research is less applied, you may have to explain how it may ultimately benefit society.