Federally Funded Instrumentation Grants and How to Compete

Federally Funded Instrumentation Grants and How to Compete for Them (TTVN Seminar) Sept. 22, 2008 Lucy Deckard Office of Proposal Development l-deckard@tamu. edu 458 -4290 Office of Proposal Development 1

Overview OPD – who we are n Available instrumentation funding programs n Common features and strategies n Specifics on a few selected programs n Major Research Instrumentation (NSF) n Defense University Research Instrumentation (Do. D) n Grants for Shared Instrumentation (NIH) n Office of Proposal Development 2

VPR/OPD Research Development Support n n n n Workshops, seminars and presentations; Center level initiatives; Multidisciplinary initiatives; New Faculty Initiative; Help develop collaborative research activities; Link to System universities and support System Pathways Initiative; Identify institutional funding opportunities Office of Proposal Development 3

Check out our Website http: //opd. tamu. edu/ n n n Funding opportunities Upcoming seminars Proposal resources Resources for junior faculty Craft of Grant Writing workbook Presentations from past seminars n To find this presentation with resource extra materials, go to http: //opd. tamu. edu/seminar-materials and click on today’s date Office of Proposal Development 4

Instrumentation Programs n n n n Instrumentation for Materials Research (IMR) Research Equipment Funding for CTS Div. Instrumentation for Materials Research – Major Instrumentation Projects (IMR-MIP) Earth Sciences: Instrumentation and Facilities Chemistry Research Instrumentation Facilities: Instrument Development Do. D Instrumentation and Research Support for HBCU/MIs Major Research Instrumentation Award Office of Proposal Development 5

Instrumentation Programs (cont’d) n n n n Grants for Shared Instrumentation (NIH) Chemistry Research Instrumentation and Facilities: Departmental Multi-User Instrumentation (NSF) Defense University Research Instrumentation (Do. D) High-End Instrumentation Grant (NIH) Multi-user Equipment and Instrumentation for Biological Sciences (NSF) Astronomical Sciences Advanced Technologies and Instrumentation (NSF) Instrument Incubator Program (NASA) Extramural Research Facilities Improvement Program (NIH) Office of Proposal Development 6

For an up-to-date list with links n n See http: //opd. tamu. edu/fundingopportunities/funding-opportunities-bycategory/instrumentation-and-equipment Or go to our website at http: //opd. tamu. edu n n n Click on “Funding Opportunities” Click on “Funding Opportunities by Category” Click on “Instrumentation and Equipment” Office of Proposal Development 7

Common Features n n Proposed instruments should enhance projects already funded by agency Looking for maximum impact for $s n n n Multiple users Trend toward users from multiple disciplines Enables important research (NSF) Impact on education Develop new instruments Office of Proposal Development 8

More Common Features n Sponsor wants to make sure instrument will be taken care of and used Infrastructure must be available n Researchers have record of active funded research, publications, pending proposals n Often require a “management plan” n Office of Proposal Development 9

Things to Find Out n n Where is the funding coming from within the agency? Who reviews the proposals? How closely must the instrument be tied to agency-funded projects? What are the review criteria? n n Educational component? Outreach component? Office of Proposal Development 10

Before you start… n Is there a limit on number of submissions? n n Is there a cost share requirement? n n If so, need to go through internal selection process If so, start lining up cost share early Do they require an official cost quote from vendor? Office of Proposal Development 11

NSF Major Research Instrumentation n This year’s solicitation not out yet Due Jan. 22, 2009 (tentative) Awards: n n $100 K - $ 4 M for Ph. D. granting organizations Less than $100 K allowed for non-Ph. D granting organizations Less than $100 K allowed from mathematical science and social, behavioral and economic science Types of Awards: n n Instrument Acquisition Instrument Development 30% cost share required except for non Ph. D-granting institutions Gold text: New last year – assume will be same this year n Office of Proposal Development 12

Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) n Submissions limited to 3 proposals per institution n No more than 2 acquisition proposals per institution Check with your administration regarding your institution’s internal selection process Separate category for non-Ph. D granting institutions n 20 or fewer Ph. Ds or DSci’s awarded in NSFsupported fields of science, engineering and math in the last 2 years Office of Proposal Development 13

MRI Program Goals The goals of the MRI program are to: n n n Support the acquisition, through purchase, upgrade, or development, of major state-of-the-art instrumentation for research, research training, and integrated research/education activities at organizations; Improve access to and increase use of modern research and research training instrumentation by scientists, engineers, and graduate and undergraduate students; Enable academic departments or cross-departmental units to create well-equipped learning environments that integrate research with education; Foster the development of the next generation of instrumentation for research and research training; Promote partnerships between academic researchers and private sector instrument developers. Office of Proposal Development 14

MRI: Eligible Project Costs n Instrument Acquisition n n Instrument purchase, installation, commissioning and calibration are eligible Instrument maintenance, operations and research project costs not eligible Do not put PI support, graduate student RAs, etc. on budget Instrument Development n n Parts, materials needed for construction Commissioning costs and direct and indirect costs associated with support of personnel “directly engaged strictly in the instrument development effort” Office of Proposal Development 15

MRI: Eligible Equipment n n n Can be more than one piece but must share common purpose Cannot be assorted instruments that “do not share a common or specific research or research training focus” Cannot be “instrumentation requested primarily for standard science and engineering courses” Office of Proposal Development 16

MRI: Review Criteria n Intellectual Merit n n n Importance in advancing knowledge and understanding in own field and across different fields How well-qualified is the proposer or team? Creativity and originality Access to sufficient resources? Broader Impacts n n n Advance discovery, understanding while promoting teaching, training and learning Broaden participation of under-represented groups Enhancement of infrastructure Dissemination of results Benefits to society Office of Proposal Development 17

MRI: Review Criteria n n Integration of Research and Education Integrating Diversity Plans for enhancing research capability in teaching, training or learning Instrument Acquisition Proposals: Management Plan n n Sufficient infrastructure and expertise to allow effective usage of instrument; Organizational commitments for operations and maintenance Office of Proposal Development 18

MRI: Review Criteria n Instrument Development Proposals n Management Plan n Realistic schedule n Mechanisms to deal with potential risks n Availability of appropriate technical expertise to design and construct the instrument n Cost of the new technology n Rationale n Will proposed instrument enable new types of measurement or information gathering? Office of Proposal Development 19

Features of Competitive MRI Proposals Many users from multiple disciplines n Impact on NSF-funded research n Clear description of research that would not otherwise be possible enabled by instrument n Clear description of educational experiences that would not otherwise be possible and their benefits n Preliminary data from similar instrument n Office of Proposal Development 20

Features of Competitive MRI Proposals (cont’d) n Strong connection to education n n Involvement of under-represented groups n n Details describing numbers of graduate, undergraduate students impacted E. g. , researchers from minority serving institutions Work with students from under-represented groups Outreach component (e. g. , teachers, high school students, etc. ) Well thought-out management plan Office of Proposal Development 21

Pitfalls to Avoid n n n Beware extra bells and whistles on your instrument that aren’t explicitly justified by the listed research projects Avoid vague or generic research project descriptions that don’t strongly tie the success of the project to the instrument Beware vague references to education and outreach Office of Proposal Development 22

Review Process for MRIs n n Within directorate for requests below $600 K - $800 K NSF-wide for larger requests n n n Must appeal both to directorate and across directorates Very few awards at highest level ($2 M and above) Go to MRI page (http: //www. nsf. gov/funding/pgm_summ. jsp? pims_id=52 60&org=NSF&sel_org=NSF&from=fund ) and click on “Abstracts of Recent Awards” to view 2008 awards with amounts and abstracts Office of Proposal Development 23

Advice for Preparing an MRI Proposal n n Get letters of collaboration from users outside your institution Emphasize impact on NSF-funded programs n n n What science will having instrument enable? What educational experiences will be enabled? Be sure to discuss similar instruments available nearby and explain why need one here Office of Proposal Development 24

Texas A&M System MRI Winners n Kevin Storr – PVAMU n n n Joe Fox – TAMU-CC n n n “Acquisition of Amino Acid Analyzer for Enhancement of Research/Teaching at Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi” BIO directorate Eugene Billiot – TAMU-CC n n “MRI: Acquisition of a Dilution Refrigerator with Tunnel Diode System” DMR program Winner of 3 MRIs (CHE program) David Parker – WTAMU n n “Acquisition of a Gas Chromatograph/Mass Spectrometer. Olfactometer for Characterization of Environmental Odors of Arbitrary Composition” ENG Directorate Office of Proposal Development 25

Texas A&M System MRI Winners n Antoine Carty – PVAMU n n n Michael Gyamerah – PVAMU n n n “MRI: Acquisition of research instrumentation for applied research and training in biotechnology and bioprocess engineering” ENG directorate Thomas Naehr – TAMU-CC n n n “Acquisition of a 400 MHz Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) Spectrometer “ Chemistry Division “Acquisition of a Powder X-ray Diffraction System for Earth Science Research and Education” GEO directorate Carol Thompson – Tarleton State University n n “MRI/RUI: Acquisition of an Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectrometer (ICP-AES)” CHE division Office of Proposal Development 26

Texas A&M System MRI Winners n Kuruvilla John – TAMU-K n n n Daniel Marble – Tarleton State Univ. n n n “Acquisition of a GCMS for the study of Hydrocarbons in the South Texas Environment” ENG directorate “MRI/RUI: High Sensitivity Profiling of Hydrogen and Nitrogen Using Nuclear Reaction Analysis” DMR Division Kirk Cammarata – TAMU-CC n n “MRI/RUI: Acquisition of a Digital Imaging System to Support Research and Research Training in Applications of Molecular Biology” BIO directorate Patrick Larkin – TAMU – CC n “MRI: Instrumentation for the Chemical and Biological Characterization of Factors Affecting the Distribution and Phytoremediation of Seagrasses in Coastal Bays and Estuaries” Office of Proposal Development 27

For copies of successful MRI proposals, e-mail me at L -deckard@tamu. edu Office of Proposal Development 28

Defense University Research Instrumentation Program n n n n Last cycle due August 26, 2008 For the acquisition of major equipment to augment current or develop new research capabilities in support of Do. D-relevant research $50 K - $1 M; average award $205 K Funded by ONR, ARO, AFOSR No cost sharing required $40 million available for FY 2008; in FY 2007 made 201 awards http: //www. wpafb. af. mil/shared/media/document/AFD 080605 -018. pdf Office of Proposal Development 29

DURIP – Things to Know n n Closely tied to enhancement of funded/pending agency research Talk to program officer first n n n Program officers highly involved in review process Program officers communicate across agencies (can identify primary and secondary reviewing agencies) Need multiple users with Do. D funding Office of Proposal Development 30

DURIP Review Criteria n n n Impact of equipment on current or future Do. D projects Scientific merits and potential contribution to Do. D mission research Potential to enhance education through research of future scientists and engineers in areas important to Do. D Past performance and capability of institution to operate and maintain equipment Past performance and qualifications of PI and other personnel to conduct research of interest to Do. D Realism and reasonableness of cost Office of Proposal Development 31

Grants for Shared Instrumentation (NIH) n n n n NIH National Center for Research Resources Last cycle due March 24, 2008 For Instrumentation $100 K - $500 K Three major users must be PIs on NIH peer-reviewed research grants (P 01, R 01, U 01, R 35, or R 37). Show a clear need for the instrumentation by projects supported by multiple NIH peer review research grants Demonstrate that these projects will require at least 75 percent of the total usage of the instrument http: //grants. nih. gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR 08 -036. html Office of Proposal Development 32

Grant for Shared Instrumentation n Instrument should be integrated into a core facility whenever possible n n n Promote shared use Foster a collaborative multi-disciplinary environment Review criteria: n n n Need Technical Expertise Research Projects Administration (management, maintenance, advisory committee, etc. ) Institutional commitment Benefit to overall research community Office of Proposal Development 33

Including Equipment on Your Research Grant n n Purchase of special-purpose equipment that is necessary for your research may be allowed within limits Check the agencies policies and talk to other faculty who have been funded by that agency n n NSF: Equipment (> $5 K per unit) allowed if necessary for proposed research; not otherwise reasonably available. Check what amounts are customary for your program and directorate. NIH: “Avoid asking for expensive equipment unless you absolutely need it; if you do, justify it well. ” Office of Proposal Development 34

NSF Course Curriculum and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI) n n n Introduce new content into undergraduate STEM education based on recent advances in research on STEM learning and teaching Instrumentation for undergraduate education can be included but must be part of a larger educational project Phase 1 up to $150 K for 1 – 3 yrs; Phase 2 (build on smaller-scale projects) $500 K for 2 – 4 yrs; Phase 3 (large scale efforts) $2 M for 3 – 5 years Due January 12, 2009 (Phase 2 and 3); Phase 1 proposals due in May Solicitation at http: //www. nsf. gov/funding/pgm_summ. jsp? pims_id=5741&org=NSF &sel_org=NSF&from=fund Office of Proposal Development 35

Questions? Office of Proposal Development 36