TTVN_Instrumentation_Seminar_2008 by fanzhongqing


									        Federally Funded
Instrumentation Grants and How
      to Compete for Them
         (TTVN Seminar)

             Sept. 22, 2008
             Lucy Deckard
        Office of Proposal Development
              Office of Proposal Development   1
   OPD – who we are
   Available instrumentation funding programs
   Common features and strategies
   Specifics on a few selected programs
     Major Research Instrumentation (NSF)
     Defense University Research Instrumentation
     Grants for Shared Instrumentation (NIH)

                   Office of Proposal Development   2
    VPR/OPD Research Development
   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
   Funding opportunities
   Upcoming seminars
   Proposal resources
   Resources for junior faculty
   Craft of Grant Writing workbook
   Presentations from past seminars
       To find this presentation with resource extra
        materials, go to
        materials and click on today’s date

                        Office of Proposal Development   4
       Instrumentation Programs
   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
   DoD Instrumentation and Research Support for
   Major Research Instrumentation Award

                      Office of Proposal Development   5
    Instrumentation Programs (cont’d)
   Grants for Shared Instrumentation (NIH)
   Chemistry Research Instrumentation and Facilities:
    Departmental Multi-User Instrumentation (NSF)
   Defense University Research Instrumentation (DoD)
   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

                       Office of Proposal Development         6
    For an up-to-date list with links
   See
   Or go to our website at
       Click on “Funding Opportunities”
       Click on “Funding Opportunities by Category”
       Click on “Instrumentation and Equipment”

                       Office of Proposal Development   7
               Common Features
   Proposed instruments should enhance projects
    already funded by agency
   Looking for maximum impact for $s
       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
   Sponsor wants to make sure instrument
    will be taken care of and used
     Infrastructure must be available
     Researchers have record of active funded
      research, publications, pending proposals
     Often require a “management plan”

                   Office of Proposal Development   9
              Things to Find Out
   Where is the funding coming from within the
   Who reviews the proposals?
   How closely must the instrument be tied to
    agency-funded projects?
   What are the review criteria?
       Educational component?
       Outreach component?

                      Office of Proposal Development   10
               Before you start…
   Is there a limit on number of submissions?
       If so, need to go through internal selection
   Is there a cost share requirement?
       If so, start lining up cost share early
   Do they require an official cost quote from

                       Office of Proposal Development   11
NSF Major Research Instrumentation
   This year’s solicitation not out yet
   Due Jan. 22, 2009 (tentative)
   Awards:
       $100K - $ 4M for Ph.D. granting organizations
       Less than $100K allowed for non-PhD granting organizations
       Less than $100K allowed from mathematical science and social,
        behavioral and economic science
   Types of Awards:
       Instrument Acquisition
       Instrument Development
 30% cost share required except for non PhD-granting
Gold text: New last year – assume will be same this year

                          Office of Proposal Development            12
     Major Research Instrumentation
   Submissions limited to 3 proposals per institution
       No more than 2 acquisition proposals per institution
       Check with your administration regarding your
        institution’s internal selection process
   Separate category for non-PhD granting
       20 or fewer PhDs or DSci’s awarded in NSF-
        supported 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:
   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
   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
   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
   Instrument Acquisition
       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
   Instrument Development
       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
    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
   Intellectual Merit
       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
       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
   Integration of Research and Education
   Integrating Diversity
   Plans for enhancing research capability in
    teaching, training or learning
   Instrument Acquisition Proposals:
    Management Plan
       Sufficient infrastructure and expertise to allow
        effective usage of instrument;
       Organizational commitments for operations and

                        Office of Proposal Development     18
                MRI: Review Criteria
   Instrument Development Proposals
       Management Plan
          Realistic schedule
          Mechanisms to deal with potential risks

          Availability of appropriate technical expertise to
           design and construct the instrument
          Cost of the new technology

       Rationale
            Will proposed instrument enable new types of
             measurement or information gathering?

                         Office of Proposal Development         19
    Features of Competitive MRI
   Many users from multiple disciplines
   Impact on NSF-funded research
   Clear description of research that would
    not otherwise be possible enabled by
   Clear description of educational
    experiences that would not otherwise be
    possible and their benefits
   Preliminary data from similar instrument

                 Office of Proposal Development   20
     Features of Competitive MRI
          Proposals (cont’d)
   Strong connection to education
       Details describing numbers of graduate,
        undergraduate students impacted
   Involvement of under-represented groups
       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
   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

                     Office of Proposal Development   22
          Review Process for MRIs
   Within directorate for requests below $600K - $800K
   NSF-wide for larger requests
       Must appeal both to directorate and across directorates
   Very few awards at highest level ($2 M and above)
   Go to MRI page
    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
   Get letters of collaboration from users outside
    your institution
   Emphasize impact on NSF-funded programs
       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
   Kevin Storr – PVAMU
       “MRI: Acquisition of a Dilution Refrigerator with Tunnel Diode
       DMR program
   Joe Fox – TAMU-CC
       “Acquisition of Amino Acid Analyzer for Enhancement of
        Research/Teaching at Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi”
        BIO directorate
   Eugene Billiot – TAMU-CC
       Winner of 3 MRIs (CHE program)
   David Parker – WTAMU
       “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
   Antoine Carty – PVAMU
       “Acquisition of a 400 MHz Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR)
        Spectrometer “
       Chemistry Division
   Michael Gyamerah – PVAMU
       “MRI: Acquisition of research instrumentation for applied
        research and training in biotechnology and bioprocess
       ENG directorate
   Thomas Naehr – TAMU-CC
       “Acquisition of a Powder X-ray Diffraction System for Earth
        Science Research and Education”
        GEO directorate
   Carol Thompson – Tarleton State University
       “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
    Kuruvilla John – TAMU-K
        “Acquisition of a GCMS for the study of Hydrocarbons in the
         South Texas Environment”
        ENG directorate
    Daniel Marble – Tarleton State Univ.
        “MRI/RUI: High Sensitivity Profiling of Hydrogen and Nitrogen
         Using Nuclear Reaction Analysis”
        DMR Division
    Kirk Cammarata – TAMU-CC
        “MRI/RUI: Acquisition of a Digital Imaging System to Support
         Research and Research Training in Applications of Molecular
        BIO directorate
    Patrick Larkin – TAMU – CC
         “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

         Office of Proposal Development   28
       Defense University Research
        Instrumentation Program
   Last cycle due August 26, 2008
   For the acquisition of major equipment to augment
    current or develop new research capabilities in support
    of DoD-relevant research
   $50K - $1 M; average award $205K
   Funded by ONR, ARO, AFOSR
   No cost sharing required
   $40 million available for FY 2008; in FY 2007 made 201

                       Office of Proposal Development         29
          DURIP – Things to Know
   Closely tied to enhancement of funded/pending
    agency research
   Talk to program officer first
       Program officers highly involved in review process
       Program officers communicate across agencies (can
        identify primary and secondary reviewing agencies)
   Need multiple users with DoD funding

                       Office of Proposal Development        30
          DURIP Review Criteria
   Impact of equipment on current or future DoD
   Scientific merits and potential contribution to
    DoD mission research
   Potential to enhance education through research
    of future scientists and engineers in areas
    important to DoD
   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 DoD
   Realism and reasonableness of cost
                    Office of Proposal Development   31
    Grants for Shared Instrumentation
   NIH National Center for Research Resources
   Last cycle due March 24, 2008
   For Instrumentation $100K - $500K
   Three major users must be PIs on NIH peer-reviewed
    research grants (P01, R01, U01, R35, or R37).
   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

                       Office of Proposal Development          32
Grant for Shared Instrumentation
   Instrument should be integrated into a core
    facility whenever possible
       Promote shared use
       Foster a collaborative multi-disciplinary environment
   Review criteria:
       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
   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
       NSF: Equipment (> $5K 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)
   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
   Phase 1 up to $150K for 1 – 3 yrs; Phase 2 (build on
    smaller-scale projects) $500K for 2 – 4 yrs; Phase 3
    (large scale efforts) $2M for 3 – 5 years
   Due January 12, 2009 (Phase 2 and 3); Phase 1
    proposals due in May
   Solicitation at

                        Office of Proposal Development        35

 Office of Proposal Development   36

To top