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

1
Federally FundedInstrumentation Grants and How
to Compete for Them(TTVN Seminar)

• Sept. 22, 2008
• Lucy Deckard
• Office of Proposal Development
• l-deckard_at_tamu.edu
• 458-4290

2
Overview

• 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 (DoD)
• Grants for Shared Instrumentation (NIH)

3
VPR/OPD Research Development Support

• 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

4
Check out our Websitehttp//opd.tamu.edu/

• 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 http//opd.tamu.edu/seminar-mater
  ials and click on todays date

5
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
  HBCU/MIs
• Major Research Instrumentation Award

6
Instrumentation Programs (contd)

• 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 (NIH)

7
For an up-to-date list with links

• See http//opd.tamu.edu/funding-opportunities/fund
  ing-opportunities-by-category/instrumentation-and-
  equipment
• Or go to our website at http//opd.tamu.edu
• Click on Funding Opportunities
• Click on Funding Opportunities by Category
• Click on Instrumentation and Equipment

8
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

9
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

10
Things to Find Out

• 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?
• Educational component?
• Outreach component?

11
Before you start

• Is there a limit on number of submissions?
• If so, need to go through internal selection
  process
• Is there a cost share requirement?
• If so, start lining up cost share early
• Do they require an official cost quote from
  vendor?

12
NSF Major Research Instrumentation

• This years 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 institutions
• Gold text New last year assume will be same
  this year

13
Major Research Instrumentation (MRI)

• Submissions limited to 3 proposals per
  institution
• No more than 2 acquisition proposals per
  institution
• Check with your administration regarding your
  institutions internal selection process
• Separate category for non-PhD granting
  institutions
• 20 or fewer PhDs or DScis awarded in
  NSF-supported fields of science, engineering and
  math in the last 2 years

14
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 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.

15
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 budget
• 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

16
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

17
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

18
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
  maintenance

19
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?

20
Features of Competitive MRI Proposals

• Many users from multiple disciplines
• Impact on NSF-funded research
• Clear description of research that would not
  otherwise be possible enabled by instrument
• Clear description of educational experiences that
  would not otherwise be possible and their
  benefits
• Preliminary data from similar instrument

21
Features of Competitive MRI Proposals (contd)

• 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

22
Pitfalls to Avoid

• Beware extra bells and whistles on your
  instrument that arent explicitly justified by
  the listed research projects
• Avoid vague or generic research project
  descriptions that dont strongly tie the success
  of the project to the instrument
• Beware vague references to education and outreach

23
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 (http//www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_sum
  m.jsp?pims_id5260orgNSFsel_orgNSFfromfund
  ) and click on Abstracts of Recent Awards to
  view 2008 awards with amounts and abstracts

24
Advice for Preparing an MRI Proposal

• 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

25
Texas AM System MRI Winners

• Kevin Storr PVAMU
• MRI Acquisition of a Dilution Refrigerator with
  Tunnel Diode System
• DMR program
• Joe Fox TAMU-CC
• Acquisition of Amino Acid Analyzer for
  Enhancement of Research/Teaching at Texas AM
  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

26
Texas AM 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 engineering
• 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

27
Texas AM 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 Biology
• 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

28
Texas AM System MRI Winners

• Qingwen Ni - Texas AM International
• Low-field NMR Laboratory
• MPS Directorate
• Delbert Smee Texas AM Corpus Christi
• Equipment to Quantify Environmental Conditions in
  Estuarine Systems
• GEO
• Laurence Angel Texas AM Commerce
• IM-Q-TOF Mass Spectrometer
• ENG
• David Ramirez - Texas AM Kingsville
• Field Emission SEM for Nanoscience Research and
  Education
• ENG
• Moresee our seminar webpage for more complete
  list

29
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 awards
• http//www.wpafb.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-
  080605-018.pdf

30
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

31
DURIP Review Criteria

• Impact of equipment on current or future DoD
  projects
• 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

32
Grants for Shared Instrumentation (NIH)

• 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
• http//grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-08
  -036.html

33
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

34
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 (gt 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.

35
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 project
• 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 http//www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_sum
  m.jsp?pims_id5741orgNSFsel_orgNSFfromfund

36
Questions?