What's New On the OPD Website

Funding News

Weizmann Institute of Science and The Texas A&M University System Sign Memorandum of Understanding for Collaborative Research

New Search Engine Lifts Veil on NIH Grants

Information from March 2009 NSF Regional Grants Conference

New NSF Grant Proposal Guide to be Effective April 6, 2009

New Procedures for Enhanced Peer Review at NIH

Weizmann Institute of Science and The Texas A&M University System Sign Memorandum of Understanding for Collaborative Research

Dear Colleagues:

The Weizmann Institute of Science (WIS) and The Texas A&M University System (TAMUS) have signed a Memorandum of Understanding, the overall goal of which is to foster "collaboration for the purpose of advancing outstanding science and the creation of a 'The Texas A&M University System - Weizmann community' that reflects a curiosity-driven, world-class standard of excellence."  As many of you know, the Weizmann Institute of Science is located in Rehovot, Israel, and is one of the top-ranking multidisciplinary research institutions in the world. Noted for its wide-ranging exploration of the sciences and technology, the Institute includes over 2,600 scientists, technicians and research students devoted to broad-based scientific discovery and scholarship (http://www.weizmann.ac.il). Just last week, WIS Prof. Ada Yonath, along with two of her colleagues, received the 2009 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.

To achieve our overall goals for collaborative scientific exploration, WIS and TAMUS have adopted a novel approach that is specifically tailored for this initiative and that is expected to raise resources to fund collaborative research involving faculty and students at both institutions. A few key points from the MOU include:

• Each institution will issue an open call for proposals for collaborative work between its scientists and scientists at the other institution. One of the scientists will act as a Principal Investigator (PI) and a collaborating scientist from the other institution will be the Cooperating Investigator (CI). The proposals will be submitted simultaneously to the appropriate authorities in both institutions.
• Priority will be given to those scientists who truly want to collaborate, and where there is a high probability of achieving an exchange of Ph.D. and post-doctoral students.
• The scientific areas receiving support will change over time, allowing for the best scientists and the best proposals to obtain funding.
• Proposals should describe the aim of the research, why the collaboration is important, which facilities will be used in the respective institutions, who will be involved (doctoral students, post-docs, technicians), and a budget and its distribution between the two institutions.  Proposals should envisage at least three years of collaborative research. Budgets should be between US $50,000 and US $100,000 per year. The funds can be spent on salaries, stipends, equipment, travel, and periods of residence at the host institution.

The next step in developing our relationship with the Weizmann Institute and furthering this initiative is to highlight the exceptional research being done across The Texas A&M University System.

Accordingly, we are requesting that faculty send brief statements of potential research projects for use in fundraising efforts to support this project. Potential research projects should be described on one page or less, and should include the following information:

• Name of investigators at the WIS and TAMUS and their departmental affiliations (go to "Academics" link at http://www.weizmann.ac.il/ for a listing of faculty and their specific research areas)
• Title of potential project
• Brief description of the potential project - should be aimed at the highly educated, but not-in-the-field audience
• Potential involvement of students/post-docs
• Potential impact or significance of the proposed project

TAMUS and WIS will use these pre-proposals to share with foundations and other sponsors who have already expressed high interest in this collaboration.  When the first $1M has been raised, a formal RFP will be issued according to the terms of the MOU.

Please forward your research summaries to WIS@tamus.edu on or before the due date of November 13, 2009 (although earlier is better). Also, please send copies to your Department Head and your Dean.

Many of you were instrumental in formulating both the content and the spirit of this nascent collaboration.  Your efforts are appreciated on both sides of the world.  We do believe that this is a unique opportunity to foster collaborative scholarship between faculty and students at two great institutions, the results of which have nearly limitless potential.

Sincerely,

Brett P. Giroir, MD
Vice Chancellor for Research, The Texas A&M University System
Texas A&M University Research Professor, Dwight Look College of Engineering; Adjunct Professor, The Bush School of Government and Public Service

Dr. Jeffrey R. Seemann
Vice President for Research
Texas A&M University

New Search Engine Lifts Veil on NIH Grants

The following was posted by Jocelyn Kaiser on the Science Magazine Blog.  This could be very useful to PIs who want to find out what or who has been funded in a particular topic area:

"June 23, 2009: The clunky grants database long used by the National Institutes of Health is on its way out. Last week, the agency unveiled a beta version of RePORTER ( http://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfm ), a snazzy new database that will replace its well-known CRISP ( http://report.nih.gov/crisp/CRISPQuery.aspx ) in September. CRISP was balky and didn't contain dollar amounts, which could be found only by digging into another part of NIH's Web site. But RePORTER seems to be loaded with useful information, from dollar amounts to the study section that reviewed the grant and links to patents and papers. RePORTER is winning plaudits( http://scienceblogs.com/drugmonkey/2009/06/crisp_is_dead_to_me_long_live.php#comments ) but also raising concerns that it will make it easier for NIH critics to find studies to bash.
—Jocelyn Kaiser

Information from March 2009 NSF Regional Grants Conference

NSF has posted conference materials, including presentations by NSF Program Officers, for their March 2009 Regional Grants Conference - NSF Regional Conferences and Workshops (scroll down to "Presentations from Recent Events" for links to presentations made at most recent NSF Grants Conference).  Several members of OPD attended the conference, and highlights are discussed below.

ARRA

New Solicitations - NSF will be issuing three new solicitations based on ARRA funds as follows:

• A special Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) solicitation – the solicitation is currently in “clearance” at NSF and they expect it to be issued some time in April with a likely July due date. It will be very similar to the MRI solicitation for the last regular competition that had a January 2009 due date (http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?org=NSF&ods_key=nsf09502 ), although there may be some minor changes in cost sharing requirements, the amounts that can be requested and perhaps some other minor requirements.  It will still have limits on the number of proposals per institution.
• A resurrection of the Academic Research Infrastructure (ARI) program – this solicitation is also expected out some time in April, with a due date around July. The NSF program officer said that it will be a revision of the existing program that was last competed in 1996, so anyone who wants an idea of what it will be like should look at the old solicitation . The key thing to remember is that the intent of the program is to modernize existing research facilities, not to build new research facilities.   It typically will not support renovation of buildings.  An example of what this program might support would be to modernize an old lab that currently has outdated equipment.  This will also have limits on the number of proposals per institution.
• The new Science Masters program.  There was less information available on this program, although it was briefly mentioned that it will support terminal masters programs. And that a new solicitation should come out within the next couple of months.

Eligible Proposals and Funding Rates -  The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) made an additioonal $3B available to NSF. Of this, $2B will be made available to proposals that are already in house and will be reviewed and/or awarded prior to Sept. 30, 2009 and for proposals that have been reviewed but not funded since Oct. 1, 2008. In answer to a question about how ARRA funds might affect funding rates for proposals that have not yet been submitted (e.g., the CAREERs due in July), the program officer replied that although the ARRA funds will be committed relatively quickly on proposals that are already in-house and on the three new solicitations mentioned above, it is anticipated that funding rates for many programs will rise next year since other funds that might have been committed this year may be freed up and since there may be fewer resubmits.  This is a guess, though, since they don’t yet know what their budgets will be.

Contacting Program Officers about ARRA  - NSF’s mantra is “Ask Early, Ask Often!” They repeatedly stress the important of speaking with your Program Officer to determine if your research is a good fit with NSF program priorities and what other funding opportunities may be appropriate. However, it was emphasized many times that NSF would prefer that PIs not contact Program Officers to ask questions about ARRA (such as whether the PI’s pending or recently-declined proposals might still be funded, or about how the ARRA funds will affect particular programs).  POs are overwhelmed and are not replying to such requests.  They are in the process of going back through well-reviewed, unfunded proposals to decide which to fund, and they are not soliciting PI input at this point (the message: Don’t call us, we’ll call you). In fact, they said if a PI needs to contact a PO about a subject unrelated to ARRA, they should put in the subject line, “This is not about ARRA” in order to get the PO to read the e-mail.

For more information on ARRA and NSF, click here.

America COMPETES Act

The America COMPETES Act (ACA) of 2007 is a mandate to increase federal science and engineering R&D over a period of 7 years. Under ACA, congress set the goal to approximately double NSF’s budget over 7 years. NSF is implementing four sections of the Act that affect proposal writing and the research environment.

• SEC 7008 – Mentoring of Postdoctoral Research Fellows. NSF requires a one page mentoring plan for all proposals that support postdoctoral researchers. This one page plan requirement, now in effect, should be attached as a supplementary document. (For more information on this requirement and resources for addressing it, click here.)
• SEC 7009 – Responsible Conduct of Research. All NSF-sponsored research or education projects will be required to have a plan for the training and oversight in the responsible and ethical conduct of research for undergraduates, graduate students, and postdoctoral researchers participating in the sponsored activity. Beginning Oct. 1, 2009, the Authorized Organiza­tion­al Representative must certify that the institution has a plan in place. A training plan is not required to be included in the proposal. NSF will support development of online resources for RCR training.
• SEC 7010 – Reporting of Research Results. Section 7010 requires that
• Citations of published research documents resulting from NSF-sponsored research be made available to the public in an electronic form through NSF’s website, and
• Final Project Reports will include a new summary specifically for public release.

NSF expects to implement these changes in Fall 2009.

• SEC 7013 – Cost Sharing. ACA required that the National Science Board evaluate NSF’s policy to eliminate cost sharing. A preliminary report recommended cost sharing for
• Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR),
•  Engineering Research Centers (ERC), and
• Industry-University Cooperative Research Centers (I/UCRC).

A secondary report made nine recommendations, still under Inspector General review, with two primary objectives:

• To allow, but narrowly circumscribe, mandatory cost sharing requirements in NSF programs, and
• To prohibit voluntary committed cost sharing and eliminate post-award tracking and reporting requirements.

Other news

• The Chemistry Division in the MPS Directorate is fine-tuning its topic areas for the core programs.  The new topic areas will be posted on their website this summer.
• In the Division of Materials Research, they plan to mainstream nano research (meaning it will be absorbed into their core programs), so no new general nanoscale center competitions are expected, although there may be some targeted nano-related solicitations.
• In the CISE talk, the program officer pointed out that the Computer Research Infrastructure program will fund equipment purchases for CISE-related research, and the competition is typically low for these grants.  He also pointed out the FODAVA program (Foundations of Data and Visual Analytics), which just started last year and focuses on developing methods for taking high dimensional data and reducing it so that it can be visualized on a computer screen.  This is a partnership with DHS, and the idea is to apply this research to intelligence analysis. 
• In addition to CAREER awards targeted to new investigators and meant to provide a foundation to foster and integrate research and education, some directorates have special programs for young investigators. For example, BIO offers Research Initiation Grants which  are intended to increase the diversity of researchers.
• At the BIO talk, the program officer indicated that success rates for Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grants, supported by the Div. of Environmental Biology and Integrative Organismal Systems, is high: 40% and 30%, respectively.

 "As part of this mission, applications submitted to the NIH for grants or cooperative agreements to support biomedical and behavioral research are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer review system.  In June 2007, the NIH initiated a formal, agency-wide effort to review the NIH peer review system (http://enhancing-peer-review.nih.gov/).  After careful deliberation and consideration of the recommendations resulting from this year-long effort, an initial implementation timeline for enhancing peer review was announced earlier this year (NOT-OD-08-118; http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-08-118.html). The updated implementation timeline for key actions that will be implemented in the NIH peer review system [is given in the link above]." 

Enhancing Peer Review: The NIH Announces New Scoring Procedures for Evaluation of Research Applications Received for Potential FY2010 Funding

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-09-024.html

"The new scoring system will utilize a 9-point rating scale (1 = exceptional; 9 = poor).  Although a 7-point scale was planned initially, a 9-point scale was selected based on the desire for a scale with sufficient range.  The NIH also has prior experience with the distribution of scores from a 9-point scale, based on data on the 1-5 scale when only 0.5 increments were allowed.  Moreover, prior recommendations from measurement and decision science experts regarding the scoring system suggested that an 8 to 11 point scale is appropriate. 

Not Recommended for Further Consideration. An application may be designated Not Recommended for Further Consideration (NRFC) by the Scientific Review Group if it lacks significant and substantial merit; presents serious ethical problems in the protection of human subjects from research risks; or presents serious ethical problems in the use of vertebrate animals, biohazards, and/or select agents.   Applications designated as NRFC do not proceed to the second level of peer review (National Advisory Council/Board) because they cannot be funded.

Percentile Rankings.  Percentile rankings will be calculated anew, starting with scores from the May 2009 cycle of review, and reported to the nearest whole number.

Scores for Individual Criteria.  Before the review meeting, each reviewer and discussant assigned to an application will give a separate score for each of five core review criteria (Significance, Investigator(s), Innovation, Approach, and Environment).  For all applications, even those not discussed by the full committee, the scores of the assigned reviewers and discussant(s) for these criteria will be reported individually on the summary statement.

Priority Scores – Discussed Applications. Before the review meeting, each reviewer and discussant assigned to an application will give a preliminary impact score for that application.  The preliminary impact scores will be used to determine which applications will be discussed.  For each application that is discussed, a final impact score will be given by each eligible committee member (without conflicts of interest).  Each member’s impact score will reflect his/her evaluation of the overall impact that the project is likely to have on the research field(s) involved, rather than a weighted average applied to the reviewer’s scores given to each criterion (see above).
 
The overall impact score for each discussed application will be determined by calculating the mean score from all the eligible members’ impact scores, and multiplying the average by 10; the overall impact score will be reported on the summary statement.  Thus, the 81 possible overall impact scores will range from 10 - 90. (Overall impact scores will not be reported for applications that are not discussed.)

Funding Decisions.  The new scoring system may produce more applications with identical scores (“tie” scores).  Thus, other important factors, such as mission relevance and portfolio balance, will be considered in making funding decisions when grant applications are considered essentially equivalent on overall impact, based on reviewer ratings."

 [See link above for full document.]

"After careful deliberation and consideration of the recommendations resulting from this year-long effort, a number of key actions will be implemented in the NIH peer review system.  These actions include the implementation of enhanced review criteria for evaluating the scientific and technical merit of applications submitted to the NIH for grants or cooperative agreements to support biomedical or behavioral research.