What is EPSCoR and what does it mean for Missouri?

1. What is EPSCoR andwhat does it mean for Missouri?

2. EPSCoR Personnel Women behind the scenes: Mary Licklider, Sherri Sachdev, Grantwriters. Jeni Hart, Educational Leadership andPolicy Analysis Joe Polacco, PD.Office of Research (academic home, Biochemistry Department) Anna Waldron, co-PD.Director, Science Outreach, Department of Learning, Teaching & Curriculum

3. What is EPSCoR? • The Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) fulfills the NSF to promote scientific progress nationwide. • EPSCoR is directed at jurisdictions (states, mainly) that have received lesser amounts of NSF Research and Development (R&D) funding (0.75% of total pie). • NSF EPSCoR establishes partnerships with government higher education and industry to effect sustained improvements in a jurisdiction’s R&D capacity.

4. And what does EPSCoR mean for Missouri? We are now EPSCoR-Eligible Not MU, not UM, but YOU, MISSOURI

5. http://www.epscorideafoundation.org/

6. Where are we now? • Missouri’s NSF funding made it EPSCoR-eligible in Fall 2011 (0.72% of NSF Total). • A statewide team submitted a required planning grant proposal in January 2012. • If that proposal is awarded, we have 12 months to submit a RII Track-1 proposal. • That was going to be submitted in October 2012. However, since the initial news of our eligibility, our share has dropped to 0.62%. • We are now aiming for a “quality” over “speed” proposal-- projected June/July 2013 submission

7. Research Infrastructure ImprovementProgram • Track-1 (RII Track-1) awards provide up to $4 million per year for up to 5 years • Support physical, human, and cyber infrastructure improvements in research areas selected by the jurisdiction's EPSCoR Governing Committee

8. Planning Grant: Planning for Planning WHAT WE DID Organize a GOVERNING COMMITTEE that represents business, workforce, research and academic sectors Compare Missouri’s success at NSF with its strengths in R & D Identify key limiting factors for enhancement of Missouri’s R & D success

9. Planning Grant: Planning for PlanningWHAT WE DID, and WHAT WE ARE DOING Organize a GOVERNING COMMITTEE that represents business, workforce, research and academic sectors Compare Missouri’s success at NSF with its strengths in R & D Identify key limiting factors for enhancement of Missouri’s R & D success Solicit input from the state: info on how to “de-limit” those factors (open the bottleneck) -- sustainable infrastructure improvement

10. a. Governing Committee

11. Planning Grant:Planning for Planning • Compare Missouri’s success at NSF with its strengths in R & D • Top-funded Institutions • Top-funded Disciplines • Overlap with Missouri’s Target Clusters (for economic development) • Does a Consensus for Infrastructure Improvement Clearly Emerge from Disciplines and Target Clusters?

12. We’re Strong in Biosciences at NSF

13. We’re Coming on at NSF in Information Technology

14. Planning Grant:Planning for Planning • Compare Missouri’s success at NSF with its strengths in R & D • Top-funded Institutions • Top-funded Disciplines • Overlap with Missouri’s Target Clusters (for economic development) • Does a consensus for infrastructure improvement clearly emerge from disciplines and target clusters?

15. Planning Grant:Planning for Planning • Identify key limiting factors for enhancement of Missouri’s R & D success Top-funded Institutions • Top-funded institutions • Top-funded disciplines • Overlap with Missouri’s Target Clusters (for economic development) • Does a Consensus for Infrastructure Improvement Clearly Emerge from Disciplines and Target Clusters? We have identified the cyber-bioscience interface

16. Target Clusters * * * * NSF “Target Disciplines

17. Planning Grant:Planning for Planning We have identified the cyber-bioscience interface: Clearly, BioSciences and Information Technology fit under this rubric. BUT, Energy solutions, Advanced Manufacturing can, as well.

18. FY 09-11 NSF Awards to Missouri By Target Cluster

19. NSF award dollars per MO institution Thanks to Sherri Sachdev

20. Planning Grant:Planning for Planning Organize a GOVERNING COMMITTEE that represents business, workforce, research and academic sectors Compare Missouri’s success at NSF with its strengths in R & D Identify key limiting factors for enhancement of Missouri’s R & D success Solicit input from the state, info on how to “de-limit” those factors (open the bottleneck) leading to sustainable infrastructure improvement

21. Planning Grant:WHAT WE ARE DOING d. Solicit input from the state, info on how to “de-limit” those factors (open the bottleneck) leading to sustainable infrastructure improvement How can you get involved? • Submit a concept paper • Due June 15 • Think BIG! • Think statewide, regional! • Think national model!

22. Concept Paper <http://www.epscormissouri.org> Maximum 6 pages (including the cover page and narrative) 2-page NSF-formatted biographical sketch for each author listed (not counted in page limit) Maximum of THREE authors of a concept paper. Maximum of THREE papers per author Maximum of ONE senior-authored paper per individual Pays to Interdigitate

23. Concept Paper To RII-Track 1 Proposal We have named (are naming) an External Advisory Committee Share papers among External Advisory and Governing Committees and EPSCoR Consultant Finalize objectives, based on recommendations

25. Types of Infrastructure Physical Cyber Personnel And, of course, combinations of the above

26. Types of Infrastructure Leveraged state resources . . . For example, drought studies and crop performance in different state regions -- analysis under FIELD conditions: Rain shelters (physical) Real-time data sharing (cyber-infrastructure) Genomics/transcriptomics (core Facilities, HPC) Start-up Packages (personnel) Broader impacts/STEM

27. Expand and LINK regional initiatives and resources statewide • Grapevinegenomics initiated in Mountain Grove, Missouri State University. • Links with other genomics, phenotyping, improvement efforts-- Plants AND Animal (Bees, Bulls and Bulbs) • Cyber links: MU Informatics Institute (MUII); KC area HPC; MOREnet; Efforts North and South of I-70 • Improved software platforms: Phenotyping, Metabolic-to-ecological scaling, • Protein and RNA modeling (drug-binding, protein engineering • The Human Circuits Project (Why not a plant?) Types of Infrastructure

28. IS MORE BETTER? “Biological research is in crisis, and in Alan Turing’s work there is much to guide us. Technology gives us the tools to analyze organisms at all scales, but we are drowning in a sea of data and thirsting for some theoretical framework with which to understand it. Although many believe that ‘more is better’, history tells us that ‘least is best’. We need theory and a firm grasp on the nature of the objects we study to predict the rest.” ------ Sydney Brenner (2012) Nature 482: 461 (An issue celebrating Alan Turing’s 100th birthday)

29. TYPES OF VISUALIZATION Electron Microscopy – remote management of microscope Videography Chi-Ren Shyu – search tool that will search for patterns in pathology slides 3D architectural lab – immersion visualization (NEW ACRONYM: “CAVE” = COMPUTER-ASSISTED VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENT) Geospatial – environmental/sociological/climate Informatics

30. Types of Collaboration • Seven of 8 state neighbors are EPSCoR juridictions: leveraging leveraged dollars • Natural products → pharmaceuticals- tap plant diversity (IA, AK, KS) -- employ high school students • Plant genomics initiatives with IA, KS (maize, wheat, soybean) • Watershed management, climatological studies with Arkansas, Oklahoma and other states (Panama Canal Zone-- $3 M from NSF Bio)

31. Types of Collaboration Missouri STRENGTHS -- animal and plant agriculture: • Dog models of human cancers (genomics, GWAS in humans vs genetic mapping of “pre-conditoned” dog genes) • Animal-plant-human nexus in nutrition • Adaptation to a warmer, drier/wetter Missouri -- animals AND plants

32. Types of Collaboration Strong MO tradition mining (UMRolla) and in mineral nutrition • Mineral::Bio Interface • Bio-mining (rare earths?) • Mineral markers in animal and plant phenotypes • Nanotechnology, new catalysts/reactive surfaces? • MURR involvement

33. Types of Collaboration • I think an audience of engaged and driven scientists will have no problem making connections • BUT do not neglect the “Broader Impacts” • EMBRACE them, make them part of the science -- engage multiple demographic segments of the state

34. BUT DON’T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT

35. Admonition from Jim Gosz (Idaho EPSCoR) Senior Program Director, NSF EPSCoR Program (2005-2007) Merit Review Criteria • Intellectual Merit is the easy part! • Broader Impacts continue to be difficult for research proposals, however, if the diversity, education and outreach plans are developed well, EPSCoR proposals fare well • Pay close attention to the additional review criteria in the RII announcement. Panels are instructed to review those criteria and expertise is built into the panel to do that rigorously • TUNE IN ON ANNA WALDRON’S 2 PM PRESENTATION, TODATY

36. Thank you for your time. I will be happy to TRY to answer your questions