Federally Funded Instrumentation Grants and How to Compete for Them

1. Federally FundedInstrumentation Grantsand 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

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) Office of Proposal Development

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 Office of Proposal Development

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-materials and click on today’s date Office of Proposal Development

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 Office of Proposal Development

6. 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 (NIH) Office of Proposal Development

7. For an up-to-date list with links • See http://opd.tamu.edu/funding-opportunities/funding-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” Office of Proposal Development

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 Office of Proposal Development

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” Office of Proposal Development

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? Office of Proposal Development

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? Office of Proposal Development

12. 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 institutions Gold text: New last year – assume will be same this year Office of Proposal Development

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 institution’s internal selection process • Separate category for non-PhD granting institutions • 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

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. Office of Proposal Development

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” Office of Proposal Development

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” Office of Proposal Development

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 Office of Proposal Development

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 Office of Proposal Development

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? Office of Proposal Development

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 Office of Proposal Development

21. 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

22. 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 outreach Office of Proposal Development

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_summ.jsp?pims_id=5260&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

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 Office of Proposal Development

25. Texas A&M 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 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

26. 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 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 Office of Proposal Development

27. 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 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” Office of Proposal Development

28. Texas A&M System MRI Winners • Qingwen Ni - Texas A&M International • Low-field NMR Laboratory • MPS Directorate • Delbert Smee – Texas A&M Corpus Christi • Equipment to Quantify Environmental Conditions in Estuarine Systems • GEO • Laurence Angel – Texas A&M Commerce • IM-Q-TOF Mass Spectrometer • ENG • David Ramirez - Texas A&M – Kingsville • Field Emission SEM for Nanoscience Research and Education • ENG • More…see our seminar webpage for more complete list Office of Proposal Development

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 Office of Proposal Development

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 Office of Proposal Development

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 Office of Proposal Development

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 Office of Proposal Development

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 Office of Proposal Development

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 (> $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

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_summ.jsp?pims_id=5741&org=NSF&sel_org=NSF&from=fund Office of Proposal Development

36. Questions? Office of Proposal Development