OpenWetWare:Steering committee/NSF BDI Grant/Description

From OpenWetWare

< OpenWetWare:Steering committee | NSF BDI Grant
Revision as of 13:09, 21 March 2007 by Austin J. Che (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision (diff) | Newer revision→ (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

The grant has been submitted. Thanks to all of you that helped with grant and letter writing. Here is the submitted version of the Project Description. More to come including references and front matter.

Contents

Project Summary (1 page)

NSF Guidelines

The proposal must contain a summary of the proposed activity suitable for publication, not more than one page in length. It should not be an abstract of the proposal, but rather a self-contained description of the activity that would result if the proposal were funded. The summary should be written in the third person and include a statement of objectives and methods to be employed. It must clearly address in separate statements (within the one-page summary): (1) the intellectual merit of the proposed activity; and (2) the broader impacts resulting from the proposed activity. (See Chapter III for further descriptive information on the NSF merit review criteria.) It should be informative to other persons working in the same or related fields and, insofar as possible, understandable to a scientifically or technically literate lay reader. Proposals that do not separately address both merit review criteria within the one page Project Summary will be returned without review.

What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity?

How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields? How well qualified is the proposer (individual or team) to conduct the project? (If appropriate, the reviewer will comment on the quality of the prior work.) To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative and original concepts? How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity? Is there sufficient access to resources?

What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?

How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training, and learning? How well does the proposed activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)? To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships? Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding? What may be the benefits of the proposed activity to society?

Intro

Intellectual Merit

BD&I Guidelines

What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity?

How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields? How well qualified is the proposer (individual or team) to conduct the project? (If appropriate, the reviewer will comment on the quality of the prior work.) To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative and original concepts? How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity? Is there sufficient access to resources?

Broad Impact

BD&I Guidelines

What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?

How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training, and learning? How well does the proposed activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)? To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships? Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding? What may be the benefits of the proposed activity to society?

Project Description (15 pages)

NSF Guidelines

The Project Description should provide a clear statement of the work to be undertaken and must include: objectives for the period of the proposed work and expected significance; relation to longer-term goals of the PI's project; and relation to the present state of knowledge in the field, to work in progress by the PI under other support and to work in progress elsewhere.

The Project Description should outline the general plan of work, including the broad design of activities to be undertaken, and, where appropriate, provide a clear description of experimental methods and procedures and plans for preservation, documentation, and sharing of data, samples, physical collections, curriculum materials and other related research and education products. It must describe as an integral part of the narrative, the broader impacts resulting from the proposed activities, addressing one or more of the following as appropriate for the project: how the project will integrate research and education by advancing discovery and understanding while at the same time promoting teaching, training, and learning; ways in which the proposed activity will broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.); how the project will enhance the infrastructure for research and/or education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships; how the results of the project will be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding; and potential benefits of the proposed activity to society at large. Examples illustrating activities likely to demonstrate broader impacts are available electronically on the NSF Website

BD&I Guidelines

  1. Proposals should address the project goals, the anticipated product(s) of the work and implications for biological databases and informatics with specific reference to the anticipated impact on the community served by the proposed developments.
  2. Proposals should discuss plans for making the products of research, e.g. software and databases, available to the biological sciences research community.
  3. Proposals should address and, where relevant, demonstrate evidence of scientific community need for the proposed work.
  4. Proposals should present a well-developed plan for the long-term support and maintenance of the databases or informatics tools generated by the project. Provide information on possible economic models of long term support which a project, intent on maturing to a community database or widely used tool, might adopt.
  5. Proposals should describe the management of intellectual property rights related to the proposed project, including plans for sharing data, information, and materials resulting from the project. This plan should be specific about the nature of the results to be shared, and the timing and means of release.
  6. In accordance with the broader impact review criterion, proposals should describe specific plans to address broader impacts of the proposed activity (see "Proposal Review Information" below for the definition of "broader impacts").
Note: Inclusion of a website to provide additional information about the proposed project is not allowed. Reviewers will be advised to review what is presented in the 15 pages and not to consider additional information provided on a website.

Background & Motivations

Research Plan

Statement of Specific Aims

Building an open biological research community

Information Mining, Analysis, Searchability

OWW Distributions for independent communities

Budget

BD&I Guidelines

For major equipment or software materials, a particular model or source and the current or expected price should be specified whenever possible. This section should also include details of other sources of support for the project, such as government, industry, or private foundations. Funds for facility construction or renovation may not be requested.

Facilities, Equipment, & Other Resources (maximum length 2 pages)

BD&I Guidelines

Include a brief description of available facilities, including space and computational equipment available for the project. Where requested equipment or materials duplicate existing items, explain the need for duplication.

Special Information and Supplementary Documentation

BD&I Guidelines

In addition to any applicable documentation described in the GPG, projects requiring collaborative effort by an individual not employed at the submitting institution or subawardee's institutions should submit a signed letter of collaboration from the individual. Besides indicating a willingness to collaborate, the letter should provide a brief outline of the goals of the collaboration and estimate the time and effort the individual expects to devote to the collaboration. Biographical sketches are not required for such individuals, unless requested by NSF. A collaborator whose primary purpose is advisory (e.g., service on a committee that will provide advice to the project) does not need to provide such a letter. No general letters of endorsement are allowed.

NSF Reviewer Guidelines for BD&I

NSF staff will give careful consideration to the following in making funding decisions:

Integration of Research and Education

One of the principal strategies in support of NSF's goals is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects, and activities it supports at academic and research institutions. These institutions provide abundant opportunities where individuals may concurrently assume responsibilities as researchers, educators, and students and where all can engage in joint efforts that infuse education with the excitement of discovery and enrich research through the diversity of learning perspectives.

Integrating Diversity into NSF Programs, Projects, and Activities

Broadening opportunities and enabling the participation of all citizens -- women and men, underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities -- is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports.

Additional Review Criteria

In addition, reviewers of proposals to BD&I will focus on the following issues:

  • responsiveness to the program scope;
  • potential to advance biological research;
  • effectiveness of the project's organizational plan to reflect technical advances and new scientific discoveries;
  • extent to which the operation is focused on the research community's needs;
  • soundness and openness of the information-sharing plan and management of intellectual property rights;
  • quality of the training environment for junior scientists and/or mid-career scientist wishing to retool (if applicable); and
  • commitment to promote participation of members of under-represented groups.

Where appropriate, reviewers will also consider:

  • cohesiveness and soundness of the planned coordination for a multi-investigator project;
  • efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the proposed approach for infrastructure development; and
  • soundness of the plan for maintenance of databases or software after the NSF award period.
Personal tools