Transcript Limitations on Indirect Cost Rate Recovery Under NSF

Introduction and NSF
Overview
September 2006
Main Topics
Origins of NSF
The National Science Foundation
The NSF FY 2007 Budget Request
 NSF Initiatives
Current Proposal, Award and Funding Trends
The New NSF Web Site
Origins of NSF
Origins of NSF
“The Government should accept
new responsibilities for
promoting the flow of scientific
knowledge and the development
of scientific talent in our youth.”
 Science, The Endless Frontier,
1945
1947: Congress Approves,
Truman Vetoes: Agencies
created in the meantime
1950: Compromise Bill Approved
& Signed by Truman
NSF Act of 1950
“To promote the progress of science…”
NSB (24) and 1 Director, appointed by the President
Encourage & develop a national policy for the promotion
of basic research and education in the math, physical,
medical,biological, engineering and other sciences
Initiate & support basic scientific research in the
sciences
Evaluate the science research programs undertaken by
agencies of the Federal government
Provide information for S&E policy formation
NSF Vision
Enabling the nation’s future
through discovery, learning
and innovation.
NSF-3
NSF in a Nutshell
Independent Agency
Supports basic
research & education
Uses grant mechanism
Low overhead; highly
automated
Discipline-based
structure
Cross-disciplinary
mechanisms
Use of Rotators/IPAs
National Science Board
National Science Foundation
National Science
Board
Director
Deputy Director
Inspector
General
Biological
Sciences
Staff Offices
Computer &
Information
Science
& Engineering
Social, Behavioral
& Economic
Sciences
Engineering
Education
& Human
Resources
Geosciences
Budget,
Finance
& Award
Management
Mathematical
& Physical
Sciences
Information
Resource
Management
National R&D funding, by source
SOURCE: Science and Engineering Indicators - 2004
NSF Budget Cycle
NSF
OMB
President Submits Budget to Congress
House
Senate
Budget Committee
Budget Committee
Authorization Committees
Authorization Committees
Appropriations Subcommittee
Appropriations Subcommittee
Appropriations Committee
Appropriations Committee
Full House Version
Full Senate Version
Develop Conference Report
Each Chamber Passes Conference Report
President Signs
OLPA-8
NSF’s Congressional
Players
Committee on Science
Subcommittee on
Research
Subcommittee on
Budget
Budget Committee
Senate
Budget Committee
Health, Education,
Labor
and Pensions
Appropriations
Appropriations
Budget
House
Commerce, Science
and
Transportation
Committee
Subcommittee on
OLPA-9
Federal R&D budget authority, by budget function
SOURCE: Science and Engineering Indicators - 2004
Trends in Research by Agency
billions of constant FY 2006 dollars
FY 1976-2007
Source: AAAS analyses of R&D in annual AAAS R&D reports. FY 2007 figures are President’s request.
Research includes basic and applied research. 1976-1994 figures are NSF data on obligations in the Federal
Funds survey. March ’06 © 2006 AAAS.
OLPA-25
NSF Role in Research and Development
Fiscal Year 2002
Total U.S. National R&D - $292B
Total Federal R&D Obligations
$86B
Other
6%
NSF
4%
Industry
66%
Federal
28%
Total Federal Basic Research $24B
N
I
Total Federal Academ ic Basic Research H $13B
NSF
13%
Other
80%
Latest complete data currently available
NSF
20%
NSF Support as a Percentage
of Total Federal Support of
Academic Basic Research
Computer Science
86
Mathematics
77
Biology
63
(excluding NIH)
Environmental sciences
50
Social Sciences
49
Engineering
45
Physical sciences
39
0
20
40
60
Percentage
80
100
OLPA-29
NSF Support for Basic Research at Academic Institutions
Share of Total Federal Support - FY 2003 Preliminary
All Life Sciences
Social Sciences &
Psychology
Physical Sciences
Engineering
4.7%
27.7%
35.5%
44.5%
Environmental Sciences
50.3%
Mathematics & Computer
Sciences
Other Sciences
76.0%
39.1%
President’s
American Competitiveness
Initiative
Double the
NSF budget
over 10 years
Cover image credit: Eric J. Heller, Harvard University
$ in Millions
Proposed NSF Outyear Estimates - FY 2006 and FY 2007
$12,000
$10,000
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$0
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2007
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY06 Outyears
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY07 Outyears
FY 2013
FY 2014
FY 2015
FY 2016
$6.02 billion
(Increase from FY 2006: $439 million, 7.9%)
NSF FY 2007 Budget
NSF Funding by Account
(Dollars in Millions)
FY 2005
Actual
Research and Related Activities
FY 2006
Current
Plan
Change over
FY 2006
FY 2007
Request
Amount
Percent
$4,234.82 $4,331.48 $4,665.95
$334.47
7.7%
Education and Human Resources
843.54
796.69
816.22
19.53
2.5%
Major Research Equipment and
165.14
190.88
240.45
49.57
26.0%
Salaries and Expenses
223.45
246.81
281.82
35.01
14.2%
National Science Board
3.65
3.95
3.91
-0.04
-1.0%
10.17
11.36
11.86
0.50
4.4%
$5,480.78 $5,581.17 $6,020.21
$439.04
7.9%
Facilities Construction
Office of Inspector General
Total, NSF
NSF FY 2007 Budget
Research and Related Activities by Directorate
(Dollars in Millions)
Biological Sciences
Computer and Information Science and Engineering
Engineering
Geosciences
Mathematical and Physical Sciences
Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences
Office of Cyberinfrastructure
Office of International Science and Engineering1
U.S. Polar Research Programs
U.S. Antarctic Logistical Support Activities
Integrative Activities
Arctic Research Commission
Total, Research and Related Activities
FY 2005
Actual
$576.78
490.20
557.09
697.17
1,069.36
196.80
123.40
43.38
278.27
70.26
130.92
1.19
FY 2006
Current
Plan
$576.69
496.41
580.92
702.83
1,085.45
199.91
127.12
34.52
322.68
66.66
137.12
1.17
FY 2007
Request
$607.85
526.69
628.55
744.85
1,150.30
213.76
182.42
40.61
370.58
67.52
131.37
1.45
Change over
FY 2006
Amount Percent
$31.16 5.4%
30.28 6.1%
47.63 8.2%
42.02 6.0%
64.85 6.0%
13.85 6.9%
55.30 43.5%
6.09 17.6%
47.90 14.8%
0.86 1.3%
-5.75 -4.2%
0.28 23.9%
$4,234.82 $4,331.48 $4,665.95 $334.47
7.7%
Totals may not add due to rounding.
1
OISE FY 2005 Actual includes $9.42 million provided to NSF by the U.S. Department of State for an award to the U.S. Civilian
Research and Development Foundation.
NSF FY 2007 Budget
Education and Human Resources Funding by Division
(Dollars in Millions)
FY 2006
Change over
FY 2005 Current FY 2007
FY 2006
Actual
Plan Request Amount Percent
Experimental Program to Stimulate
Competitive Research (EPSCoR)
Research on Learning in Formal
and Informal Settings (DRL)
Undergraduate Education (DUE) 1
Graduate Education (DGE)
Human Resource Development
(HRD) 1
Total, EHR 2
$93.35
$98.72 $100.00
$1.28
1.3%
238.76
237.52
154.75
215.16
211.71
153.02
215.00
196.80
160.57
-0.16
-14.91
7.55
-0.1%
-7.0%
4.9%
119.16
118.08
143.85
25.77
21.8%
$843.54 $796.69 $816.22
$19.53
2.5%
Totals may not add due to rounding.
FY 2005 Actual and FY 2006 Current Plan reflect proposed FY 2007 structure of programs. See text for
additional detail.
2
Excludes $25.95 million in obligations in FY 2005, and an estimated $100.0 million in FY 2006 and FY 2007 from
H-1B Nonimmigrant Petitioner Fees.
1
NSF FY 2007 Budget
Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) Account
(Dollars in Millions)
Ongoing Projects
ALMA
EarthScope
IceCube
NEON
SODV
SPSM
DOJ Judgment
New Starts
ARRV
OOI
AdvLIGO
Totals
FY 2005
Actual
FY 2006
Current
Plan
49.30
44.80
48.10
45.14
46.40
46.25
6.08
16.86
$165.14
53.09
$190.88
FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012
Request Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate
47.89
27.40
28.65
12.00
42.88
9.13
3.00
47.07
37.37
20.98
22.38
12.00
11.33
20.00
0.95
30.00
26.00
56.00
13.50
-
42.00
48.00
28.48
77.00
42.81
78.00
46.31
53.00
36.25
40.00
22.90
$240.45
$199.93
$188.51
$176.24
$115.25
$62.90
NSF FY 2007 Budget
National Science and Technology Council Crosscuts
(Dollars in Millions)
FY 2006
Change over
FY 2005 Current FY 2007
FY 2006
Actual
Plan Request Amount Percent
National Nanotechnology Initiative
$334.99 $343.77 $373.18 $29.41
8.6%
Climate Change Science Program
197.88 196.88 205.25
8.37
4.3%
Networking and Information Technology R&D
810.67 810.33 903.74
93.41
11.5%
Homeland Security
341.40 341.82 384.21
42.39
12.4%
Sensors for the
Detection of Explosives
$20
million
Credit: Mete Sozen and Julio Ramirez, Purdue University School of Civil Engineering
International Polar
Year 2007-2008
$62
million
Michael Van Woert, NOAA
Science Metrics
$6.8
million
Cyberinfrastructure
$597 million
Petascale Computing
$50 million
Credit: Bob Wilhelmson, NCSA and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Lou Wicker, National Severe Storms Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Matt Gilmore, Lee Cronce,
Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois. Visualization by Donna Cox, Robert Patterson, Stuart Levy, Matt Hall, Alex Betts, NCSA.
Bolstering K-12
Education
Discovery Research K-12 $104 M
Grand Challenges
Developing effective
science and mathematics
assessments for K-12
Improving science
teaching and learning in
the elementary grades
Introducing cutting-edge
discoveries into K-12
classrooms
Credit: Barry Myers
Current Proposal, Award
and Funding Trends
NSF Recent Trends:
FY 2002 to FY 2005
Obligations Incurred
(Millions of Dollars)
Organizational
Excellence
FTE
# of Competitive
Proposals
# of Competitive
Awards
Aver. Annual
Res. Grant Size
Aver. Research
Grant Duration
(years)
Change
from
FY02 to
FY05
FY02
FY03
FY04
$4,954
$5,579
$5,871
$5,654
14%
$184
$196
$268
$292
59%
1,239
1,242
1,274
1,279
3%
35,164
40,075
43,851
41,722
19%
10,406
10,844
10,380
9,757
-7%
$143,669
24%
2.9
-
$115,666 $135,609 $139,637
2.9
2.9
2.9
FY05
Old Site
New Site
Key Documents
FY 2007 NSF Budget Request
 http://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2007
Grant Proposal Guide (NSF 04-23)
 http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=GPG
Science and Engineering Indicators
 http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind04/start.htm
When in doubt –
 http://www.nsf.gov/
Outline
Proposal review process
 Submission
 Administrative Review
 Scientific Review
 Decisions
Research proposal preparation
 Getting started
 The proposal
 Proposal writing tips
NSF Proposal & Award Process & Timeline
Returned As Inappropriate/Withdrawn
NSF
Proposal
Generating
Document
NSF
Organization
submits
via
FastLane
OR
Grants.gov
Research &
Education
Communities
Proposal
Processing
Unit
Minimum
of 3
Reviews
Required
Mail
Panel
NSF
Program
Director
Both
Award
Program
Director
Analysis
&
Recom.
Proposal Preparation and
Submission
Division
Director
Concur
Organization
Decline
Proposal Receipt
at NSF
90 Days
Via
DGA
DD Concur
6 Months
Proposal Review and Decisions
Award
30Days
DGA Review & Processing
of Award
Life of a Proposal
1. Preparation
2. Submission
3. Administrative Review



Printed, checked for
print problems,
transferred to
Division/Office
Assigned to program,
cluster, section, etc.
Checked for compliance
 Both review criteria
 Format
 Appropriateness
4. Scientific Review


ad hoc reviews
Panel review
5. Decisions




Award or decline
recommendation by
Program Director
Concurrence by Division
Director
Non-award notifications
by Division/Office
Award notifications by
Division of Grants and
Agreements
Proposal Submission
How?
 Via FastLane (https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov) or Grants.gov
(http://www.grants.gov)
Who?
To whom?
 Selecting a program
What?
 Basics of Proposal Types
When?
 Target date, deadline and window
Proposal Submission - Who?
Universities and colleges
Non-profit, non-academic organizations
For-profit organizations
State and local governments
Small Businesses – SBIR Program
Unaffiliated individuals
Foreign organizations
Proposal Submission – To whom?
Categories of Funding Opportunities
Dear Colleague Letter

provides general information to community, clarifies or
amends existing policy or document, or informs
community about upcoming opportunities or special
competitions for supplements to existing awards
Program Description

broad, general descriptions of programs
Program Announcement

similar to Program Descriptions
Program Solicitation


encourage submission of proposals in specific program
areas of interest to NSF
more focused; normally apply for limited period of time
My NSF http://www.nsf.gov/mynsf/
Proposal Submission - What?
Letters of Intent
 Only if needed by the program
Intent: to help NSF program staff to gauge size and range of
competition
 Contents: PI's and co-PI's names, proposed title, list of possible
participating organizations, and synopsis
 Not externally evaluated or used to decide on funding

Preliminary Proposal
 Only if needed by the program
Intent: to reduce unnecessary effort in proposal preparation
and to increase the overall quality of full submission
 Contents: based on the program
 Review and decisions: peer review to aid decisions

o Invite or Not invite
o Encourage or Not encourage
Full Proposal
Proposal Submission - When?
Published in specific program descriptions,
announcements, and solicitations
Target dates
 dates after which proposals still accepted, but may
miss a particular panel
Deadline dates
 dates after which proposals will not be accepted for
review
Submission Windows
 designated periods of time during which proposals
accepted for review
Accepted any time
 e.g. SGER (Small Grants for Exploratory Research),
conference/workshop proposals, supplements
Submission and afterwards
Submission
 Check before you submit

Print out from FastLane to ensure pdf conversion is
correct
 Work with your Sponsored Projects Office
After submission
 Acknowledgment and FastLane proposal status
page
 FastLane Proposal File Update module

Parts of a proposal may be replaced after
submission
Administrative Review
Compliance Check
 Print problems, format, page limits, etc.
 Return without review










DOES NOT ADDRESS BOTH REVIEW CRITERIA IN PROJECT
SUMMARY
inappropriate for funding by NSF
insufficient lead-time before the activity’s start
received after announced proposal deadline date
full proposal submitted when preliminary proposal "not invited"
duplicate of, or substantially similar to, proposal already under
consideration by NSF from same submitter
does not meet NSF proposal preparation requirements
not responsive to GPG (Grant Proposal Guide) or program
announcement/solicitation
previously reviewed and declined and has not been substantially
revised
duplicates another proposal already funded
Merit Review Criteria
Intellectual merit of proposed activity
 Creativity and originality
 Advance knowledge and understanding within and across fields
 Conceptualization and organization
 Qualifications of investigators
 Access to resources
Broader impacts of proposed activity
 Advance discovery while promoting teaching, training, & learning
 Broaden participation of underrepresented groups
 Enhance infrastructure for research and education
 Disseminate results to enhance scientific and technological
understanding
 Benefits to society
 Examples: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/gpg/broaderimpacts.pdf
Scientific Review
Mail Reviews (aka ad hoc)
 Identifying reviewers:






Reviewer suggestions by the principal investigator (PI)
Program Director’s knowledge of the research area
References listed in proposal
Recent technical programs from professional societies
Recent authors in scientific and engineering journals
Reviewer recommendations
Panel Review
 Panelists may be asked to provide written
reviews
 Panelists discuss and rank proposals
Reviewer Conflicts of
Interest
Remove or limit influence of ties to an applicant
institution or investigator that could affect reviewer
advice
Preserve trust of scientific community, Congress, and
general public in integrity, effectiveness, and
evenhandedness of NSF’s peer review process
Reviewer Conflicts of Interest
Affiliations with applicant institutions
 Current (e.g. faculty) or other (e.g. consultant) employment at
the institution
 Being considered for employment or any formal or informal
reemployment arrangement at the institution
 Any office, governing board membership or relevant committee
membership at the institution
Relationships with investigator or project director
 Known family or marital relationship
 Business partner
 Past or present thesis advisor or thesis student
 Collaboration on a project, book, article, or paper within the last
48 months
 Co-edited a journal, compendium, or conference proceedings
within the last 24 months
Basis for Decisions: Reviews
Peer Review
 Content of review is more important than the
rating
 Program Director analyzes reviews for




Fairness
Substance
Technical problems
Reasons for the reviewer concerns or enthusiasm
 Program Director sometimes obtains additional
reviews or requests comments from PI
Panel recommendation
Basis for Decisions: A Balanced Portfolio
Innovation and Creativity
Breadth of research areas
Priority areas and systems
Demographics and Diversity
Broadening participation
Institution/State impact - RUI, EPSCoR, etc.
Integration of research and education
International collaboration
PI situation - career point, other support
Why do some proposals fail?
Absence of innovative ideas or hypothesis
 Will provide only an incremental advance
 Not exciting or cutting edge
Errors
 Unclear or incomplete expression of aims
 Faulty logic or experimental design
 Less than rigorous presentation
Unrealistic, sloppy or incomplete
Resources and facilities not in place
 PI qualifications/expertise not evident
 Necessary collaborations not documented
Funding and afterwards
Funding
 Budget and scope negotiations
Afterwards
 Do what you promised
 Notifications & Requests via FastLane
 Supplement opportunities



REU - Research Experience for Undergraduates
ROA - Research Opportunity Awards
RET - Research Experience for Teachers
 Submit annual and final reports
Outline
Proposal review process
Research proposal preparation
A good proposal is a good idea, well expressed, with a clear
indication of methods for pursuing the idea, evaluating the
findings, making them known to all who need to know, and
indicating the broader impacts of the activity.



Getting started
The proposal
Proposal writing tips
Step 1: Getting started
Idea: There is no substitute!
 Have a cutting edge idea
Find the right
program
 www.nsf.gov
 Program Directors
(phone, email)
 Events like this!
Develop your brilliant idea
Key Questions
•
•
•
•
What do you intend to do?
Why is the work important?
What has already been done?
How are you going to do the work?
Make sure it is innovative and exciting


Survey the literature
Talk with others in the field
Can you convince people that you can do the
project?



Obtain preliminary data
Develop arguments to support feasibility
Determine available facilities and resources


What you have
What collaborators can help with
Step 2: Grant Proposal Guide
Get it - Read it - Follow it
Proposal preparation and submission
Submission of collaborative proposals via
 Subaward
 Separate, yet linked, proposals
Small Grants for Exploratory Research
Review criteria and process
Return without review criteria
Withdrawal, declination, and award processes
Significant award administration procedures
Beyond the GPG
What to look for in a program
solicitation/announcement/description:
 Goal
 Special proposal preparation instructions and/or other




requirements (e.g., preproposals, letters of intent, etc.)
Deviations from the GPG
Additional review criteria or reporting requirements
Eligibility or budgetary limitations
Deadlines or target dates
Parts of a Proposal
Cover sheet and certifications
Project summary

Both intellectual merit and broader impacts described
Table of contents
Project description
References cited
Biographical sketches
Budgets and justification
Current and pending support
Facilities, equipment and other resources
Special information/documentation

NO reprints, preprints, letters of endorsement
Single Copy Documents

Reviewer suggestions, deviation authority, confidential
information, etc.
Project Summary
Include both review criteria
 Proposals that do not separately address both
criteria within the one-page Project Summary will
be returned without review.
Intellectual Merit
 Describe the scientific problem and why it is
important
 State the overall objective of the project
 State the specific aims
 Describe how the aims will be achieved
Broader Impacts
 Educational & outreach activities; infrastructure;
Project Description
The key to a strong proposal
Overall concept / rationale
Hypothesis-driven or Data-driven
Execution
 Careful
 Thorough
 Appropriate
Project Description
Results from prior NSF support (required if
applicable)
Objectives and expected significance
Relation to the PI’s longer term goals
Relation to present state of knowledge
Experimental methods and procedures
Sections optional:
 preface, background, preliminary studies, specific
objectives, significance, experimental plan
Project Description
Know your audience
Think about the reviewers
 Write accurately, concisely, and clearly
 Make it easy for reviewers to like your proposal
 You never get a second chance to make a first
impression
 First page tells it all
 Figures and tables get your point across clearly
 The reviewers may not be an expert in your
specific field
Biographical Sketch
Professional Preparation
Appointments
Publications
 5 closely related
 5 other significant publications
Synergistic activities
Collaborators & other affiliations
 Collaborators (last 4 yrs) & co-editors (last 2yrs)
 Graduate and Postdoctoral Advisors
 Thesis Advisor and Postgraduate-Scholar Sponsor
Budget
Budgets should be
 reasonable, but ask for what you need
 for personnel, equipment, travel, participant
support, & other direct costs (subaward,
consultant, computer services, publication costs)
 for cost of educational activities associated with
research, where appropriate
Unless solicitation specifies otherwise, do
not:
 include cost-sharing on Line M in budget
 exceed cost-sharing level or amount specified in
solicitation
Current and Pending Support
List everything
 current, pending and anticipated
Be careful of overlap
 Perception of overlap could be detrimental
in the review.
Dual submissions
 when they are allowed
Proposal Writing
Tips
1. Get help with proposal
writing
Read:
 NSF publications
 Successful proposals
Look before you leap:
 Serve as a reviewer or panelist
Talk with people:




Program officers
Current or former “rotators”
Successful colleagues
Sponsored projects office
2. Start early and don’t be
shy
Write:
 Rewrite and rewrite again
Get critiques from:
 Mentors and colleagues
 Previous members of review panels
3. Be reasonable
Be aware of the scope:
 “Too ambitious” vs. “Too narrow”
Be honest and up-front:
 Address issues instead of trying to hide
them
 Acknowledge possible experimental
problems and have alternatives
4. Make it easy for the
reviewers
Simplify and streamline:
 Make sure you get your overall idea across!
Pay attention to details:
 Run the spell checker and proof-read
 Prepare clear photos, graphs, etc.
 Make the font size as big as you can
5. If you have to resubmit
Stay calm!
 Take ten… breaths, hours, days
 Examine the criticisms carefully
Keep in touch:
 Call, email or visit your program director
Rapid resubmission does not help!
 Take time to self-evaluate the proposal and the
project
Getting Support in Proposal
Writing
NSF Publications
 Program Solicitations
 Grant Proposal Guide
Program Directors
 Incumbent
 Former “Rotators”
Mentors on Campus
 Web Pages
Previous Panelists
 Funded Project Abstracts
 Reports, Special
Publications
Serving As A Reviewer
Sponsored Research
Office
Reorganizations & Initiatives &
New Offices
Engineering Directorate
Engineering Reorganization
Office of Cyber Infrastructure
Acquisition of CI resources for Science
Acquisition of general CI
Training of future generations of
researchers and educators in use of CI
FY 2007 Request $187 Million + CI
investments of R&RA and Education
Directorates
CI Programs
Petascale Acquisition
Mid-scale Acquisition
CI Team
Division of Research on Learning in
Formal and Informal Environments
Combines ESIE and REC
Three Clusters
DRK12 + ITEST + …
REESE + ALT
ISE + ITEST + …
Reflects one of the NSF-wide Initiatives
Selected NSF Programs
CPATH – CISE Undergraduate Program
ALT – Advanced Learning Technologies
DRK12 – Discovery Research K-12
SBIR
Biotechnology (BT)
Electronics (EL)
Emerging Opportunities (EO)
Information Technology (IT)
SBIR Review
SBIR and STTR
Phase 1 – 100K and 150K
Phase 2 – 500K
Matchmaker Opportunities
Global Environment for Network Innovations
(GENI)
PURPOSE
 Build in security and robustness;
 Enable the vision of pervasive computing and bridge the gap
between the physical and virtual worlds by including mobile,
wireless and sensor networks;
 Enable control and management of other critical infrastructures;
 Include ease of operation and usability; and
 Enable new classes of societal-level services and applications.
The GENI Initiative includes:
 A research program; and
 A global experimental facility designed to explore new architectures
at scale.
Major Research Instrumentation
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.
MRI – Amounts
Normally $100,000 to $2,000,000
PUIs – may be less than $100,000
Success rate for PUIs high
Success rate for $1,000,000 to
$2,000,000 fairly low (e.g. 8-10/year)
Check on cost-sharing in upcoming PA