PlatformTutorialSummary
knowledge from several successful awards. Always follow the details and directions for the program that you are applying to. Plan your proposal early so that all of the participants and components are ready to go before the deadline. He recom- mends that you choose your PIs with purpose; select major users whose grant-funded research can be impacted by the instrument. Demos will help you and your researchers obtain preliminary data to show this impact. Te directors from his Core wrote the majority of the proposal with assistance from the PIs who wrote several pages about their research. Te direc- tors were sure to include information on the technical expertise of their staff who will enable the best utilization of the instru- ment. You should state the business model for your Core to help the proposal reviewers understand how the instrument will be used at your institution. All of this is your justification to demonstrate your institution’s need for this instrument. Mr. Macaluso suggested that we obtain technical specifications from the vendors of like instruments, compare them, and indi- cate which would best serve the needs of the institution. Don’t forget that a letter of support and approval for your proposal submission from your institution along with a financial com- mitment are very important.
Granting Agencies
Opportunities for Instrumentation Funding Robert Kokoska, Program Manager for Microbiology, Life Sciences Division, US Army Research Office (
https://www.onr.navy. mil/Science-Technology/Directorates/office-research-discovery- invention/Sponsored-Research/University-Research-Initiatives/
DURIP.aspx) Dr. Kokoska, from US Army Research Office (ARO),
described the Defense University Research Instrumentation Program (DURIP) as a source for instrumentation funding that can provide new capabilities in support of Army-relevant high-risk, high-payoff basic research at universities. Tere are a number of important elements that go into a successful DURIP proposal. Tese include a detailed description of the support- ing research and how it supports the Army mission; details about the impact that the instrumentation will have on the described research and that of others at the same institution as a shared resource; and the educational opportunities that the instrument will provide. A discussion with the ARO program manager whose program aligns with an investigator’s research area of interest is highly recommended to ensure that a pro- posal is competitive and meets the goals of ARO. Tis program funded 40–50 proposals in 2017 at an average of $150,000. Te most up-to-date information on the DURIP program can be found in the Army Research Office Broad Agency Announce- ment. Te DURIP announcements are usually posted every year in the March/April timeframe.
The Major Instrumentation Program at the National Science Foundation Guebre X. Tessema, Program Director, Division of Materials Research, National Science Foundation (
https://www.nsf.gov/ funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=6672) NSF18-513 Dr. Tessema spoke to the audience about the NSF Major
Instrumentation Program. Tere are two tracks for different amounts of money: Track 1 for $100,00–$1,000,000 and Track 2
2019 May •
www.microscopy-today.com
for $1,000,000–$4,000,000. Tis competitive program received 850 proposals in 2017 across all fields supported by NSF and funded about 134 (17%). Te proposals are reviewed January to May each year. He describes this program as one designed to support proposals to purchase or develop instruments for broad, interdisciplinary research. You should include a man- agement plan for the instrument, the IT required, the staff, the cost structure, the space for the instrument, the number of expected users, and the plan for instrument access. For PhD granting institutions, there should be a 30% cost-sharing in the plan from your institution, using funds from non-federal sources, and you need to show a track record of support by the institution as well as good stewardship of previous MRI awards. For instrument development, your proposal should push the state-of-the-art beyond what is currently commer- cially available. In describing the intellectual merit (the sci- ence) in an NSF supported field, be sure to address the “So What?” factor to explain the impact of the instrument that you would like to acquire, purchase, or develop. Te NSF MRI program review criteria include a broader impact component. Tis includes the broader scientific and technical impact as well as the impact on education and training of a diverse, broad workforce. How will the instrument support or enhance pro- grams for local and regional school-age students and minori- ties, either existing or to be implemented? Tis program does not support infrastructure, facility construction, or medical research.
NIH’s Shared Instrumentation Program: The More I Know, the Better My Chances Malgorzata Klosek, Scientific Review Officer, Office of Research Infrastructure Programs, National Institutes of Health Shared Instrumentation Grant Programs: (
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-18-600.html) (
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/par-18-599.html) Dr. Klosek described for us the NIH S10 Instrumenta-
tion grants. Tis program receives an average of 400 proposals every year with 100 awards given out. Te awards range from $50,000–$2,000,000 and need to be used for state-of-the-art commercial instrumentation. Supplies and service contracts cannot be purchased as part of the award. At the end of the award period, the instrument needs to be installed and func- tional. Reviewers rely on input from the study section for funding of these awards. She advises that your proposal should describe how your shared resource is going to impact three NIH-funded investigators and 10–15 users. Your financial plan does not need to include cost sharing, but instrument users, space, and long-term operational costs should all be described in detail. Program managers like to see these grants given to institutions where the instrument will go into a Core Facility. It is useful to have an advisory committee to oversee use of the instrument.
Additional Information Anastas Popratiloff, Director, George Washington University Nanofabrication and Imaging Center Dr. Popratiloff has been on several study sections for
instrumentation grants, and he offers us this advice. You can go to the website for NIH S10 Peer Review Critique Instruc- tions and see how people that review grant proposals are
37
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56
