THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPLACED BY NSF 12-587

Ecology and Evolution of Infectious Diseases (EEID)

Program Solicitation
NSF 11-580

Replaces Document(s):
NSF 10-616

		National Science Foundation Directorate for Biological Sciences Directorate for Geosciences Directorate for Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences
		National Institutes of Health     John E. Fogarty International Center     National Institute of General Medical Sciences
		U.S. Dept. of Agriculture     National Institute of Food and Agriculture
		U.K. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council

Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):

December 07, 2011

First Wednesday in December, Annually Thereafter

IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND REVISION NOTES

A revised version of the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG), NSF 11-1, was issued on October 1, 2010 and is effective for proposals submitted, or due, on or after January 18, 2011. Please be advised that the guidelines contained in NSF 11-1 apply to proposals submitted in response to this funding opportunity.

Cost Sharing: The PAPPG has been revised to implement the National Science Board's recommendations regarding cost sharing. Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited. In order to assess the scope of the project, all organizational resources necessary for the project must be described in the Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources section of the proposal. The description should be narrative in nature and must not include any quantifiable financial information. Mandatory cost sharing will only be required when explicitly authorized by the NSF Director. See the PAPP Guide Part I: Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) Chapter II.C.2.g(xi) for further information about the implementation of these recommendations.

Data Management Plan: The PAPPG contains a clarification of NSF's long standing data policy. All proposals must describe plans for data management and sharing of the products of research, or assert the absence of the need for such plans. FastLane will not permit submission of a proposal that is missing a Data Management Plan. The Data Management Plan will be reviewed as part of the intellectual merit or broader impacts of the proposal, or both, as appropriate. Links to data management requirements and plans relevant to specific Directorates, Offices, Divisions, Programs, or other NSF units are available on the NSF website at: http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/dmp.jsp. See Chapter II.C.2.j of the GPG for further information about the implementation of this requirement.

Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan: As a reminder, each proposal that requests funding to support postdoctoral researchers must include, as a supplementary document, a description of the mentoring activities that will be provided for such individuals. Please be advised that if required, FastLane will not permit submission of a proposal that is missing a Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan. See Chapter II.C.2.j of the GPG for further information about the implementation of this requirement.

Revision Summary:

Name change: The name of the program has been changed to the Ecology and Evolution of Infectious Disease. The focus of the program remains disease transmission dynamics. The change in name reflects increased interest in evolutionary processes that affect those dynamics. Proposals that are only evolutionary in nature without a substantial ecological component will not be considered.

Program partnerships: Beginning in 2012, the National Institute of Food and Agriculture of the USDA and the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the NIH will be participating in the EEID program.

The special US-UK Collaborative partnerships activity is continuing for FY 2012 only and now involves only the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC). The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) is no longer participating.

Proposal and submission limitations: A given individual can participate in no more than 2 proposals as a PI, co-PI, or subaward lead. Proposals will be accepted in the order received. Beginning with the third proposal on which a given individual is a PI, co-PI, or subaward lead, proposals will be returned without review.

Proposal from multiple institutions must be submitted from a single institution with the other institutions participating as subawardees.

A separate document containing a consolidated list of all conflicts of interest is now required.

Letters of collaboration and support must follow the format given in the proposal preparation instructions.

SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

General Information

Program Title:

Ecology and Evolution of Infectious Diseases (EEID)

Synopsis of Program:

The Ecology and Evolution of Infectious Diseases program supports research on the ecological, evolutionary, and socio-ecological principles and processes that regulate the transmission dynamics of infectious diseases. The program's focus is on both the discovery, and the building and testing models that elucidate these principles and processes. Research proposals should focus on understanding the determinants of transmission of diseases to humans, non-human animals, or plants; the spread of pathogens by environmental factors, vectors or abiotic agents; the population dynamics and genetics of reservoir species or alternate hosts; or the cultural, social, behavioral, and economic dimensions of disease transmission. Research may be on zoonotic, environmentally-borne, vector-borne, or enteric diseases of either terrestrial, freshwater, or marine systems and organisms, including diseases of non-human animals and plants, at any scale from specific pathogens to inclusive environmental systems. Proposals for research on disease systems of public health concern to developing countries are strongly encouraged, as are disease systems of concern in agricultural and coastal marine systems. Investigators are encouraged to include links to the public health research community, including for example, participation of epidemiologists, physicians, veterinarians, food scientists, social scientists, entomologists, pathologists, virologists, or parasitologists.

Cognizant Program Officer(s):

Please note that the following information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.

• Samuel M. Scheiner, Program Director, NSF/BIO, telephone: (703) 292-7175, email: sscheine@nsf.gov

• Christine Jessup, Program Director, NIH/FIC, telephone: (301) 496-9676, fax: (301) 402-0779, email: christine.jessup@nih.gov

• Peter Johnson, National Program Leader, USDA/NIFA, telephone: (202) 401-1896, email: pjohnson@nifa.usda.gov

• Michael Lesser, Program Director, NSF/GEO, telephone: (703) 292-8143, email: mlesser@nsf.gov

• Deborah Winslow, Program Director, NSF/SBE, telephone: (703) 292-7315, email: dwinslow@nsf.gov

• Irene Eckstrand, Program Director, NIH/NIGMS, telephone: (301) 594-0943, email: eckstrai@nigms.nih.gov

• Sadhana Sharma, Strategy and Policy Manager-Animal Health, BBSRC, telephone: 44 1793-413099, email: sadhana.sharma@bbsrc.ac.uk

Applicable Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s):

• 10.310 --- Agriculture and Food Research Initiative
• 47.050 --- Geosciences
• 47.074 --- Biological Sciences
• 47.075 --- Social Behavioral and Economic Sciences
• 93.859 --- National Institute of General Medical Sciences
• 93.989 --- John E. Fogarty International Center

Award Information

Anticipated Type of Award: Standard Grant or Continuing Grant

Estimated Number of Awards: 9

Anticipated Funding Amount: $15,000,000 in FY 2012, pending the availability of funds. That amount includes approximately $7M from NSF for new standard or continuing awards, approximately $5.5M from NIH for new awards, and $2.5M from USDA for new awards. The expected funding from the BBSRC for the UK component of the US-UK Collaborative Projects will be a maximum of £1,000,000; these funds will be available in FY 2012 only.

Eligibility Information

Organization Limit:

None Specified

PI Limit:

None Specified

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:

None Specified

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI: 2

In a given year, an individual may participate as a PI, co-PI, or sub-award lead on no more than two proposals submitted in response to this solicitation. This limit does not include RCN proposals. Proposals in excess of the limit for any person will be returned without review in the reverse order received. Participating in a proposal as other senior personnel does not count in this limit. Changes in the list post-submission to meet the eligibility limits will not be allowed. It is the responsibility of the submitters to confirm that the entire team is within the eligibility guidelines.

Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

• Letters of Intent: Not Applicable

• Preliminary Proposal Submission: Not Applicable

• Full Proposals:
  • Full Proposals submitted via FastLane: NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide, Part I: Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) Guidelines apply. The complete text of the GPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg.
  • Full Proposals submitted via Grants.gov: NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov Guidelines apply (Note: The NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide)

B. Budgetary Information

• Cost Sharing Requirements: Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.

• Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations: Not Applicable

• Other Budgetary Limitations: Not Applicable

C. Due Dates

• Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):

  December 07, 2011

  First Wednesday in December, Annually Thereafter

Proposal Review Information Criteria

Merit Review Criteria: National Science Board approved criteria. Additional merit review considerations apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

Award Administration Information

Award Conditions: Additional award conditions apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

Reporting Requirements: Additional reporting requirements apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Summary of Program Requirements

1. Introduction
   
   
2. Program Description
   
   
3. Award Information
   
   
4. Eligibility Information
   
   
5. Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions
   1. Proposal Preparation Instructions
   2. Budgetary Information
   3. Due Dates
   4. FastLane/Grants.gov Requirements
      
      
6. NSF Proposal Processing and Review Procedures
   1. NSF Merit Review Criteria
   2. Review and Selection Process
      
      
7. Award Administration Information
   1. Notification of the Award
   2. Award Conditions
   3. Reporting Requirements
      
      
8. Agency Contacts
   
   
9. Other Information

I. INTRODUCTION

The past twenty years have seen a dramatic increase in our awareness of the need to understand the ecological and evolutionary drivers of disease emergence and transmission dynamics. While our knowledge has increased about specific systems and the basic principles of simple systems, our understanding of complex systems is still weak and translation of those principles into ecosystem, public health, and agricultural health management tools is inadequate. System complexity includes such factors as multiple interacting host, pathogen or vector species; interactions among pathogenic and non-pathogenic microbes; interactions between biological and sociological factors; affects of spatial and temporal structure; and evolutionary dynamics.

The emergence and the re-emergence of numerous infectious diseases around the world have coincided with unprecedented rates of change in the structure and diversity of the environment and human social and economic systems. Nearly all of the world's terrestrial and aquatic (freshwater and marine) ecosystems have undergone dramatic changes due to a variety of human activities such as habitat transformation, human displacement and relocation, urbanization, rapid long-distance transport, species invasions, deliberate introduction of infectious diseases for biological control, bushmeat and other wildlife trade, chemical waste contamination, and climate change. The coincidence of broad scale environmental changes, the expansion of human social and economic networks, and the emergence of infectious diseases may point to underlying predictable ecological relationships.

We have improved our ability to define the molecular identity and dynamics of pathogens or infectious agents and their vectors, and have greatly increased our understanding of the defense systems of their hosts. We understand better the importance of genetic systems and evolutionary dynamics of infectious diseases. These improvements have contributed significantly to our knowledge of the epidemiology and transmission patterns of diseases. However, the relationship of these factors to population dynamics of disease reservoirs or the biotic and structural complexity of ecological, agricultural, and socio-ecological systems in which transmission occurs remains poorly understood. For example, little is known about how the transmission dynamics of pathogens within a common host are affected by the interactions of multiple pathogenic and non-pathogenic organisms with each other or with the host's physiology. In addition, although these dynamics take place in evolutionary time of the pathogens or infectious agents, insufficient attention has been given to integrating ecological, evolutionary, and socio-economic dynamics.

At present, both basic and applied research in infectious disease ecology is often not well integrated. The potential benefits of an interdisciplinary research program in this area include:

• development of disease transmission theory,
• improved understanding of how diseases (re)emerge,
• improved understanding of host population and ecosystem effects,
• increased capacity to forecast outbreaks,
• improved understanding of unintended health effects of development projects affecting terrestrial, freshwater, and coastal marine systems,
• strategies to mitigate or prevent infectious diseases and improve biosecurity.

An under-studied aspect of disease transmission is the importance of socio-ecological factors and processes. Important new insights into the drivers and control of infectious diseases in humans and other species can only be achieved by taking an integrated approach which takes into account the ways in which the natural and social environments affect the emergence and spread of infectious disease. This concept, often called "one health," links medical and veterinary science by drawing on a common pool of knowledge between the two sectors in order to exploit the potential of animal disease research to provide insights into ecosystem, agricultural, and human health.

This activity is a continuation of the previous joint National Science Foundation/National Institutes of Health (NSF/NIH) Ecology of Infectious Disease competition. Information on past awards can be found at EEID Awards. Additional information and NIH contacts can be found at http://www.fic.nih.gov/Programs/Pages/ecology-infectious-diseases.aspx.

II. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The goal of the Ecology and Evolution of Infectious Diseases (EEID) program is to support important and innovative research on the ecological, evolutionary, and socio-ecological principles that regulate the transmission dynamics of infectious diseases. The program's focus is on the discovery of general principles and processes, and on the building and testing of models that elucidate these principles. Research in EEID is expected to be multidisciplinary, bringing together such areas as ecology, physical environmental sciences (e.g., oceanography, climatology) genomics, epidemiology, microbiology, evolution, population biology, anthropology, geography, sociology, veterinary medicine, food science, mathematics, systems science, computational science, and global health. Research within EEID is expected to generate rigorously characterized and tested models that are of value to the scientific community, but also may be useful in decision-making. The history of the EEID program has shown that the most competitive proposals are those that advance broad, conceptual knowledge that reaches beyond the specific system under study and that may be useful for understanding public, agricultural or ecosystem health, natural resource use and wildlife management, and/or economic development.

Infectious disease transmission reflects complex, dynamic relationships that occur on varying spatial and temporal landscapes, are created by both ecological and evolutionary processes, and are revealed in genome architecture, physiological systems, population dynamics, community structure, as well as human behavioral and social dynamics. The interactions between disease-causing organisms, their vectors, and their host(s) are embedded within much larger networks of interacting systems, including other microorganisms that may or may not cause disease, one or more vector species, and multiple host species. Analysis of environmental influences (biological, geophysical, economic, and social) on individual and population susceptibility is fundamental to understanding these complex systems of infectious diseases. Research into the ecology (population, community, evolutionary, and social) of infectious diseases will contribute to a deeper understanding of these complex infectious disease systems, to the development of well characterized and tested models, and to the elucidation of general ecological and evolutionary principles.

Insights into the dynamics of infectious disease systems may require integration across several temporal, spatial, and functional scales including molecular, individual, population, societal, and ecosystem levels. Similarly, they may require integration across biological, socio-economic, and geophysical domains. The field of evolutionary ecology, which focuses on both the importance of ecological context in studies of evolution and the importance of evolutionary change for ecological systems, may also provide important insights into infectious disease systems. Understanding the interplay of evolution and ecology has already been demonstrated to be useful for understanding how infectious agents emerge as pathogens, adapt to one or more hosts, interact with other microbial communities (e.g., microbiome), and are transmitted among hosts.

A critical goal of research supported by this program is the generation of principles and conceptual frameworks that organize and inform the research and that lead to mathematical, computational, and statistical models of infectious disease dynamics. Diverse modeling approaches are appropriate, including, but not limited to, mathematical equations, computational simulations, geospatial algorithms, and statistical models. For the EEID program, the most competitive proposals are organized around an overarching conceptual framework that leads to such a model. Models should aim to be explanatory beyond the specific system under study and must be well-characterized and rigorously tested. Proposals must describe how models will be developed, evaluated, and disseminated. Proposals must identify which individual(s) will oversee the quantitative approaches and provide evidence of demonstrated expertise in mathematical, computational, or statistical modeling and/or data analysis. Likewise, strategies for data collection must be well designed to contribute to and test model design. Proposals must include plans for dissemination of data, models, and tools developed by this program.

A variety of topics, questions, systems and approaches are appropriate. Among the areas of particular interest are: the role of social influences on the susceptibility of individuals or populations; multiway interactions between pathogenic and non-pathogenic organisms and their mutual hosts; the role of agricultural practices on pathogen emergence and transmission; emergence of pathogens from non-pathogenic populations; host switching; evolutionary dynamics in an ecological context such as disease control interventions and drug resistance. These topics have significant ecological and evolutionary components that should be studied as a system, not in isolation. Depending on the hypotheses or research questions being addressed, investigations might entail some combination of laboratory experiments, field observations or manipulations, public health interventions, analysis of social and cultural processes, or ethnographic studies. Research may also focus on novel analyses of existing data and/or theoretical investigations of ecological and evolutionary dynamics. Investigations may focus on model infectious disease systems in natural (marine, terrestrial, freshwater) or laboratory settings where those systems elucidate general principles.

Research may use a variety of study systems. The organism(s) or system(s) selected for study should be justified with respect to its suitability to study questions of ecology and/or evolutionary ecology. Research may involve a variety of infectious agents, individual diseases, or groups of diseases, and might involve one or more social systems, regions, habitats, or groups of organisms. Proposals may focus on terrestrial, freshwater, or marine systems and organisms and may include infectious diseases of humans, non-human animals, or plants. Proposals for research on diseases of public or agricultural health concern to developing countries, including potential pandemic diseases, are encouraged. Regardless of the system or approach taken, a proposal must have a significant focus on the ecology of disease transmission to be eligible for funding.

Because of the complexity of studies on the ecology and evolutionary ecology of infectious diseases, multidisciplinary teams of domestic and international collaborators with expertise from diverse disciplines are likely to be most effective. Investigators are encouraged to develop collaborations with public health research communities where that is appropriate. Collaborative teams could include, for example: ecologists, epidemiologists, medical scientists, veterinary scientists, social and behavioral scientists, entomologists, food scientists, microbiologists, pathologists, and parasitologists, geologists, hydrologists, geospatial analysts and mathematicians. The research plan should indicate how multiple disciplines will be integrated and how new investigators in U.S. and collaborating foreign institutions will be prepared to further this research.

The EEID program is not intended to be the only avenue of support by the participating agencies for supporting research on infectious diseases. Investigations that are outside the scope of this EEID announcement include: those that are focused only on genetic patterns of evolutionary change without considering the interplay with ecological dynamics; those that focus solely on human diseases without considering the non-human ecological context; those that focus solely on within-host biological processes without considering transmission dynamics and broader ecological questions.

The EID competition broadly welcomes projects that include international collaborators. One specific form of collaboration (US-UK Collaborative Projects) is described below. This specific activity does not preclude other international collaborations. Nor does it require that a proposal have an international collaborator.

US-UK Collaborative Projects (FY 2012 only)

Recognizing the potential for international collaboration to advance EEID research and education objectives, NSF has partnered for this solicitation with the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) of the U.K. This partnership will facilitate coordinated funding of U.S. and U.K. research collaboration. The BBSRC is part of a wider collaboration of funders supporting a U.K. initiative on the Environment and Social Ecology of Infectious Disease (ESEI). It is anticipated that these US-UK Collaborative Projects will build on the U.K. capacity developed through the ESEI call and address international research priorities that will inform and impact on policy and practice. The UK component of the US-UK Collaborative Projects will be funded under the umbrella of the Living with Environmental Change (LWEC) partnership (www.lwec.org.uk).

The focus of US-UK Collaborative Projects should be on understanding the transmission dynamics of infectious diseases of livestock and aquaculture systems, especially food-borne and vector-borne diseases. Collaborative proposals can include both research projects and Research Coordination Networks. The UK component of the Collaborative proposal must fit within BBSRC's remit.

UK researchers applying under this heading must meet BBSRC eligibility requirements and must apply through an institution eligible to receive BBSRC's funding. Please see BBSRC funding rules: http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/funding/apply/grants-guide.aspx. Individuals considering submitting a proposal as a US-UK Collaborative Project are strongly encouraged to contact the relevant Cognizant Program Officer to confirm that the UK component fits BBSRC's requirements. Applications with non-eligible UK partners will not be considered for funding as a US-UK Collaborative Projects.

Research Coordination Network Projects (RCN)

The EEID program will accept proposals to establish Research Coordination Networks that focus on issues involving infectious disease ecology, socio-ecology, and evolution. Information on the scope of RCN projects and the format of those proposals can be found at (http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=11691&org=BIO&from=home). Such RCN proposals should be submitted under the EEID solicitation and deadline.

III. AWARD INFORMATION

Under this solicitation, the maximum total (for all years) award size is $2.5 million, including indirect costs, and the maximum award duration is five years. US-UK Collaborative Projects can request additional funding for the UK component of the project. Approximately 9 new awards are anticipated in FY 2012, depending on the quality of submissions and the availability of funds; the expected funding will be $15 million. That amount includes approximately $7M from NSF for new standard or continuing awards, approximately $5.5M from NIH for new continuing awards, and $2.5M from USDA for new awards. In FY 2012 only, of those awards, 2-4 are anticipated to be US-UK Collaborative Projects,depending on the quality of submissions and the availability of funds; the expected funding from the BBSRC will be a maximum of £1,000,000. This amount reflects 80% of the full economic costs in the U.K.

Upon conclusion of the review process, meritorious proposals may be recommended for funding by either NSF, NIH, or USDA, at the option of the agencies, not the proposing organizations. Proposals selected for funding by NIH or USDA will need to be reformatted and resubmitted to that agency. Subsequent submission and grant administration procedures will be in accordance with the individual policies of the awarding agency.

USDA/NIFA Legislative Authority: The USDA authority for this RFA is contained in Section 7406 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (FCEA) (Pub. L. 110-246) which amends section 2(b) of the Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)) to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to establish the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI); a new competitive grant program to provide funding for fundamental and applied research, extension, and education to address food and agricultural sciences. AFRI is subject to the provision found at 7 CFR Part 3430.

For US-UK Collaborative Projects, the UK component of the collaboration will be awarded through the BBSRC in accordance with its policies. If the BBSRC selects an application for funding, the Research Councils will require that the costs for the UK element of the proposal be submitted via the RCUK’s Je-S application submission system before final sign-off. UK collaborators should therefore ensure they are registered Je-S users before the proposal is submitted.

IV. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION

Organization Limit:

None Specified

PI Limit:

None Specified

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:

None Specified

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI: 2

In a given year, an individual may participate as a PI, co-PI, or sub-award lead on no more than two proposals submitted in response to this solicitation. This limit does not include RCN proposals. Proposals in excess of the limit for any person will be returned without review in the reverse order received. Participating in a proposal as other senior personnel does not count in this limit. Changes in the list post-submission to meet the eligibility limits will not be allowed. It is the responsibility of the submitters to confirm that the entire team is within the eligibility guidelines.

Additional Eligibility Info:

USDA/NIFA Eligibility Requirements: Eligible entities for award include, (1) State agricultural experiment stations; (2) colleges and universities (including junior colleges offering associate degrees or higher); (3) university research foundations; (4) other research institutions and organizations; (5) Federal agencies, (6) national laboratories; (7) private organizations or corporations; (8) individuals who are U.S. citizens, nations, or permanent residents; and (9) any group consisting of 2 or more entities identified in (1) through (8). Eligible institutions do not include foreign and international organizations.

V. PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

Full Proposal Preparation Instructions: Proposers may opt to submit proposals in response to this Program Solicitation via Grants.gov or via the NSF FastLane system.

• Full proposals submitted via FastLane: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the general guidelines contained in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide (GPG). The complete text of the GPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg. Paper copies of the GPG may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov. Proposers are reminded to identify this program solicitation number in the program solicitation block on the NSF Cover Sheet For Proposal to the National Science Foundation. Compliance with this requirement is critical to determining the relevant proposal processing guidelines. Failure to submit this information may delay processing.

• Full proposals submitted via Grants.gov: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation via Grants.gov should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov. The complete text of the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: (http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide). To obtain copies of the Application Guide and Application Forms Package, click on the Apply tab on the Grants.gov site, then click on the Apply Step 1: Download a Grant Application Package and Application Instructions link and enter the funding opportunity number, (the program solicitation number without the NSF prefix) and press the Download Package button. Paper copies of the Grants.gov Application Guide also may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov.

In determining which method to utilize in the electronic preparation and submission of the proposal, please note the following:

Collaborative Proposals. All collaborative proposals submitted as separate submissions from multiple organizations must be submitted via the NSF FastLane system. Chapter II, Section D.4 of the Grant Proposal Guide provides additional information on collaborative proposals.

Special Information and Supplementary Documentation:

• Proposals Involving Multiple Institutions

  In the case of proposals involving multiple organizations, a single organization must be identified as the lead, and a single proposal describing the entire project must be submitted by that organization. Funds may be distributed among partner organizations via subawards from the lead organization. A budget on the standard NSF budget form should be submitted for each subawardee. The requirement for a single organization to submit the sole proposal for a project is designed to facilitate effective coordination among participating organizations and to avoid difficulties that ensue in funded projects when individuals change organizations and/or cease to fulfill project responsibilities.

  Of the two types of collaborative proposal formats described in the Grant Proposal Guide, this solicitation allows only a single proposal submission with subawards administered by that lead organization.

• Research Experiences for Undergraduates. Projects anticipating the inclusion of undergraduate research experiences are strongly encouraged to include those as part of the research proposal itself, rather than as a supplemental request.

• A Combined Conflict of Interest document. Under Supplementary Documents, upload a single, alphabetized table identifying conflicts of interest for all senior personnel involved in the project. The table should list (by column): (A) full names (last, first), (B) institutional affiliations, (C) type of conflict, and (D) Name of PI/co-PI/senior personnel having the conflict. The table should be alphabetized on column (A). Conflicts to be identified are (1) Ph.D. advisor and advisees, (2) collaborators or co-authors, including postdoctoral researchers, for the past 48 months, and (3) any other individuals with whom or institutions with which the senior personnel (PI, co-PIs, and any named personnel) have financial ties, including advisory committees (specify type). Conflicts of interest involving junior authorship on a multi-authored papers (>5 authors) may be limited to the senior author.

• Letters of Collaboration. Supplementary Documents may include letters of collaboration from individuals or organizations that are integral parts of the proposed project but are not supported by subawards. Such involvement may include subsidiary involvement in some aspect of the project, cooperation on outreach efforts, or documentation of permission to access materials or data. Letters of collaboration should focus solely on affirming that the individual or organization is willing to collaborate on the project as specified in the project description. No additional text, especially elaboration of the nature of activities to be undertaken by the collaborator and endorsements of the potential value or significance of the project for the collaborator, may be included. The template that must be used for the preparation of letters of collaboration is provided below.

Letters of collaboration should not be provided from any individual designated as a principal investigator or senior personnel, nor are letters of collaboration required from any organization that will be a subawardee in the proposal budget.

Each letter of collaboration must be signed by the designated collaborator. Requests to collaborators for letters of collaboration should be made by the PI well in advance of the proposal submission deadline, because they must be included at the time of the proposal submission. Letters deviating from this template will not be accepted and may be grounds for returning the proposal without review.

Template to be used for letters of collaboration

To: NSF _________(Program Title)___________ Program
From: ____________________________________
(Printed name of the individual collaborator or name of the organization and name and position of the official submitting this memo)

By signing below (or transmitting electronically), I acknowledge that I am listed as a collaborator on this proposal, entitled "_____(proposal title)_______," with _______(PI name)______ as the Principal Investigator. I agree to undertake the tasks assigned to me or my organization, as described in the project description of the proposal, and I commit to provide or make available the resources specified therein.

Signed: _______________________
Organization: ________________________________
Date: _________________________

Oceanographic Platform Support

For projects requesting ship time on a research vessel operated under the University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS), a copy of the UNOLS request form should be included as Supplementary Documentation. The UNOLS form may be obtained from the NSF Division of Ocean Sciences Ship Operations Program, National Science Foundation by calling (703) 292-8581, or directly from the UNOLS World Wide Web site at http://www.unols.org. UNOLS costs should not be included in the proposal budget; however, costs for the use of non-UNOLS research platforms must be included in the proposal budget.

Research Coordination Network proposals

These proposals should begin the title with "RCN:" Follow the proposal preparation instructions in the RCN solicitation (http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=11691&org=BIO&from=home).

US-UK Collaborative proposals

These proposals should begin the title with "US-UK Collab:" Collaborative RCN proposals should begin the title with "US-UK Collab: RCN:"

Information for the UK portion of US-UK Collaborative Proposals should be included as Supplementary Documents. That information should include the following, and only the following:

1. Biographical sketches of UK senior personnel: Those biographical sketches must conform to NSF format and limitations.
2. UK budget: Costs for the UK component of the project should be entered onto the Je-S system but the the completed form SHOULD NOT be submitted electronically to the BBSRC at this stage. Instead, a PDF version of the form should be saved and sent to the US lead PI for inclusion as a supplementary document in the proposal. Also, an electronic copy of this document should be sent to BBSRC Cognizant Programme Officer before C.O.P on 7 December 2011. Full details on what is required can be obtained at (http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/eeid).
   Applicants should ensure that they contact the main UK Cognizant Program Officer at BBSRC to discuss the remit of their proposal and to confirm whether they should complete a BBSRC Je-S form.
   The researchers will be asked to attend a meeting to be held at either the National Science Foundation or an alternate location. Include the necessary travel costs for attendance at the meeting in the proposed budget.
3. Letters of collaboration: Letters of collaboration from UK scientists are required. These letters must be restricted to a statement of intent to collaborate only. Additional information on the nature of the collaboration and the roles of the investigators should be included in the Project Description.
4. Institutional endorsement: An institutional certification of the submission must be a signed letter from an authorized U.K. institutional representative with the following text: "I confirm on behalf of [insert name of institution] that the U.S.-U.K.Collaborative proposal between [insert name of US PI and institution] and [insert name of UK PI] is endorsed and has been submitted by [name of Research Office]."

B. Budgetary Information

Cost Sharing: Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited

Budget Preparation Instructions:

Every year, the PIs of the EEID awards will be asked to attend a meeting to be held at either the National Science Foundation or an alternate location. Include the necessary travel costs for attendance at the meeting in the proposed budget.

Subawards

In accordance with the applicable award terms and conditions, proposers are reminded of their responsibilities with regard to subawardees. Should an award be made, the prime awardee is responsible for flowing down the appropriate terms and conditions to, as well as management and oversight of, any subawardees on the project, including any foreign subawardees.

C. Due Dates

• Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):

  December 07, 2011

  First Wednesday in December, Annually Thereafter

D. FastLane/Grants.gov Requirements

• For Proposals Submitted Via FastLane:

  Detailed technical instructions regarding the technical aspects of preparation and submission via FastLane are available at: https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/a1/newstan.htm. For FastLane user support, call the FastLane Help Desk at 1-800-673-6188 or e-mail fastlane@nsf.gov. The FastLane Help Desk answers general technical questions related to the use of the FastLane system. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this funding opportunity.

  Submission of Electronically Signed Cover Sheets. The Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must electronically sign the proposal Cover Sheet to submit the required proposal certifications (see Chapter II, Section C of the Grant Proposal Guide for a listing of the certifications). The AOR must provide the required electronic certifications within five working days following the electronic submission of the proposal. Further instructions regarding this process are available on the FastLane Website at: https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/fastlane.jsp.

• For Proposals Submitted Via Grants.gov:

  Before using Grants.gov for the first time, each organization must register to create an institutional profile. Once registered, the applicant's organization can then apply for any federal grant on the Grants.gov website. Comprehensive information about using Grants.gov is available on the Grants.gov Applicant Resources webpage: http://www07.grants.gov/applicants/app_help_reso.jsp. In addition, the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide provides additional technical guidance regarding preparation of proposals via Grants.gov. For Grants.gov user support, contact the Grants.gov Contact Center at 1-800-518-4726 or by email: support@grants.gov. The Grants.gov Contact Center answers general technical questions related to the use of Grants.gov. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this solicitation.

  Submitting the Proposal: Once all documents have been completed, the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must submit the application to Grants.gov and verify the desired funding opportunity and agency to which the application is submitted. The AOR must then sign and submit the application to Grants.gov. The completed application will be transferred to the NSF FastLane system for further processing.

VI. NSF PROPOSAL PROCESSING AND REVIEW PROCEDURES

Proposals received by NSF are assigned to the appropriate NSF program where they will be reviewed if they meet NSF proposal preparation requirements. All proposals are carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer, or educator serving as an NSF Program Officer, and usually by three to ten other persons outside NSF who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with the oversight of the review process. Proposers are invited to suggest names of persons they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal and/or persons they would prefer not review the proposal. These suggestions may serve as one source in the reviewer selection process at the Program Officer's discretion. Submission of such names, however, is optional. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the proposal.

A. NSF Merit Review Criteria

All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the two National Science Board (NSB)-approved merit review criteria: intellectual merit and the broader impacts of the proposed effort. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities.

The two NSB-approved merit review criteria are listed below. The criteria include considerations that help define them. These considerations are suggestions and not all will apply to any given proposal. While proposers must address both merit review criteria, reviewers will be asked to address only those considerations that are relevant to the proposal being considered and for which the reviewer is qualified to make judgements.

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, original, or potentially transformative 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?

Examples illustrating activities likely to demonstrate broader impacts are available electronically on the NSF website at: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/gpg/broaderimpacts.pdf.

Mentoring activities provided to postdoctoral researchers supported on the project, as described in a one-page supplementary document, will be evaluated under the Broader Impacts criterion.

Additional Solicitation Specific Review Criteria

• Significance: Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?
• Investigator(s): Are the PD/PIs, collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or New Investigators, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project?
• Innovation: Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?
• Approach: Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed?
  If the project involves clinical research, are the plans for 1) protection of human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion of minorities and members of both sexes/genders, as well as the inclusion of children, justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?
• Environment: Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements?
• Biohazards. Reviewers will assess whether materials or procedures proposed are potentially hazardous to research personnel and/or the environment, and if needed, determine whether adequate protection is proposed.

Where relevant, proposals will also be reviewed with respect to the following:

• Protections for Human Subjects. For research that involves human subjects but does not involve one of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the reviewers will evaluate the justification for involvement of human subjects and the proposed protections from research risk relating to their participation according to the following five review criteria: 1) risk to subjects, 2) adequacy of protection against risks, 3) potential benefits to the subjects and others, 4) importance of the knowledge to be gained, and 5) data and safety monitoring for clinical trials.

  For research that involves human subjects and meets the criteria for one or more of the six categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the reviewers will evaluate: 1) the justification for the exemption, 2) human subjects involvement and characteristics, and 3) sources of materials.

• Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children. When the proposed project involves clinical research, the reviewers will evaluate the proposed plans for inclusion of minorities and members of both genders, as well as the inclusion of children.

• Vertebrate Animals. The reviewers will evaluate the involvement of live vertebrate animals as part of the scientific assessment according to the following five points: 1) proposed use of the animals, and species, strains, ages, sex, and numbers to be used; 2) justifications for the use of animals and for the appropriateness of the species and numbers proposed; 3) adequacy of veterinary care; 4) procedures for limiting discomfort, distress, pain and injury to that which is unavoidable in the conduct of scientifically sound research including the use of analgesic, anesthetic, and tranquilizing drugs and/or comfortable restraining devices; and 5) methods of euthanasia and reason for selection if not consistent with the American Veterinary Medical Association Guidelines on Euthanasia.

For all proposals involving international collaborations, reviewers will consider: mutual benefits, true intellectual collaboration with the foreign partner(s), benefits to be realized from the expertise and specialized skills, facilities, sites and/or resources of the international counterpart, and active research engagement of U.S. students and early-career researchers, where such individuals are engaged in the research.

US-UK Collaborative Projects will also be reviewed with respect to the extent which they demonstrate a substantial collaboration between the US and UK partners and enhance research on infectious disease transmission. The review will take into account the UK research context.

NSF staff also 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.

B. Review and Selection Process

NSF will manage the review of proposals in consultation with NIH and USDA, and in the case of US-UK Collaborative Projects, the BBSRC. Copies of proposals and unattributed reviews will be shared with the partner funding organizations, as appropriate.

Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed by Ad hoc Review and/or Panel Review.

Reviewers will be asked to formulate a recommendation to either support or decline each proposal. The Program Officer assigned to manage the proposal's review will consider the advice of reviewers and will formulate a recommendation.

NSF Process: Those proposals selected for funding by NSF will be handled in accordance with standard NSF procedures. After scientific, technical and programmatic review and consideration of appropriate factors, the NSF Program Officer recommends to the cognizant Division Director whether the proposal should be declined or recommended for award. NSF is striving to be able to tell applicants whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. The time interval begins on the deadline or target date, or receipt date, whichever is later. The interval ends when the Division Director accepts the Program Officer's recommendation.

A summary rating and accompanying narrative will be completed and submitted by each reviewer. In all cases, reviews are treated as confidential documents. Verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers, are sent to the Principal Investigator/Project Director by the Program Officer. In addition, the proposer will receive an explanation of the decision to award or decline funding.

In all cases, after programmatic approval has been obtained, the proposals recommended for funding will be forwarded to the Division of Grants and Agreements for review of business, financial, and policy implications and the processing and issuance of a grant or other agreement. Proposers are cautioned that only a Grants and Agreements Officer may make commitments, obligations or awards on behalf of NSF or authorize the expenditure of funds. No commitment on the part of NSF should be inferred from technical or budgetary discussions with a NSF Program Officer. A Principal Investigator or organization that makes financial or personnel commitments in the absence of a grant or cooperative agreement signed by the NSF Grants and Agreements Officer does so at their own risk.

NIH Process: Proposals selected for funding by NIH will be invited to reformat the cover and budget pages and submit to the Division of Receipt and Referral (DRR) in NIH's Center for Scientific Review (CSR). A receipt date of approximately March 21, 2012 is in effect for the NIH formatted applications. NIH will make final funding decisions based on the results of the peer review process. Subsequent award processing and grant administration procedures will be in accordance with NIH policies and procedures.

USDA/NIFA Process: Proposals selected for funding by USDA/NIFA will need to be reformatted and resubmitted to that agency. Subsequent submission and grant administration procedures will be in accordance with the policies of the agency. USDA/NIFA will make final funding decisions based on the results of the peer review process. Applications selected for funding by NIFA will be forwarded to the USDA/NIFA Awards Management Division for award processing in accordance with the USDA/NIFA procedures. All proposals selected for funding by USDA/NIFA, in FY 2012 will be limited to 22 percent indirect cost rate. Therefore, the recovery of indirect costs on awards made by NIFA under this program area may not exceed the lesser of the institution's official negotiated indirect cost rate or the equivalent of 22 percent of total Federal funds awarded. If the limitation of indirect costs changes, the applicant will be notified.

US-UK Collaborative Projects: The UK component of the collaboration will be awarded through the BBSRC in accordance with the policies of that agency. If the BBSRC selects an application for funding, the costs for the UK element of the proposal must be submitted via the RCUK's Je-S application submission system before final sign-off. UK collaborators should therefore ensure they are registered Je-S users before the proposal is submitted.

VII. AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION

A. Notification of the Award

Notification of the award is made to the submitting organization by a Grants Officer in the Division of Grants and Agreements. Organizations whose proposals are declined will be advised as promptly as possible by the cognizant NSF Program administering the program. Verbatim copies of reviews, not including the identity of the reviewer, will be provided automatically to the Principal Investigator. (See Section VI.B. for additional information on the review process.)

B. Award Conditions

An NSF award consists of: (1) the award letter, which includes any special provisions applicable to the award and any numbered amendments thereto; (2) the budget, which indicates the amounts, by categories of expense, on which NSF has based its support (or otherwise communicates any specific approvals or disapprovals of proposed expenditures); (3) the proposal referenced in the award letter; (4) the applicable award conditions, such as Grant General Conditions (GC-1); * or Research Terms and Conditions * and (5) any announcement or other NSF issuance that may be incorporated by reference in the award letter. Cooperative agreements also are administered in accordance with NSF Cooperative Agreement Financial and Administrative Terms and Conditions (CA-FATC) and the applicable Programmatic Terms and Conditions. NSF awards are electronically signed by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer and transmitted electronically to the organization via e-mail.

*These documents may be accessed electronically on NSF's Website at http://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/award_conditions.jsp?org=NSF. Paper copies may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov.

More comprehensive information on NSF Award Conditions and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Award & Administration Guide (AAG) Chapter II, available electronically on the NSF Website at http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag.

Special Award Conditions:

Proposals funded by USDA/NIFA:

Several Federal statutes and regulations apply to grant applications considered for review and to project grants awarded under this program. These include, but are not limited to:

7 CFR Part 1, subpart A-USDA implementation of the Freedom of Information Act.

7 CFR Part 3-USDA implementation of OMB Circular No. A-129 regarding debt collection.

7 CFR Part 15, subpart A-USDA implementation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

7 CFR Part 331 and 9 CFR Part 121-USDA implementation of the Agricultural Bioterrorism Protection Act of 2002.

7 CFR Part 3015-USDA Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations, implementing OMB directives (i.e., OMB Circular Nos. A-21 and A-122 (2 CFR Parts 220 and 230), and incorporating provisions of 31 U.S.C. 6301-6308 (formerly the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977, Pub. L. No. 95-224), as well as general policy requirements applicable to recipients of Departmental financial assistance.

7 CFR Part 3017-USDA implementation of Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement).

7 CFR Part 3018-USDA implementation of Restrictions on Lobbying. Imposes prohibitions and requirements for disclosure and certification related to lobbying on recipients of Federal contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, and loans.

7 CFR Part 3019-USDA implementation of OMB Circular A-110, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Other Agreements With Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit Organizations (2 CFR Part 215).

7 CFR Part 3021-Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Financial Assistance).

7 CFR Part 3052-USDA implementation of OMB Circular No. A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Nonprofit Organizations.

7 CFR Part 3407-NIFA procedures to implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended.

7 CFR 3430-Competitive and Noncompetitive Non-formula Grant Programs--General Grant Administrative Provisions.

29 U.S.C. 794 (section 504, Rehabilitation Act of 1973) and 7 CFR Part 15b (USDA implementation of statute) -prohibiting discrimination based upon physical or mental handicap in Federally assisted programs.

35 U.S.C. 200 et seq. -Bayh Dole Act, controlling allocation of rights to inventions made by employees of small business firms and domestic nonprofit organizations, including universities, in Federally assisted programs (implementing regulations are contained in 37 CFR Part 401).

US-UK Collaborative projects:

BBSRC Awardees are subject to BBSRC reporting and administration requirements as appropriate and outlined in the BBSRC Research Funding Guide at http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/funding/apply/grants-guide.aspx.

C. Reporting Requirements

For all multi-year grants (including both standard and continuing grants), the Principal Investigator must submit an annual project report to the cognizant Program Officer at least 90 days before the end of the current budget period. (Some programs or awards require more frequent project reports). Within 90 days after expiration of a grant, the PI also is required to submit a final project report, and a project outcomes report for the general public.

Failure to provide the required annual or final project reports, or the project outcomes report will delay NSF review and processing of any future funding increments as well as any pending proposals for that PI. PIs should examine the formats of the required reports in advance to assure availability of required data.

PIs are required to use NSF's electronic project-reporting system, available through FastLane, for preparation and submission of annual and final project reports. Such reports provide information on activities and findings, project participants (individual and organizational), publications, and other specific products and contributions. PIs will not be required to re-enter information previously provided, either with a proposal or in earlier updates using the electronic system. Submission of the report via FastLane constitutes certification by the PI that the contents of the report are accurate and complete. The project outcomes report must be prepared and submitted using Research.gov. This report serves as a brief summary, prepared specifically for the public, of the nature and outcomes of the project. This report will be posted on the NSF website exactly as it is submitted by the PI.

NIH Awardees are subject to NIH reporting and administration rules and processes for annual renewal of their awards as outlined at: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/policy.htm and in the Notice of Grant Award.

Reporting on USDA Awards:
Grantees are to submit initial project information and annual summary reports to NIFA's electronic, Web-based inventory system that facilitates both grantee submissions of project outcomes and public access to information on Federally-funded projects. The details of these reporting requirements are included in the award terms and conditions.

Any additional reporting requirements will be identified in the terms and conditions of the award (see Part VII, A. above for a link to view the NIFA award terms and conditions).

For informational purposes, the "Federal Financial Report," Form SF-425, consolidates into a single report the former Financial Status Report (SF-269 and SF-269A) and the Federal Cash Transactions Report (SF-272 and SF-272A). The NIFA Agency-specific Terms and Conditions include the requirement that Form SF-425 is due on a annual basis no later than 90 days following the award's anniversary date (i.e., one year following the month and day of which the project period begins and each year thereafter up until a final report is required). A final "Federal Financial Report," Form SF-425, is due 90 days after the expiration date of this award.

US-UK Collaborative projects:

BBSRC Awardees are subject to BBSRC reporting requirements as outlined in the BBSRC Research Funding Guide at http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/funding/apply/grants-guide.aspx. US-UK Collaborative Projects should report on activities of the entire collaborative effort and submit that information to both NSF and BBSRC as part of the annual and final reports.

VIII. AGENCY CONTACTS

Please note that the program contact information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.

General inquiries regarding this program should be made to:

• Samuel M. Scheiner, Program Director, NSF/BIO, telephone: (703) 292-7175, email: sscheine@nsf.gov

• Christine Jessup, Program Director, NIH/FIC, telephone: (301) 496-9676, fax: (301) 402-0779, email: christine.jessup@nih.gov

• Peter Johnson, National Program Leader, USDA/NIFA, telephone: (202) 401-1896, email: pjohnson@nifa.usda.gov

• Michael Lesser, Program Director, NSF/GEO, telephone: (703) 292-8143, email: mlesser@nsf.gov

• Deborah Winslow, Program Director, NSF/SBE, telephone: (703) 292-7315, email: dwinslow@nsf.gov

• Irene Eckstrand, Program Director, NIH/NIGMS, telephone: (301) 594-0943, email: eckstrai@nigms.nih.gov

• Sadhana Sharma, Strategy and Policy Manager-Animal Health, BBSRC, telephone: 44 1793-413099, email: sadhana.sharma@bbsrc.ac.uk

For questions related to the use of FastLane, contact:

• FastLane Help Desk, telephone: 1-800-673-6188; e-mail: fastlane@nsf.gov.

For questions relating to Grants.gov contact:

• Grants.gov Contact Center: If the Authorized Organizational Representatives (AOR) has not received a confirmation message from Grants.gov within 48 hours of submission of application, please contact via telephone: 1-800-518-4726; e-mail: support@grants.gov.

IX. OTHER INFORMATION

The NSF Website provides the most comprehensive source of information on NSF Directorates (including contact information), programs and funding opportunities. Use of this Website by potential proposers is strongly encouraged. In addition, National Science Foundation Update is a free e-mail subscription service designed to keep potential proposers and other interested parties apprised of new NSF funding opportunities and publications, important changes in proposal and award policies and procedures, and upcoming NSF Regional Grants Conferences. Subscribers are informed through e-mail when new publications are issued that match their identified interests. Users can subscribe to this service by clicking the "Get NSF Updates by Email" link on the NSF web site.

Grants.gov provides an additional electronic capability to search for Federal government-wide grant opportunities. NSF funding opportunities may be accessed via this new mechanism. Further information on Grants.gov may be obtained at http://www.grants.gov.

A notice on the Ecology and Evolution of Infectious Disease research initiative and this announcement is also posted in the NIH Guide to Grants and Contracts http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/index.html along with all NIH opportunities.

ABOUT THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent Federal agency created by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 USC 1861-75). The Act states the purpose of the NSF is "to promote the progress of science; [and] to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare by supporting research and education in all fields of science and engineering."

NSF funds research and education in most fields of science and engineering. It does this through grants and cooperative agreements to more than 2,000 colleges, universities, K-12 school systems, businesses, informal science organizations and other research organizations throughout the US. The Foundation accounts for about one-fourth of Federal support to academic institutions for basic research.

NSF receives approximately 40,000 proposals each year for research, education and training projects, of which approximately 11,000 are funded. In addition, the Foundation receives several thousand applications for graduate and postdoctoral fellowships. The agency operates no laboratories itself but does support National Research Centers, user facilities, certain oceanographic vessels and Arctic and Antarctic research stations. The Foundation also supports cooperative research between universities and industry, US participation in international scientific and engineering efforts, and educational activities at every academic level.

Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities to work on NSF-supported projects. See Grant Proposal Guide Chapter II, Section D.2 for instructions regarding preparation of these types of proposals.

The National Science Foundation has Telephonic Device for the Deaf (TDD) and Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) capabilities that enable individuals with hearing impairments to communicate with the Foundation about NSF programs, employment or general information. TDD may be accessed at (703) 292-5090 and (800) 281-8749, FIRS at (800) 877-8339.

The National Science Foundation Information Center may be reached at (703) 292-5111.

PRIVACY ACT AND PUBLIC BURDEN STATEMENTS

The information requested on proposal forms and project reports is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. The information on proposal forms will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals; and project reports submitted by awardees will be used for program evaluation and reporting within the Executive Branch and to Congress. The information requested may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the proposal review process; to proposer institutions/grantees to provide or obtain data regarding the proposal review process, award decisions, or the administration of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers and educators as necessary to complete assigned work; to other government agencies or other entities needing information regarding applicants or nominees as part of a joint application review process, or in order to coordinate programs or policy; and to another Federal agency, court, or party in a court or Federal administrative proceeding if the government is a party. Information about Principal Investigators may be added to the Reviewer file and used to select potential candidates to serve as peer reviewers or advisory committee members. See Systems of Records, NSF-50, "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," 69 Federal Register 26410 (May 12, 2004), and NSF-51, "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records," 69 Federal Register 26410 (May 12, 2004). Submission of the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information, however, may reduce the possibility of receiving an award.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OMB control number for this collection is 3145-0058. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding the burden estimate and any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to:

Suzanne H. Plimpton
Reports Clearance Officer
Division of Administrative Services
National Science Foundation
Arlington, VA 22230