Manju Hingorani: To our Webinar um from the division of molecular and cellular biosciences. We're going to start now, Richard, if you could go to the next slide.
Manju Hingorani: Um! Just a reminder that you can submit your questions via the Q. A. Box on your screen you can choose to select uh, to submit your question anonymously, or if uh or or let your name be shown. Uh. If you have specific questions about your project, please contact a program director. I also want to note that um the next Mcp Virtual office hours are on November eighth, where we will have breakout sessions that may allow you to meet Mtv. Program address
Manju Hingorani: and talk with them, and on December we're taking a break, so we'll see you the next time after that, in January next slide, please.
Manju Hingorani: Today's topic is tool development for molecular and some biology. Um. We have two presenters, Richard Sierra and Rob Weischmann, who ah! Will take you through the presentation, and and then we'll take your questions and answer them. We also have another ah program director here, Steve, do you want to introduce yourself?
Steve DiFazio - NSF/MCB: I'm sure. I'm Steve Defazio from the genetic mechanisms cluster in Mcb.
Manju Hingorani: And I am Manchu Hingurani, also for the genetic mechanisms cluster in Mar cell Biosciences Richard
Richard Cyr: I'm Richard Sear I'm. A program director in the cellular dynamics and function cluster.
Robert Fleischmann: Hi! My name is Rob Fleischman. I'm in a different division. I'm. In the division of biological infrastructure in the research resources. Cluster.
Richard Cyr: Welcome everyone,
Manju Hingorani: Richard. We have Jennifer here as well. If she'd like to
hi everybody. Welcome I'm Jennifer. Well, or i'm in the division of biological infrastructure and the resource
Jennifer Weller NSF/BIO/DBI: research resources cluster with Rob as well. Thank you
Richard Cyr: all right, everyone. I think we can get started on this, as you might have gathered, This is a a program that spans multiple divisions, Ddi and Mcb.
Richard Cyr: I'll get into more about when you should consider one or the other. But i'm going to reiterate that if you have questions, contact a program director, because sometimes it's a hard decision to to make as far as where to go. But we're here to help you so feel free
Richard Cyr: to email myself for uh or rob
Richard Cyr: the Tool Development program kind of came out of it so you can. You can see it in the dear colleague letter noted here, and as F twenty, three, one hundred and twenty, one feel free to read it. You're going to be seeing a lot of language that I looked at directly out of that dear colleague.
Richard Cyr: And what a dear colleague letter is! Is, It's basically an announcement to the community that the and Nsf. Is interested in some aspect of science we have a special interest in it.
Richard Cyr: Um. And so in this case i'll go through the the the reasons that we do have that and that kind of can help you judge whether your ah your project is suitable for this program.
Richard Cyr: So what is the program?
Richard Cyr: Well, again this came out of both divisions with his dear colleague letter, and it all started with kind of a recognition that tools play a a very important role in
Richard Cyr: advancing science, science. And of course those of us in Mcd recognize its importance. Um in in that particular area, and as you'll see, Dbi also has an interest in ah tools as well, that apply even more broadly outside of of the cell.
Richard Cyr: So kind of think about that when you're trying to decide. Dbi versus Mcb. What potential does your cell have to impact your area,
Richard Cyr: you know. And I think I think, regardless of what subdiscipline we're in. In biology we we all recognize that there's a variety of tools. Protocols, approaches that have really broken out, the area broken. New areas of investigation either allowed things to be done easier allowed us to go into areas. We couldn't go for scale things in ways that could. So there's all examples that i'll get into the kinds of,
Richard Cyr: and when we use the word tools uh what we mean by that. So this is a particular, This particular, dear colleague letter is focused on those tools that deal with what goes on in the cell. In the most broadest sense
Richard Cyr: we are
Richard Cyr: we? The other reason that we issued the dear colleague letter is that we we really want to encourage new ideas. We we really want you to to think about. You know where we are, the frontiers? What envelope do you really want to push? That needs pushing on? Um! And how might your idea really really open up? Ah! Potentially open up a a new avenue of investigation
Richard Cyr: they are.
Richard Cyr: Now, there's a two different types of proposals. We're going to be talking about. We call it a an eager proposal. This is a a rather unique program uh that's established for kind of those ideas that um don't have a lot of preliminary data to them. Uh, It's more of a kind of an idea that's got a lot of potential to it. Uh, but they don't come with a lot of support and or long duration. But we'll also be talking about regular proposals
Richard Cyr: that have a higher funding level, as, and also a longer period of investigation associated.
Richard Cyr: Okay. So what constitutes a tool? Well, you know it. It. It could be a new reagent that allows you to do something that can't currently can't be done.
Richard Cyr: Um! It could be a new instrumentation or a significant modification of existing instrumentation, and the word significant is important here um in all these. So if you're going to, if you're thinking about kind of adapting something, be sure it's a significant jump, not a um a minor advance. So think about it, or instead of making a measurement with an increase accuracy about
Richard Cyr: ah tenth of a percent or so, I think a little bigger than that,
Richard Cyr: and they could be a protocol, and and it could be one where maybe there's a you
Richard Cyr: there's a field that's developed. Uh, say, chemistry, that's working on uh some new aspect, it, although the people are currently applying it to biology. You look at it and go. Wow! You know I I then, if we tweet this a little bit here, we could stick it in the cell, and it could report whatever um so think about we. We're especially interested in those ideas that do come from one or more other disciplines.
Richard Cyr: Um: computational methods, new new algorithms that ah further advance our ability to analyze the huge amounts of data that are being generated these days, or us. Again, a significant modification of existing one.
Richard Cyr: And again, I mentioned that we're especially interested in what other disciplines outside biology bring to biology? Because biology is really turning into a multidisciplinary effort. So there's there's likely a lot of opportunities out there if we kind of look around to the difference of this, or different disciplines of science,
Richard Cyr: and then, of course, um! You know some combination of the above that you might want to, that you might want to consider putting together. So when we use the word tool, we're not thinking about one thing we're not thinking about necessarily a physical entity. It could be a way of doing things or and or analyzing things.
Richard Cyr: Okay, now,
Richard Cyr: we're interested in tools, and often people come to us, and they'll say, Hey, I got this idea. I want to develop this this thing that does this particular task, and we'll say, Well, that sounds pretty interesting, you know. I I could think of how I might use it, but i'm not the one doing the work you all are. This is a this is a program for you
Richard Cyr: and what we're interested we're interested in. Not just your tool, but we're but we're interested in the biological program. That ah problem rather that you want to use that tool for initially at least, sometimes a particular tool might have a lot of potential applications.
Richard Cyr: Um, we're really interested in knowing. Where do you want to start? If this if this tool works the way you think it would, what would be the first problem that you'd want to tackle.
Richard Cyr: And so what kind of problems when when we say problems, you know we're we're looking for problems that that are important, not just interesting. You know we're scientists, everything's interesting to us. And so it's important to think about the difference between what's interesting and what's important. We want
Richard Cyr: uh to see a tool that can address an important problem.
Richard Cyr: Um, you know, and it it could be something that uh has just opened up a a new area, and this tool will help better exploit that entry into into the field. You know it could be a long-standing problem. That people just haven't been able to make headway on
Richard Cyr: um and um your tool, you think really might be able to crack that open so it doesn't necessarily have to be a a new field. But if it's an older field pretty well mature, it better be a problem that people have been grappling with for a while
Richard Cyr: is important. So in particular, we're looking for improved quantification where the
Richard Cyr: Mcdonald's divisions particularly interested in understanding how cells work with an insight into that mechanistic understanding of how cells work predictability.
Richard Cyr: Um the you know, if you understand something mechanistically, and you really understand it. With that understanding you can make predictions. And ah! Those predictions hold up, and you really do have a good mechanistic understanding, so that kind of a mechanistic understanding, predictability, quantification, they all kind of go together.
Richard Cyr: You're um.
Richard Cyr: We're also interested in that approaches that might be able to improve control of a system up, regulate this down, regulate that, turn out a suite of this, turn off a suite of that that sort of thing in terms of being able to manipulate what's going on.
Richard Cyr: Um, Now, as I mentioned before, the the tool may have applications for lots of things. But really we're going to ask you what's the first problem that you're going to tackle? And that problem should be clear. And
Richard Cyr: speaking of compelling uh what kind of problems Aren't so exciting. Um,
Richard Cyr: You know those problems that you know they're making incremental advance, and that's kind of a loaded word One way of looking at it that I think is helpful, and an incremental advance doesn't really open up a new way of looking at things. It just kind of um confirms what we already know.
Richard Cyr: Those things. Aren't Aren't so important if we already know it, providing we really do know it. And that's up to you to make that argument
Richard Cyr: better. Descriptive understanding. Um! Those those get a little hard to make a good argument that that's really going to advance a mechanistic understanding if you can do it fine, but simply just a better way
Richard Cyr: to do a screen without further explanation. Isn't going to be so exciting.
Richard Cyr: Ah,
Richard Cyr: they are.
Richard Cyr: And then again I hit this confirmation of what we already know.
Richard Cyr: Okay, so um!
Richard Cyr: Here's a question that we often get. It's like, hey? I got this idea, you know, but it's risky, you know, and I just don't know how you're gonna receive it. You know people have an idea out there that we're very, very conservative. We don't want to fund things that are risky, and that's not true.
Richard Cyr: It's really not
Richard Cyr: um. Because really, if you're going to make an advance you get. You gotta step out of the box. You gotta take some risk, but if the risk is great, the payoff should be high. And again, that's an argument that you have to make that. Okay, you understand It's risky.
Richard Cyr: But here's a potential payoff, and we really like to talk to you if that potential payoff is high, and when I say potential payoff, I mean,
Richard Cyr: you know something that could transform a research area. And when we use the word transform. That's ah another loaded word. Um! I think it's useful to think of it. What? What's going to change the textbooks
Richard Cyr: If you have a tool that you think can really open up a field in a way that'll change how we we write the textbook. That's the kind of thing that that gets our attention.
Richard Cyr: Um, the creativity originality, you know. If you're going to bring something from another discipline or two disciplines and kind of put it together in a new context. You know that kind of gets to the heart of scientific creativity. We'd like to see what you what you're thinking about.
Richard Cyr: Um, we're looking for approaches. Um, you know it's we're not going to be so keen to support something that's just kind of a pie in the sky thing we're looking for logical and and reasonable extension, as of what we know projects that are founded in good solid first Principles. But again they they could be risky, and and we'd like to hear about it.
Richard Cyr: Um! The last point here. Um, you don't have to necessarily have all the expertise and resources at your fingertips to do the work collaborate,
Richard Cyr: as you'll see when I talk about what we've supported. You'll see that we have supported collaborative projects, even with the smaller project. So we're looking for the keyword here is access to the resources and expertise that you need one hundred.
Richard Cyr: Now, having said, that
Richard Cyr: the project may not need not be high-risk, and it could be a relatively low risk, but just very logical.
Richard Cyr: Um! And But again, here's an important word impactful. It has the Ah! The approach has the ability to ah to really help people. Ah, look in ways Ah analyze data and whatnot that they can't do already.
Richard Cyr: Um! And This kind of is a a good segue to talk about the difference between the eager and a regular proposal,
Richard Cyr: because the the often the eager proposals tend to have this high-risk, high payoff character a lot more so than a regular proposal. So it's just kind of a generalization, maybe a one way to look at the difference between the two.
Richard Cyr: So
Richard Cyr: it's it's It's actually an acronym in a very governmental sort of way for early concept grants for exploratory research. Nobody ever says that they just say eager.
Richard Cyr: And basically these, it's a program that's basically encouraging people to
Richard Cyr: ah submit their ideas that are ah untested. But again, potentially transformative um. And in the context of the tools for cells for this tool protocol, whatever it is,
Richard Cyr: it's not intended to collect preliminary data. So we want to see emphasis on what your idea is, and it for an eager proposal you really don't need,
Richard Cyr: in some cases, any preliminary data. But but the plan should be sound. It should be based on first principles that people accept or recognize as important.
Richard Cyr: Um, Virtually all the eggheads have kind of this forward thinking component to it, and in many cases they hit this kind of the high-risk, high payoff criteria that you'll hear here bounced around
Richard Cyr: the proposal should not be with a kind of project that's suitable for a regular proposal, and by by a good way to think about that is, would the idea be suitable for a panel.
Richard Cyr: Ah! A panel of your peers that are talking about it with They look at it and say, Oh, this is just. It's too far out there. There's no preliminary data. Where is it that kind of thing? That's where you you really need to be, considering the E. Now,
Richard Cyr: often what happens is, people will write an eager and the in the best case, at least from our perspective,
Richard Cyr: that eager actually turns out to work the way they thought it would, and that leads it into the kind of the next funding level into a regular proposal. So the don't think of either, or they're often continuum of this whole award process.
Richard Cyr: I do want to point out that one of the one of the limitations for the eager proposal is the funding amount. That's three hundred K for two years, and that includes direct and indirect cost. So not a lot of support there with the
Richard Cyr: um. The the regular proposals. Um, you know they're larger in scale. There's um! There's more dollar amounts behind them and longer durations, typically two to four years is
Richard Cyr: ah window to think about um, and you have an opportunity with the regular proposal. Um! About twice as long as an eager proposal. Um, you can put in a preliminary data or approve a concept because it is going to go to a panel. And so you've got to convince. Convince your colleagues that you can do it.
Richard Cyr: We're still looking regardless of whether it's regular or eager. We're looking for high impact. High impact projects. The Nsf: doesn't
Richard Cyr: have as much money as we'd like to have. So we really want those dollars to really make important advances.
Richard Cyr: Now, down here in the corner, there's a document. It's called the Pa. Ppg: and you can just Google, this Nsf: Pa. Ppg: and there'll be a web version, and that basically has all the rules that govern submission of proposals, be they regular proposals or eager proposals. There's an isil uh subject index on the left on the web version that allows you to sip through a pretty long dog.
Richard Cyr: Okay, Another important consideration with the eager is, Mcb. Will consider the eager submissions. Ddi. No; but you can submit a regular proposal to both Mcb. As well as to dvi. We'll talk a little bit about when to go to one place when to go to the other. And again, I want to reiterate. It's kind of a mantra that we often have, and that is, if in doubt, talk to a program director.
Richard Cyr: Um, we can uh kind of help you uh help you with that decision.
Richard Cyr: Okay. So how do you apply? Uh, not all of you may be familiar with the Nsf proposal process or with the eager.
Richard Cyr: So some important considerations, and this information is found in that Pa. Ppg: so you can always dig into it there and just go to the subject here.
Richard Cyr: Uh first consideration is that the ears are by invitation only. So what you have to do is float your idea past the program. We have a formal system. It's called Prospect,
Richard Cyr: and these links are are available in the online. Pdf: that's posted in this presentation. But you can also just search Nsf. Prospect and the system will pop up for you.
Richard Cyr: Um, or you can just come up with a one-page um description of your project and send it to a program director and say, Hey, what do you think? Is your program the right place for it?
Richard Cyr: Then what's going to happen, regardless of whether you submit to the prospect or you submit to the to the program director.
Richard Cyr: What we're gonna do is we're gonna come back, and most of our programs are composed of three to four, sometimes five people, and we basically talk about it. And the kinds of things we talk about
Richard Cyr: is, is it? And here's a phrase that we often use. Is it eager, worthy, that is? Does it fill the criteria of an eager as outlined in the Phpg. So you can see right there, kind of what we mean by ear.
Richard Cyr: We're looking for the impact again. That's an important thing to keep in mind, and we're also looking for. You know the potential to open up a a new field of inquiry,
Richard Cyr: and then what we'll do is we'll get back to you, and we'll say, you know we, you know. Ah, the idea. It is suitable for an eager. We're going to invite it, and we'll send you information on how to proceed, or we'll say no. We don't think it's suitable for an eager um. It will offer you a different suggestions. It just depends on the the project.
Richard Cyr: So some things to think about. I mentioned this before, and that is the limitation of monetary support and time for an eager
Richard Cyr: um eggheads are subject to peer, review, so um they they can be ah peer-reviewed, and certainly with the two tools for sales program. We're doing that more and more
Richard Cyr: um keep in mind. Those regular proposals. Do have that higher budget.
Richard Cyr: And also here's an important thing. If you decide that your project should go with a regular proposal, you
Richard Cyr: Ah! When that proposal comes up for discussion at panels. We give the panel specific instructions for the tools for sales program. So ah reviewers be they the panelists themselves or the ad hoc, they'll get a specific
Richard Cyr: um reviewer instructions, and it often talks about the the their their opinion on the potential impact that the tool might have.
Richard Cyr: These regular proposals do not require invitation. You can submit it through research. Gov: or
Richard Cyr: okay. I want to say a couple things about Mcd, because if you do go into the prospect system, and you submit your idea. It's going to ask you, where do you want it to go? And in the case of Mcd
Richard Cyr: um, you need to keep in mind what our division is interested in. Basically, we're scaling from the atomic level up to the cell level to understand the mechanistic underpinnings of cellular function. So that's kind of our realm. And we divvy that up
Richard Cyr: into these kind of four categories molecular biophysics is pretty much what it sounds like the genetic mechanisms group.
Richard Cyr: Um. Also, this is similar to the name, except there's an emphasis on the mechanistic understanding, just because you use genetics doesn't mean They're interested in it. They're They're really looking for projects that provide insight into how information is passed between generations and expressed and stored within that generation.
Richard Cyr: The program. I'm with with cellular dynamics and function. We kind of hit things like organeller functions, skeleton function, signaling that sorts of thing. So we kind of sit in the middle of this group systems in synthetic biology program.
Richard Cyr: Ah deals with the kind of systems approaches to various problems. Um, as well as ah projects that are taking that synthetic biology approach. And also there's some ah microbiology interest in there. You can read all about this
Richard Cyr: in their general solicitation. That's nsf twenty, three by forty, eight or you can just type in to Google and Nsf. Mcb. General solicitation. Be sure you hit the most current. One.
Richard Cyr: Um, Also, importantly with Mcb is, we do not have a deadline. You can submit when you're ready. Um,
Richard Cyr: to any of these core programs.
Richard Cyr: Okay, So what have we funded so far with um the tools for cells. Ah, initiative! Well, as you can see here, and and I, I put this particular slide up for a reason this is taken right out of the and Nsf: search engine just
Richard Cyr: type into Google Awards, Nsf: and it'll drop you into the award splash page um, and you can. You can do a general search. You can do various refinements. Um! But what you get is an output, And you see here, these are funded projects. Here's one that's collaborative. It's an eager
Richard Cyr: um. Here's ah another one an eager um ah project another eager Um! Here's one on um a regular proposal that was funded out of the tools for cells,
Richard Cyr: and you can see right off the bat that the regular proposals do have a a higher funding amount than duty meters. So this is one way to get an idea of. Oh, and, by the way, each one of these has a public abstract, so you can. Ah read about what it's. Ah, what it's about,
Richard Cyr: so you can search this any way you want.
Richard Cyr: All righty, so i'm going to stop talking. I'm going to turn the slides over to rob the rob. Take it away.
Robert Fleischmann: Thank you, Richard. So um let me just quickly reintroduce myself, so my name is Rob Fleischman, as I said earlier, and I'm. In the division of biological infrastructure in the Biological Sciences Director and I'm. Here today along with my ah colleague, Ah, Jennifer Weller, and together we manage the infrastructure innovation for biological research programmers. We call it the innovation program,
Robert Fleischmann: and just say no That's solicitation nsf twenty, three minus five, seven, eight, And with respect for tools for cells, this is for Dbi, Our entering way into it's our core program entry way into the tools for sales program.
Robert Fleischmann: And so what I'm gonna do is spend a few minutes just
Robert Fleischmann: differentiating ourselves a bit um from the uh from you know, tools for cells in Mcb, and show you how we kind of. I have a a broader scope, perhaps, than than the Mcb. And that's how we're been differentiating ourselves and our um interest in this program.
Robert Fleischmann: So the first thing i'll say, and i'm going to re-emphasize some of the things that Richard said.
Robert Fleischmann: Please read the solicitation. We're often asked how to write a good good proposal, Read the solicitation. It has extraordinarily amounts of detail, whether it's this program or any program at the foundation that will help guide you through what actually, we're looking for in a strong proposal. Now
Robert Fleischmann: for the innovation program, and with respect for tools for cells. We're looking again to support research, to design a novel or generally improved research tools and methods that advance contemporary biology in a broader context than perhaps the in themcb program, the tools themselves. So what we're we're emphasizing is three programmatic areas, bioinformatics which Jennifer generally handles instrumentation development and research methods which I have
Robert Fleischmann: Richard already mentioned. Um, you know some of these things flow between each other. So while we have three separate programmatic areas here where you are aware that they often your research development is or your tools. Development is not siloed in these areas. So it's not
Robert Fleischmann: inappropriate to put together a proposal that might blend to, or even all three of these programmatic areas into one. And then we use our own discretion as to how we review it in different panels with respect to these various programmatic areas,
Robert Fleischmann: as Richard or I mentioned. But I don't have down here as a core program in the biological Sciences directorate. There is no deadline. So, as Richard said, you submit when you're ready. The general duration for these projects is usually around three years, but we do make awards out to five years in these projects,
Robert Fleischmann: these awards, and for fy twenty, four, we're often asked. You know how many awards are we going to make.
Robert Fleischmann: We don't know yet somewhere in the twenty to forty, when we know our budget and allocation will have a better idea. But obviously it windows. That's going to be a bit of a struggle this year. But um, you know the number of awards is often dependent on the number of proposals we get, and the allocation we get for the program next slide
Robert Fleischmann: the new dancing slides whose advancing slides
Robert Fleischmann: I am not advancing the slides. I don't think
Robert Fleischmann: I have Okay, Sorry. Sorry for that. I didn't realize I could advance the slides as well. My apologies. So
Robert Fleischmann: what are the evaluation criteria? So in our solicitation we put forth very specific evaluation, criteria, and questions that we want you to address in putting together a strong proposal for tools for cells through the innovation program.
Robert Fleischmann: As we differentiate ourselves a bit, we want the projects to be of interest, to have brought
Robert Fleischmann: class of biological research questions and topics. So it actually Richard illustrated if you looked at the titles of the projects that Richard showed, whether they were eager or um relative regular proposals. Um! You saw that they were actually most of them were addressed towards answering a specific question. We're looking to address broader questions. We also want to be able to put forth and explain to us what the broader user community will be, and we don't want that just to be anecdotal. We,
Robert Fleischmann: I want you to demonstrate the leg work as a pi that you've done to identify this community. So whether you've attended workshops, have held workshops or spoken to our fellow program officers to identify that your idea would, in fact, be applicable to a broad community of researchers that they support.
Robert Fleischmann: That's the type of evidence the hard evidence that we're looking for. Um, you know, as I already said, it should be responsive to a broad research question that's relevant to the Biological Sciences Directory.
Robert Fleischmann: We've already had a question about disease. We're going to elaborate on that question, because one of us may have given somewhat of a flippant to answer. But we can talk a little bit about about disease, and how that relates to the biological Sciences Director. Because I know often that's a question of concern.
Robert Fleischmann: Um, As I said, it should be a biofunded research community. Um. And as Richard emphasize whether it's in our program or through the core programs in Mcb, it should represent a significant advance, whether it's instrumentation, methodology, bioinformatics. It should represent a significant advancement over the tools that are currently available.
Robert Fleischmann: Okay,
Robert Fleischmann: So this is a bit repetitive, but things I want to emphasize so novel innovative instrumentation or methods, or bioinformatics, tools. Um, Again we're looking for the novelty which you already emphasize. Ah, the transformative nature kind of Ah! As you said a word kind of Ah! Which has
Robert Fleischmann: a mixed interpretation. But it should have significant impact.
Robert Fleischmann: Ah! A broad class of biological research question should be addressable with the tool. Um, There should be a strong user community, not just a single user that will be utilizing the tool and the a strong proposal for our parameters solicitation should also talk about how this, but how this tool will be disseminated to the community.
Robert Fleischmann: And um as Richard, and that's important so. And as Richard already said, you know, we're not looking for a refinement just to optimizations or scaling and existing methods, um validation of of current reagents or new approaches, like antibodies or fluorescent tags. We're looking, as we said, for things that have much larger impact on this.
Robert Fleischmann: Okay? And then, finally, as I said, You know another area that we address is in bioinformatics. So we look to look for new pioneering approaches and the application of informatics to biological problems again on a more scale. Ah, creating computational tools and database architecture that can address a broad range of biological research questions. Um, As we've said, a high degree of novelty potential impact. This goes across the board. We've talked about risk. Um, as I think Richard ludu we have really well-balanced
Robert Fleischmann: portfolio. So there are proposals that are definitely higher risk, and we want those in our portfolio on their proposals. That we view is less risk. If there's more preliminary data, we may do it as less risky, and that whether it's biopromatics or or instrument, or a methodology Um. So again, with respect to risk, it's a matter of balancing our portfolios also. Um, and then these for for dissemination, for by from axials is the publication of your methodologies to concept
Robert Fleischmann: production of a of a prototype for further development. But overall, as Richard has said, we want to solve challenging and High-risk problems.
Richard Cyr: Thirty thanks Rob.
Richard Cyr: Uh. So some take home messages uh, that uh
Richard Cyr: should be considered
Richard Cyr: the um, and that is the difference between the eager or the regular proposal regardless. Remember, this only applies to the Mcd side will entertain the eager projects. Ah, especially if it's a a focused effort that doesn't require a huge amount of support it has that especially, that has that high risk, high payoff care.
Richard Cyr: And then remember that's by invitation only. So you're gonna have to contact us and bounce the idea off before we consider that invitation. So the
Richard Cyr: But we also will entertain regular proposals again, typically more support You've got that preliminary data. You got the you have enough information there to sell it to a panel. Send it to the regular proposal in Mcdonald's.
Richard Cyr: Yeah. The scope is Mcb. As Rob just said, If it's a broader scope, then consider, Dvi, and if you're not sure contact us, we'll help you with it.
Richard Cyr: Um! And again, this gets to Mcd or Dbi, you know you might have to have a conversation with both myself and Rob to decide. Um, Really, it's up to you where you want to send it. And again, just kind of. Think about that. Who's going to use the tool,
Richard Cyr: and that can be a good guiding litmus test for you if it's a you know a couple a couple people that you
Richard Cyr: uh that work in that kind of same uh niche that you do. Um, You know Mcb is probably going to be a better route. But if it it gets even broader, and perhaps even if it scales uh across into the organismal area into the ecology area, that's where you really need to consider going to Dvi
Richard Cyr: um. But again we're really looking for those impactful ideas. So the again, you know you're going to get tired of me hearing it. Contact a program director, if you have questions. And then with regard to the eager
Richard Cyr: Sanitam, Cb:
Richard Cyr: Okay. Lastly, if you're not familiar with the Nsf. Keep in mind that these office hours are recorded, and there was a
Richard Cyr: office hour on April twelfth. Ah! This year we talked about Ah, putting together a ah strong proposal. What what elements are in a strong proposal! Ah! You might want to take a look at that! And then again, as Rob said, read the solicitation.
Richard Cyr: Often the solicitation will provide you specific guidance. One of the things that we talk about in preparing a proposal step one read this solicitation last step reread the solicitation.
Richard Cyr: Be sure that you hit all the points that you need to.
Richard Cyr: Yeah. And again, that presentation, and we'll probably do another one in April of two thousand and twenty-four on that topic,
Richard Cyr: so on the topic of virtual office hours next
Richard Cyr: our next one we'll have a larger group of Mcd program directors together, and you can, if you want to join that and ask, Hey, You know I got this project. It fits right between these these two two groups. What do I do with it that you know That may be where we can kind of help you decide.
Richard Cyr: Well, December, We're going to take a break, and we'll pick up the program in two thousand and twenty four.
Richard Cyr: Also, I want you to keep in mind that all the
Richard Cyr: all the divisions, and think of divisions as departments. Ah, and the the Bio Directorate as the college Um. And we have four of these divisions we heard from Ddi and Mcb. But also we have environmental biology and the integrated organizable systems. Ah, division! So they're they're worth looking into. If you if you're working in those areas, and or you see potential to work in those areas. It's Ah,
Richard Cyr: we're looking into
Richard Cyr: um. And then, you know, Hey, here's things we we always invite people, you know, if you got a cool story that you want to share, especially if you've received Msf. Funding, let us know, because we like to spread the word about the the things that the
Richard Cyr: and with that we will entertain questions.
Richard Cyr: Thank you.
Manju Hingorani: Thank you, Richard and Rob I, just before Kedra takes us through. Q. And A. I just want to point out that I posted several links relevant links
Manju Hingorani: um to the solutions and the Apache on eggheads um in the chat, so you'd like to. You should um look at those links, and then um! Several questions have been answered in writing, and you should have access to those answers, so please take a look at those as well.
Robert Fleischmann: So you want to go back and address the disease question, and i'm I was the one who gave the somewhat flippant answer. I can kind of elaborate on that.
Robert Fleischmann: So So I know. Someone asked. You know whether there, if the tool was related to disease, whether we would entertain that. So
Robert Fleischmann: So you know, the the fluid answer is that Bio does not do human health related research per se. So if you're developing a tool that's going to screen a drug or look for a new drug target per se or a specific disease, at least in Dbi. We're not going to be particularly interested in that. However, if you're using a disease model to understand, to have a better understanding of basic cellular mechanisms of sorts. Then that's something, of course, that we would be very interested in in the best
Robert Fleischmann: uh where your research is going, so i'll just kind of if anyone else wants to elaborate on that. But that's kind of the broader and probably better answer.
Richard Cyr: Yeah, thanks, Rob, that you know in Cdf: You know, we're interested in cellular motility, and if you're going to use a cancer line that shows some
Richard Cyr: profound motility mechanisms that are used in normal cells as well, We don't care, you know, but but but the mechanisms you uncover should be appropriate and generalizable to a normal cell.
Kaidra Riggins: All right. Our next question is, what is the general turnaround time for receiving feedback on a submission to prospect.
Kaidra Riggins: Great question, and i'll give you a solid. It depends.
Richard Cyr: The reason it can depend is. Sometimes we'll get a proposal in, and i'll take a look. You know it. It'll actually come to all of us. Mind you may get it. I may get it. I may get it, and and we can't decide where it
Richard Cyr: where the idea should go, so there'll be a lot of kind of back discussions that occur within the Nsf. Before we get back to you, but you know we try our darnedness to try to get back to you with a at least we're working on it within a week or two. But I can't guarantee that
Richard Cyr: I don't know if you want to jump in, mind you,
Manju Hingorani: um, I think. Um one of the things you can do to make sure that the term around time is a bit faster If you're using prospects to make sure you choose the right program so directed to the molecular cellular biosynthesis directorate. I think you have the option of choosing a cluster as well. Um. So if you're interested in the genetic mechanisms cluster, choose that if you're interested in it in Dbi, well sorry prospect is not for regular proposals. It's only for egers.
Manju Hingorani: And then you're welcome to also follow up with an email.
Thank you. Next question is, will you consider tools that will enable breakthroughs in engineering rather than discovery of new knowledge,
Richard Cyr: you, you know,
Richard Cyr: and I'm going to give you a solid with modification.
Richard Cyr: So, for example, we we might get an idea that comes through, and we look at it, and we contact our counterparts over in engineering and say, You know, we think this is something that you'd be interested in or
Richard Cyr: um, or we might get back to you and say, Okay, you didn't indicate a biological problem. Do you have one? And then, you know, if upon contemplation. You come up with a good program, a good problem to address. We We might consider it
Richard Cyr: so again again that back conversation could occur not just. Ah! Between the programs within the biological director, if they can occur outside of the biological directorate as well
Kaidra Riggins: for an eager, What is the typical timeframe for review and funding of invited submissions.
Kaidra Riggins: Another comment was: I was surprised to see that several are already funded. Given that the Dcl. Just recently came out.
Richard Cyr: It's
Richard Cyr: a good
Richard Cyr: over it.
Richard Cyr: I'm glad you picked up on that.
Richard Cyr: There actually was a previous Dcl. On tools themselves. Ah, it was a little more limited in scope. Ah, this most reason one was broader in scope. Ah, we we had such a ah broad response that that's why we came up with a second one as far as turnaround time, because the the program has broadened the fact.
Richard Cyr: It's taken a little bit longer, I I
Richard Cyr: we haven't had enough of the submissions so far with the second Dcl. To give you a meaningful answer,
Richard Cyr: Steve, do you have any comment on that one?
Richard Cyr: I think there is one you mentioned.
Steve DiFazio - NSF/MCB: I I did not. Are you referring to me, Richard? Because I do. Yeah, the link And I was typing an answer to a different question. When you ask that. Sorry i'm sorry. Have you? Have you received an eager and made a decision on one for the after this second
Richard Cyr: i'll call it out
Steve DiFazio - NSF/MCB: we have. I can't say, Richard, I I cannot. I can't reveal that information. Yeah,
Richard Cyr: I can't give you a solid answer. Sorry it's too new.
Richard Cyr: We We're moving as fast as we can. That's the best I can say.
Kaidra Riggins: Thank you.
Kaidra Riggins: Will the eligibility still be preserved for Nsf. Career if I submit an nsf eager proposal.
Manju Hingorani: It's
Manju Hingorani: every um there. There is no of
Manju Hingorani: cross in the eligibility. Ah requirements you! You're welcome to submit an eager or a career at any given time. Um! Of course the two projects have to be distinct. You cannot submit the same idea, or broadly overlapping projects, or even you know. Let's say more than fifty percent overlapping um projects at the same time to Nsf. For view at the same time. That's a a blanket,
Steve DiFazio - NSF/MCB: just one that was actually. Yeah, sorry. It's the process of typing an answer to that question. So I will also have a more extensive written response in a moment.
Robert Fleischmann: Yeah. And imagine you said at any time, but careers do have a deadline. There is a deadline gate for career submissions.
Robert Fleischmann: So there, although they go to a core program.
Robert Fleischmann: Um,
Manju Hingorani: That's right. Third, Third, Third Wednesday in July.
Jennifer Weller NSF/BIO/DBI: Yeah, I think maybe there's sort of confusion about whether you're eliminated. It's a first time. Investigator. And careers. Don't. Really right? So So there's different. All these different criteria.
Jennifer Weller NSF/BIO/DBI: You can have a standard award and still go for a career. The career is limited by how long you've been in a tenure track position, but not whether you've had other funding
Jennifer Weller NSF/BIO/DBI: It's not. It's not a complete overlap of being a beginning investigator, which might be where some of the questions coming in.
Richard Cyr: Perhaps.
Kaidra Riggins: Thank you. All My proposal describes a set of molecules that are shown in preliminary data, but the new tool could be used for other molecules and cell types. Is that more Mcd or Dbi?
Richard Cyr: Yes, from that brief description i'd say, send it to Mcb first, and we'll take a look at it. If it looks broader in scope we'll send it to Rob to look over
Kaidra Riggins: Great Will Mcb or Dbi. Entertain proposals on quantum biology.
Richard Cyr: Yes,
Richard Cyr: you. But i'm going to warn you that you better ground that problem in something of biological importance.
Kaidra Riggins: All right. Next question is, we propose this tool development at Utsa, but it needs research team development through Mcb. Through an Mcb program. Is it applicable?
Richard Cyr: I'm. Not sure. I totally understand the question, but it sounds like, Ah, if you don't have the resources available, you you are going to have to collaborate.
Richard Cyr: But if the question is, Do we buy us against any particular kind of institution? No, we don't. There is a rumor out there that we don't fund medical schools. That's not true, one hundred and fifty.
Kaidra Riggins: Thank you.
Kaidra Riggins: What is your funding rate? Twenty to forty out of how many Generally There's also another question: What is the ballpark for the program's budget.
Robert Fleischmann: I can address that, at least from the since I had the twenty to forty. So
Robert Fleischmann: um we don't tell you we don't discuss funding rates generally in public. So that's not something. I'm. I'm going to answer. There's so many variables like, I said. The number of proposals budgets of the proposals, all the other proposals, the diversity of our of our portfolio Um, and also, of course, the allocation we get so to discuss funding rates is somewhat meaningless. We try to have, as I said, a diverse portfolio that addresses a number of areas of biology, a number of institution, types, number of
Robert Fleischmann: gender and ethnicity, diversity, ep score states. So a lot goes into all these things and all these things impact our funding right? So there's no answer to that. Actually,
Robert Fleischmann: the budget. So So this is a good question, because I often will get asked that question, and I will often turn that around um to the pi and say, Well, you should ask for what you need to do. The project you're interested in um, and you know then generally they can give me a ballpark number.
Robert Fleischmann: But there is no particular ceiling in the innovation program. We have mechanisms of spreading out awards over time. But, as I always say, ask for what you need to accomplish your specific aims.
Manju Hingorani: I'm at it, and you shouldn't ask for less than you need.
Manju Hingorani: Thank you, Rob. Let me add a little bit more to that from well, not Mtp. Perspective, but general perspective. First of all, I put in a link. If you're interested in a very broad overview of nsf awards. There is a website called Nsf by the numbers. You may look at that. It will not give you fine-grained information.
Manju Hingorani: Um! And as Rob said, you know. As for what you need. But again, the Nsf. Awards search site is a very good tool um to look for awards that are given out by a particular program. And Mtv. Or Api, you can drill down to that level um through your search, and that gives you abstracts. So again, a sense of what kinds of research are being funded, and also gives you a budget. Now, sometimes those budgets are a yearly budget. If it's a spread out award, as Rob said, and so
Manju Hingorani: sometimes they are total budgets. So you'll have to do a little bit of guessing as to what that is. And the third thing is, again, if you send us a one-page summary, and you include some sense of the scope the timeline and a budget, and that we can certainly advise. Give you general advice whether you know that that is a fit for the program or not.
Kaidra Riggins: Thank you Guys next question. Do you consider eager proposals from a retired professor still super active in research.
Manju Hingorani: So a yay, if you're still active in research, fabulous.
Manju Hingorani: If your institution can certify that you're eligible as a pi, then Nsf. Considers you eligible as a pi. So this is a question you should ask your Institutional Grant's office,
Richard Cyr: and I will add, we have done it.
Richard Cyr: There's a proposal I didn't put up. That includes a emeritus professor. And as mind you said, if the University allows it, we're okay with it
Kaidra Riggins: all righty. Thank you. One of one more question Will you consider tools that will enable breakthroughs in engineering application-driven rather than discovery of new knowledge
Richard Cyr: that's similar to an earlier question. The biological problem has to be well articulated.
Richard Cyr: I guess that's a best answer I can give, and then add, remind you that we do collaborate with engineering in certain instances,
Manju Hingorani: I think. Um! The The construction of that question, rather than discovery of new knowledge is a little
Manju Hingorani: ah misleading, because engineering also wants the research to discover new knowledge except on principles and applications in engineering. But again, because this program is um is supported by the biological Sciences Directorate. We want your research to address a complex biological question.
Kaidra Riggins: Thank you, guys.
Kaidra Riggins: There is another question that says, What is a typical timeframe for eager review. I don't know if you guys want to
Kaidra Riggins: answer that, or if you have already.
Richard Cyr: Yeah, that it's It's a vague answer.
Kaidra Riggins: Uh, we we'll move as fast as we can.
Kaidra Riggins: Gotcha.
Richard Cyr: Remember that we are starting to ad hoc these. So it does take a little while to get input from the community.
Manju Hingorani: So in general. Um, and so's turnaround time a well, on average, it's It's six months from submission to decision. Um, egres can take shorter time than that. But
Manju Hingorani: other than that, we cannot really put a timeline on it.
Kaidra Riggins: I can make a comment also from at least Dbi's perspective on no deadline. Well, no deadline may imply certain things to to individuals. We still, in general have review panels,
Robert Fleischmann: and we generally don't have review panels until we have a sufficient number of proposals worth bringing together. Reviewers um to take the time to review. It's a lot of work of any of you to reserve, and we certainly don't want to driven, at least in Dbi and our innovation program we don't driven, drag them along. So we generally have found through just experience over the last three to five years.
Robert Fleischmann: Um! That we will have two panels a year, so you can submit it any time, but you might just miss an internal deadline um, in which case you might wait longer to get that response, or you just might make it under the wire and get a response pretty quickly, and you know.
Robert Fleischmann: Um, that's about the best answer I can get to that. But those that assume that because there's no deadline, your proposal is going to get reviewed, and you're going to have an answer in two months at least in our program. That won't be the case.
Manju Hingorani: Thank you. The reality of what no deadline really means
Manju Hingorani: multiple times. You have you?
Manju Hingorani: In Mtv: The general pattern is three panels per year. So again you, you you know, don't
worry about it.
Manju Hingorani: Don't worry about trying to make it under the wire, or anything like that. There's always going to be another panel coming up within a few months. And So that's why the average is six months, but it can be a little bit longer or significantly shorter if you get an under the wire. But again, there will be a panel in every season,
Kaidra Riggins: all right. There's another question that says As a biophysical chemist, I am considering both Mcb and the Cpa. Clp. Excuse me, program of chemistry for submitting a proposal on fundamental kinetics of Ah Rna
Kaidra Riggins: hybridization and their dependence on hybrid length and mismatches using a novel high throughput biochemistry approach, which program is better.
Manju Hingorani: Thanks. Um.
Manju Hingorani: This This This project, based on this um small description, could fit the Lp. It could very well fit Gm. As well. So I encourage you to to send a one page summary. You can copy a program. Director Christy Chow would be the one um and and anyone in gm receive myself. Um! Ah! With your one-page summary, and we should be able to turn that around. But we'll also point out that they often call review across programs. It was mentioned earlier.
Manju Hingorani: Um! But I will emphasize that. So sometimes it's not possible. Um, or rather sometimes there's an opportunity for one program to be primary reviewer, and the other is secondary. That may. That doesn't mean A proposal goes to two panels. It often just means that um. The other program. The secondary program may suggest ad hoc reviewers. They will definitely sit in the panel to listen to the discussion. They'll be part of the decision making, and and possibly hopefully, if there is an award
Manju Hingorani: um. So so it's good to involve a program director where you think that a project spans organizational boundaries, because we know science should not have boundaries. But we do have to live with organizational boundaries, so it's good to involve program directors with your one page summary right away, so we can sort out
Manju Hingorani: what's the best way to Review or co- Review your project?
Kaidra Riggins: Thank you. And this last one. It's not a question, but a comment says: I would also like to appreciate Richard for this basic but important information. New faculty, especially international faculty, need more basic information to begin with. Thanks a lot to everyone,
Manju Hingorani: I think we can. Um, thank you so much, Kedra and Ah and Danielle for for helping us run this session, and all of you all um Any other specific questions feel free to email us, preferably with a one-page summary because then we'll be able to give you.