NSF Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) Reality Check Meeting Wednesday, September 3, 2014

Agenda I. Top Issues II. Cost Sharing Issues III. Overview of the MRI Program IV. Questions from Attendees V. Review of the Internal Selection Process VI. Review of Solicitation VII. MRI Suggestions VIII. Example Reviewer Comments

I. Top Issues

A new solicitation is anticipated near the end of September 2014 – it will replace the current solicitation, which is the basis for these materials. Details are subject to change.

Anticipated Deadline: January 22, 2015

Solicitation: The archived solicitation is the 2013 solicitation: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13517/nsf13517.htm. CRPDE is watching for the new release.

Awards: Approximately 175 awards of $100,000 - $4 million (with additional requirements for projects requesting more than $1 million). The mean award size for a Ph.D. Institution was $602,700 and median award size was $644,600 (2012). Approximately 25% of proposals were funded in 2012.

EPSCoR can co-fund projects. II. Cost Sharing Issues

 Exactly 30% cost sharing of the total project costs is required. 70% = NSF; 30% = OU

 The cost sharing portion must be applied to eligible costs.

 It must come from non-federal funds, and may be cash or in-kind.

 It must be applied for eligible costs (costs that can be paid with the MRI grant funds).

 Cost Sharing at the University of Oklahoma is administered through the Office of Research Services. The Policy on Cost Sharing is online at http://ors.ou.edu/about/costshare.html.

1  PIs selected to submit proposals on behalf of OU will be expected to coordinate with the chairs and deans of participating departments and colleges to support the process of identifying the sources of cost sharing. It is imperative to start the process as early as possible to provide adequate time to identify the sources. As part of the internal selection process, plan to discuss your budget and commitments with Proposal Services, your department chair/director, college dean, and if applicable, the Vice President for Research. The process can be started with this online form http://ors.ou.edu/about/cost_share_req.asp. III. Overview of the Major Research Instrumentation Program

Strategic Goals

 Track 1 – 3 years to support the acquisition of major state-of-the-art instrumentation, thereby improving access to, and increased use of, modern instrumentation shared by the Nation's scientists, engineers, and graduate and undergraduate students;

OR  Track 2 – 5 years to foster the development of the next generation of major instrumentation, resulting in new instruments that are more widely used, and/or open up new areas of research and research training; AND  Enabling academic departments, disciplinary & cross-disciplinary units, and multi-organization collaborations to integrate research with education.

Features of a development proposal: Provides an instrument with new capabilities not available from vendors. Requires design work undertaken in-house, not relying on published designs. Benefits from a team that brings a variety of skills to the project. Requires many person-hours, more so than simple "assembly" of purchased components. Timeframe for completion is longer than for plug-and-play or assembled instruments. May require a machine shop or a testbed to fabricate/test unique components. Have potential risks in achieving the specifications  a risk mitigation plan is required. -- Although all of the above are not required, the more of these characteristics that apply, the more solidly the effort fits as a development effort (even if there is substantial acquisition of component parts).

Additional Program Goals

 Supporting the acquisition and development of research instrumentation that makes use of, advances, and/or expands the Nation's cyber-infrastructure and/or high performance computing capability:

o Support development of computational and data-intensive science and engineering programs, or

o Provide pathways to regional and national infrastructure.

 Promoting substantive and meaningful partnerships for instrument development between the academic and private sectors:

o Create innovative ideas or products with wide scientific or commercial impact.

MRI will not Support:

2  Requests for multiple instruments to outfit labs/facilities. Construction, renovation or modernization of rooms, buildings or research facilities (instruments must be able to decouple from their host environment);  Large, specialized experimental facilities (constructed with significant amounts of common building material using standard building techniques);  General purpose and supporting equipment (e.g., general purpose computers/laboratory equipment, fume hoods, cryogen storage systems);  Sustaining infrastructure and/or building systems (e.g., electrical, plumbing, HVAC, toxic waste disposal, telecommunications);  General purpose platforms or environments (e.g., fixed, non-fixed structures or platforms, manned vehicles);  Instrumentation used primarily for science and engineering education courses.

Vendor Quotes are required. NSF has required PIs to renegotiate for lower prices as a condition of funding.

Limited Submission: If you are a funded member of an MRI team OUTSIDE of OU (as a funded subcontract), then that proposal must compete through OU’s internal MRI competition because this counts against the limit of three proposals per institution. If you are on an MRI team OUTSIDE of OU but are an unfunded collaborator, then this does not count against any institutional limit.

Unfunded Requirements: The following are absolutely required and considered in the merit review; however, no activities in these areas may be supported by MRI funds (or cost sharing).

1. Broader Impacts Describe existing and currently supported Broader Impact activities to leverage as part of your MRI proposal.

2. Data Management Plan (2 pages) Describe the plan to ensure open access to data resulting from use of the instrument. The OU Libraries have created a new resource to support Data Management: http://guides.ou.edu/datamanagement

3. Integration with Education. Describe how the instrument will be used in formal and/or informal instruction of students.

Technician/Training: Funding of a technician is very challenging. The technician may be paid to set up the equipment, but may not be paid for any training or course design. See feedback in Section VII.

Merit Review: The PI must identify an eligible NSF Division to review the proposal; although NSF reserves the right to reallocate the proposal to the appropriate division. The only divisions accepting proposals for less than $100,000 are Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS) and Social Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBES).

 Engineering  Mathematical and Physical Sciences  Geosciences  Computer and Information Science and Engineering  Biological Sciences  Social Behavioral and Economic Sciences  Education and Human Resources  International and Integrative Activities

3  Office of Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research

Projects over $1 million: Projects requesting over $1 million from NSF require an additional layer of review at NSF. Ideally, you should keep your request to NSF under $1 million (somewhere around $750,000 or less).

Informational Webcast: No informational webcast is currently planned, but CRPDE will watch for updates. Slides from the 2013 webcast are available via http://www.nsf.gov/od/iia/programs/mri/documents/FY2013_MRIwebcast.pdf

IV. Questions?

Additional information is available at the CRPDE MRI Website: http://crpde.ou.edu/mri

V. Review of the Internal Selection Process, including suggestions for cost-sharing Due 5:00 pm September 17, 2014

The Internal Competition for the NSF MRI is a two-step process.  Complete the information and questions below. FORMAT: Responses to all of the items/questions should not exceed 5 pages, single-spaced, 11pt font, with 1” margins.  Provide a one-page NSF project summary and NSF 2-page biographical sketches for the PI and each of the 4 named co-PIs (biosketches for the senior personnel are not required). 1. PI (name & title): 2. Proposal Title (include Acquisition or Development as appropriate): 3. Total Project Costs: ______NSF Request: ______Cost Sharing (30% required): ______(indicate where this cost sharing will come from) 4. List the entire MRI team (names, titles, department): 5. List the record of NSF funding for the PI and named co-PIs (5 individuals total) (prior and current). 6. Verify that this proposal is not for equipment excluded from the MRI program (see MRI solicitation). 7. Describe the science associated with the research supported by the proposed instrumentation, the level of innovation of the science, and the importance of the science. Do not just describe the science enabled by the instrumentation, but why the instrumentation is essential to accomplishing the science. 8. Describe the impact of this proposed instrumentation on research at OU. Describe how the instrumentation differs from existing equipment at OU, in the state or in the region, or improves access to instrumentation. 9. Describe how the instrumentation will be available for shared use and to whom (individuals or departments/colleges/other units).

4 10. Describe the proposed integration of research and education. Describe how the instrument will improve the quality of student education, research and research training. 11. Describe the integration of diversity and broader impacts in the proposed activities. How will these activities be supported without NSF MRI funds? 12. Describe the organizational commitments with respect to space, operating costs and maintenance costs. 13. Have you submitted a proposal for this equipment to the NSF MRI program in the past? If so, briefly summarize the NSF panel reviews. If a proposal has been submitted internally for this equipment, describe the outcome and how this submission is similar/different. 14. Include any additional information of relevance not addressed above, especially if the instrumentation is related to cyberinfrastructure.

Materials must be submitted via the CRPDE website ( http://crpde.ou.edu/node/475 ). PDF files are preferred but Microsoft Word files are also accepted. Postscript and LaTeX formats must be converted to PDFs.

Timeline for Internal Submission 2015 Competition

September 3rd, 10 am Required “Reality Check” meeting Charlie Conference Room, 3PP

September 4th, by 5 pm Required Notice of Intent to CRPDE http://crpde.ou.edu/notice_of_intent

Internal submissions due to CRPDE: access online September 17th by 5pm submission form at http://crpde.ou.edu/node/751 http://crpde.ou.edu/node/475

CRPDE forwards to reviewers September 22nd

Reviewers provide feedback on proposals to CRPDE October 6th

Reviewer discussion meeting and decision on October 9th or 10th proposals to move forward

PIs are notified of panel decisions October 13th

Winning PIs work with CRPDE on refining proposal October 13th – January 22nd

NSF/MRI submission deadline January 22, 2015

5 VI. Review of Solicitation (Outline)

The following is provided for planning purposes. It is based on the most recent solicitation, which has been archived. A new outline will be provided once the new solicitation is released.

Anticipated Deadline: January 22, 2015

Recommended near-final draft deadline (internal): January 5, 2014 (before OU classes start on the 12th)

1. Cover Sheet - standard

 Title should start with either: "MRI: Acquisition of ____", or "MRI: Development of ____".

 One PI and up to 4 co-PIs are allowed. Senior Personnel are also allowed but are not listed on the cover sheet

2. Project Summary (1 page):

The new format requires three subsections to be submitted via textboxes in FastLane

4600 character limit across all three subsections (no special formatting – bold, italics, etc.)

 Overview (address separately)

 Intellectual Merit (address separately)

 Broader Impacts (address separately)

3. Project Description (maximum length, 15 pages, including all figures and charts). The project description must include subsections (a)-(f), and address the intellectual merits and broader impacts of the proposed effort. Broader impacts are emphasized more than in prior programs. Suggested lengths for individual subsections are provided for guidance only.

a1. Instrument Location and Type

 Indicate in a single separate sentence the physical location of the proposed instrumentation as follows: Instrument Location: ______.  On a single separate line, using the codes from the solicitation (page 9 of the PDF), please indicate the instrument type as follows: Instrument Code ______.

a2. Justification for submission as a Development (Track 2) proposal (up to 1 page)

b1. Research Activities to be Enabled (suggested length, 9 pages for instrument acquisition; 4 pages for instrument development).

b2. Must also include “Results from Prior NSF MRI Support.”

 This section was updated to indicate that Intellectual Merit and Broader Impact activities (describe the outcomes) must be described in two separate sections in the summary of Results from Prior NSF Support.  Results from Prior NSF Support also was updated to indicate that information should be included irrespective of whether or not the support was directly related to the proposal, or

6 whether or not salary support was provided. If you have no prior support, you will include a statement that you have not had NSF funding in the past.

c. Description of the Research Instrumentation and Needs (suggested length: 2 pages for instrument acquisition; 6 pages for instrument development).

d. Impact on Research and Training Infrastructure (suggested length, 2 pages). A recent change in language concerning the importance of integration of research and education and broadening participation as NSF core strategies represents a clarifying of NSF’s priorities and you SHOULD discuss in all of your NSF proposals how you are integrating research and education/training and how you are committed to broadening participation and in what ways.

Note: instruments to be deployed in the field may require additional information to assess compliance with applicable laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and Endangered Species Act.

e. Management Plan (suggested length, 2 pages for instrument acquisition; 2 pages for instrument development)

f. Broader Impacts – discuss the broader impacts of the proposed activities in a separate subsection.

Note: NSF will return without review proposals that do not include a separate section on the management plan and broader impacts as described above.

4. References Cited. If there are no references cited, a statement to that effect should be included in this section of the proposal.

5. Biographical Sketches. Your proposal must include two-page biographical sketches of the PI and the Co-PI(s), as well as any designated senior personnel who are major users/developers of the relevant research instrumentation. If applicable, also provide a separate biographical sketch of the individual responsible for the management of the instrument. These are the only Biographical Sketches that are allowed.

Biosketches have been revised to rename the “Publications” section to “Products” and amend terminology and instructions accordingly. This change makes clear that products may include, but are not limited to, publications, data sets, software, patents, and copyrights.

6. Budget and Justification. If no person months and no salary are being requested for senior personnel, they should be removed from Section A of the budget. This change was made for consistency with NSF’s cost sharing policy. The Office of Research Services (ORS) will provide guidance as needed for this modification.

These are allowable costs:

Acquisition proposals (Track 1):

 Instrument purchase, installation, commissioning, and calibration

 Direct and indirect costs of operations and maintenance

 Other appropriate technical support during the award period.

 Operations and maintenance costs are only eligible if they are fully justified in terms of the scale and scope of the instrumentation.

7  Salary support, including fringe benefits and indirect costs, is allowed only for personnel directly involved in operations and maintenance of the instrument, and subject to the same justification requirements.

o Any request of financial support for the person responsible for operations and maintenance must include a justification based on the skill level and time commitment to eligible operations and maintenance.

o Any request of financial support for student workers directly involved in operations and maintenance must justify the involvement in terms of both instrument needs and the training the next generation of instrumentalists – reviewers will be asked to evaluate the appropriateness of this type of involvement.

 Costs directly related to training in proper operations and maintenance are eligible, but costs to train users are not allowed.

 Funds may not be used to support research to be conducted with the instrument, outreach, publication costs, or travel associated with conferences and/or collaborations.

Development proposals (Track 2)

 Parts and materials needed for the construction of the instrument, commissioning costs (including relevant operations and maintenance expenses). Sufficient detail should be given to allow reviewers to analyze the cost of the new technology.

 Direct and indirect costs associated with support of personnel engaged strictly in the instrument development effort.

 Travel costs that are integral to the development work are eligible expenses, but travel associated with conferences and training is not allowed.

 Requests for personnel support must include a description of the responsibilities of the project coworkers and explain why a given position is necessary for the completion of the design, construction and commissioning of the new instrument.

 Direct student support in development efforts must justify the involvement in terms of both project needs and training the next generation of instrumentalists – reviewers will be asked to evaluate the appropriateness of this type of involvement.

 Support for research to be conducted using the instrument after commissioning, along with long term operations and maintenance, is not allowed.

Do NOT expect a reduction in indirect costs as part of institutional support or cost sharing.

7. Current and Pending Support. Provide a form for the PI, Co-PI(s), and each major user of the instrumentation for whom a biographical sketch is submitted.

8. Facilities, Equipment, and Other Resources. Provide a listing of similar and/or related instrumentation at or near the performing organization as “Other Resources”. This is where institutional commitment and other relevant information about environment related to the instrument should be included. Indicate an aggregated description of the internal and external resources that are, or will be available to the project (both physical and personnel). Describe only those resources that are directly applicable. The description should be narrative in nature and must not include any

8 quantifiable financial information. If there are no facilities, equipment and other resources information, a statement to that effect should be included in this section of the proposal.

9. Supplementary Documents.

Required:

a. Sponsored Programs Office Letter Regarding Performing Organization as a PhD Granting institution – signed by Andrea Deaton b. Commitment for Operation and Maintenance of Proposal Instrument – signed by proposed manager c. Data Management Plan (2 pages) d. Itemized Vendor Quotes e. Subcontract Letter(s) – IF applicable for this proposal f. Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan (1 page) - IF applicable for this proposal; if you are paying for postdocs, you are required to have a postdoc mentoring plan and evaluation of postdoctoral mentoring plan; it must describe the mentoring that will be provided to all postdoctoral researchers supported by the project g. Commitment for Required 30% Cost Sharing – signed by Kelvin Droegemeier h. Collaborative Partner Confirmation Letter – IF applicable for this proposal i. Partner List j. Letter regarding location – IF not OU

Encouraged: a. Collaborative Statements – specific format required

9 VII. Major Research Instrumentation Suggestions Based on NSF Information Session

What makes an MRI proposal fail during the review?

 Proposals that do not demonstrate adequate institutional commitment;  Proposals that do not adequately demonstrate how and by whom the instrument will be utilized, operated and maintained – i.e., proposals without a strong management plan;  Proposals that do not demonstrate shared-use within the institution, and/or among institutions;  Proposals that request instrumentation that is otherwise reasonably accessible;  Proposals that do not adequately match the budget to the scope of the project;  Proposals that do not describe research training, particularly for groups underrepresented in science & engineering or persons with disabilities.

What makes an MRI proposal competitive? Build your case on its merits.

 What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity?  What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?  Describe (enthusiastically) compelling research / research training activities to be undertaken with the instrument. Buy/Build it and they will come is not necessarily a good reason…  Demonstrate how your activities will make meaningful contributions within and across disciplines in both research and research training. Why are you the ones best able/positioned to make a contribution?  Establishing a need is usually not enough. Doesn’t everyone need one?  Match your proposed effort to the mission/goals of your institution. MRI awards build institutional capacity…  Demonstrate appropriate leadership and commitment to bring the project to completion. Being a good research scientist is one thing, being a good manager is quite another…  How would the project enable the integration of research and education? MRI is a Research and Research Training program.  How would the project enable integrating diversity into NSF programs, projects, and activities? Saying it will is not enough!  Ask for what you need, no more no less. Bells and whistles may be nice but not needed..  Avoiding pitfalls (i.e.,“Don’t Do This”) will not guarantee a competitive proposal. So your proposal is technically flawless but is it compelling? Based on Experience on NSF Panels

1. Clear Case for Need. Clearly define need for the specific instrument in the context of your field. Where else is it available and why are those locations or equipment resources not feasible to meet the needs? Search through prior NSF awards to see if the same equipment has been funded previously. How is this need more significant or more critical than similar needs of other institutions? Why are there no other sources to obtain the equipment? 2. Research Question. Clearly state the scientific question to be studied. Describe how the MRI will make a significant contribution to research capabilities and lead to better science. How will the equipment provide capabilities that result in a competitive advantage for the future (this is particularly relevant for EPSCoR).

10 3. Broader Impacts. Broader impacts are required and are as important as the research. Describe specific plans to provide benefit to specific groups and/or organizations. For example, integration with education is required, but it is not sufficient to say the instrument will be part of a course. How will learners interact with the equipment in significant ways that lead to new knowledge or skills or heightened interest in STEM? How will the instrument be incorporated within the course, precisely which students and how many will be impacted, and what the impact will be. Similar guidance also holds for students who are using the equipment in their dissertation research. Clearly define how your community of users will use the instrument and how this will impact their work. 4. Impact. Articulate the impact of the new instrument in your field and beyond, in your institution and beyond – including international impacts as appropriate. What new things will be possible with the equipment and what desirable studies are not possible without it. The impact should not only include great results from the specific instrument but should also raise the overall level of research of the users. Explain how the acquisition of the equipment will create leverage to raise the level of the whole group and make other NSF-funded research programs more productive. 5. Measurement. Clearly state how the instrument will be used for measurements; go beyond describing the great science to explicitly describe how the instrument will be used in the science. 6. Preliminary Data. Show test data if possible to demonstrate that the equipment can do the tasks needed. Some reviewers express doubt that the instrument is actually capable of doing the science, especially if the instrument is not standard. The gold standard for this would be publications by the OU team using the instrument or equivalent equipment elsewhere. 7. Prior Experience. Show that members of the team have funded and/or published research using the instrument. Demonstrate that the team currently borrows equipment or relies on others to test samples. 8. Community of Users. Individual PI proposals are at a disadvantage because of limited impact – should have clear plan for how the equipment will enhance the research of multiple faculty across academic departments, disciplinary and cross-disciplinary units, and multi-organization collaborations, including the private sector. A record of collaboration and shared use of equipment helps this to be convincing. 9. Integration with Education. Develop an explicit and specific educational plan that demonstrates how the research will be integrated with education. This is absolutely required. 10. Management and Sustainability. Work with your institution early to establish a timeline for infrastructure changes, identify any personnel needed and how they will be paid if they are necessary after the grant end, determine how time will be allocated on the instrument and by whom, and establish the management plan and sustainability past the grant. Make sure that whatever is in the proposal is consistent with University rules. 11. Facilities and Technical Support. Describe the quality of the space allocated for the instrument and the accessibility for all proposed users (especially those who are not located in close proximity). Who will provide technical assistance and what are their qualifications? 12. Writing/Editing. Good writing makes a big difference. The proposal should undergo an internal review in the weeks prior to the submission date to get feedback from both experts in the field and non-experts, since both will be represented on the panel. 13. Broadening Participation. Proposals are stronger to the extent that they reach out to other institutions nearby, especially mostly small undergraduate/liberal arts institutions. This is not required

11 but it could increase chances of being funded if all else was equal with other proposals. Clear preference is given to proposals from such schools and minority institutions, so having them as substantial partners is a good thing if it is scientifically sensible.

14. Document Institutional Support. Exactly who is providing what support and are there any conditions for the support?

Based on PI Lessons Learned

 Read as many successful MRI grants as possible. CRPDE can make prior MRI grants available to you. Most of us are good at writing our own science proposals, but are unfamiliar with an MRI proposal. The MRI proposal may be more difficult to write than your own proposal and may take much more time.  Assemble a great PI and Co-PI team - having academically stronger leaders who also have prior and current NSF funding and reviewing or panel experience is a huge plus. These folks work together as a team, appreciate the NSF grant process, and know what to avoid. Strong publication records are important as NSF panel and reviewers want to see the science part even though MRI is for equipment.  Work with vendors before writing the proposal. This sounds odd, but it can help a great deal, as frankly most of us do not follow the latest technology and know precisely what features of the equipment are needed. Vendor seminars and conversations are very, very helpful. The smart reviewer would know immediately if you do not know what you are talking about and cannot justify why you need certain things.  Make sure that delivery and installation are included in both your quotes and your description of the instrument.  Include key personnel who are active in research; do not just add people to make it big.  Try to include folks outside your immediate department, including local smaller colleges.  Use tables to summarize personnel, usage hours, etc.  It is very important to have a reasonably concrete project timeline.  Cost share: You're much better spending your NSF budget on the instrument and using cost share to fund the operator position, because you can pitch to whoever would fund the cost share for that position that the sustainability plan requires a long term commitment, beyond the project period.  On the first page, if possible, tie the instrument type to some major national report -- ideally an NSF report -- about a national need for more of that sort of thing.  Again, on the first page, if the instrument itself is fairly vanilla, rather than new and innovative, point to the section of the solicitation that says that the instrument should be up and running quickly.  Also on the first page, if appropriate, give the instrument a catchy name, and then consistently refer to it by that name. Naming things can make them seem more real.  Your goal is to convince that reviewers, some of whom may know little about your specific area of research, that your research is valuable, transformative and successful.  If the project team does not have a shared research theme, refer back to similar proposals already funded that have a similar instruments and do not have a shared research theme.

12  For research projects that require access to the instrument, provide a description of each research project with: o title of the project; o PI(s) and their department/center affiliation(s); o the amount of resources on the instrument that the project expects to need (best guesstimate) o funding: . current funding (total or per year), . pending funding (total or per year), . planned funding (total or per year), . sources of funding; . instrument user headcounts: faculty, staff, postdocs, grad students, and undergrads.

 In the description of each research project list: o intellectual merit (typically from a project summary from an existing proposal); o broader impacts (typically from a project summary from an existing proposal); o what is transformative about the research; o how the amount of resources needed was calculated; o why current systems, either local or nonlocal but available, are not appropriate or adequate for what is needed.

 In describing the instrument, be specific. What are the weight and floor footprint with, and without, clearances? What is the height and power draw for the instrument? Be very specific to show that you know how to do your homework.  Explain how you will attract new users, who the target population is, how big the target population is, and what fraction of them do you expect will be interested?  Explain how you will train people to use the instrument, and if the instrument will be used in education or outreach contexts, describe how. Remember, the instrument cannot be primarily for education – it has to be for research and research training – but it can be used in education.  Avoid using student labor unless absolutely necessary.  Make realistic efforts on broader impact activities, and make this part as strong as the science part.  Describe how you will disseminate research results that the instrument facilitates.  Have an external advisory committee, and populate it with roughly three people who have solid credentials with the same kind of instrument, or with one or more relevant research areas.  Some other questions to consider: o How does the instrument fit into the Oklahoma’s portfolio of resources? Will it be available to others in the State, but outside the institution? o How will you ensure diversity of the instrument's users? o Where will the instrument be located? Do you have a letter of commitment for that location, and for any necessary power, cooling, etc.? How do you know that the location is adequate? o Does the space where the instrument will reside have any kind of physical security (guard, locks etc.)? If so, describe. o Who will operate and maintain the instrument? What are their qualifications/credentials to do so? Have they operated similar instruments in the past or currently? o How will you allocate use of the instrument? Who will decide who gets to do what and when?

13 o How will the MRI project team make decisions? What is the team management approach? o What is your sustainability plan after the MRI project period? How will you continue to operate the instrument? Who will pay for labor and maintenance contracts?

14 VIII. Example Reviewer Feedback

Intellectual Merit (Strengths and Weaknesses):  The proposal outlines a good broad user base. They have proposed a variety of projects with good intellectual merit.  The group is, as a whole, well funded, and would make good use of the instrumentation.  The instrument will be underutilized. Some panelists feel the proposers need to justify the need for it.  There are no serious weaknesses to the intellectual merit of this proposal. A little more discussion of what the scientific results are rather than just discuss what systems had been used would have strengthened the basis for needing the instrument. It would have been good to see some real numbers discussed and some emphasis given to what they mean. But a strong case was made nonetheless.  It took me a while to understand the nature of the design of this network, in terms of node locations, rotation, spatial domain, etc.; however, I did get most of the picture after digesting the first few pages of the proposal.  The hypotheses are not really scientific (testable) and in my opinion not necessary. They could have been equally effective stated as objectives or goals. However, this is not a substantive issue.  Perhaps a table of the XYZ systems, their measured ratios and the notations could have replaced the plethora of acronyms. No mention was made of a facility to allow sample preparation but I am sure they must have one.

Broader Impacts (Strengths and Weaknesses):  The broad impact is well defined & includes both student training & partnership with other colleges.  The broader impacts are well thought-out and will engage undergraduate and graduate students both in the lab and in the classroom. A detailed table including the breakdown of student types involved with projects benefiting from the proposed facility that includes underrepresented groups and women is clearly laid-out for the reviewer.  The broader impacts of the acquisition of the instrument was well thought-out and described. 5 areas are discussed. 1. Scientific discovery, 2. development of course material (complete with a course outline and proposed lecturers) 3. Interdisciplinary training, where presumably an understanding of discipline XYZ is contributing 4. Undergraduate training (a strength of this proposal). 5. participation by students traditionally underrepresented in the sciences. Here the contribution by the College of ABC was well documented.  If old instrumentation is outdated, the instrument should be used in training students more than indicated. High user fees could be detrimental to student training. The hours of the technician are over estimated.  I believe that these instruments will not be easily accessible to undergraduates through undergraduate classes.  The amount of data will be tremendous. Associated metadata protocols are not discussed. The authors say that the coupled modeling system will be made available to the public. How will the public be educated to use such a system?  A list of University X researchers will use the data. Where is the list of the researchers outside of University X that will use the data (i.e. the minority serving institutions)?  Hands on work will be based on research from given professors. Also I believe that the recruiting and access to underrepresented minorities and women may be limited for this instrumentation.  The plan for insuring broader impacts should be more specific. For example, the authors say that the new instrument will enable involvement of minority-serving institutions and will recruit students from underrepresented groups. No minority-serving institution is ever named. They never say how the underrepresented students will be recruited.

15  Such an instrumented site would provide opportunities for education at all levels. More thought should be put into how best to provide such opportunities to children and adults of all ages.  To what extent the efforts will foster additional collaboration through lectures, attract new graduate students (any past record of a program that has been developed and then successfully attracted students) and be made available in established lecture courses (what specific lecture topics would incorporate discussion of the array) is unclear.

Management (Strengths and Weaknesses)  Technician – based on internal review post-review and post-program officer recommendation: OIIA is unable to concur with the recommendation to support this proposal budget. The revised budget justification states that a combination of grant funds and cost‐ share will be used to support a research scientist. It goes on to say that, “The Research Scientist will spend 2/3 of their time training users from the proposal team to use the instrument and interpret their data, as well as developing a graduate/advanced undergraduate course in use of the instrument.” Unfortunately, training users and developing courses are not eligible costs on MRI awards.  The shared use of the instrumentation for research has the potential to propel several research projects by several research groups.  The co-funding of a research scientist to support the facility and train users is a strength of this proposal, though it is unclear if the University will support this person in the long run, or just for the duration of the grant.  The management plan has several flaws. The high user fees at $10 to $25 an hour may be a barrier for participation by some groups. As a training tool, users should run their own data without the assistance of a technician. A major problem is the 6 months time allocated for a graduate student to maintain the facility as part of the matching costs. Graduate students should not be devoting so much time as a technician.  The plan is not clear in terms of how time in the equipment will be allocated for teaching, training, and research.  PIs have considered management plan and there appears to be checks and balances between various entities involved. Technical implementation seems reasonable, with oversight from Dr. Youngguy and support from two engineers.  It is not clear what happens at the end of the 36 months proposal period. Will resources be available for operation of the network? It will likely take >6 months for initial installation, and then another 6 months to work out bugs. As the work is really getting going, the support for operations via this proposal will be winding down.  The management plan is well thought out. The instrument will be placed under the control and supervision of the most experienced technician for this type of instrument but have administrative details planned and run by a central facility. Institutional support is quite good and the balance of costs will be made up by user fees.

Summary:  The PIs are well-qualified to conduct the studies described and they present a vast array of projects that will benefit from, and in many cases demand, the proposed instrument. Hence the need for the proposed facility at OU appears convincingly solid. Preliminary data has been collected for a sampling of these projects and the results are promising. The institutional commitment to support for the staff specialist is important to the success of such a facility, although as one reviewer points out no long term arrangement/commitment is spelled-out in the proposal.  This is a very strong proposal with a strong proposing team (many of whom are women, showing diversity). The team appears to work well together (although someone else on campus has the same equipment purchased by DOE funds and it is not shared). The science varies from bread-and-butter to truly interdisciplinary and state of the art. Some of the PIs' research has been very interesting. The

16 group is well funded for relevant research.  The PIs’ lack of experience with the instrument is reflected in the limited discussion of the characteristics of the instrument and the reasons for selecting specific features and options. What are the researchers’ plans to address limitations of the instrument for the proposed science, such as misidentification of minerals and difficulty identifying or detecting certain minerals.  Some of the initiatives proposed to be supported by instrument are overly optimistic. For example, can the instrument really identify the amorphous materials studied by Dr. A? And are the microbes studied by Dr. B really large enough to be identified by the proposed instrument? However, there is no doubt that instrument data will lend some insights to all of the research programs described herein.  The proposal could have benefited from a support letter from the university indicating the institutional commitment to long-term support of the technician/specialist.  Both the intellectual merit & the broader impact are well defined. However, user fees & role of the technician needs to be defined.

17