The Division of Environmental Biology (DEB) held its latest Virtual Office Hour on April 8^th. DEB Program Officers discussed different programs as well as other insights on broadening the research community.  See below for the slides.  

We host these office hours from 1-2pm ET on the 2nd Monday of every month. There is a designated theme each time, but attendees are welcome to ask about other NSF-related topics. We host Program Officers from different programs at each Virtual Office Hour, so a wide range of scientific perspectives are represented.

The presentation and other documents are available here:

Slides (PDF)

PAPPG 23-1 – Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide

PAPPG 24-1 – Effective for proposals submitted or due on or after May 20, 2024

Broadening Participation Funding Page

_________________________

If you were unable to attend, here are some of the questions asked during the Q & A section:

Can you talk about how PIs in non-EPSCoR states can partner with those in them?

You can submit a proposal that is collaborative, where both institutions have their own budgets or have a proposal led by an EPSCoR PI. Funds must be spent by institution that is in EPSCoR jurisdiction if applying for EPSCoR funding.

Do you have any advice on Mid-Career Advancement proposals regarding the length of time the PI should spend with their mentor? Mid-career folks often can’t relocate for longer lengths of time.

PIs can propose spending a varied amount of time with mentors. Mentors are asked to support the PIs plan with a letter of support, so there is flexibility here.

Can you elaborate a little on the INTERN supplement? Is it for industry experience for students?

INTERN supplements are very popular with students, and they must be submitted by a currently funded PI. We see a lot of supplements with different places to do this internship. In DEB, NGOs are very common as are students being placed in National labs (DOE, NASA). The Smithsonian Museums are another place we see interns placed so that they gain museum experience. There are also a few DCLs where there are partnerships to support a bunch of INTERN supplements at one time such as the Air Force DCL, which is open now.

Does engaging with citizen science count towards broadening STEM participation?

Citizen science definitely could count as broadening STEM participation, but most successful proposals have an assessment or evaluation component.

Please reach out to a Program Officer if you have any questions about the proposal submission and review process in DEB programs. NSF has suggested 5 tips on working with Program Officers as part of the NSF 101 series on our Science Matters blog.

Check out the upcoming office hour topics below and be sure to check back here or on the NSF Events Page for information on how to register. Our next Virtual Office Hour, on May 13^th from 1pm-2pm Eastern Time, will focus on the CAREER Solicitation (NSF 22-586).

___________________________

Upcoming Office Hours and Topics:                   

April 8: Opportunities for broadening the STEM community

May 13: CAREER Solicitation

June 10: Merit Review and How to Get Involved with NSF

The Confronting Hazards, Impacts and Risks for a Resilient Planet Program (CHIRRP) invites projects focusing on innovative and transformative research that advances Earth system hazard knowledge and risk mitigation in partnership with affected communities. Hazards compounded by changing climates, rising populations, expanding demands for resources, aging infrastructure, and increasing reliance on technology are putting our economy, well-being, and national security at risk. Researchers, academics, and community leaders will work together to develop community-driven research questions and actionable, science-based solutions that increase community resilience now and in the future.

CHIRRP currently supports planning, conference, RCNs, EAGER, and RAISE proposals that support development of community partnerships, provide training for effective community engagement, catalyze ideas, and/or support the initial conceptualization, planning and collaboration activities aimed at formulating new and sound plans for future large-scale projects.

Target Date: June 6, 2024.

Accelerating Research through International Network-to-Network Collaborations (AccelNet) is a program in NSF’s Office of International Science and Engineering that funds international networking and research coordination activity to advance progress on grand research challenges in any scientific disciplines funded by existing NSF programs. The program is particularly interested in receiving proposals from social sciences and education.

Visit the AccelNet Program page for more information (including Directorate Coordinating Committee Program Directors), including links to an upcoming webinar on April 29, 2024 and virtual office hours in May 2024. Please don’t hesitate to contact the OISE Program Directors for AccelNet (accelnet@nsf.gov).

Full proposals are due the third Monday of September annually, with the next deadline being September 16, 2024.

Did you know you could reach out to us whenever you want? You can contact a Program Officer directly or reach out via debquestions@nsf.gov.  We love being a liaison, translator, customer service representative, coach, advisor, and interpreter for all things NSF.  Below are some examples of common questions we receive. Maybe they will be helpful or inspire you to reach out with a question of your own. Hope to hear from you soon!

I’m working on submitting a grant to the Core Programs solicitation but I don’t know what to put for the grant duration. How do I know how many years this is going to take?

As stated in the Proposal and Awards Policies and Procedures Guidance (PAPPG), (“Requested Start Date and Proposal Duration” on page 43) “the proposed duration for which support is requested should be consistent with the nature and complexity of the proposed activity. The Foundation encourages proposers to request funding for durations of three to five years when such durations are necessary for completion of the proposed work and are technically and managerially advantageous.”

When submitting a collaborative proposal to the Core, does each institution attach their own Safe and Inclusive Work Environment Plans as a supplementary document? 

Only one SAIF Plan that covers all off-campus or off-site research must be submitted. If the proposal is a collaborative, then the lead Principal Investigator (PI) must be sure to upload the SAIF Plan as a Supplementary Document as part of the submission and check the relevant box on the lead organization’s proposal Cover Sheet.

We do have a FAQ published that may be helpful and we also hosted an Office Hours explaining the SAIF plan. Check out the FAQs, recording, and slides located here.

I am currently preparing my first NSF grant submission and wondered: can we include suggested reviewers that are at overseas institutions, or do they all have to be domestic institutions?

You are welcome to provide suggested reviewers from anywhere in the world! However, researchers from other countries may be less inclined to review for NSF so suggestions from domestic institutions are most helpful.

I’ve been out of the research game for a minute, but do you guys still require that consolidated personnel list? It was this Excel form we had to fill out and submit when applying to the Core.

Nope. Don’t worry about it anymore.

I am working with a faculty member on a collaborative proposal to the DEB Core solicitation. They are not applying to any of the special categories (STAR, NERC, IntBIO, etc..) but it IS a collaborative proposal. I wanted to confirm the naming convention for the project title, should it be Collaborative Research: DEB:_____(Title)?

The naming convention would be “Collaborative Research: (Title)”. You don’t need “DEB:” in there.

The U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) and NordForsk, the science funding body of the Nordic Council of Ministers, have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Research Cooperation. The MOU provides an overarching framework to encourage collaboration among U.S., Nordic, and Canadian research communities and sets out the principles by which jointly supported activities might be developed.

Applicants are encouraged to consider three keywords when developing research ideas into proposals: Security, Natural Resources and/or Societal Changes. Climate change has driven rapid transformations in the Arctic, including significant temperature rise and declining sea ice, which have profound ecological, societal, and geopolitical impacts. International research collaboration, especially that which includes local Indigenous perspectives, can open opportunities for the combination of expertise and experience from diverse research communities that have not collaborated on Arctic research before.

You can read the full DCL and review the guidelines for submission here.

Join us Monday, April 8th, 1 – 2pm ET for DEB’s next Virtual Office Hour: Opportunities for broadening the STEM community. DEB Program Officers will be discussing different programs as well as other insights on broadening the research community.  Upcoming DEB Virtual Office Hours are announced ahead of time on DEBrief, so we suggest you also sign up for blog notifications.   

REGISTER HERE TO PARTICIPATE 

If you can’t make it to this or any future office hours, don’t worry! Come back to the blog afterwards, as we post recaps and the presentation slides of all office hour sessions. Alternatively, visit our Office Hours homepage for slideshows and recaps of past topics.    

Virtual Office Hours are on the second Monday of every month from 1 – 2pm ET. 

Upcoming Office Hours and Topics:                    

April 8: Opportunities for broadening the STEM community 

May 13: CAREER Solicitation 

June 10: Merit Review and How to Get Involved with NSF 

Scientific collections are a fundamental resource underpinning scientific understanding and discovery. NSF has made significant investments in collections and collections-associated data over the last decade, and increasing and diversifying the use of collections and collections-associated data would maximize the research, training, and education return on these investments. Through this new DCL (NSF 24-069), NSF is encouraging proposals that foster Innovative Use of Scientific Collections and/or associated digital data for novel research, education, and training applications within and across STEM disciplines. 

An immense untapped potential exists for use of collections and collections-associated data in fields such as the social and behavioral sciences, epidemiology, cell and molecular biology, microbial ecology, engineering and materials science, conservation biology, Earth science, critical minerals, ocean science, polar science, and computer science, as well as in training, education, and broadening participation in STEM. Increasing and diversifying the use of collections and collections-associated data has the potential to improve understanding of their value in research, training, and education; contribute to fundamental research in fields and subfields that currently underutilize them; and broaden participation by increasing opportunities for developing or strengthening partnerships. 

The Division of Environmental Biology (DEB) held its latest Virtual Office Hour on March 11^th. Representatives from the Civic Innovation Challenge (CIVIC) discussed translating foundational research and emerging technologies into communities through civic-engaged research. See below for the slides.  

We host these office hours from 1-2pm EST on the 2nd Monday of every month. There is a designated theme each time, but attendees are welcome to ask about other NSF-related topics. We host Program Officers from different programs at each Virtual Office Hour, so a wide range of scientific perspectives are represented.

The presentation and other documents are available here:

Slides (PDF)

PAPPG 23-1 – Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide

PAPPG 24-1 – Effective for proposals submitted or due on or after May 20, 2024

_________________________

The CIVIC program has a helpful Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)page here.

If you were unable to attend, here are some of the questions asked during the Q & A section:

Do the partners need to submit biosketches? BioSketches are now created through SciENcv. Do the community partners (non-academic) need to create an ORCID (MyNCBI, eRA Commons) account and a SciENcv account to be a PI on CIVIC?

All principal investigators need to submit biosketches. Also, for stage 1, key principals (including partners) are encouraged to submit biosketches as it shows that the team has the requisite expertise. We encourage users to sign in to SciENcv with their credentials (NSF ID and password).

Are for-profit industry partners permitted in CIVIC proposals?

Yes, teams may choose to engage with industry partners. and those partners may participate as subawardees to an eligible lead organization.

Private sector partners can be valuable team members in a number of different roles, and their presence could help transition an idea from research to implementation by providing expertise, technology, or additional capacity. Whatever their role, it is important for teams with private sector partners to describe the roles of each partner and how they will manage the collaboration.

What does ‘community’ mean for CIVIC?  Does the target community have to be a specific geographic community (e.g., town, city) or can it be a distributed community (e.g., non-profit with multiple physical locations)?

A community may be a distinct geographic entity, or it could be a metaphorical community that is distributed in space.  However, if you define a community of the latter type, it must be as clear who you mean to include and how you define membership in that community. 

Does the program assume that the PI already has civic partners? What if you only have one partner? Can other partners be added between stage one and two?

Strong proposals will already have at least some partners – their involvement from the beginning should shape the purpose, goals, and methods of the project.  However, it is likely that as a project matures, other partners might be recruited.  Describing the team of partners as it exists now and how you envision it evolving through time is wise.

Will review panels for CIVIC include reviewers from multiple directorates? I’m wondering if we’re writing to a disciplinary or interdisciplinary panel.

Proposals will be assessed in NSF-led merit review panels, comprised of civic leaders and researchers, with expertise reflective of the interdisciplinary character of the proposals. Details regarding NSF’s merit review process are described in the solicitation in Section VI; additional details are available through the following link: https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/. Teams are encouraged to pay close attention to the additional solicitation specific review criteria provided in Section VI of the solicitation. The final selection of recipients will be made by the CIVIC working group–comprised of program officers from NSF and the partnering federal agencies, Department of Energy and Department of Homeland Security.

Please reach out to a Program Officer if you have any questions about the proposal submission and review process in DEB programs. NSF has suggested 5 tips on working with Program Officers as part of the NSF 101 series on our Science Matters blog.

Check out the upcoming office hour topics below and be sure to check back here or on the NSF Events Page for information on how to register. Our next Virtual Office Hour, on April 8^th from 1pm-2pm Eastern Time, will focus on opportunities for broadening the STEM community.

___________________________

Upcoming Office Hours and Topics:                   

April 8: Opportunities for broadening the STEM community

May 13: CAREER Solicitation

June 10: Merit Review and How to Get Involved with NSF

A Budget Justification is the narrative that accompanies your budget and can be up to five pages in length. This is where investigators validate and explain the dollar amounts they requested in their line-item budget. Justifications explain pay rates, duties of personnel, time commitments, materials and supplies, and other things necessary to complete the proposed work.

While writing your Budget Justification, you should ensure you are answering these questions:

1. Why are the requested funds needed?
2. How does each item in the budget help meet the proposed deliverables?
3. How were these requested funds estimated?

As always when preparing a proposal, it’s important to follow guidance in the PAPPG. In addition to the details provided there, here are general pieces of advice to write the best Budget Justification:

Use Parallel Formatting with the Budget template

You can easily organize and format your Budget Justification using the same letter and number system used in the budget template. This also helps your Program Officer locate specific items and amounts.

Using Senior Personnel as an example, your budget template will look something like this:

Then, your budget justification should follow this order:

A. Senior Personnel

1. Pomona Sprout- Principal Investigator, # months work/year, list specific responsibilities and explain how she arrived at this calculation. Year 1 $$$$, Year 2 $$$$, Year 3 $$$$, Year 4 $$$$
2. Indiana Jones- Co-Principal Investigator, # months work/year, list specific responsibilities and explain how he arrived at this calculation. Year 1 $$$$, Year 2 $$$$, Year 3 $$$$, Year 4 $$$$
3. Budgeting Salaries: Time and Rates

For all personnel, show what amounts you are asking for and state how you calculated those salary amounts. If you are not requesting salary, you can provide a brief explanation of why. Give a monthly breakdown and include any fringe rates. If you are requesting more than two months of salary for any senior personnel, provide clear rationale. Some commonly seen exemptions include that the person has a soft money position or that the project scope requires buying out of teaching time (as might be the case at an undergraduate institution). Also keep in mind that the two-months of salary for an individual is counted across all NSF awards that person is associated with.

Avoid common mistakes in Section G. Other Direct Costs

Section G is often where confusion happens. The best way to avoid confusion is to start in the PAPPG, which clearly defines which costs should live in lines G1-G6. Some key points to keep in mind:

• Section G.1 (Materials and Supplies): Materials and Supplies that will be used by students or trainees listed under Participant Support Costs can be (but are not required to be) included in G.1, allowing for the application of indirect costs.
• Section G.3 (Consultant Services): If you are using the consultant category, the PAPPG requires information about each individual’s expertise, primary organizational affiliation, normal daily compensation rate, and number of days of expected service. You can include consultant travel cost, but will need to justify them.
• Section G.5 (Subawards): For each subaward, a budget and budget narrative need to be prepared and submitted. Please make sure that the subaward budgets list the subawardee institution and PI (and not the information of the lead institution and PI again).
• Section G.6 (Other Direct Costs – Other): This is a catch-all category that will always attract scrutiny, so especially for this section be sure to be explicit about what you’re requesting, why, and how much it will cost.
• Graduate student tuition goes in G.6. Other.

Double check the indirect-cost (overhead) rates

If most of your work is off-campus, check with your Authorized Organizational Representative about whether the off-campus indirect cost rate applies. Different institutions have different policies on when the off-campus rate is appropriate and sometimes Sponsored Research Offices simply assume that all work is on-campus.  Because the off-campus rate is typically about half of the on-campus rate, it will make a big difference in your requested budget.

In Conclusion

Justify everything. Assume nothing. If necessary, clarify the NSF budget guidelines with your Authorized Organizational Representative prior to submitting a proposal. This is especially important for rare or unusual expenditures, such as foreign subawards or consultancies or salary requests beyond two months for any senior personnel. It’s also important for normal expenditures like travel.

For example, don’t just write, “I need $8,000 for international travel to go to two meetings in Europe.” Use an airfare estimator and show the breakdown of costs.

Again, make sure your Program Officer will be able to understand how you came up with the total number you’re requesting in each category. There’s no harm in adding a table to show calculations. And this may seem obvious, but make sure the numbers in the budget justification match the numbers in the budget. You can also check out our past Virtual Office Hours for more information.

Check out this post from our friends over in IOS here or in full below:

There are a number of important changes that will likely impact most submissions to NSF in the updated NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG) (NSF 24-1), which will apply to all proposals submitted or due on or after May 20, 2024.  

We recommend that PIs and their Sponsored Projects Offices attend the upcoming NSF Policy Outreach Webinar on Tuesday, March 12, 2024, from 2:00 – 3:00 pm EST.  

Register here: https://nsfpolicyoutreach.com/2024-pappg-webinar/  

To find out more about the changes in this new version of the PAPPG, we also suggest that prospective proposers read the Summary of Changes here: https://new.nsf.gov/policies/pappg/24-1/summary-changes