You’ll need to update your NSF Reviewer Profile and here’s why

NSF has integrated previously separate ID information under a single NSF ID. Now, panelists will be required to manage, update, and verify their profile information including contact information, institutional information, and demographics. Please see Account Management – Reviewer for further information and training resources. In addition, gender response options have been added to the demographic selection to be more inclusive and accurate.

  • Who is now integrated into the NSF ID?*
    • Principal Investigators (PIs),
    • Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP) Applicants and Fellows,
    • Administrative and Coordinating Officials, and
    • Panelists.

*Integration of ad hoc reviewer IDs is coming soon and any changes to the NSF ID profile will not update your ad hoc reviewer ID information.

Overview of NSF ID Account Creation and Update Process for Panelists

  1. You will receive a unique invitation code via email from when NSF program staff adds you to a panel.
  2. Open and select the Register function at the top of the screen to create a new NSF account and to obtain an assigned NSF ID.
    1. Note: If you have an existing NSF account in, skip step 2. Each individual user of NSF system, (e.g., should not have more than one NSF ID per Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (Chapter I.G.3.).
  3. Sign into with your credentials.
  4. Access the Provide Reviewer Profile Information link under Reviews & Meetings on the homepage.
  5. Enter the unique invitation code from an email and follow the five-step wizard to provide reviewer profile information. Once this one-time process has been completed, you can proceed with all other panel activities.
  6. Sign into FastLane Panelist Functions with the credentials included in the Panelist letter email from program staff. There are no changes currently for signing into FastLane Panelist Functions.
  7. You can access the FastLane Panel Review System for review activities as soon as you receive Panelist letter from program staff.
    1. You must complete the one-time process to provide their reviewer profile information in order to register for the meeting via “Meeting Sign-In” after completing “Travel and Reimbursement” in the FastLane Travel and Reimbursement System.
    1. If you have already integrated your reviewer ID from a previous panel, please verify that all information is accurate, and update as needed. Any recent updates to your PI profile will not be incorporated to your NSF ID profile and it is therefore important to review this information for inaccuracies.

No-Cost Extensions

We know a lot of investigators plan for projects that last about 3 years, but did you know 5 years is the maximum duration for new awards? Regardless of the planned duration of a project, there are  opportunities to extend that through no-cost extensions (NCEs) to allow you to complete your project. It’s important to note NCEs are not for the purpose of using up unliquidated balances. See the PAPPG:

There are certain situations that could limit the number of no-cost extensions available for a given project, e.g., the type of award (standard versus continuing) and the original duration of an award. The issue is usually the availability of unspent funds because you cannot get a no-cost extension if you don’t have any funds left to use, and federal funds expire after 7 years. See our [NSF Award Spending – Some Things to Know] post.

If you plan on submitting a request for a no-cost extension, you need to do so BEFORE the final annual report is submitted.

Here are the key points around no-cost extensions from our How to Write a Great Annual Report Office Hours:

  1. Grantees (your institution) are pre-authorized by NSF to receive a one-time extension of the end date of the grant (up to 12 months) if additional time is required to assure completion of the original scope of work with existing funds. All “grantee-approved” extension requests must be signed and submitted by your institutional representative (SRO) via NSF’s electronic systems. If you are going to request a no-cost extension, always first request the “grantee-approved” type.
  2. If additional time beyond the first NCE is required, and exceptional circumstances warrant, a formal request for a second NCE to NSF must be signed and submitted by the institutional grants officer via NSF’s electronic systems. The request should be submitted at least 45 days prior to the end date of the grant. This is called an “NSF-approved” no-cost extension and is a bigger deal than the “grantee-approved” type. You will need to provide the current balance (funds remaining) of the award and your plans for spending it.
  3. Regardless of which type of no-cost extension you may request, it’s critically important to understand that remaining funds can only be spent on work described in your funded proposal (i.e., within the original scope of your award). If you have questions about this, it’s best to call the NSF Program Officer who is managing your award. Although work must remain within the scope of the original award, PIs are free to move funds among most budget categories (e.g., Materials & Supplies, Publication Costs, etc.) without formal approval from NSF. Changes to “Participant Support Costs”, however, do require permission.

As always, any questions you have about your award can be directed to the managing Program Officer. 

LIFE: Leveraging Innovations from Evolution Town Hall and Scoping Sessions

NSF, in partnership with KnowInnovation, will be hosting a virtual Town Hall and two Scoping Sessions (one in-person and one virtual) focused on LIFE: Leveraging Innovations From Evolution. LIFE aims to bring together diverse scientists to think on specific research challenges and opportunities, including technological and educational training needs, that leverage convergent evolution to investigate the evolution of innovation and adaptive traits.

The informational Town Hall on May 15, 2023 1:00 – 2:30pm ET will include an overview of the goals of LIFE and provide details on the Scoping Sessions. The Registration Deadline for the Town Hall is May 14, 2023 at 5pm ET.

Click here to register for the Town Hall

The Scoping Sessions will be highly interactive, discussion- and solution-based aimed to provide actionable outcomes and recommendations to NSF for both near- and long-term research priorities. The Application Deadline for the Scoping Sessions is June 5, 2023 11:59 ET.

Click here to learn more about the Scoping Sessions and apply!

Specific goals of the LIFE Scoping Sessions:

  • Engage the life sciences and adjacent communities to focus on research challenges and opportunities pertaining to evolutionary innovations within a convergent evolution framework to better understand generalizable as well as unique solutions to life’s common problems. 
  • Articulate needs, strategies, and recommendations to enable transdisciplinary research into life’s evolutionary innovations and solutions to changing environments. This includes research, infrastructure, and educational priorities.
  • Jumpstart ideas, build new networks and teams, and outline the most exciting areas of research that would leverage natural systems and convergently evolved innovations to help us more efficiently and effectively engineer new and sustainable technologies that power our economy.

Who Should Apply?

If you are eager to engage with diverse researchers to spark creative paths forward to advance our understanding of LIFE, join us!

We encourage researchers with interest and expertise in a variety of fields, including but not limited to the following: Systematics, Evolutionary Biology, Developmental Biology, Biomechanics, Physiology, Molecular Biology, Biochemistry, Cellular Biology, Genetics, Genomics, Chemistry, Computational Biology, Biological Informatics, Mathematical Modeling, Biogeography, Ecology, Synthetic Biology, Cyberinfrastructure, Biophysics and Engineering.

Upcoming Virtual Office Hours: CAREER Solicitation

Join us Monday, May 8th, 1 – 2pm ET for DEB’s next Virtual Office Hour. Program Officers will be discussing the CAREER Solicitation (NSF 22-586). Representatives from DEB programs will be available for questions. To participate, please use the registration link below. Upcoming DEB Virtual Office Hours are announced ahead of time on DEBrief, so we suggest you also sign up for blog notifications.    


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. You can also visit our Office Hours homepage for slideshows and recaps of past topics.  

DEB’s Virtual Office Hours are on the second Monday of every month from 1 – 2pm ET. Below is a list of upcoming dates and topics (subject to change). Be sure to add them to your calendars and register ahead of time.        

Upcoming Office Hour Topics:                       

May 8: CAREER Solicitation

June 7* 2-3pm: Let’s Talk Broader Impacts hosted by MCB

July: No Virtual Office Hour

August 14:  Partnership to Advance Conservation Science and Practice (PACSP) Update

September 11: Macrosystems Biology and NEON-Enabled Science (MSB-NES)

October 16*: Welcome to DEB

November 13: TBD

December 11: Introduction to the Directorate for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships (TIP)

*indicates change of date from regular schedule

NSF Award Spending – Some Things to Know

Did you know that money doesn’t actually go to your institution when you get an award? The money stays in the US Treasury, and your institution is authorized to charge for expenditures incurred in the conduct of that award and get reimbursed. We can see how much you have spent of your funds at any time and it’s important that you are working regularly with your SRO to draw down funds.

Do you know what type of award you have? The most common types of awards at NSF are standard grants and continuing grants. With standard grants, you get access to the whole budget at the start of the award. With continuing grants, you get access to a part of the budget at the start of the award, with subsequent increments released at prearranged times later in the award. (You must be up to date on the annual reports for all your NSF awards for those increments to be made on time.)

Did you know that every dollar that supports your NSF research grant has an expiration date? The availability of federal dollars is based on the fiscal year the money was provided to NSF (i.e., appropriated by Congress) regardless of when the award was made to your institution. Federal funds expire after 7 years. Any funds that are unspent after that time stay in the US Treasury and are inaccessible to awardee institutions and NSF. The federal fiscal year starts on Oct 1, and that is when the clock starts ticking even though most DEB awards made in a given fiscal year have start dates well after October 1.

Here’s an example, if your award was a standard award with a start date of July 1, 2019, then the funds you received are already 9 months old when you received them, but access to any of the unused funds will still be cancelled September 30, 2025 (7 years from start of the 2019 fiscal year: Oct 1, 2018). This scenario can have impacts in the ability to request multiple no-cost extensions on an award which we will discuss in a future blog post.

But say you have a continuing award with a start date of July 1, 2019. Only any unspent funds from your first increment will be cancelled on September 30, 2025. If you get another increment July 2020, any unspent funds would be cancelled on September 30, 2026 (7 years from start of the 2020 fiscal year: Oct 1, 2019).

You will get reminders from us if you are nearing the expiration date for any of your funds, but good planning and communication with your SRO will keep you from running into trouble towards the end of your award.

As always, any questions you have about your award can be directed to the managing Program Officer. 

4/10/23 Virtual Office Hours Recap: Primarily Undergraduate Institutions

The Division of Environmental Biology (DEB) held its latest Virtual Office Hour on April 10, 2023. Program Officers discussed research opportunities available to primarily undergraduate institutions. We host these office hours 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. Program Officers (POs) from different research areas are present 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

DEB Core Programs Solicitation

RUI Solicitation

BRC-BIO Solicitation

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

PUI Specific Questions

If your university awards more than 20 PhDs within 2 years, what programs can you apply under?

If your university is not considered a Primarily Undergraduate University, you would submit to the DEB core solicitations directly, without indicating RUI in the title or providing the required documentation for the RUI solicitation. Review the solicitation you are interested in, as many are not limited by the type of institution of higher education. Check out the “Who May Submit Proposals” section of the solicitation for specific eligibility information.

Could an IntBIO proposal connect biological research with a subdiscipline that’s normally covered by a different directorate? (For example: bio + engineering, or bio + geoscience?) Faculty at PUIs often have collaborators in different disciplines and it can be difficult to support this type of work.

The Integrative Research in Biology (IntBIO) must span two or more subdisciplinary boundaries in biology. However, the BIO core solicitations, regardless of division, allow for multidisciplinary research between different directorates. We utilize the co-review mechanism to evaluate the science of directorates. You can learn more about the co-review process here.

I’m at an institution that grants medical degrees, but otherwise would qualify as a PUI. Do medical degrees count toward determining PUI status?

PUIs are defined by the nature of the institution and not solely based on the highest degree offered. Eligible PUIs are accredited colleges and universities (including two-year community colleges) that award Associate’s degrees, Bachelor’s degrees, and/or Master’s degrees in NSF-supported fields, but have awarded 20 or fewer Ph.D./D.Sc. degrees in all NSF-supported fields during the combined previous two academic years. “NSF-supported fields” does not include medical fields, but your Sponsored Research Office should be able to tell you. Additionally, reach out to a Program Officer if you have further questions.

Proposal rejections hit PUI faculty hard because we can’t submit as many as our R1/R2 colleagues, so how can we make our proposals more competitive and/or fundable?

To make your process more efficient, write up a 1-pager and talk to a program officer before you submit the proposal. You will likely get feedback that will improve the proposal. Proposal rejections are never easy.  Very few PIs have a high success rate, and even those that frequently receive awards get many rejections along the way. It’s not uncommon to have submitted the same idea more than once, taking reviewer feedback into account. It is critically important to do your best to identify why your proposal failed and make an honest assessment of whether you should revise a proposal on the same theme or try a different theme/program/solicitation.  Talking with a program director, after you’ve had time to carefully read the reviews (and most importantly, the panel summary) plus maybe a few weeks to decompress, can be wonderfully helpful. You may also look for workshops or similar opportunities offered by NSF virtually or at conferences that are designed to help with grant writing and review. It can be hard to not take a rejection personally, but remember that proposals are evaluated, not PIs. In sum, our best advice is to be persistent. And if that fails, keep being persistent!

Funding People Questions

Should faculty apply for Research and Mentoring for Postbaccalaureates in Biological Sciences (RaMP) or Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP) or is this for students to apply?

Check out solicitations specifically, but RaMP is for faculty applicants and GRFP is for student applicants.

Are there funding opportunities for senior research associates?

In many cases it is up to your home institution to determine if you can be considered a PI. If there is a solicitation you are specifically interested in, review the “Who May Serve as PI” and discuss it with your Sponsored Research/Programs Office. You may also reach out to a program officer if you have further questions.

Is Graduate Research Fellowship Program also for MS students?

The GRFP is for those that intend to pursue a research-based Master’s or Ph.D. program in a GRFP-supported field. More information can be found on their website.

For both the RaMP and REU programs, faculty/admin at R1/R2 institutions have alternate funding for summer salary and administrative support for facilitating the grant. For PUIs, the faculty often must do all those administrative tasks themselves and work on minimal summer support or shunt mentorship to postdocs/grad students. Are we able to build in more administrative and salary support to the grant while satisfying RFP requirements for % of total money going directly to participants?

Each investigator’s institutional context and existing support does of course vary. Any successful proposal will have a coherent plan that offers a good chance of success in their context.  If more administrative support is needed to conduct a project at your institution, you can just explain why that is the case and how the support would facilitate the project.  A project plan that clearly identifies the work that needs to be done and funds some project staff to do it is likely more convincing than one that relies (implicitly) on uncompensated faculty time!

RUI Solicitation Questions

Can an ROA proposal be created to join a lab that has an NSF-funded project underway, or must it be submitted at the same time as the “host” proposal it’s intended to supplement?

Research Opportunity Awards (ROA). The types of ROA opportunities include: (1) A supplement to an existing NSF award to support ROA activities for PUI faculty; (2) Requests to rebudget funds in an existing NSF award to support ROA activities for PUI faculty; or (3) Submission of a new collaborative proposal between a PUI and another institution(s), with a ROA component as a subaward or as part of a linked collaborative proposal. Keep in mind that for supplement opportunities, DEB has a target date of the third Tuesday in January annually and you are encouraged to reach out to your managing Program Officer ahead of submission. More information can be found on the DEB Supplemental Funding Request Info webpage.

Can the RUI designation be applied to a CAREER proposal?

No. You must choose between submitting a proposal to the RUI or to the CAREER program solicitation. You may not include the additional Certificate of RUI Eligibility or the RUI Impact Statement in a CAREER proposal.  However, Program Officers will make note of proposals from primarily undergraduate institutions as they consider portfolio balance.

Can Mid-Career Advancement proposals have RUI designation?

No, however there is a PUI track. The PUI track is a pilot that extends eligibility to Full Professors at Primarily Undergraduate Institutions (PUI) only. MCA proposals that come into this track must have proposed research that falls within the purview of a participating program within the Directorate for Biological Sciences or Directorate for Geosciences.

Can two faculty at different PUI’s submit collaborative grants? If co-collaborators on a RUI proposal are both at (different) PUIs, do we need two separate RUI impact Statements or do we integrate our work into one Impact Statement?

Yes, two faculty from different PUIs can submit a collaborative grant or one faculty from a PUI and one faculty from a non-PUI can submit a collaborative grant. Each PUI must include a Certification of RUI/ROA Eligibility in the Supplementary Documents section of the proposal. Two PUIs can submit in two ways: as a single proposal with both institutions as partners. In that case, they can only submit one Impact Statement combining the impact to both institutions. If the two PUIs decide they will submit as collab, each institution submits a proposal; the “Lead” indicates there is a partner/collaborating institution and our system connects the two proposals. In this case, since each institution is submitting their own Impact Statement.

Is there a way to work in sabbatical support into a RUI: Collaborative Research grant? For instance, including salary for the RUI faculty to work at the lead R1 institution.

 It depends. NSF awards typically support no more than two months of faculty salary per year. However, some solicitations specifically allow sabbatical salary (e.g., OPUSMCA), and some programs are open to funding more than two months’ salary in special cases. Additionally, it’s not unusual for ROA awards to fund a sabbatical-like experience (though perhaps not with a full summer or semester of salary). You should reach out to your Program Officer to inquire about your situation. 

Can a RUI support Master’s positions for students? In other words, does it only support research for undergraduates?

The overriding purpose of RUI is to support faculty research, thereby maintaining faculty members’ intellectual vibrancy in the classroom and within their research community, although the involvement of undergraduate students in research is an important feature of RUI. RUI awards augment the educational strengths of primarily undergraduate institutions by providing students with research-rich learning environments. That being said, graduate students can receive some support from RUI proposals, but the main focus is on research opportunities for undergraduate students. 

I have heard conflicting information from program officers about whether PUI faculty members should designate our collaborative proposals as RUI or not. Some program officers have said to omit RUI designation because they may receive lower funding priority from a panel — and because the projects are often smaller in scope — but it seems like that may not be true. Should faculty at PUIs submit with the RUI designation, regardless of the project, if they’re working with undergraduates?

In general, it isn’t wise to try to second-guess reviewers or panelists.  If your institution is eligible for the RUI designation, and your project is responsive to the goals of the RUI solicitation, adding that designation gives you an opportunity to highlight your institutional context. Reviewers are carefully instructed to consider the unique challenges and opportunities at PUIs.

For any proposal in any program, your job is to make a coherent, compelling case for how your project would advance the goals of the program, and why your team is the right team for that project.  Choosing the RUI designation recognizes the institutional context of the PIs (and their students) and matters for reviewers as they seek to understand what will be done and why. 

If one is eligible to apply for both the RUI program and the BRC-BIO program, do you have advice on how to select which one to apply for?

RUI is a designation that can be used to tag proposals to core programs, indicating that this proposal is coming from a primarily undergraduate institution. The BRC-BIO program has very specific solicitation criteria. If what you want to do does not fit into these criteria, then applying to a regular core program is probably a better idea. 

BRC-BIO Solicitation Questions

Is it possible to submit a BRC-BIO as part of a group (i.e., multiple co-PIs), perhaps at the same PUI?

These projects might include biology-focused research collaborations among faculty within the same institution, across peer-, or research-intensive institutions, or partnerships with industry or other non-academic partners that advance the candidate’s research program.

With the June deadline for BRC-BIO, does the “no more than three years” mean that faculty who have just completed their third year are still eligible?

It depends on your third-year appointment date. Lead PIs must be at the Assistant Professor rank (or equivalent), with service at that rank for no more than 3 years by the proposal submission date. Reach out to a PO for more information and confirmation.

Does a successful BRC-BIO application require supporting data / previous publications?

It does not explicitly require preliminary data, but as with any proposal, providing supporting data or proof of concept evidence can further strengthen your proposal.

General Information

For proposal reviewers and panelists, what kind of qualifications are expected to be considered?

Reviewers typically will have a Ph.D. and demonstrable expertise in a domain relevant to a proposal or program.  Reviewers come from all types of academic and research positions, industry, government, and elsewhere.  We are always excited to have new, early-career scientists involved in the reviewing process – given their recent training, they are often aware of the cutting-edge tools and ideas within a discipline.  Moreover, serving as a reviewer is a wonderful professional development opportunity to learn more about the grant review process. You can indicate your interest in serving as a reviewer here. (DEB Reviewer Recruitment, Expertise Survey (

For the EAGER program, it says that it should not be used for generating preliminary data, so what might be the budget for? I can see equipment needed for testing the new concept, but the equipment may be used to generate data.

EAGERs focus on “high-risk, high-reward” research ideas.  When many people think of preliminary data, they are thinking of data that in and of itself may not be exciting or test new ideas or change how we think but are necessary to set the stage for later work.  This is the distinction – EAGER awards, if they work, are likely to push boundaries. Preliminary data collection, if conducted, sets one up to conduct more interesting research.  It would be unusual to ask for an EAGER to purchase major equipment. 

Additional questions can be found here on our recap post when we previously discussed Research at Primarily Undergraduate Institutions.   

Please reach out to a PO 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 will be held May 8, 2023, from 1-2pm Eastern Time where we will be discussing the CAREER Solicitation (NSF 22-586).

Upcoming Office Hours and Topics:                  

May 8: CAREER Solicitation

June 7* 2-3pm: Let’s Talk Broader Impacts hosted by MCB

July: No Virtual Office Hour

August 14:  Partnership to Advance Conservation Science and Practice (PACSP) Update

September 11: Macrosystems Biology and NEON-Enabled Science (MSB-NES)

October 16*: Welcome to DEB

November 13: TBD

December 11: Introduction to the Directorate for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships (TIP)

*indicates change of date from regular schedule

NSF Education and Training Application (ETAP) for Students, Teachers, and Postbaccs

If you are a student, teacher, or postbaccalaureate interested in applying to summer research and educational opportunities, check out the NSF ETAP portal.  Start by filling out an application and then search for opportunities based on your interests. But act fast! Most deadlines to apply are late April/early May. The opportunities for teachers span K-14: elementary, middle, high school, as well as community college faculty. 

If you are a Principal Investigator, you can use the portal to advertise your opportunities to a broad audience and streamline your application process.

REMINDER: Your Plans for Safe and Inclusive Working Environments Are Now Required

Happy April 18th! On this day in 1999 Wayne Gretzky played his final game at Madison Square Garden. Pat Summitt retired from coaching women’s basketball at the University of Tennessee. And on this day in 2023, you are now required to submit a plan for Safe and Inclusive Working Environments (SAI Plan) with proposals to the DEB core solicitation that include off-site work.

There are some caveats and more details outlined in the FAQ, but, for the most part, if you are conducting off-site or off-campus research and you are submitting to certain programs within BIO/GEO (see the current list here), you need to have your 2-page supplementary document uploaded with your submission.

As a reminder, this document must address the following four sections:

  1. a brief description of the field setting and unique challenges for the team;  
  2. the steps the proposing organization will take to nurture an inclusive off-campus or off-site working environment, including processes to establish shared team definitions of roles, responsibilities, and culture, e.g., codes of conduct, trainings, mentor/mentee mechanisms and field support that might include regular check-ins, and/or developmental events;   
  3. communication processes within the off-site team and to the organization(s) that minimize singular points within the communication pathway (e.g., there should not be a single person overseeing access to a single satellite phone); and   
  4. the organizational mechanisms that will be used for reporting, responding to, and resolving issues of harassment if they arise.   

You can check out some additional resources and past Virtual Office Hour presentations and recordings here and if you still have questions, please feel free to send us a note at

Dear Colleague Letter: Research Collaboration Opportunity in Europe for NSF Awardees 

This letter invites current NSF grantees to submit supplemental funding requests for research visits to any identified, appropriate ERC-funded European research group. NSF particularly encourages requests from NSF grantees who are early in their careers or who are still actively building their careers. Further, the letter gives instructions on how to submit supplemental funding requests and other relevant policies and requirements. 

ERCEA has provided a list of ERC-funded principal investigators (PIs) and research teams interested in hosting NSF grantees. The NSF Office of International Science and Engineering website provides instructions on how to access this list at  

Check out the Dear Colleague Letter for full terms and conditions and how to apply. 

Requests must be received at NSF at least 3 months prior to the proposed visit, but no later than May 26, 2023, for consideration using Fiscal Year 2023 funds. 

NSF Workshop: Building Bridges to Use-Inspired Research and Science-Informed Practices

NSF invites you to participate in a workshop aiming to strengthen partnerships among academic, private, and government organizations.

This workshop will build new connections among key biological sciences communities to successfully conduct use-inspired research and is supported by NSF’s Directorate of Biological Sciences (BIO), the Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), and the Directorate for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships (TIP).

The workshop will consist of a series of events facilitated by KnowInnovation:

Two free virtual Pre-Workshop MicroLabs (for an unlimited number of participants)

  • Friday, April 14, 2023, from noon to 2 p.m. MST
  • Friday, May 12, 2023, from noon to 2 p.m. MST

In-Person Workshop held June 12-14, 2023 in Boise, Idaho (for 120 selected participants representing diverse groups and organizations; applications will open April 14, 2023)

Participants of the workshop will co-create the structures and processes that guide how diverse organizations support and value use-inspired science and will guide NSF to create use-inspired tracks within the Directorate for Biological Sciences and the Office of Integrative Activities (OIA). Participants will build connections to new funding and partnership opportunities within and associated with NSF’s new Directorate for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships.  Participants will gain insight from government and private organizations who want their science needs to be more broadly understood and incorporated into research priorities.

Click here to learn more and to register for the Microlabs: