Principal Investigators should ensure that their proposed project does not substantially overlap with ongoing federally-funded research. Reviews, including panel summaries, if applicable, may also be shared. The reasons for sharing these proposals and reviews include potential co-funding as well as avoiding duplication of federal funding for a particular research project.
If the PI or awardee organization does not wish the proposal to be shared with a particular federal agency or agencies for funding purposes, they should provide a Single Copy Document with the proposal stating which federal funding agencies should be excluded. No explanations for exclusion are required. December 1, Skip to main content. If you are interested in this program please email me a single PDF by December 1, with the following pre-proposal requirements: A one-page project summary that must include: a.
A second page that must include: a. A short-form CV for the PI and each senior staff person. Sponsor Deadline: February 16, Additional merit review considerations apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information. A length of one nanometer one billionth of a meter approximately defines both the minimum feature size of the smallest human-made devices and the largest dimension of the molecules from which living things are assembled.
Nanoscale devices and systems are designed to have novel physical, chemical, and biological properties that derive from their intermediate scale, where transitional properties between molecular and bulk behaviors can be accessed and controlled.
While many potentially technologically interesting nanostructures have been identified, these often have been produced using slow and expensive methods with little potential for economical production at commercial scale. Economical methods for the assembly of nanosystems, which have nanostructures and nanodevices as components, are also an element of the topic area. Nanosystems may be created by various synthesis and assembly techniques, including but not limited to combinations of molecular assembly and top-down miniaturization techniques, bio-assembly, networking at the nanoscale and multiscale and hierarchical architectures, robotics on surfaces, modular nanosystems, chemo-mechanical processing of molecular assemblies, and quantum interactions.
Proposals to this topic area should target nanomanufacturing processes with a clear path to eventual commercial viability. We particularly seek proposals that include fundamental research in key, well-defined areas that are compellingly identified as roadblocks to scale-up. Both of these elements should be carefully explained and justified in proposals, since both the scientific novelty and the feasibility of the methods being researched will be important selection factors.
Collaborative activities with industrial companies are strongly encouraged and collaborations in which industrial partners develop industrially-relevant test beds where university and company researchers can experiment are particularly encouraged. Therefore, it is highly desirable that such firms be consulted early in the proposal preparation process and that their intellectual contributions are clearly explained in the proposal.
Proposals that incorporate elements of more than one theme are welcome. Given NSF's strong focus on developing the infrastructure for nanoscale science and engineering, all proposals should address integration of research and education, including course development appropriate to the nature of the project.
NSF does not normally support technical assistance, pilot plant efforts, research requiring security classification, or the development of products for commercial marketing or market research for a particular project or invention. Other research and education projects in nanoscale science and engineering will continue to be supported in the relevant programs divisions and directorates.
Grants may be awarded in a variety of sizes and durations. NSF expects to fund approximately awards in FY , depending on the quality of submissions and the availability of funds.
Anticipated date of awards: May Full proposals submitted via FastLane: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the general guidelines contained in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide GPG. Compliance with this requirement is critical to determining the relevant proposal processing guidelines.
Failure to submit this information may delay processing. Full proposals submitted via Grants. The complete text of the NSF Grants. Paper copies of the Grants. Collaborative research activities should be described and submitted in a single proposal in which a single award is requested, with subawards administered by the lead organization to any other participating organizations see GPG section II. This solicitation encourages team approaches. Budgets for any subawards to different organizations must be included.
Proposers must indicate in order of priority one or more of the four research and education themes described in Section II which the proposal addresses. This must be stated in the last line of the project summary, and it will be used to assist in assignment of the proposal to the most appropriate review panel. The project description should include a discussion of the management, education and outreach aspects of the project. The proposal should describe the roles to be played by the participating organizations, the responsibilities of the managing PI the activities of associated partners, arrangements for networking, exchange, dissemination of data and results.
The managing PI must be from the lead organization. Details on the education, training, and outreach activities planned as part of the project should be included. Opportunities for students to obtain novel research or educational experiences should be detailed, as well as any specific training activities or workshop. The project description is limited to 15 pages and proposals that exceed the page limitation will be returned without review.
Cost Sharing: Cost sharing is not required under this solicitation. Budgets should include travel funds for PIs to attend this meeting in the second year and all subsequent years of the award.
Details on the education, training, and any outreach activities planned as part of the project should be included. Opportunities for students to obtain novel research or educational experiences, any specific training activities or workshops should be considered.
The project description is limited to 15 pages and proposals that exceed the page limitation will be returned without review. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact s listed in Section VIII of this funding opportunity. Before using Grants. Once registered, the applicant's organization can then apply for any federal grant on the Grants.
Comprehensive information about using Grants. In addition, the NSF Grants. A provides instructions regarding the technical preparation of proposals via Grants. For Grants. The Grants. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact s listed in Section VIII of this solicitation.
The AOR must then sign and submit the application to Grants. For proposers that submitted via Grants. After proposers have received an e-mail notification from NSF, Research. All proposals are carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer, or educator serving as an NSF Program Officer, and usually by three to ten other persons outside NSF either as ad hoc reviewers, panelists, or both, who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with oversight of the review process.
These suggestions may serve as one source in the reviewer selection process at the Program Officer's discretion. Submission of such names, however, is optional. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the proposal. In addition, Program Officers may obtain comments from site visits before recommending final action on proposals.
Senior NSF staff further review recommendations for awards. These strategies are integrated in the program planning and implementation process, of which proposal review is one part. NSF's mission is particularly well-implemented through the integration of research and education and broadening participation in NSF programs, projects, and activities. One of the strategic objectives in support of NSF's mission is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects, and activities it supports at academic and research institutions.
These institutions must recruit, train, and prepare a diverse STEM workforce to advance the frontiers of science and participate in the U. NSF's contribution to the national innovation ecosystem is to provide cutting-edge research under the guidance of the Nation's most creative scientists and engineers. NSF also supports development of a strong science, technology, engineering, and mathematics STEM workforce by investing in building the knowledge that informs improvements in STEM teaching and learning.
NSF's mission calls for the broadening of opportunities and expanding participation of groups, institutions, and geographic regions that are underrepresented in STEM disciplines, which is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports. The National Science Foundation strives to invest in a robust and diverse portfolio of projects that creates new knowledge and enables breakthroughs in understanding across all areas of science and engineering research and education.
To identify which projects to support, NSF relies on a merit review process that incorporates consideration of both the technical aspects of a proposed project and its potential to contribute more broadly to advancing NSF's mission "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes.
These principles are to be given due diligence by PIs and organizations when preparing proposals and managing projects, by reviewers when reading and evaluating proposals, and by NSF program staff when determining whether or not to recommend proposals for funding and while overseeing awards.
Given that NSF is the primary federal agency charged with nurturing and supporting excellence in basic research and education, the following three principles apply:. With respect to the third principle, even if assessment of Broader Impacts outcomes for particular projects is done at an aggregated level, PIs are expected to be accountable for carrying out the activities described in the funded project.
Thus, individual projects should include clearly stated goals, specific descriptions of the activities that the PI intends to do, and a plan in place to document the outputs of those activities.
These three merit review principles provide the basis for the merit review criteria, as well as a context within which the users of the criteria can better understand their intent.
In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities. The two merit review criteria are listed below. Both criteria are to be given full consideration during the review and decision-making processes; each criterion is necessary but neither, by itself, is sufficient.
Therefore, proposers must fully address both criteria. When evaluating NSF proposals, reviewers will be asked to consider what the proposers want to do, why they want to do it, how they plan to do it, how they will know if they succeed, and what benefits could accrue if the project is successful.
These issues apply both to the technical aspects of the proposal and the way in which the project may make broader contributions. To that end, reviewers will be asked to evaluate all proposals against two criteria:. Broader impacts may be accomplished through the research itself, through the activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project.
NSF values the advancement of scientific knowledge and activities that contribute to achievement of societally relevant outcomes. Such outcomes include, but are not limited to: full participation of women, persons with disabilities, and underrepresented minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics STEM ; improved STEM education and educator development at any level; increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology; improved well-being of individuals in society; development of a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce; increased partnerships between academia, industry, and others; improved national security; increased economic competitiveness of the United States; and enhanced infrastructure for research and education.
Proposers are reminded that reviewers will also be asked to review the Data Management Plan and the Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan, as appropriate. Reviewers will be asked to evaluate proposals using two National Science Board approved merit review criteria and, if applicable, additional program specific criteria.
The Program Officer assigned to manage the proposal's review will consider the advice of reviewers and will formulate a recommendation. After scientific, technical and programmatic review and consideration of appropriate factors, the NSF Program Officer recommends to the cognizant Division Director whether the proposal should be declined or recommended for award. NSF strives to be able to tell applicants whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months.
Large or particularly complex proposals or proposals from new awardees may require additional review and processing time. The time interval begins on the deadline or target date, or receipt date, whichever is later. The interval ends when the Division Director acts upon the Program Officer's recommendation. After programmatic approval has been obtained, the proposals recommended for funding will be forwarded to the Division of Grants and Agreements for review of business, financial, and policy implications.
PI Limit:. An academic institution — a university, or a campus in a multi-campus university -- may submit no more than one 1 proposal on which it is the lead organization in response to this solicitation. Full proposals submitted via FastLane: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the general guidelines contained in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide GPG.
Compliance with this requirement is critical to determining the relevant proposal processing guidelines. Failure to submit this information may delay processing. Full proposals submitted via Grants. The complete text of the NSF Grants. Paper copies of the Grants. If a required section is missing, FastLane will not accept the proposal. Please note that the proposal preparation instructions provided in this program solicitation may deviate from the GPG instructions. If the solicitation instructions do not require a GPG-required section to be included in the proposal, insert text or upload a document in that section of the proposal that states, "Not Applicable for this Program Solicitation.
Collaborative research activities should be described and submitted in a single proposal in which a single award is requested, with subawards administered by the lead organization to any other participating organizations see GPG section II. This solicitation encourages team approaches.
The project description should include a discussion of the education and outreach aspects of the project and a management plan for coordinating project activities and attaining key project milestones. The proposal should describe the roles to be played by the participating organizations, the responsibilities of the managing PI, the activities of associated partners, and arrangements for the networking, exchange, and dissemination of data and the translation of results to organizations with experience in scale-up to commercial scale.
The managing PI must be from the lead organization. Details on the education, training, and outreach activities planned as part of the project should be included. Opportunities for students to obtain novel research or educational experiences should be detailed, as well as any specific training activities or workshop.
The project description is limited to 15 pages and proposals that exceed the page limitation will be returned without review. Budgets should include travel funds for PIs to attend this meeting in the second year and all subsequent years of the award.
Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact s listed in Section VIII of this funding opportunity. Submission of Electronically Signed Cover Sheets. The AOR must provide the required electronic certifications within five working days following the electronic submission of the proposal.
Before using Grants. Once registered, the applicant's organization can then apply for any federal grant on the Grants. Comprehensive information about using Grants.
In addition, the NSF Grants. For Grants. The Grants. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact s listed in Section VIII of this solicitation.
The AOR must then sign and submit the application to Grants. All proposals are carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer, or educator serving as an NSF Program Officer, and usually by three to ten other persons outside NSF either as ad hoc reviewers, panelists, or both, who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal.
These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with oversight of the review process. These suggestions may serve as one source in the reviewer selection process at the Program Officer's discretion.
Submission of such names, however, is optional. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the proposal. In addition, Program Officers may obtain comments from site visits before recommending final action on proposals. Senior NSF staff further review recommendations for awards. These strategies are integrated in the program planning and implementation process, of which proposal review is one part.
NSF's mission is particularly well-implemented through the integration of research and education and broadening participation in NSF programs, projects, and activities. One of the core strategies in support of NSF's mission is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects and activities it supports at academic and research institutions. These institutions provide abundant opportunities where individuals may concurrently assume responsibilities as researchers, educators, and students, and where all can engage in joint efforts that infuse education with the excitement of discovery and enrich research through the variety of learning perspectives.
Another core strategy in support of NSF's mission is broadening opportunities and expanding participation of groups, institutions, and geographic regions that are underrepresented in STEM disciplines, which is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering.
NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports.
0コメント