Welcome, everyone. We'll get started in just a second, as I see our participant numbers are going through the hundreds.
Thank you all for being here today
Still climbing a little bit. 420. Wow! I'm really excited.
Super, great.
Alright. Well, you guys think it looks like we're maybe slowing down a little bit in the 450 right?
To welcome everyone to today's virtual office hours.
My name is Lisa Cloud, and I am a section head within ocean Sciences, and the Geo.
Science directorate, and we're thrilled to have you.
Everyone here today to learn about the safe and inclusive working environments.
Pilot, plan. We're gonna do a few slides and then we're gonna hopefully go back and forth quite a bit on questions and answers.
We want to listen to to what you guys are thinking about.
Everything but I first say who us is, so. I am one of the co-chairs for this group, as well as Leslie Risler, from Bio, who is not with us today, but trust me, she'll be watching the recording the minute that we get it Posted from Bio we
also have Colette same, or say, Mary, who is a program officer from Geo.
I'm joined by Jesse Crane, Renee Craane, and Brandon Jones, and then we have Jean Feldman from policy office with us today, and the 7 of us make up your working group for this pilot and our overall goal for this pilot is really to
get the safe and inclusive working Environment plan within the merit review process of what we get in.
So we're looking to understand how P. Is, how reviewers, how do you do process of what we get in? So we're looking to understand how pis, how reviewers, how our program directors are actually going to be handling, be responding to a new supplemental document requirement as part of this
Pilot, addressing safe and inclusive working environments off campus and off site. And with that I'm gonna turn it over to Jean with the next slide
Thanks so much, Lisa, and it's really really very exciting.
Given the large number that we have here to walk through a few slides.
That provide background and context and really, definitely help to describe the difference between what Nsf is doing in safe and inclusive working environments, both what's in the pap guide, and most specifically for this session?
How we're running these pilots. And the two-page supplementary document.
But before we do that, it's really important that we start with a little background and context to give you a sense of where in a Nsf is on this issue and lets you know that we really have been engaged for a number of years and taken a number of steps in this area, so in
February of 2018, then Nsf. Director Franc Cordoba, issued important notice.
Number 144. And it related to the issue of harassment, and it was in that document she stated that it was in a cessp policy that all personnel that are supported by Nsf.
Awards must comport themselves in a responsible and accountable manner.
During the award period of performance at awardy instructions, field sites, facilities, conferences, workshops, online and everywhere.
Nsf. Funded science and engineering education is conducted.
So one of the first steps that we did after issuance of important notice number 1 44, was in October of 2,018.
We implemented a new award term in condition entitled Notification Requirements regarding Sexual Harassment.
Other forms of harassment or sexual assault. We were one of the first agencies of the Federal Government to take this step, and this particular term in condition applies to all in a subawardy organizations.
But to be clear, this term and condition is not part of title.
Ix. But rather is complementary to our title.
Ix activities and what determined condition requires is that the grantee is required to notify Nsf of any finding or determination regarding a pi or any copi that demonstrates the violation of grantee policies or codes of conduct statutes regulations, executive orders relating
to sexual harassment. Other forms of harassment and sexual assault, and or if the pi or copi has an adminrative action related to those bus violations of grantee policies or codes of conduct, and this was a very very important first, step that the foundation wanted to wanted to take but after
we did that first step. We said, that's not enough, and we began to consider how and Nsf.
Could also appropriately address this issue for other Nsf.
Funded award types. The first of these activities related to Nsf.
Conferences. Nsf. Now requires, and that organizations requesting Nsf.
Funding for conferences, have a policy or code of conduct that addresses sexual harassment.
Other forms of harassment and sexual assault, and the policy or code of conduct must include clear and accessible means of reporting violations and be disseminated to Conference participants.
That was in 2,020 in 2021 we extended this same policy to Nsf.
Funded travel awards by signing the cover sheet.
The authorized organizational, rep representative, the certifying that prior to the proposers, participation in the meeting, the proposer will assure that the meeting organizer has a written policy or code of conduct that addresses sexual harassment.
Other forms of harassment or sexual assault, and includes those same requirements regarding clear and accessible means of reporting, as well as dissemination of that information.
In both of these cases the policy is not required to be submitted to Nsa.
For review by Nsf. So we were. We took a few additional steps, but the latest step that we did in this space was, of course, the 2,023 change to the pap guide, and the authorized organizational representative certification that went into effect, in January
of 2,023, now many of you may have noted that when we put the Pap guide out for public comments we got a lot of feedback, and it was a two-page supplementary document that a documentary document that addressed field vessel and aircraft
research prior to finalization of the Pep guide. The decision was made to move it as a first step, as a certification that you had a plan in place for that proposal in lieu of having an attached supplementary document that would be reviewed as part of the merit review process
now at the same time, however, the decision was made that directorates could implement pilots in their solicitations to collect this document as a supplementary document, and that is what this session is all about is to talk about the plan for safe and inclusive working environments for the
Bio and Geo pilots and programs that we're going to be talking about today.
Next slide, please. So how do we define what this applies to?
Well off campus or off-site research is defined, and this is something that we specifically say in the Pap guide is that you must have a plan in place for that proposal for off campus or off-site research.
And we define off-campus or off-site research as data information samples being collected off campus or off-site, such as fieldwork and research activities on vessels and aircraft.
Next slide, please. Now what I'm attempting to do in this slide is making something very complicated, not complicated.
So people are going. Well, what do I have to do for for the Pep guide?
And what will I have to do if I'm a participant in this pilot from Bio or Geo.
And, by the way, let me also say that other directorates may also be piloting this, but we are definitely starting with Bio and Geo.
So let's try to walk through what you have to do.
If you are participating in this pilot. So we have on the on the cover page that was implemented again, the pap guide went into effect.
January 30, of 2023. So very recently, and in the top box you see that there is a box at the very bottom on the right side for off-campus.
Our off-site research. Everyone. If you have a proposal that meets that requirement that we just refer to that definition that I just provided on the last slide.
Everyone must check that box. If you are conducting off campus or off-site research, regardless of whether or not you are participating in the pilot or not.
This is a signal to Nsf programs stuff that lets them know that off campus or off-site research will be conducted again, whether you are participating in the Geo biopilot or not.
If you have off campus or off-site risk, you will check that box.
Okay, I think that's pretty clear where it gets a little complicated is the fact that we have on the cover sheet a new certification.
And it says, certification regarding safe and inclusive working environments for off campus or off-site research.
Now again we have the definition apply included right there.
This certification applies only to proposals in which data information samples are being collected.
Off campus or off-site, such as fieldwork and research activities on vessels and aircraft.
It goes on to say that by electronically signing the certification pages the authorized organizational replica is certifying that in accordance with the Nsf proposal on award policies and procedures guide chapter 2 E 9 and that's the section that talks
About what you have to have in place for those not participating in the pilot, that the organization has a plan in place for for this proposal regarding safe and inclusive research environments.
So what does this mean? Well, we can't. This is a standard certification.
Page for all proposals that are submitted to Nsf.
Regardless of whether you're participating in the pilot or not, and we can't get rid of this language for those that are participating in this pilot.
It simply is hardwired in our system. So what does this certification language mean for you?
So, if you are participating in the pilot, you check the box.
But what this certification language means is that it doesn't apply to you because you will, in lieu of this certification, be submitting a 2 page supplementary document, you will be submitting that for review, and it will be considered as part of broader impacts for the review process again, you will not
Be doing a plan for this proposal that complies with the Path Guide and a separate plan that complies with the requirements specified in the solicitations for Bio and Geo.
You will be submitting one plan that complies with the requirements of the solicitation, and it replaces what this certification language says.
Again, if we had a great system that allowed flexibility, if you checked the box we would definitely eliminate this line for those participating in the pilot.
But we can't. So again you will be submitting one plan that complies with the solicitation requirements, and it replaces this certification language.
Next slide, please.
And I think it's over to me, Jean. I do.
Yup! It is
Wanna say, you guys are putting in some great questions, so keep them coming in the Q&A. Box.
We will turn to to live questions, and we'll answer most of them live, I think you guys are putting in some great questions, so keep them coming in the box. We will turn to live questions.
Then we'll answer. Most of them live, I think, because they're really great questions. So we'll get to those very soon.
So formal solicitations that have already been released that require this 2 page supplemental doc in place of the certification.
So right now we have within the Bio Directorate biodiversity on a changing planet which does have a due date associated with it.
So anyone receiving to that solicitation needs to have their proposals submitted with a supplemental document.
And it's due on the 20 ninth of March, within the Bio Directorate.
It in environmental biology and molecular and cellular biology, and an integrated organismal studies.
You are also going to be submitting a 2 page supplemental document that will be merit reviewed if you are doing off campus or off-site research in the proposal within Geo.
We have 2 solicitations that include the pilot.
So far a geopath solicitation and Cdc.
Brandon, you can help me out with that one type.
It in the box, but these are both deadline solicitations at the moment.
That is all of the pilots that we have in play.
We know of at least 2 more solicitations that are going through clearance from Geo.
That are putting this in play. We're also expecting to see some things that are shared with Bioengo things like the long term ecological research program that may wind up doing the pilots as well.
So we expect these to be growing in number, and for those solicitations that do not have deadlines or due dates associated with them.
When the solicitation gets published, proposals that come in 90 days after publication will be required to have the supplemental doc.
Instead of the certification. So that will all be called out for you guys in solicitations as they roll out.
We're hearing that some other part of Nsf.
Want to participate in this as they roll out. We're hearing that some other parts of Nsf. Want to participate in this as well, but we don't have any that we can publicly announce, and next slide.
And I'm gonna turn it to Colette about what the 2 page document needs.
Okay, this pilot plan has 4 sections. The first section is a brief description of the field setting and the unique challenges that setting poses for the team.
So this is the physical environment as well as potentially the social environment in which the team members find themselves.
Second, we need steps. The proposing organization is taking to nurture and inclusive off-campus or off-site working environment, including procedures to establish shared team definitions of roles, responsibilities and culture codes of conduct trainings, mentor
Mentee mechanisms and field support that might include regular check-ins and or developmental events. As as somebody comes to participate in the project
This might be quite diverse, and should be tailored to the unique challenges of that project.
Itself. Indeed, the whole document is very much tailored to the proposed off-site off-campus.
Research activities. The third portion is a summary of the communication processes within the off-site team and to the organizations that minimize singular points within the communication pathway that is, every participant in the team should have full access to the opportunity to communicate directly with a safe
House safe connection, campus, whatever that path may be. So that means there should not be a single person who's overseeing access to that kind of communication.
And finally, we would like a summary of the organizational mechanisms that will be used for reporting and responding to and resolving issues of harassment if they may arise. And so that should summarize how members of the team will communicate with the organization at home okay next fine please
As you've heard, reviewers will be reviewing this under the broader impacts.
Review, merit, review, criterion, and we've included 3 solicitation, specific questions about the plans.
The first one is, is there a compelling plan, including procedures, trainings, communication processes to establish nurture and maintain inclusive off-camera, off-site working environments?
The second criteria that reviewers will be asked to consider as they look at the plans is, does the proposed plan?
Identify and adequately address the unique challenges for the team and the specific off-campus and off-site settings in which the work is being done.
And finally, are the organizational mechanisms to be used for reporting, responding, and resolving issues of harassment that do arise?
Are they clearly outlined, so that all participants can understand what those mechanisms are.
So, as you see, the plan contents and the review criteria really aligned quite closely. And so we'll look forward to hearing what further questions you have about that I'm turning it back to Lisa
Great, so wrapping up for the pilot what we are looking for is that you do check on the cover page that off-campus or off-site research is being proposed within this proposal that is being submitted to Nsf in response to a solicitation that includes
The pilot. So please do check that box in response to a solicitation that includes the pilot. So please do check that box, and then you're participating in the pilot, and you are also going to submit a 2 page.
Supplemental documents that will be subject to merit review, and that is being submitted in place of the certification that is required under chapter 2 E.
9 and a lot of the questions and a lot of probably the next couple of minutes we're gonna spend is talking about what the heck is off campus off-site research.
So I promise we'll get to that one quickly, and probably will.
The big picture answer is, your institution has the final say, Nsf. Does it?
However, world we're happy to go through sort of a is it?
This? Is it, that is it this, cause? I think that'll help make things clearer.
So the last slide is asking for your questions. We really do want to go through all of those clarifying questions as you're starting to get ready to prepare these plans and submit these plans, we want to remind you that we'd love to hear your thoughts.
About reviews, and readiness to put these plans in place.
So, in addition to answering questions, we'd love to listen.
Or at least read some comments that are being posted in the and just.
Any other thoughts that you have around this new requirement.
We're pretty excited about it. So with that, I'm gonna turn it back over to Colette, who, I think, will serve as the Mc.
Reading, the
Okay, just to be absolutely clear about how this is going to work.
You can enter questions that you have in the question and answer section.
You can do that with your identity, or you can do it anonymously.
We are my my colleagues are signing up to answer those quot those questions verbally, and I will be going through the questions, reading them out, and then handing over to my colleagues to share your answers those questions that are more peripheral to the focus of today we will
be answering with written responses online. Okay? The first question here, could you please clarify whether working at your office with remote stakeholders and informants?
For example, via zoom counts as off-site for this purpose, or remote work.
More generally Brandon.
Yeah.
And actually, I was saying, I wanted this answered Live, because there are several questions in this list about this, and I think Lisa was hinting at it.
Yeah.
And maybe, Gene, you can reinforce that your institution is going to be the one that defines what an off-campus activity is.
Gene? And am I correcting
That's the 100% correct. And you're absolutely right.
Brandon, that is one. There are really 2 different areas. Does this particular thing qualify?
Does this particular research qualify in? The answer is, you're going to have to work with your sponsored Projects office at your institution, because ultimately they are responsible for making that determination.
Looking at the high-level definition of off-site off-campus and making the determination of whether they believe it's appropriate for inclusion of of this requirement to that research
Along these same lines. How does Nsf define campus?
Okay.
We don't. There is not. It's not.
It wouldn't even be possible for us, because the constructs, especially in an electronic world, are becoming very vague in terms of what's a campus in some cases?
So the answer again, and any in this space is going to be the same.
The institution is going to have the final determination. There also are a lot.
I'm gonna go ahead and answer them, because there's about 20 questions about, does this apply to subaward ease?
Does this supply to collaborating organizations where I'm not the lead.
So those are great questions, and the answer is, and again, there are a whole bunch of them.
So let's try to answer all of these in a group upfront.
And the answer is, yes, it does. The way our systems work.
However, and this is identical to how we approach post-doctoral mentoring plans and data management plans is that the lead organization will be the one that checks the box for off-site off-campus research and then attaches the document for that proposal so if it's
a subawardy. Only the subawardee will provide the lead with the plan, and they will attach it.
If it's multiple organizations that are involved, there will be one plan for that proposal that will be attached.
As a supplementary document. So there's a whole bunch of questions in there that is, are in that same space.
Again. We're not going to be able to tell you.
I've got this kind of research. Does it apply you're gonna have to work with your sponsor projects we've also answered how subawardees and because Subawardees will not be able to check that box non-lead organizations send a separately submitted collaborative will not be
Able to check that box. Only the lead proposal will
Thank you, Jane, turning to a slightly different question. It sounds like the plan only covers research activity narrowly defined.
And does not relate to all student activities. Off campus supported by Nsf.
Funds, ie. Students participating in workforce development activities. Lisa
Correct.
Yup, you are correct. We are focused in on research for this particular pilot.
We might have aspirations to get broader at some point, but at this point we are really moving on the research team we are really moving on the research piece.
And again, what's research? Well, there's a little bit of leeway, but you should be chatting with your institution on.
Is this predominantly education, or is this predominantly research?
And there certainly can be research associated with education. But we are focused in on the research component.
And so I understand where we're kind of saying, well, your institution has a lot to say about this, and they do.
We really, this is, we know that there are circumstances.
Situations where harassment is more prone to occur.
So we're tackling the off-campus off-site locations with instituting this plan.
And having folks think about, what should they do to provide the safest and most inclusive research environment in off campus and off-site locations.
And Brandon. I will hand it over to you if you wanna add on to that one
And yeah, just adding that there may be program specific requirements.
And some of those programs like the Geopaths program, is a combination of workforce development and research.
We're students. And so that plan is required for that specific program.
And that gets to what Jean was saying earlier that I'm soicitation can, as we're doing with these pilots can make that specific call
And this is really exciting for us, because when the decision was made to move to a certification in lieu of an attached plan, there was a great desire to test that out, though, and so we were able to get the approval and move forward with these pilots so that we could we can look at
Both approaches and see where Nsf may ultimately go with this in the future.
The next question is, does this apply to work research specifically being done at national labs?
Go ahead! Lisa
Yeah, I'll take a swing at this one. Yes.
What? Yeah, chat with your instant right? Like. So if you are being funded to go work at a national lab, let's say they have a field site, say, associated with the national lab, and you're institution, says, you know what we consider that to be on sites for that particular lab and your institution.
Says you know what we consider that to be on sites for that particular lab, we would say, Okay, you don't need the plan.
And honestly to me. A lot of that is, is there an existing expectation?
Policies and procedures about providing a safe and inclusive work.
Environment at the location where this research is being done. If there already exist a way to provide the safe and inclusive work environment we're gonna be comfortable with what your institution decides, regardless.
We hope
But I'd like to think that the national labs probably do have safe and inclusive work plans provided.
And so in that case you would not need to do an additional plan.
If you were submitting to Nsf. On that front.
Jean, you wanna yep.
Yeah, no. That's spot on. And we're also getting a number of them that talk about.
Well, I'm doing this. I'm meeting the definition.
But I'm not off campus or off-site.
I'm on my own campus, and that same answer would apply that your institution already has policies and procedures in place for safe and inclusive working environments, and in that case those policies would apply you wouldn't have to be creating a new plan.
If you're staying on your campus. But you're conducting those collecting those data information or samples
So? A different question.
Can somebody opt in to the pilot who gets to participate?
Lisa
We love you, early adopters, but in this case we can't have you be in earliest so for the pilot, it is only for those solicitations that are calling out participation in the pilot for the requirement for the 2 page supplemental document.
So you can't choose to add in a supplemental documents.
If you're not responding to a solicitation in this case for this pilot, I will remind everyone that you're certifying.
If you are doing off campus and off-site work, that you have a plan, we just don't be that plan under the certification rule.
So you are welcome to do a plan. We want you to do a plan.
You're authorized organizational representative is certifying that you have a plan.
If you're responding to a solicitation that is not part of the pilot, but we do not want you to submit and be an early adopter of a supplemental doc in any way, shape or form, unless you're part of one of the pilots so we love your enthusiasm and we want to change
Although we love the enthusiasm we love, the enthusiasm
The culture. We wanna to be partners in all of this.
But we can't do it in this case for anything that's not part of the pilots
Yeah.
Okay, I'm waiting a little bit through ones that I think we have answered, Yes.
Yeah.
There are a lot of questions by the way, folks, and so thank you that I mean, but a lot of them fell into a couple of buckets that we kind of grouped together and answer
Yeah. Here's an important one, really, though, is the physical signature for the certification needed or not, I'm not.
They're not asking about the plan they're asking about.
Should there still be a signature on that page
There is not need to be a signature. There is an electronic, and that actually relates to an issue that I didn't want to describe.
So if you're participating in the pilot, okay, what I talked to you about was that this plan replaces that certification.
At the same time, however, the Aor does provide a certification that everything in that proposal is accurate.
Current and complete, and that is provided an electronic signature when they submit the certifications to the Aor.
Submits the certifications for that proposal, so that is what they're certifying to.
But there isn't a separate. When you actually do that subdoc, you're not signing anything that comes in as part of the regular certification that it's accurate, current and complete
Yes.
And so in the context of the pilot, there's no need to have to right, not applicable, because it's inherent. As you submit to that solicitation. The solicitation is super seating
Yes, and in fact, the way it works you that we flash this in front of the Aor.
This listing. So they see all the certifications.
You couldn't go through and say, Oh, by the way, this one doesn't apply the system simply won't let you do that.
I wish we had a system, and and we have a new system.
But it's the certification is basically something that flashes on the screen for the Aor to see.
And you cannot modify those in any way
Thank you. Jane. I'm going to answer one question because I think it's echoing what we've already said, and that is, if we're receiving a proposal prior to April eighteenth.
That has submitted the supplemental. Doc. Our response will be to ask the pi to update, do a file, update and remove that supplemental.
Doc prior to the April eighteenth date, at which it can then, you know, then, proposals are required to have it so, though those proposals come in prior to the adoption date should not include a plan
Now they they will be covered by the certification that applies right now, because that's for all proposals.
So you will. You still have to have a plan in place for that proposal.
You just don't provide it to Nsa. Renee.
I wanted to address a few of the questions. Maybe we can click that.
They're answered, live later. But there's a number of questions about working with different, you know, subaardies.
Another service, providers, and I think if we went back to what is supposed to be in the plan, you would see that the idea is to you know, be able to explain your fieldwork where you're going.
Who's going to be involved, and how your making deliberate attempt to make sure that you're providing that safe and inclusive environment, and that you have multiple points of contact for people to reach out to.
If anything goes wrong. There was one about whether it should be one Poc, and the idea is to have multiple so that there isn't any one person who could stop someone from coming forward to say that they were uncomfortable.
And if you have guides or other people involved in the project incorporating how you know.
What if the guide is misbehaving in some in some way or vice versa?
So I think the idea we're asking for in this plan is to think through those scenarios that are specific to your project and address them in the plan.
And it does include it. The whole idea to create a setting.
And the field environment, the off-campus environment. That is a much, you know, more supportive and positive experience for people conducting field work so hopefully that addresses some of the questions that have come in about who needs to participate in this plan. What needs to be included in the plan
Right. And that's a great, great comment and thanks for bringing that up, Renee.
That's really helpful and parallel to that.
They've kind of been some questions along the lines of, well, we have multiple organizations involved which who?
Which organizations plan should we use and that's really something that you, as organizations are, gonna have to discuss.
We can't answer that for you particularly, one said.
If there are conflicts between the plan which should. That's something that you're gonna have to work out, because it is one plan.
Per proposal. And so the idea is, you will be speaking to one another about that collaboration, and what works best
Okay, we have another question here. Will there be specific guidelines where pis need to have measures in place to protect those working with them?
That may be from marginalized groups, and that means any source of marginalized participant.
So Lisa, go ahead.
Yup, the first part of the 2 page plan. We really do want you to tell us what specifics are applying to the project plan. We really do want you to tell us what specifics are applying to the project that you're submitting the proposal for so absolutely all groups should be considered
And provided with an inclusive environment. Obviously, 2 pages is not a lot.
So what we're really looking for, I'll be.
What if you're proposing to go work in a country where Lgbtq participants, we might actually be looking at laws that are different than the laws within the United States?
Obviously, we want to see that you are cognizant of the challenges provided for the locations that you are going to, and probably more importantly, for the team members that you are going to, and probably more importantly, for the team members that will be part of the project.
So we want to have in that first part of the 2 page supplemental document a call out of location and teamspecific sensitivities, and then we should have the follow up right?
Okay, well, how are you gonna handle that before you go to the field?
How are you gonna handle that in the field? How are you going to handle that?
In the unfortunate event that something does happen. So. Yes, please, it should be specific to each other.
That's something does happen. So yes, please, it should be specific to each proposal, and that does get to some of the questions about well, my institution is gonna come up with a plan.
Can I just use that? We're not saying you can't use that.
We're aware that has been done for data management plans.
But because the unit is the project and the proposal, we're pretty sure that a standard.
Here's how you do. This will need to be. At least I wanna say personalized right?
Hey! Lord!
But actually tailored for the project. So a generic, here's what we do is part of it.
But it's not going to be the most robust of the plans.
And again we intend for these 2 page supplemental Doc to be part of the merit review so we're gonna be asking AD hoc reviewers and peopleists and program officers as well will be considering the suitability of the plan for the project that has been proposed looks like
Go ahead!
Renee wants to add on that
Renewing. Yeah.
No, I'm sorry. I raised my hand at a time when someone wasn't speaking.
I just thought there was a question in there specific to N.
A, and I just wanted to make sure. That is it's provocals are due tomorrow.
Okay.
So just to make sure that they're not concerned having an issue with the checkbox.
I can't find the question now.
I don't think I've seen it yet. Oh, here's here it is.
We are submitting an Nna proposal due tomorrow.
The proposal. Pdf. Preview shows the checkbox you you described, however, the cover sheet screen where we can checkbot boxes does not show the box or the Do. Rc.
One, so there is no way to check the box. One of our partners contacted the help desk, but they're not seeing it. So they are making us aware that there might be an issue with the checkbox
Well, we've gotten probably over a 100 questions of people who have seen the checkbox.
It's just a matter of who can check it. If they're a subaward to you or a collaborating organization, they can't check the checkbox.
So it's gonna only only the lead organization or the organization submitting the proposal can check that checkbox.
But the checkbox is definitely on the first part of the completion of the cover sheet.
In the types of Activity section. It's where the human subjects in vertebrate animals and Joel use research of concern section is the certification is on a different section of the cover sheet
Thank you. Okay. What if, when the proposal is submitted, it's not thought that the research, it's thought that all the research would be done on site.
And then, once it's awarded, there's a decision to do some of the the work.
Offsite. Go ahead, Brandon!
Yeah, I'll take a crack at this, and certainly look to Jean for some correction if needed.
But in the Phpg there is guidance on change in methods, change in scope, change, and objectives, and that requires the sponsored research.
The aor of the institution to sign off on that as well as before.
A conversation with your program director about any of those changes that you see, and so that we do have guidance for those changes.
But I would encourage you. Well, not encourage you.
You need to talk to your program director. First, Dean, is that
Well, let me just say, Okay, if you look at the new 23, dash one, you will not see a post-award requirement that applies specifically to this situation.
For example, we have what happens if you have a postdoc added, after a proposal has been awarded, and there wasn't one at the original time.
We have guidance. There is nothing about this particular concept, but Brandon raises the right, the right part of the Path guide.
If the Aor believes that that movement or addition of and off can't off site off-campus constitute, should change an objective or scope, they may or may not, depending on what it is they're doing.
They would then submit a change in objective or scope, and comply with the requirements, but it would have.
They're gonna have to make that determination, that that movement to off-site off-campus constitutes a change in objective or scope.
But always I love where you went. Talk to your program, officer about that, because you often would about hey?
Do you think this qualifies as it should? So you may want to?
You would definitely talk to your program officer in that situation.
Thanks. Brandon.
Okay, we have a quick question about whether drones or autonomous vessels count as aircraft and vessels. Lisa
Yeah, I I thought that was a fun one. It was early, and I'm like, Yeah, Nope, what?
Really that one comes down to is, where are you flying the drones from?
Right like. So if you're launching the drones from campus and they're going out and collecting information offset, then probably, Nope, you don't need it.
But I I'm an oceanographer right?
I'm fascinated to know what we're doing with the with the balloon recovery off the coast of South Carolina right?
So there's gonna be autonomous vessels and vehicles and everything involved right?
Like. So if they were being launched from my campus, then probably not.
But if these vessels and vehicles are, in fact, being launched off the ship, then you're probably going to need the plan, because the ship is off campus or off-site.
So drones. Nope, not in and of themselves.
So the question really has to get back backed up to where are you launching them from?
Are you bringing a team of people to the field in order to do the launching for these to do the launching for these unmanned on-person?
Sorry I shouldn't say unmanned unpers vehicles to actually collect the information.
So I thought that was a fun one. Thanks.
Okay.
I see one question that I'm really not quite sure what the questioner is thinking so I'm gonna pose it on their behalf and let Lisa take a stab at it.
The question is, what is the process? After a report
What is your take on that, Lisa?
Yeah, so that fourth component that we want you to fill in for this plan says, What are you going to do in the case of an incident in the field?
We want you to think about what the process is after.
A report in this plan, and that, honestly, is sort of full stop for this pilot right?
I'm gonna hand it over to to Gene to help with the answer. Right?
Like, so, okay, I put in the plan. I knew what I was gonna do.
Okay, right?
And something happens. Where is Nsf in the mix on all of this I'm gonna say that our Oec, our office of equity and civil rights, is always that we have an anonymous at location for you to report, and we always have help.
Yeah.
Right.
Available. But Nsf is not going to be going in the field and providing any sort of enforcement for you to report, and we always have help available. But Nsf. Is not going to be going in the field and providing any sort of enforcement for any of these things so you are always welcome and we are actually thinking about the next
Steps of, okay. Well, you have this plan. How is that gonna be reported on within annual reports?
Yeah, that's fine.
So for people who are fortunate enough to get an award stick tuned for people who are fortunate enough to get an award stay tuned.
We will be communicating with you about how we want to actually handle this in the annual report.
So I do want that. There I do wanna clarify that Nsf.
Wants to hear about the unfortunate things that do happen via our office of equity and civil rights.
But Nsf is not going out and being the policeman in the field.
So for the pilot. Tell us what you're gonna do thinking about things before really bad things happens is very valuable.
And so that's what we're looking for in the Pilot, that you're showing us that you have thought through what the best plan is for your particular project, Gene. Do you want to add anything on to that
No, that was a great response. I have nothing further to add
We're running low on time. So I'm scanning down to look at the questions.
But before I ask what may be the last question, or that penal ultimate question, I want to stress that we will be.
Working, to publish an Faqs about these pilots in the near future, and the questions you posed through this exercise will certainly inform that document.
Absolutely.
We also plan to have additional webinar sessions with this focus in the coming months.
Alright! So a set of questions that I see repeatedly is about.
If vendors or other parties are collecting data such as the company that's conducting a survey or providing data to pi.
But not project personnel going out and collecting data
What do we do in the context of that scenario for a plan and related, but not asked by the same person.
What about those cases of citizen science where the public is collecting some data for the project?
And I'm gonna put Jean on the spot for this one
Well, I would say what we're looking for, just like we've been using a theme.
If something is going on in that proposal that meets the definition of off campus or off-site or off campus research, we want you thinking about that.
And so for these weird cases like, it's really not project personnel, but a vendor.
You really should be working with your sponsored Projects office to make sure that you're appropriately covered in this regard.
And and that's the best guidance that that we could possibly.
I mean, obviously, we want anything going on to be thought through if it meets the definition of off-site or off-campus.
But in the particular case of vendors, you certainly would want to do that.
I would ask, turn it over to Lisa for the team.
Science kind of, or any of the program officers on your that have experience with proposals that have team, science or citizen science.
So I'm sorry to respond to how they might approach that question.
Yeah, I can take a swing right? So to me, citizen, science is science.
Yeah.
Traditional knowledge is science. All of that is science. So the team includes all of those members and should be addressing that.
And I think honestly, that would be something you would want to tell us about right like that.
There are people affiliated with the university and people not affiliated with the university, and that certainly it sets up something that we want you to show us that you're thinking about.
It's about the project, folks. Let's
It's about the project, and so to me, it's who are the team members on the project and absolutely citizen science scientists and contractors and others.
Scientists and contractors and others, our team members. So you want to be inclusive about their safety.
And and it looks
But you really would need on a vendor relationship the sponsored projects would very likely have to notiate with something with that vendor particular to that agreement.
Yep.
So definitely involve your sponsor projects, activity, office on those
Go ahead!
Yup agreed, and Renee wanted to call out one question in the chat.
I just wanna not to trump sort of your question.
There, Colette, you can do one final one. But, Renee, do you want to do that?
Yeah, there's a question about what guidance overviewers begin, then, for judging whether the plan is sufficient and other people please also feel free.
And Brandon has experience here, but you know, when program officers are picking reviewers we're picking people who can thoughtfully review all aspects of the proposal under both merit review criteria and any other applicable criteria and they'll be given the guidance to
You know. Walk through the plan. Does it describe the fieldwork?
Does it describe vulnerability, that there may be, and how the project is handling those you know, are there multiple outlets for people to express?
If something's not right in the project, and Brandon, others who've got first hand experience with having already piloted some of these. Please jump in, but there will be some coaching for reviewers, and you know the but it's you know it's it's your peers.
No, Renee, not much to add to that exactly.
The training or coaching, as you call it, for reviewers, is gonna be key in this and in our pilot we already have a community of individuals that sit at the nexus of workforce development and research so they're kind of already attuned to these things.
But the training and guidance is gonna be keep
So we've come to the end of our hour.
But, as you heard earlier, both Geo and Bio are looking at solicitations as they come up for revision to decide if they should be included in the pilot, so you can expect that there may be some additional.
Solicitations using this approach, but
Even out there
Yes, even better. But most importantly, the solicitation you're submitting to is the one that matters, and the timing for the requirement of of the plan.
In one of those solicitations is also specific to that solicitation.
So that's your guidance about whether you should, being submitting a supplemental dock or not.
Anybody else want to say anything more. As we close
Just thank you for the fabulous questions, cause those are, gonna be extremely valuable in developing an FAQ.
Document for all of you.
Definitely. Thank you so much.
Thanks. Everyone.
Thank you. Everyone.