WEBVTT 00:02:44.000 --> 00:02:45.000 And call it. 00:02:45.000 --> 00:02:46.000 Colet. 00:02:46.000 --> 00:02:49.000 I'm Colet St. Mary. I'm. 00:02:49.000 --> 00:02:59.000 My regular hat is in behavioral systems in the division of integrated organismal systems. 00:02:59.000 --> 00:03:01.000 I'm Jean. 00:03:01.000 --> 00:03:12.000 Hello everyone, I'm Sheen Feldman. I'm head of the policy office and the division of institution and award support in our office actually is responsible for the pathetic. 00:03:12.000 --> 00:03:14.000 Jessie. 00:03:14.000 --> 00:03:27.000 Hi everyone, I'm Jessie Crane. I'm in the geosciences directorate in the office of Polar Programs and I work in the Antarctic Infrastructure and Logistics Group. 00:03:27.000 --> 00:03:36.000 Alright, thanks everyone. That leaves me. I'm Jeremy Willjack, from the division of environmental biology and the population and community ecology cluster. 00:03:36.000 --> 00:03:43.000 As always our virtual office hours are facilitated by, Christina Washington, Megan Lewis and Bill Lawson. 00:03:43.000 --> 00:03:50.000 We appreciate their help. 00:03:50.000 --> 00:04:00.000 You found yourself here, but this is a monthly occurrence or virtual office hours. Typically the second Monday of each month at this time. 00:04:00.000 --> 00:04:13.000 In December we're going to have a visitor from the new directorate of technology innovation and partnerships that we'll talk about what they have going on that's of relevance for the biology community. 00:04:13.000 --> 00:04:22.000 And we typically plan these topics about 6 months in advance. And so, within the next couple of weeks, you'll see. 00:04:22.000 --> 00:04:28.000 The new slate of topics coming up so stay tuned for that. 00:04:28.000 --> 00:04:35.000 Just a couple of other quick reminders we have our division has a blog and most other divisions also have their own blog. 00:04:35.000 --> 00:04:43.000 Ours is called debrief. You can find lots of, excellent information there, resources and links. 00:04:43.000 --> 00:04:55.000 Announcements about future office hours and importantly, If you miss an office hour or need to review, we post recaps of what we talked about, sometimes slides. 00:04:55.000 --> 00:05:10.000 Often a curated list of questions and answers. And so if you missed an office hour or there's a topic for we're not gonna talk about it anytime soon there might be an older version that you can go and find some answers. 00:05:10.000 --> 00:05:14.000 So don't forget to check that out. 00:05:14.000 --> 00:05:19.000 And then more broadly, if you go to the NSF main web page@nsf.gov. 00:05:19.000 --> 00:05:30.000 And scroll down to the bottom there's an orange button That says sign up and you can click that and choose the kinds of things you want to hear about from NSF. 00:05:30.000 --> 00:05:42.000 And also if you are not already, participating as a reviewer or panelist. There is a, URL. 00:05:42.000 --> 00:05:49.000 Here at Survey Monkey. Where you can describe yourself and your expertise and then we'll become. 00:05:49.000 --> 00:05:56.000 More aware of you and can. Select you for those kinds of service and, development opportunities. 00:05:56.000 --> 00:06:02.000 Please volunteer if you're not already engaged. 00:06:02.000 --> 00:06:14.000 Couple of reminders about solicitations that. Maybe relevant to you just a reminder that in biology all of our core programs no longer have deadlines. 00:06:14.000 --> 00:06:22.000 And so we accept proposals at any time. And we no longer have submission limits. So you can send as many good ideas as you have. 00:06:22.000 --> 00:06:30.000 Or have time to write proposals about. Perhaps. But there are some programs that still have deadlines. 00:06:30.000 --> 00:06:37.000 So for example, the post doctoral research fellowship program has a deadline at the end of. Deadline at the end of November. 00:06:37.000 --> 00:06:51.000 Organismal response to climate change. Has a deadline in December as does the ramp program that focuses on post baccalaureate research opportunities. 00:06:51.000 --> 00:07:01.000 And there's a few DCLs there. May be of interest to some subset of our community. 00:07:01.000 --> 00:07:10.000 And before we get to safe, just one last thing that may be relevant as you're considering submissions. 00:07:10.000 --> 00:07:16.000 Is that, as of now, anytime that you submit, by a lot, biographical sketch. 00:07:16.000 --> 00:07:26.000 Biosketch or current impending support. We have this new tool or new interface that allows, sort of a standardized approach. 00:07:26.000 --> 00:07:44.000 And so, please. Become aware of that if you haven't done that already and I think that's enough preamble and we can get to the safe plans. 00:07:44.000 --> 00:07:50.000 All right, we're going to talk about safe and inclusive field. And this is a pilot. 00:07:50.000 --> 00:08:10.000 In started in Bio and Gio, we'll talk about what's the difference between the NSF, we'll talk about what's the difference between the NSF-wide requirements for off-campus or off-site research that's the difference between the NSF-wide requirements for off-campus or off-site research, that certification, versus the safe pilot. 00:08:10.000 --> 00:08:16.000 And then we will tell you, when you need to submit a safe plan. And finally, what is in a safe plan and how are they reviewed. 00:08:16.000 --> 00:08:23.000 I wanna turn it over to Gene Feldman for the next few slides. 00:08:23.000 --> 00:08:35.000 Thank you. Next slide. This is the proposal and award policies and procedures guide section. That was new and the 2023 version of the PAP guide. 00:08:35.000 --> 00:08:42.000 That was for all proposals. Submitted or do. On or after January, 30, 2023. 00:08:42.000 --> 00:08:52.000 And previously we did not have coverage on this topic. And it was a continued part of a continuing effort that the foundation has done. 00:08:52.000 --> 00:09:04.000 Over the past number of years 5 years to be exact for looking at how to. better prepare and how better safe and inclusive working environments. 00:09:04.000 --> 00:09:24.000 And so this was a new chapter. 2 E 9 and the PAP guide and what it basically describes is a new requirement that we put in place for the authorized organizational representative, they will be certifying that the organization has a plan in place. 00:09:24.000 --> 00:09:33.000 For a safe and inclusive research for any proposal that proposes to conduct off-campus or off-site research. 00:09:33.000 --> 00:09:51.000 And this section also provides consideration for the plans development communication and dissemination. Now one important thing to note here really and what we'd like to emphasize is that there was a draft we always put out a draft PAP guide and it did have coverage in it on a plan for safe and inclusive. 00:09:51.000 --> 00:10:04.000 Working environment specifically for field vessel and aircraft research. So people got a little confused when the final version showed up. 00:10:04.000 --> 00:10:14.000 And it was different. It referred to off campus or off-site research. And you certified rather than submitting an actual proposal, an actual plan with your proposal. 00:10:14.000 --> 00:10:28.000 And so those are the confusions that we want to eliminate. As part of today to make sure that you truly understand what NSFs expectations are in this space. 00:10:28.000 --> 00:10:33.000 Next slide. 00:10:33.000 --> 00:10:41.000 So our office in addition to putting out the PAP guide and a number of other documents of importance to the foundation. 00:10:41.000 --> 00:10:47.000 He also is responsible for, an alias called policy@nsf.com. 00:10:47.000 --> 00:11:00.000 And this continues to be the largest question that we get@policyatnsf.com. And it's, well, how does NSF to find off campus or off-site? 00:11:00.000 --> 00:11:08.000 And this is directly out of the path guide. Off-campus or off-site research is defined as data, information or samples. 00:11:08.000 --> 00:11:16.000 That are being collected off campus or off-site. Such as field work and research activities on vessels and aircraft. 00:11:16.000 --> 00:11:25.000 So you see and here's some of those same words before, but now they're under the roomric of off-campus or off-site research. 00:11:25.000 --> 00:11:34.000 The question we get is how do we what is off-campus or off-site? Research for this particular activity? 00:11:34.000 --> 00:11:40.000 Does it qualify or it doesn't? NSF is not going to answer that question for you. 00:11:40.000 --> 00:11:52.000 That is a question that the institution. Will have to decide prior to preparing and submitting that proposal. That And so that is an important takeaway. 00:11:52.000 --> 00:12:05.000 We will not be answering that question for you. It is a responsibility. The proposing organization. Next slide, please. 00:12:05.000 --> 00:12:13.000 So these are a couple places in the PAP guide where you have to kind of figure out and get engaged. 00:12:13.000 --> 00:12:23.000 About what these requirements really are. First of all, there is a new checkbox. As you see, there's a big accent for off-campus or off-site research. 00:12:23.000 --> 00:12:30.000 And here's another question. I will answer in advance. Regardless of whether you are submitting a proposal. 00:12:30.000 --> 00:12:39.000 That is part of the pilot or you are submitting a proposal that is not part of the pilot. If there is off-campus, that is not part of the pilot. 00:12:39.000 --> 00:12:42.000 If there is off-campus or off-site research, you will always check that box. 00:12:42.000 --> 00:12:43.000 If there is off-campus or off-site research, you will always check that box. 00:12:43.000 --> 00:12:52.000 Again, that is something that you as an organization will determine, but pilot or not in the pilot, you will always check that box. 00:12:52.000 --> 00:13:02.000 We also added a new certification at the bottom of the, AOS authorized organizational representative certification page. 00:13:02.000 --> 00:13:14.000 And it basically states that by electronically signing the certification pages, the authorized organizational representative is certifying that they have a plan in place. 00:13:14.000 --> 00:13:44.000 For this proposal regarding safe and inclusive working environments. This is an unusual nuance to this because you will be certifying this for this particular for any proposal that you submit or rather your AOR will and it will be related to that proposal but the certification that is being provided here this is another important takeaway is only for those that are not in the pilot. 00:13:45.000 --> 00:13:59.000 You will actually be having different content requirements. And what you are preparing under the pilot so this AOR certification is only for those that are actually not. 00:13:59.000 --> 00:14:06.000 Participating in this pilot. Next slide, please. 00:14:06.000 --> 00:14:14.000 So this is the language out of the 2 E 9 that I refer to. Chapter 2 is the proposal preparation instructions. 00:14:14.000 --> 00:14:32.000 And it's got some text that's copied, you know, right out of there. The important part is the box really does emphasize some very important things that must be included, steps to nurture an inclusive off-campus or off-site research. 00:14:32.000 --> 00:14:43.000 Processes to establish shared team definitions of roles, responsibilities. etc. This is all language currently in the PAP guide. 00:14:43.000 --> 00:15:01.000 You know the bottom part though is very important. That proposers do not, if you are not participating in the pilot and this is the huge difference you are not submitting that plan for review by either. 00:15:01.000 --> 00:15:15.000 Or our reviewer community. Rather, if you are submitting it. Just as a regular proposal that's not in the pilot you that is the only thing you're going to be doing is certifying. 00:15:15.000 --> 00:15:23.000 You are not submitting that to NSF. Next slide, please. 00:15:23.000 --> 00:15:33.000 So here's the summary. Bottom line, checkbox on the cover page. If it's off-campus off site research, everybody checks it. 00:15:33.000 --> 00:15:40.000 Regardless of whether it's pilot or not. If it's not in the pilot, you will be following. 00:15:40.000 --> 00:16:00.000 The, certification requirements. In the PAP guide and you will not be. Submitting that plan to Here's where the nuance for you and what I really want is for my program officer colleagues is to really get into this detail about the pilot itself. 00:16:00.000 --> 00:16:11.000 The important point to emphasize is the PAP guide can be modified by any NSF solicitation. It goes through the clearance process. 00:16:11.000 --> 00:16:18.000 In this case, these pilots are approved to deviate from the PAP guide. So they're allowed to say, no, we don't want you to certify and not submit the plan. 00:16:18.000 --> 00:16:32.000 Rather, we want to have a document that will be reviewed as part of the broader impacts merit review criterion for each proposal. 00:16:32.000 --> 00:16:39.000 With off-campus or off-site research and that the effective date will be different depending on the solicitation. 00:16:39.000 --> 00:16:47.000 So now I'm going to turn it over and let's get into more the actual pilot itself. 00:16:47.000 --> 00:16:58.000 Next slide. Okay. So. The pilot consists of a series of solicitations that are participating. 00:16:58.000 --> 00:17:10.000 As Gene described in an effort to include these plans. As part of the review process. And what you see here is that. 00:17:10.000 --> 00:17:24.000 The current list of Solicitations that are participating in the pilot. Includes several from geo, several from bio, as well as one from OISE. 00:17:24.000 --> 00:17:39.000 Each of these solicitations includes Essentially the same language describing the plan. And requires that this 2 page Supplemental doc be submitted alongside. 00:17:39.000 --> 00:17:52.000 Any project that involves off-campus or off-site research. What you see here are solicitations that have deadlines. 00:17:52.000 --> 00:18:00.000 Oh, as well as those that do not. So pay attention as you go to the solicitation you intend to submit to. 00:18:00.000 --> 00:18:15.000 In the case of solicitations with No deadline. Often there is a. Notification period before such that the solicitation is released before the requirement takes effect. 00:18:15.000 --> 00:18:20.000 So you want to look at that takes effect date. 00:18:20.000 --> 00:18:25.000 Next slide, please. 00:18:25.000 --> 00:18:37.000 Okay, for these solicitations that are participating in the safe plan pilot. The the required plan. 00:18:37.000 --> 00:18:46.000 Is 2 pages and it's Quite similar if you review this language. It's quite similar to what is being certified. 00:18:46.000 --> 00:18:58.000 With you know with the PAGEEE certification however It includes a first section. In advance of the portion of the plan that's quite similar between the 2. 00:18:58.000 --> 00:19:13.000 And this first section is a brief description of the field setting. And the unique challenges for the team. This includes things such as working away from campus at a field station with many other. 00:19:13.000 --> 00:19:35.000 Researchers from other institutions. Working in remote locations. Working internationally in countries that may have very different laws regarding members of your research team. 00:19:35.000 --> 00:19:50.000 And their participation in research there. So this piece. Sets the stage for what makes sense in terms of The steps that. 00:19:50.000 --> 00:19:59.000 You and your organization take to nurture an inclusive off-campus or off-site working environment. 00:19:59.000 --> 00:20:08.000 So in this section, you're explaining. The roles of members of your team the responsibilities the culture. 00:20:08.000 --> 00:20:21.000 Of the team as well as the landscape into which the field work is being done. Plans for training. 00:20:21.000 --> 00:20:27.000 Regular check-ins. Etc. This should match. The section one. 00:20:27.000 --> 00:20:41.000 Such that all the challenges that are unique in section one. Are addressed with these steps. The third section is. 00:20:41.000 --> 00:20:59.000 One that lays out the communication processes. Between the offsite team and to organizations. For reporting and the event that something should be amiss. 00:20:59.000 --> 00:21:16.000 And those plans should be such that there are no sort of pinch points in that communication. Any individual in the team should have full access to the ability to communicate should they feel the need to. 00:21:16.000 --> 00:21:29.000 And finally, There should be a description of the organizational. Mechanisms that will be used for reporting and responding to and resolving issues of harassment if they arise. 00:21:29.000 --> 00:21:40.000 And this is particularly important when your your team is interacting with people from other organizations. What will be? 00:21:40.000 --> 00:21:48.000 The plan of reporting for people. In that diverse setting. 00:21:48.000 --> 00:21:54.000 Alright, I'm gonna hand it over to Leslie to continue this discussion. 00:21:54.000 --> 00:21:58.000 Next slide. 00:21:58.000 --> 00:22:09.000 All right, I'll finish this up. So we're asking you to submit the plan. And it will be under review. 00:22:09.000 --> 00:22:25.000 Through the broader impacts criterion. And we wanted to do the pilot. One reason so that, so that the scientific community could review the plans and determine what makes a high quality plan. 00:22:25.000 --> 00:22:29.000 You are you are the writers and the reviewers and we are hoping that that speeds culture change at your institution. 00:22:29.000 --> 00:22:35.000 As well as, you know, across, across the board for, for biologists and geologists and all those participating. 00:22:35.000 --> 00:22:45.000 And geologists and geologists and all those participating in the pilot and geologists and all those participating in the pilot and and beyond. 00:22:45.000 --> 00:22:59.000 So within each solicitation that's a part of the pilot. There are Solicitation specific review criteria related to these 3 and they're listed in the solicitations. 00:22:59.000 --> 00:23:10.000 Is there a compelling plan? You know all the procedures all the training all those communication processes that you were asked to describe in some way. 00:23:10.000 --> 00:23:19.000 Is that compelling? To establish nurture and maintain that off-campus or off-site working environment. 00:23:19.000 --> 00:23:30.000 2, does the proposed plan identify and adequately address the unique challenges for the team? And the specific off-campus or off-site settings. 00:23:30.000 --> 00:23:40.000 And finally, are the organizational mechanisms to be used for reporting, responding to and resolving issues of harassment should they a cure. 00:23:40.000 --> 00:23:59.000 Clearly outlined. We want, we hope that reviewers put more than yes, no answers here that you provide the PIs with as much so that again that culture change is, sped up. 00:23:59.000 --> 00:24:14.000 Making a really close connection between you know the unique field settings what's unique about the team and what you're gonna do to ensure that inclusive environment that that's really, really important. 00:24:14.000 --> 00:24:18.000 Next slide. 00:24:18.000 --> 00:24:18.000 So again, as Jeremy said, you're gonna submit your questions via the Q&A box. 00:24:18.000 --> 00:24:38.000 Send them anonymously. That's totally fine. And then. I'll check them so we will answer as many questions as possible and we have plenty of time. 00:24:38.000 --> 00:24:40.000 So Jeremy, it's you now. 00:24:40.000 --> 00:24:48.000 All right, so, some excellent questions are pouring in. I encourage you to. Continue asking. 00:24:48.000 --> 00:24:56.000 So question came in early. We may have clarified it, but it's so important that it may be worth asking again. 00:24:56.000 --> 00:25:03.000 Colette, could you just reiterate what do we mean when we're talking about the pilot? 00:25:03.000 --> 00:25:23.000 So the pilot consists of a set of solicitations. For which the plan is not certified. By the, authorized organizational official, but instead is submitted as a two-page supplemental document. 00:25:23.000 --> 00:25:34.000 With the addition of this section one that, describes the field setting and the challenges better associated with that. 00:25:34.000 --> 00:25:50.000 It's we call it a pilot. In part because we're involved in some assessment. Of that pilot and hope to make future decisions based on, the strengths and weaknesses of that. 00:25:50.000 --> 00:25:52.000 That information. 00:25:52.000 --> 00:25:59.000 Minor little update to that actually the AOR continues to certify that it's true accurate and complete. 00:25:59.000 --> 00:26:07.000 They're just not certifying that it is meets the requirements of chapter 2, E 2 to E 9 rather because it's replaced by the pilot language. 00:26:07.000 --> 00:26:14.000 That's in each solicitation. 00:26:14.000 --> 00:26:19.000 Thank you, Jane. 00:26:19.000 --> 00:26:31.000 Alright, thanks Collette. So, another popular question is, for proposals that are going to solicitations that are not participating in the pilot. 00:26:31.000 --> 00:26:41.000 So they will not have submitted their 2 page. Save plan. Is NSF going to want to see that 2 page plan? 00:26:41.000 --> 00:26:44.000 Should an award be. Made what do you think wesley or Jean. 00:26:44.000 --> 00:26:55.000 No. No. Unless you went out, say for example, you had someone from a NSF. 00:26:55.000 --> 00:27:18.000 Come to visit. They could ask to see it. But the reality is it is not part of our normal process that we expect that in any award scenario we would ask you prior to or gone okay before drawing down phones show us your plan that is not part of our implementation correctly. 00:27:18.000 --> 00:27:28.000 I don't know if this is accurate but or helpful, but I'm gonna try. Is that, conceptually similar to? 00:27:28.000 --> 00:27:41.000 Animal care and use. We're in institution. Is responsible for making sure that research lives up to guidelines. 00:27:41.000 --> 00:27:48.000 But NSF isn't. Looking over people's shoulder. 00:27:48.000 --> 00:27:57.000 Well, in both of those other scenarios, they do actually have other responsibilities. They have to put in their numbers and etc. 00:27:57.000 --> 00:28:09.000 But in this particular case, we are saying Bottom line, this was the decision of the foundation that for proposals that are not in the pilot. 00:28:09.000 --> 00:28:13.000 You must to number one decide whether it's off campus or off site research. And number 2, if it is, you've got to have a plan in place. 00:28:13.000 --> 00:28:25.000 For that proposal and certify it's there. So it's with anything that you are currently saying. 00:28:25.000 --> 00:28:35.000 To NSF we're gonna do we can always come in no matter in any of the areas and ask you to see it later on. 00:28:35.000 --> 00:28:40.000 But is it a part of our process to do that? It is not. Leslie. 00:28:40.000 --> 00:28:50.000 Yeah, I think that was that was great. Jean, thanks for that clarification, right? We there may be a program officer, right? 00:28:50.000 --> 00:28:47.000 Okay. 00:28:47.000 --> 00:29:17.000 We there may be a program officer who wants to see it and they're may be a program officer who wants to see it and they we could do that but it's not a part of our normal process the other thing that I wanted to say though is that when NSF is is conducting a pilot a part of that would be the assessment of the pilot so there may be there will be likely in the future 00:29:36.000 --> 00:29:11.000 Yep. 00:29:11.000 --> 00:29:41.000 follow ups to see you know what kind what our institutions doing what 00:29:41.000 --> 00:29:47.000 Thank you, Leslie. Another question. 00:29:47.000 --> 00:30:00.000 Gets at the definition of off-campus or off-site. Okay. 00:30:00.000 --> 00:30:06.000 So maybe Jean, you could just reiterate the. The institution determines. Off-campus. 00:30:06.000 --> 00:30:20.000 Yeah, it. We put that language right in the as to how we deploy it and it is the same definition by the way off-campus or off-site research. 00:30:20.000 --> 00:30:29.000 We're not going to and and I will tell you as I started my presentation this was the discontinues to be the biggest thing we get from an instant tell us whether this qualifies or not. We're not going to do that. 00:30:29.000 --> 00:30:42.000 We're going to give you the data information to collect data information. Your institution is going to have to make that assessment. 00:30:42.000 --> 00:30:50.000 Do it consistently across your portfolio in terms of how you do that. But NSF will not do it for you. 00:30:50.000 --> 00:31:07.000 Thank you. So a popular question is what happens for collaborative proposals? Is there a single document that covers all organizations or does each collaborative arm have their own? 00:31:07.000 --> 00:31:19.000 We used the approach for this. That we have used for. Other things that are collaborations. Let me give you an example of post-OP mentoring plan. 00:31:19.000 --> 00:31:24.000 So for a post-stop mentoring plan, there is one plan regardless of the number of collaborators. 00:31:24.000 --> 00:31:31.000 And there's one plan meaning you need to be talking about this together. It's one proposal. 00:31:31.000 --> 00:31:51.000 The scope is one proposal and so we want one plan. The same holds true for this as well. And we actually, found that we got a lot of questions on this and, we've since addressed, or will be addressing in the next PAP guide that for collaboratives it is even whether it's pilot or not. 00:31:51.000 --> 00:32:04.000 It's one plan. My, pilot colleagues. Any nuances that she would like to bring up. 00:32:04.000 --> 00:32:14.000 Well, I think this relates to another question that's about to pop up, which is about the issue of multiple institutions being involved. 00:32:14.000 --> 00:32:35.000 In you know the the research team. And I will say. This is a more complicated plan because the plan should explain how members of different members of the team that are affiliated with different organizations collaborating. 00:32:35.000 --> 00:32:48.000 How the reporting will take place. So there needs to be those conversations at the institutional level to decide what's appropriate to put in that section of the plan. 00:32:48.000 --> 00:32:59.000 But it really does all get back to its one proposal. We wanna see all the institutions that are collaborating and we have many multi-institution collaborations. 00:32:59.000 --> 00:33:10.000 We want you thinking about this together. So that the plan reflects that. 00:33:10.000 --> 00:33:18.000 Alright, I think, the question of the day might be this next one. So with the plans that have been submitted thus far. 00:33:18.000 --> 00:33:30.000 Do you think institutions are getting it right? Or are there recurring issues with the plans? 00:33:30.000 --> 00:33:31.000 I'll start and then I'll let co let the, so our plans in, bio are really just coming in. 00:33:31.000 --> 00:33:41.000 There was the plans in Bio are really just coming in. There was the Bad version in Bio are really just coming in. 00:33:41.000 --> 00:33:46.000 There was the Bad and Bio are really just coming in. There was the Badivers and a Changing Planet solicitation. 00:33:46.000 --> 00:33:47.000 Many of those had safe plans But for the core solicitation, you know, those things are in panel right now. 00:33:47.000 --> 00:33:59.000 So we're seeing a lot of safe plans. I would see some of us say that some of them have a lot of web links and a lot of safe plans. 00:33:59.000 --> 00:34:04.000 I would see some of I say that some of them have a lot of web links and you know sometimes an entire page this business linking to their institution. 00:34:04.000 --> 00:34:15.000 You want to make sure that the document can stand alone, of course. In at at a higher level, I would say that. 00:34:15.000 --> 00:34:23.000 If those, if those institutional changes have happened, that's a good thing, right? That's good that's good that the Pi's are saying NSF is requiring us to put a safe plan together. 00:34:23.000 --> 00:34:33.000 We want to make sure that the institution is doing the right thing. And so I think that there have been a lot of changes at institutions already with this, which is a great, a great thing. 00:34:33.000 --> 00:34:46.000 If you're not putting in a lot of detail in your field, you know, what's unique about your field setting, I will say that. 00:34:46.000 --> 00:35:03.000 It's clear that some institutions have a template already and you know you basically put your name on and the date and that's it and that's not sufficient if you're not telling us about the unique aspects of what you're doing in your individual plan. 00:35:03.000 --> 00:35:07.000 And then I'll turn it over to Colette. 00:35:07.000 --> 00:35:22.000 Yeah, and I'll, you know, I'll. Come on, the community because the vast majority of these that I've seen are actually extremely comprehensive, very thoughtful, and they have been reviewing well. 00:35:22.000 --> 00:35:38.000 I'll, second what. Leslie articulated though, which is The plan needs to stand alone, which means Wild they may be some links that you are referencing. 00:35:38.000 --> 00:35:49.000 As you know at your institution and with respect to resources there the 2 page document should describe what is going to happen. 00:35:49.000 --> 00:36:00.000 In each of those 4 areas. And if it doesn't have a cohesive description and instead it's just a series of links. 00:36:00.000 --> 00:36:10.000 It will not review well. I think the one other weakness that we've seen just occasionally is in that first piece. 00:36:10.000 --> 00:36:20.000 And how it relates to the rest of the plan. So the first description of that field challenge should be authentic to what's proposed in the proposal. 00:36:20.000 --> 00:36:22.000 That's fine. 00:36:22.000 --> 00:36:31.000 That is key. And then the plan itself. Do you remaining components should match that section one of the plan. 00:36:31.000 --> 00:36:34.000 I mean, I think that, what they're saying is absolutely consistent with the questions. We're receiving as well. 00:36:34.000 --> 00:36:46.000 There is a sense that the institution should only develop one plan and then keep submitting it and what's the issue there. 00:36:46.000 --> 00:36:50.000 No, it really is unique to that proposal. And that particularly is important for the pilot because that first question gets to what are you really doing? 00:36:50.000 --> 00:37:17.000 That's why folks are like, I can't do it in 2 pages. It is about you can, if you're addressing what it is you're trying to do in those 4 areas and then tie it directly back to that specific proposal. 00:37:17.000 --> 00:37:24.000 Alright, a couple of people, are furiously taking notes and are asking if this session is being recorded. 00:37:24.000 --> 00:37:33.000 It is being recorded and will be shared later. I'm at the EB blog and so if you missed something you'll be able to find it. 00:37:33.000 --> 00:37:39.000 Of course you're always welcome to, email program directors and ask clarifying questions if you have them. 00:37:39.000 --> 00:37:43.000 But the recording will be available. 00:37:43.000 --> 00:37:51.000 All right. Another question. Yeah, it's a little bit long. I'm so now read it verbatim in the office hour about safe and inclusive. 00:37:51.000 --> 00:38:08.000 Supplements or plans. Back when the pilot first began it seemed to be said that the actual institutional plan would not be submitted but a supplement that describes key parts of it would. 00:38:08.000 --> 00:38:19.000 In reality, a well thought out plan is likely to be longer than 2 pages. So, Leslie, could you clarify is the expectation now that the full institutional plan is submitted? 00:38:19.000 --> 00:38:24.000 Or sort of a 2 page summary or. 00:38:24.000 --> 00:38:31.000 Yeah, so I think this may have been written before Gene commented, but I'll repeat the full institutional plan may be longer than 2 pages. 00:38:31.000 --> 00:38:45.000 If you're submitting that proposal to a solicitation that's a part of the biogeopilot. 00:38:45.000 --> 00:38:52.000 We want a 2 page document. And it's submitted as a supplementary document to that proposal. 00:38:52.000 --> 00:39:03.000 By the lead PI on any proposal if it's a collaborative the lead up uploads that so 00:39:03.000 --> 00:39:12.000 Yeah. I think you may be a little confused on supplements, you know, summary. It's a 2 page supplementary document that is specific to your proposal. 00:39:12.000 --> 00:39:22.000 That's that is submitted. If you're participating in the pilot. 00:39:22.000 --> 00:39:28.000 I hope that's clear. 00:39:28.000 --> 00:39:44.000 Is there any meaning to the change in the name of the plan from SAI to SAIF? 00:39:44.000 --> 00:39:39.000 Hmm. 00:39:39.000 --> 00:39:48.000 Yeah, safe is better and it is easier to remember and yeah 00:39:48.000 --> 00:39:48.000 Got it. 00:39:48.000 --> 00:39:47.000 Easy to remember. 00:39:47.000 --> 00:39:53.000 We went with that. Your to remember. Yeah. 00:39:53.000 --> 00:40:04.000 But that it's a wonderful sign that's a community member that is clearly paying attention. All communication just fantastic. 00:40:04.000 --> 00:40:11.000 Somebody asks, 2 pages awfully short, to address the details that we've been discussing. 00:40:11.000 --> 00:40:18.000 Is there any flexibility to that 2 page limit? 00:40:18.000 --> 00:40:43.000 No. Except it can be less than 2 pages, but then it might not do as well. You know, you'll, you'll want to use that space and you'll have to be concise and we know that A really detailed one would be longer than 2 page, but we are balancing what we think will be needed to be for you to be safe for your students to be safe and inclusive to change culture with 00:40:43.000 --> 00:40:59.000 admin burden and not requiring 50 different supplementary documents when you have a proposal. We are aware of that and, and we've asked the community about that to page from our from our. 00:40:59.000 --> 00:41:08.000 Assessment of what panelists feel that they feel that 2 page is a is about right. But again, we will be doing some more assessment. 00:41:08.000 --> 00:41:19.000 And finding out with bigger sample sizes actually what, works. 00:41:19.000 --> 00:41:31.000 Right. So here's a question. Should proposals that plan to sample a few field sites, whether in the US or internationally. 00:41:31.000 --> 00:41:39.000 Be required to develop and a plan and have and they're a or certify the plan. 00:41:39.000 --> 00:41:53.000 So I think this question is about proposals that are not part of the pilot. But might be collaborative, might be working internationally, you might be have complex relationships between the partners. 00:41:53.000 --> 00:42:02.000 Guessing maybe the question is like how is that coordinated, right? Like when you have all these players involved. 00:42:02.000 --> 00:42:10.000 But somebody's got to certify the plan. 00:42:10.000 --> 00:42:18.000 It goes back to our issue before. We have a lot of collaboration. That fall under this that are not part of the pilot. 00:42:18.000 --> 00:42:27.000 And yes, there is there are going to have to be communications. But the if it's a separately submitted collaborative proposal. 00:42:27.000 --> 00:42:42.000 The process is gonna be a little different, but the lead organization is the one that's gonna upload and their organization is going to certify the AOR is going to certify that plan. 00:42:42.000 --> 00:42:51.000 And if it's not a part of the pilot, they wouldn't be uploading anything, but the lead organization would be certifying. 00:42:51.000 --> 00:42:52.000 Yeah, correct. Yeah. Yes, correct. 00:42:52.000 --> 00:42:57.000 For that proposal. 00:42:57.000 --> 00:43:03.000 Not sure my prior attempt was on target, but I'm gonna try again. Is this analogous? 00:43:03.000 --> 00:43:18.000 You think about complex projects with collaborative arms and there's international partners. The data management plan still has to be one cohesive thing because the project is gonna generate data and there has to be coordination and communication. 00:43:18.000 --> 00:43:19.000 So it's. 00:43:19.000 --> 00:43:28.000 All of our processes in this space are the same. I'm glad you mentioned that. Data management plan, post-stop mentoring plan. 00:43:28.000 --> 00:43:35.000 This safe plan. We do the collaborations the same way because it's one scope of work. 00:43:35.000 --> 00:43:44.000 We want you providing one response for the project that is coordinated among the collaborating. Organizations. 00:43:44.000 --> 00:43:54.000 So, So, one plan. For the project and that's definitely pilot or no pilot. 00:43:54.000 --> 00:44:02.000 And I will say if I didn't quite get the meaning of that question correct, please just ask again or ask. 00:44:02.000 --> 00:44:01.000 Version. Correct. 00:44:01.000 --> 00:44:04.000 Hello? Yes, I'm, I'm not. 00:44:04.000 --> 00:44:20.000 I wanted to address a couple of these questions that are that are really getting at the heart of The fact that some work environments are extremely challenging and dangerous. 00:44:20.000 --> 00:44:38.000 And. The point of this effort. These safe plans. Is that you in your lab group are making a conscientious effort to communicate to those people on your team. 00:44:38.000 --> 00:44:50.000 About what they may experience in these locations. And that you're thinking about ways to protect. The 00:44:50.000 --> 00:44:54.000 Participants in your team. 00:44:54.000 --> 00:45:08.000 So that they feel safe. In those environments to the extent that it's possible. However, it is true that sharing that information may lead some people to opt out. 00:45:08.000 --> 00:45:19.000 Oh, participating in that field work. Because they recognize that they will not feel safe. In that environment. 00:45:19.000 --> 00:45:32.000 The important thing here is that. The communication. Is done in advance that people are prepared. For what they're going to experience potentially. 00:45:32.000 --> 00:45:45.000 You know in these field locations. The reviewers are recognize how challenging some areas are to do field work and many of our reviewers are doing field work in very challenging environments. 00:45:45.000 --> 00:45:59.000 So I don't think, you know, it's, I don't think anybody has the expectation that any PI can make a challenging environment, you know, truly inclusive and safe. 00:45:59.000 --> 00:46:14.000 The point is. We're preparing participants. For what they might experience so they can make informed decisions about what to do. 00:46:14.000 --> 00:46:22.000 We have a few more questions, but it didn't wanna pause. We have Jessie, here from Gio just wanted to. 00:46:22.000 --> 00:46:29.000 Ask if there's anything unique about geo or are you seeing the same kinds of things or 00:46:29.000 --> 00:46:36.000 Thanks. I geo has. A similar set of issues. 00:46:36.000 --> 00:46:48.000 I between geo and bio, we fund the most amount of field work across the agency. We both we both support both director at support a lot of field work. 00:46:48.000 --> 00:46:58.000 And just like in the biology community, a lot of the geology awards are they are large and collaborative and they're working in a lot of unique environments. 00:46:58.000 --> 00:47:07.000 My area is polar programs. So we're supporting the Arctic and Antarctic where we do see. 00:47:07.000 --> 00:47:30.000 People who are coming together, not only just their own field team, but then interacting in station type environments, research stations where there are a lot of individual teams coming together that they're not related to each other, but they're co-located physically. 00:47:30.000 --> 00:47:37.000 So I'll reiterate some of the things that that some of the other panelists have already said that. 00:47:37.000 --> 00:47:49.000 We would. We would expect to see on the geo side that people are thinking. The type of environment that they are planning to visit. 00:47:49.000 --> 00:47:56.000 So if they're planning to visit a field station where they know they're going to be. 00:47:56.000 --> 00:48:05.000 Station staff and other research teams that they think about how that would go and how their teams are going to interact with. 00:48:05.000 --> 00:48:17.000 The organization that manages that station potentially with other institutions that they don't have a relationship with under their award. 00:48:17.000 --> 00:48:25.000 So I think a lot of the issues are are very similar. And we're also, we're part of the pilot. 00:48:25.000 --> 00:48:32.000 And so we also are going to have to just see what our communities. Encounter and what kinds of questions. 00:48:32.000 --> 00:48:38.000 They have. 00:48:38.000 --> 00:48:39.000 Thanks, Jessie. 00:48:39.000 --> 00:48:42.000 Thanks. 00:48:42.000 --> 00:48:52.000 Somebody asked a clarifying question that just disappeared. Yeah. So. 00:48:52.000 --> 00:49:02.000 The question was. You know, in for proposals submitted to solicitations in the pilot. That have a 2 page. 00:49:02.000 --> 00:49:11.000 It's a safe plan. That's a summary of a larger plan. Is the larger plan ever. 00:49:11.000 --> 00:49:13.000 Inspected collect. 00:49:13.000 --> 00:49:27.000 So I had to type the answer because I think the answer had been given of that question previously and that's why I typed it in addition, but I'll just reiterate that it's not part of our regular process to see those plans. 00:49:27.000 --> 00:49:38.000 But in principle, the plans exist. And could be requested. 00:49:38.000 --> 00:49:43.000 And you're certifying to the false claims act that you do have one. So it's sort of a big deal. 00:49:43.000 --> 00:49:51.000 To you know NSF expects a lot of things that we don't ask for you to show us that you have it. 00:49:51.000 --> 00:50:06.000 We asked for a lot of this kind of stuff. If you really look at our proposals or our award conditions and the reality is in a grant scenario We typically don't ask to see any of that. 00:50:06.000 --> 00:50:21.000 Well, we can. Or if a program officer sees something in the course, say an award is May, and they ask to see something, they they may say, well, she's maybe it would be helpful in this situation to see the big. 00:50:21.000 --> 00:50:31.000 Then that is something that they could ask for. And would be fully on board with doing so. 00:50:31.000 --> 00:50:40.000 Right. As we approach the top of the hour, it's a time for lightning round. So some questions and no particular order. 00:50:40.000 --> 00:50:48.000 So we mentioned science CV the tool for submitting bio sketches and current and pending support. 00:50:48.000 --> 00:50:58.000 And a number of people asked or commented. Whether there are plans to tailor that more to. 00:50:58.000 --> 00:51:07.000 I think it's kind of funny because it's something I've been working for the last 3 years on which is a harmonized government-wide format. 00:51:07.000 --> 00:51:15.000 For biographical sketches and current and pending and other support. And the fact that you were saying that to me means NSF is succeeding. 00:51:15.000 --> 00:51:27.000 This is a government-wide design to eliminate burden on faculty by harmonizing. So what we did in the last PAT guy, 23, one, was put a draft. 00:51:27.000 --> 00:51:39.000 Of a national science and technology council. Common format that would be you common form that would will eventually be used by all federal research funding agencies. 00:51:39.000 --> 00:51:48.000 So the the requirements that you're seeing And the fact that they're similar to NIH is that we're working with NIH. 00:51:48.000 --> 00:51:50.000 We're working to make sure that you don't have to go to NIH and get a completely different set of requirements as you do. 00:51:50.000 --> 00:52:02.000 For NIH or GO. Or NASA or any of the other major funding agencies. 00:52:02.000 --> 00:52:08.000 So that's actually a victory is that you're starting to see, wait, this looks a lot like another agency. 00:52:08.000 --> 00:52:17.000 That's because we're trying to harmonize across all federal research funding agencies. 00:52:17.000 --> 00:52:28.000 Alright, thanks Jean. 00:52:28.000 --> 00:52:34.000 See, I'm just looking for new questions. 00:52:34.000 --> 00:52:38.000 Here's a clarifying question. 00:52:38.000 --> 00:52:51.000 Is it appropriate to include links to general institutional plans? Related to these issues in the shortter summary document. 00:52:51.000 --> 00:53:02.000 Sounds like We want the plan to focus on challenges specific to the proposal. So Leslie, what do you think? 00:53:02.000 --> 00:53:12.000 You can put links in there, you know, especially we see it often with trainings, because that's actually mentioned. 00:53:12.000 --> 00:53:20.000 In one of the bullets. So, you can, but that supplementary document, the safe plan should stand alone. 00:53:20.000 --> 00:53:33.000 So if you have a list of every link and you don't explain how you're going to use those and you know the details of your field side and your team then it's not going to review well you know 00:53:33.000 --> 00:53:37.000 And there is no obligation of a review or to go out. And click on that and review it. What you so she's absolutely right. 00:53:37.000 --> 00:53:57.000 That 2 page better make your case because that's that's what's gonna be reviewed. 00:53:57.000 --> 00:54:06.000 Oh, here's a question. I think we'll tax our knowledge. Is there a science CV help desk? 00:54:06.000 --> 00:54:15.000 On the NSF side. People have been having glitches or difficulties integrating. With research.gov. 00:54:15.000 --> 00:54:26.000 You would just go to research dot. You would just go to the research.gov helpdesk and they are prepared to feel those science CD questions as well. 00:54:26.000 --> 00:54:37.000 Excellent and a follow-up question so currently there is not a unified biosketch across all the agencies and somebody asks is that going to change? 00:54:37.000 --> 00:54:39.000 Is that where we're heading? 00:54:39.000 --> 00:54:47.000 Yes, that's where we hope. It was approved by, the National Science and Technology Council. 00:54:47.000 --> 00:55:00.000 If you send me an email, I'd be happy to send you a link to what the common forms actually as approved by OMB look like in the National Science and Technology Council, but they actually have to be implemented. 00:55:00.000 --> 00:55:08.000 And we haven't received the guidance from the OSTP yet. On implementation, but that is the goal. 00:55:08.000 --> 00:55:22.000 And we are closer than we have ever been before to getting there because we have OMB working with us to make sure that agencies are honest when they submit their documents for clearance. 00:55:22.000 --> 00:55:33.000 So that's the goal. That's where we hope to end up. 00:55:33.000 --> 00:55:42.000 Right. Co panelists, please scan the list and questions and see if there are any we haven't. 00:55:42.000 --> 00:55:56.000 Dressed. This one question at the. Attendee even flagged is random but it's a reasonable one so and we have a moment or 2 So the, the person is a US citizen. 00:55:56.000 --> 00:56:06.000 But they plan to move abroad. Can they still engage in reviewing for NSF participating? What do you think, Leslie? 00:56:06.000 --> 00:56:23.000 Yes, yeah. I think so. Yeah, we often ask people, We're not, we're not often, but we could ask non-US citizens to review proposals if they are an expert in a particular area. 00:56:23.000 --> 00:56:33.000 Necessarily inclined to do so because they're not likely to receive funding from us, but we appreciate the help with the. 00:56:33.000 --> 00:56:38.000 Yeah, absolutely. And just to reiterate something from the beginning, if you're not already. 00:56:38.000 --> 00:56:54.000 Participating in reviews or panels our division has a survey that you can add your information to and we actively recruit new reviewers and panelists to get more people involved and to learn about the process. 00:56:54.000 --> 00:57:03.000 Our division has one but. I'm sure pretty much every other division does as well. 00:57:03.000 --> 00:57:07.000 Any late breaking questions? 00:57:07.000 --> 00:57:14.000 Just to recap, there will be a recording of this and posted where, Jeremy. 00:57:14.000 --> 00:57:12.000 Okay. 00:57:12.000 --> 00:57:19.000 On the which is. I believe. At least a link if if it's not hosted there. 00:57:19.000 --> 00:57:23.000 There will at least be a link to click. 00:57:23.000 --> 00:57:31.000 So basically the same place that you found. This virtual office hour. They'll be a recap. 00:57:31.000 --> 00:57:32.000 Indeed. 00:57:32.000 --> 00:57:40.000 Feel free to email us with questions. We're more than happy to help when we can. 00:57:40.000 --> 00:57:44.000 Right. 00:57:44.000 --> 00:57:47.000 Yeah, we're just about at the top of the hour, so maybe this is a good time to thank everyone for attending. 00:57:47.000 --> 00:58:04.000 Thank you very much for your interest and engagement with the process. As we've said. A number of times the pilot really is about collecting and information, right, as a first step to. 00:58:04.000 --> 00:58:12.000 Making this a really valuable part of the normal submission process so all feedback is welcome. Questions are welcome. 00:58:12.000 --> 00:58:17.000 You know. Outreach to your friends and colleagues. Sharing what you've learned is all very helpful. 00:58:17.000 --> 00:58:24.000 So. Any last words from anybody? 00:58:24.000 --> 00:58:34.000 Thanks, for moderating, Jeremy. You did a great job.