Email Print Share

Information for DEB PIs when preparing Conference, RAPID and EAGER Inquiries

Conferences (Symposia/Workshops)

DEB supports conferences that bring together groups to discuss recent research or education findings or to help other researchers, including students, to capitalize on new research, outreach, and education techniques. "Conferences" refers to conferences, symposia, or workshops. The following guidance is in addition to the instructions in the Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG see Chapter II.E.7).

Prospective PIs are strongly encouraged to email a prospectus (max. 3 pages) to the relevant Program Officer that includes a draft agenda or description of planned activities and answers the following four questions.

  1. How will the meeting foster advancement of the field? If applicable, how will the meeting nurture interdisciplinarity, bring together scientists from different disciplines, or facilitate the development of multidisciplinary projects and collaborations?

  2. What products (e.g., papers, books, teaching materials, formation of research networks) will be produced by the meeting and how will these be disseminated to the scientific community? The agenda for the conference or workshop should demonstrate careful planning and include activities to accomplish the targeted goals.

  3. What approaches will be used to encourage participation of early-career investigators, students, and members of underrepresented groups? Methods for selecting participants should be transparent, well-described, and appropriate. Additionally, the meeting organizers and participants should be diverse in terms of institution type and geographic region.

  4. What are the proposed broader impacts?

A draft budget and budget justification should be included on a separate page.

Most conferences are supported for only one year, although support for multiyear conferences may be considered in rare instances and must be well-justified. Generally, most of the requested funds should be used for participant support, and should, therefore, appear on the budget line "Participant Support Costs". Such support can be used to defray costs for registration, room and board, or travel. The nature of the support should be clearly articulated in the budget justification. Supported participants should generally be members of the U.S. scientific community (e.g., individuals working in U.S. institutions). If funds are to be used to support scientists from institutions outside of the U.S., the request should be discussed with a Program Officer. Federal funds cannot be used to pay for alcoholic beverages or entertainment.

Program Officers will provide feedback on the prospectus, typically, within two to three weeks. PIs should wait to submit a formal conference proposal until they receive an official email from an NSF Program Officer inviting such a submission. Such an invitation, however, does not guarantee funding. The full conference proposal should provide: 1) a preliminary list of potential participants; 2) anticipated methods for recruiting and encouraging the participation of early-career investigators, students, and members of underrepresented groups; 3) a draft agenda for the meeting(s); and 4) strategies for broadly disseminating the outcomes of the workshop or conference. For general descriptions of this funding mechanism and for the technical details for submission of a conference proposal, consult the current PAPPG Chapter II.E.7.

RAPID

RAPID funding is available for research that is stimulated by rare, unexpected, and generally ephemeral phenomena of broad significance. RAPID projects must be justified by their urgency; the need to respond quickly to such unexpected opportunities precludes the typical external or panel review process. Funding may also be sought to capitalize on future events, if the event’s occurrence has a high degree of certainty. RAPID projects should be guided by a convincing conceptual or theoretical framework and should address questions of fundamental importance. The RAPID concept outline should make a convincing argument that a particular unexpected event provides a unique and fleeting opportunity to address unanswered questions of broad significance.

All inquiries about potential RAPID funding should start with a submission via the ProSPCT tool.

In the "Concept Outline Narrative" prompt on ProSPCT, please include a response to all four questions listed below, as well as any citations, a brief description of methods, draft budget, and budget justification. The maximum allowable award size and duration for a RAPID is $200,000 for 12 months.

  1. What is your scientific question(s) or proposed hypothesis and how does it relate to a rare, unexpected, and generally ephemeral phenomenon?

  2. Are baseline data necessary to address your question(s), and if so, are they available and accessible? (Note that while the RAPID mechanism is not appropriate for collection of baseline or descriptive data, prior data are often essential for documenting outcomes from rare or ephemeral phenomenon.)

  3. Does the work have the potential to be generalizable?

  4. What are the proposed broader impacts?

In the "Fit to proposed proposal type or funding opportunity" prompt on ProSPCT, please include a justification for why immediate collection of data is necessary.

After submission in ProSPCT, Program Officers will provide feedback, generally, within two weeks. PIs must wait to submit a formal RAPID proposal until they receive an official email from an NSF Program Officer inviting such a submission. Such an invitation, however, does not guarantee funding.

For general descriptions of this funding mechanism and for the technical details for submission of a RAPID proposal, consult the current PAPPG Chapter II.F.2.

EAGER

EAGER funding is available for research that carries significant risk of failure but could make a major contribution if successful. Good candidates for EAGER funding are those exploratory projects that are so risky or edgy that standard review cannot be used to evaluate the merits of the proposal. Funds are used to support high-risk projects if the potential payoff that can be envisioned is equal to or exceeds the risk. That is, EAGER projects should have the potential to stimulate new research or redirect research within a particular field through the application of novel conceptual or methodological approaches. See the current PAPPG for details.

All inquiries about potential EAGER funding should start with a submission via the ProSPCT tool.

In the "Concept Outline Narrative" prompt on ProSPCT, please include a response to all three questions listed below, as well as any citations, a brief description of methods, draft budget, and budget justification. (EAGER proposals to gather preliminary data will not be supported.) The maximum allowable award size and duration for an EAGER is $300,000 for 24 months.

  1. What is your scientific question(s) and why is it high-risk, high-payoff research?
  2. Are there prior data that justify the research and/or establish feasibility? If baseline data are necessary, are they available and accessible?
  3. What are the proposed broader impacts?

In the "Fit to proposed proposal type or funding opportunity" prompt on ProSPCT, please include a justification for why the work represents a bold, risky idea where the potential payoff is worth the risk.

After submission in ProSPCT, Program Officers will provide feedback, generally, within two weeks. PIs must wait to submit a formal EAGER proposal until they receive an official email from an NSF Program Officer inviting such a submission. Such an invitation, however, does not guarantee funding.

For general descriptions of this funding mechanism and for the technical details for submission of an EAGER, consult the current PAPPG Chapter II.F.3.