This solicitation has been archived and replaced by NSF 19-582.
Title: Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU)
Sites and Supplements (nsf13542)
| NSF - National Science Foundation
Date: 10/21/2015
Replaces: NSF 12-569
Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU)
Sites and Supplements
[1]Program Solicitation
NSF 13-542
Replaces Document(s):
NSF 12-569
NSF Logo
National Science Foundation
Directorate for Biological Sciences
Directorate for Computer & Information Science & Engineering
Division of Advanced Cyberinfrastructure
Directorate for Education & Human Resources
Directorate for Engineering
Directorate for Geosciences
Division of Polar Programs
Directorate for Mathematical & Physical Sciences
Directorate for Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences
Office of Integrative Activities
Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):
May 24, 2013
Fourth Friday in May, Annually Thereafter
Deadline for REU Site proposals requiring access to Antarctica. All
other REU Site proposals must be submitted to the August REU
deadline.
August 28, 2013
Fourth Wednesday in August, Annually Thereafter
Deadline for REU Site proposals except those requiring access to
Antarctica
IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND REVISION NOTES
Any proposal submitted in response to this solicitation should be
submitted in accordance with the revised NSF Proposal & Award Policies
& Procedures Guide (PAPPG) (NSF 16-1), which is effective for proposals
submitted, or due, on or after January 25, 2016.
SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
General Information
Program Title:
Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU)
Sites and Supplements
Synopsis of Program:
The Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) program supports
active research participation by undergraduate students in any of
the areas of research funded by the National Science Foundation. REU
projects involve students in meaningful ways in ongoing research
programs or in research projects specifically designed for the REU
program. This solicitation features two mechanisms for support of
student research: (1) REU Sites are based on independent proposals
to initiate and conduct projects that engage a number of students in
research. REU Sites may be based in a single discipline or academic
department or may offer interdisciplinary or multi-department
research opportunities with a coherent intellectual theme. Proposals
with an international dimension are welcome. (2) REU Supplements may
be included as a component of proposals for new or renewal NSF
grants or cooperative agreements or may be requested for ongoing
NSF-funded research projects.
Undergraduate student participants in either REU Sites or REU
Supplements must be U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, or permanent
residents of the United States.
Students do not apply to NSF to participate in REU activities.
Students apply directly to REU Sites or to NSF-funded investigators
who receive REU Supplements. To identify appropriate REU Sites,
students should consult the directory of active REU Sites on the Web
at [2]http://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/reu/reu_search.cfm.
Cognizant Program Officer(s):
Please note that the following information is current at the time of
publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of
contact.
Applicable Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s):
* 47.041 --- Engineering
* 47.049 --- Mathematical and Physical Sciences
* 47.050 --- Geosciences
* 47.070 --- Computer and Information Science and Engineering
* 47.074 --- Biological Sciences
* 47.075 --- Social Behavioral and Economic Sciences
* 47.076 --- Education and Human Resources
* 47.079 --- Office of International Science and Engineering
* 47.083 --- Office of Integrative Activities (OIA)
Award Information
Anticipated Type of Award: Standard Grant or Continuing Grant or
Cooperative Agreement
Estimated Number of Awards: 1,750 to 1,800 -- This estimate includes
approximately 180 new Site awards and 1,600 new Supplement awards each
year.
Anticipated Funding Amount: $68,400,000 in FY2013 -- This estimate
includes both Sites and Supplements, pending availability of funds.
Eligibility Information
Who May Submit Proposals:
The categories of proposers eligible to submit proposals to the
National Science Foundation are identified in the Grant Proposal
Guide, Chapter I, Section E.
Who May Serve as PI:
For REU Site proposals, a single individual may be designated as the
Principal Investigator. This individual will be responsible for
overseeing all aspects of the award. However, one additional person
may be designated as Co-Principal Investigator if developing and
operating the REU Site would involve such shared responsibility.
Other anticipated research supervisors should be listed as Non-Co-PI
Senior Personnel. After a proposal is awarded, some NSF units may
allow the addition of more Co-PIs if an exceptional case can be made
for why the management of the REU Site must be distributed.
Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:
There are no restrictions or limits.
Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or Co-PI:
There are no restrictions or limits.
Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions
A. Proposal Preparation Instructions
* Letters of Intent: Not required
* Preliminary Proposal Submission: Not required
* Full Proposals:
+ Full Proposals submitted via FastLane: NSF Proposal and Award
Policies and Procedures Guide, Part I: Grant Proposal Guide
(GPG) Guidelines apply. The complete text of the GPG is
available electronically on the NSF website at:
[3]http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg.
+ Full Proposals submitted via Grants.gov: NSF Grants.gov
Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission
of NSF Applications via Grants.gov Guidelines apply (Note: The
NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the
Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at:
[4]http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grants
govguide)
B. Budgetary Information
* Cost Sharing Requirements: Inclusion of voluntary committed cost
sharing is prohibited.
* Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations:
Recovery of indirect costs (F&A) is prohibited on Participant
Support Costs in REU Site proposals and REU Supplemental funding
requests.
* Other Budgetary Limitations: Other budgetary limitations apply.
Please see the full text of this solicitation for further
information.
C. Due Dates
* Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):
May 24, 2013
Fourth Friday in May, Annually Thereafter
Deadline for REU Site proposals requiring access to Antarctica. All
other REU Site proposals must be submitted to the August REU
deadline.
August 28, 2013
Fourth Wednesday in August, Annually Thereafter
Deadline for REU Site proposals except those requiring access to
Antarctica
Proposal Review Information Criteria
Merit Review Criteria: National Science Board approved criteria.
Additional merit review considerations apply. Please see the full text
of this solicitation for further information.
Award Administration Information
Award Conditions: Standard NSF award conditions apply.
Reporting Requirements: Additional reporting requirements apply. Please
see the full text of this solicitation for further information.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
[5]Summary of Program Requirements
I. [6]Introduction
II. [7]Program Description
III. [8]Award Information
IV. [9]Eligibility Information
V. [10]Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions
A. [11]Proposal Preparation Instructions
B. [12]Budgetary Information
C. [13]Due Dates
D. [14]FastLane/Grants.gov Requirements
VI. [15]NSF Proposal Processing and Review Procedures
A. [16]Merit Review Principles and Criteria
B. [17]Review and Selection Process
VII. [18]Award Administration Information
A. [19]Notification of the Award
B. [20]Award Conditions
C. [21]Reporting Requirements
VIII. [22]Agency Contacts
IX. [23]Other Information
I. INTRODUCTION
Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) is a Foundation-wide
program that supports active participation in science, engineering, and
education research by undergraduate students. REU proposals are welcome
in any of the research areas supported by NSF (see
[24]http://www.nsf.gov/funding/aboutfunding.jsp), including the
priority areas ([25]http://www.nsf.gov/news/priority_areas/) and
cross-cutting areas
([26]http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_list.jsp?type=xcut) that NSF has
identified for its programs.
The REU program seeks to expand student participation in all kinds of
research--both disciplinary and interdisciplinary--encompassing efforts
by individual investigators, groups, centers, national facilities, and
others. It draws on the integration of research and education to
attract a diverse pool of talented students into careers in science and
engineering, including teaching and education research related to
science and engineering, and to help ensure that these students receive
the best education possible.
This solicitation features two mechanisms for support of student
research: REU Sites and REU Supplements.
II. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Research experience is one of the most effective avenues for attracting
students to and retaining them in science and engineering, and for
preparing them for careers in these fields. The REU program, through
both Sites and Supplements, aims to provide appropriate and valuable
educational experiences for undergraduate students through
participation in research. REU projects involve students in meaningful
ways in ongoing research programs or in research projects specifically
designed for the REU program. REU projects feature high-quality
interaction of students with faculty and/or other research mentors and
access to appropriate facilities and professional development
opportunities.
REU projects offer an opportunity to tap the nation's diverse student
talent pool and broaden participation in science and engineering. NSF
is particularly interested in increasing the numbers of women,
underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities in research.
REU projects are strongly encouraged to involve students who are
members of these groups. (Underrepresented minorities are African
Americans, Hispanics, American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native
Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders.) When designing recruitment
plans, REU projects are also encouraged to consider students who are
veterans of the U.S. Armed Services.
Historically, the vast majority of REU participants have been junior-
or senior-level undergraduates--students who have typically already
committed to a major in science or engineering. So that the REU program
can succeed in attracting students into science and engineering who
might not otherwise consider those majors and careers, projects are
also encouraged to involve students at earlier stages in their college
experience. Some REU projects effectively engage first-year and
second-year undergraduates by developing partnerships with community
colleges.
REU projects may be carried out during the summer months, during the
academic year, or both. Three years is the typical duration for REU
Site awards in most NSF directorates; however, a duration of up to five
years may be allowed in some cases. The term of REU Supplements may not
exceed that of the underlying research project.
REU Sites
REU Sites are based on independent proposals, submitted for an annual
deadline date, to initiate and conduct projects that engage a number of
undergraduate students in research. Proposals for the establishment of
an REU Site may be submitted to any of NSF's directorates, the Office
of Polar Programs, and the Office of Cyberinfrastructure. The Office of
International Science and Engineering will consider co-funding relevant
REU Sites that are primarily managed by other NSF units. Proposers are
encouraged to communicate with the NSF REU point-of-contact in their
disciplinary area; see
[27]http://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/reu/reu_contacts.jsp.
REU Sites must have a well-defined common focus that enables a cohort
experience for students. Sites may be based in a single discipline or
academic department or may offer interdisciplinary or multi-department
research opportunities with a coherent intellectual theme. (Although
interdisciplinary or multi-department proposals must be submitted to a
single NSF disciplinary unit, these proposals are often reviewed by two
or more NSF units, at the discretion of the NSF program officer who
manages the proposal.) A proposal should reflect the unique combination
of the proposing organization's interests and capabilities and those of
any partnering organizations. Cooperative arrangements among
organizations and research settings may be considered so that a project
can increase the quality or availability of undergraduate research
experiences. To extend research opportunities to a larger number of
undergraduates, proposers are welcome to incorporate approaches that
make use of cyberinfrastructure or other advanced technologies that
facilitate research, learning, and collaboration over distances
("virtual projects").
REU Sites are an important means for extending high-quality research
environments and mentoring to diverse groups of students. In addition
to increasing the participation of underrepresented groups in research,
the program aims to involve students in research who might not
otherwise have the opportunity, particularly those from academic
institutions where research programs in STEM are limited. Thus, a
significant fraction of the student participants at an REU Site must
come from outside the host institution or organization, and at least
half of the student participants must be recruited from academic
institutions where research opportunities in STEM are limited
(including two-year colleges).
High-quality mentoring for the student participants is very important
in REU Sites. Investigators are encouraged to provide appropriate
training for new research mentors. They should also encourage continued
interaction of mentors with students during the academic year, to the
extent practicable, to help connect students' research experiences to
their overall course of study and to help the students achieve success
in courses of study leading to a baccalaureate degree in a STEM field.
Although proposals for the renewal of successful REU Sites are welcome,
investigators are reminded that such proposals will be reviewed through
the normal merit review process and there is no guarantee that a
renewal grant will be awarded.
REU Supplements
An REU Supplement typically provides support for one or two
undergraduate students to participate in research as part of a new or
ongoing NSF-funded research project. However, centers or large research
efforts may request support for a number of students commensurate with
the size and nature of the project. REU Supplements are supported by
the various research programs throughout the Foundation, including
programs such as Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR).
High-quality mentoring is important in REU Supplements, just as it is
in REU Sites, and investigators should give serious attention not only
to developing students' research skills but also to involving them in
the culture of research in the discipline and connecting their research
experience with their overall course of study.
Investigators are reminded that support for undergraduate students
involved in carrying out research under NSF awards should be included
as part of the research proposal itself instead of as a post-award
supplement to the research proposal, unless such undergraduate
participation was not foreseeable at the time of the original proposal.
A request for an REU Supplement may be submitted in either of two ways:
(1) Proposers may include an REU Supplement activity as a component of
a new (or renewal) research proposal to NSF. For guidance, contact the
program officer who manages the research program to which the proposal
would be submitted. (2) Investigators holding an existing NSF research
award may submit a post-award request for supplemental funding. For
guidance, contact the cognizant program officer for the NSF grant or
cooperative agreement that would be supplemented.
Special Opportunities
Some applicants might be interested in the following opportunities as
elements of their REU projects. These are optional; proposals are not
required to respond to any of them.
Partnership with the Department of Defense
NSF engages in a partnership with the Department of Defense (DoD) to
expand undergraduate research opportunities in DoD-relevant research
areas through the REU Sites program. The DoD activity is called Awards
to Stimulate and Support Undergraduate Research Experiences (ASSURE;
[28]http://www.wpafb.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=9333).
Any proposal submitted to NSF for the REU Sites program that is
recommended for funding through the NSF merit review process will be
considered by DoD representatives for possible support through ASSURE.
Proposals that are selected for the DoD funding will involve
DoD-relevant research and may come from any of the NSF directorates or
offices that handle REU Site proposals. A proposer to the NSF REU Sites
program does not need to take any additional steps to be considered for
funding through ASSURE.
Partnership with the Department of Energy's Geothermal Technologies
Program
The U.S. Department of Energy's Geothermal Technologies Program (GTP)
intends to expand undergraduate research opportunities in the area of
geothermal energy by providing funds to NSF for meritorious REU Site
proposals with that focus. The goal of this collaboration between DoE's
GTP and NSF's REU program is to introduce more undergraduate students
to renewable energy research and the many opportunities in science and
engineering related to geothermal energy. GTP is interested in
proposals aimed at a range of geothermal technologies, including
geothermal heat pumps, binary cycle electricity generation systems,
direct use, conventional hydrothermal, and Enhanced Geothermal Systems
(EGS). REU Site proposals with a focus on geothermal energy will
automatically be considered for GTP funding.
International Projects
The REU program encourages projects with an international dimension.
Appropriate REU Site and REU Supplement proposals can be considered for
co-funding by NSF's Office of International Science and Engineering
(OISE). International projects typically involve partnering a U.S. REU
project with one or more international collaborators in a specific
institution or organization. Successful international REU projects
include (1) true intellectual collaboration with a foreign partner and
(2) benefits that are realized from the expertise, specialized skills,
facilities, phenomena, or other resources that the foreign collaborator
or research environment provides.
Due to higher travel costs, REU projects with an international
dimension are typically expected to cost more per student than domestic
projects. Such higher costs are offset by the value that NSF places on
developing a globally engaged workforce and on providing U.S.
undergraduates, as well as K-12 teachers of science and mathematics,
with the benefits of international research experience. Projects with
an international dimension also often have more complex logistics and a
more complex mentoring arrangement than domestic projects. Proposals
should provide sufficient detail to demonstrate the feasibility of such
arrangements.
Proposals should include a description of the foreign collaborator's
role in the project, a two-page Biographical Sketch for the foreign
collaborator, and a letter of commitment from the foreign institution
or organization, which assures that the foreign institution or
organization is committed to the collaboration and will give students
appropriate access to facilities.
Useful guidance for those planning international research experiences
for undergraduates can be found in the report Looking Beyond the
Borders: A Project Director's Handbook of Best Practices for
International Research Experiences for Undergraduates (NSF 06-204;
[29]http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2006/nsf06204/index.html). In all cases,
those planning a project with an international dimension should discuss
their idea with a program officer in OISE (see the list of contacts by
country and region at [30]http://www.nsf.gov/od/oise/country-list.jsp),
as well as with the appropriate disciplinary program officer for REU.
Research Experiences for Teachers
NSF encourages research experiences for K-12 teachers of science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics and the coordination of these
experiences with REU projects. Most directorates support Research
Experiences for Teachers (RET) as a formal activity and announce their
specific interests (e.g., RET Sites, RET Supplements) either in
solicitations, in "Dear Colleague" letters, or on directorate/division
Websites. Other NSF units have no formal announcement but respond to
requests for RET support on a case-by-case basis or permit the
inclusion of an RET component (with a distinct description and cost
breakdown) as part of an REU proposal. Teachers may also be included in
an international REU project. Applicants who wish to include an RET
component in an REU proposal may wish to contact the appropriate REU
program officer for guidance.
III. AWARD INFORMATION
An REU activity may be funded as a standard or continuing grant (for
REU Sites), as a supplement to an existing award, or as a component of
a new or renewal grant or cooperative agreement. REU Sites and
Supplements are funded by various disciplinary and education research
programs throughout NSF, and the number of awards made varies across
the Foundation from year to year, as does the amount of funds invested.
In FY2013, NSF anticipates investing approximately $68.4 million
(pending availability of funds) in approximately 180 new Site awards
and 1,600 new Supplement awards.
Three years is the typical duration for REU Site awards in most NSF
directorates; however, a duration of up to five years may be allowed in
some cases. The typical REU Site hosts 8-10 students per year. The
typical funding amount is $70,000-$120,000 per year, although NSF does
not dictate a firm upper (or lower) limit for the amount, which depends
on the number of students hosted and the number of weeks.
The stipend that is paid to REU student participants is not a salary or
wage for work performed. It is a traineeship, a form of student aid
(like a scholarship or fellowship) provided to support a student's
education/training in a STEM field. In this case, the student's
training consists of closely mentored independent research. For
administrative convenience, organizations may choose to issue payments
to REU students using their normal payroll system. The funds received
by students may be taxable income under the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 and may also be subject to state or local taxes. Please consult
the [31]Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for additional information.
Students might find the IRS's "Tax Information for Students" Website
([32]http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/Students/Student's-Page---Higher-Ed
ucation) to be particularly helpful.
IV. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION
Who May Submit Proposals:
The categories of proposers eligible to submit proposals to the
National Science Foundation are identified in the Grant Proposal
Guide, Chapter I, Section E.
Who May Serve as PI:
For REU Site proposals, a single individual may be designated as the
Principal Investigator. This individual will be responsible for
overseeing all aspects of the award. However, one additional person
may be designated as Co-Principal Investigator if developing and
operating the REU Site would involve such shared responsibility.
Other anticipated research supervisors should be listed as Non-Co-PI
Senior Personnel. After a proposal is awarded, some NSF units may
allow the addition of more Co-PIs if an exceptional case can be made
for why the management of the REU Site must be distributed.
Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:
There are no restrictions or limits.
Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or Co-PI:
There are no restrictions or limits.
Additional Eligibility Info:
Eligible Student Participants: Undergraduate student participants
supported with NSF funds in either REU Supplements or REU Sites must
be U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, or permanent residents of the
United States. An undergraduate student is a student who is enrolled
in a degree program (part-time or full-time) leading to a
baccalaureate or associate degree. Students who are transferring
from one college or university to another and are enrolled at
neither institution during the intervening summer may participate.
High school graduates who have been accepted at an undergraduate
institution but who have not yet started their undergraduate study
are also eligible to participate. Students who have received their
bachelor's degrees and are no longer enrolled as undergraduates are
generally not eligible to participate. For REU Sites, a significant
fraction of the student participants should come from outside the
host institution or organization. Some NSF directorates encourage
inclusion in the REU program of K-12 teachers of science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics. Please contact the
appropriate disciplinary program officer for guidance. Within the
framework of the basic eligibility guidelines outlined here, most
REU Sites and Supplements further define recruitment and selection
criteria, based on the nature of the particular research and other
factors.
V. PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS
A. Proposal Preparation Instructions
Full Proposal Preparation Instructions: Proposers may opt to submit
proposals in response to this Program Solicitation via Grants.gov or
via the NSF FastLane system.
* Full proposals submitted via FastLane: Proposals submitted in
response to this program solicitation should be prepared and
submitted in accordance with the general guidelines contained in
the NSF Grant Proposal Guide (GPG). The complete text of the GPG is
available electronically on the NSF website at:
[33]http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg. Paper
copies of the GPG may be obtained from the NSF Publications
Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from
[34]nsfpubs@nsf.gov. Proposers are reminded to identify this
program solicitation number in the program solicitation block on
the NSF Cover Sheet For Proposal to the National Science
Foundation. Compliance with this requirement is critical to
determining the relevant proposal processing guidelines. Failure to
submit this information may delay processing.
* Full proposals submitted via Grants.gov: Proposals submitted in
response to this program solicitation via Grants.gov should be
prepared and submitted in accordance with the NSF Grants.gov
Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of
NSF Applications via Grants.gov. The complete text of the NSF
Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website
and on the NSF website at:
([35]http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgov
guide). To obtain copies of the Application Guide and Application
Forms Package, click on the Apply tab on the Grants.gov site, then
click on the Apply Step 1: Download a Grant Application Package and
Application Instructions link and enter the funding opportunity
number, (the program solicitation number without the NSF prefix)
and press the Download Package button. Paper copies of the
Grants.gov Application Guide also may be obtained from the NSF
Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail
from [36]nsfpubs@nsf.gov.
In determining which method to utilize in the electronic preparation
and submission of the proposal, please note the following:
Collaborative Proposals. All collaborative proposals submitted as
separate submissions from multiple organizations must be submitted via
the NSF FastLane system. Chapter II, Section D.5 of the Grant Proposal
Guide provides additional information on collaborative proposals.
See Chapter II.C.2 of the [37]GPG for guidance on the required sections
of a full research proposal submitted to NSF. Please note that the
proposal preparation instructions provided in this program solicitation
may deviate from the GPG instructions.
PROPOSAL FOR REU SITE
The following instructions supplement those found in the GPG or NSF
Grants.gov Application Guide.
Cover Sheet. When preparing the Cover Sheet in FastLane's Proposal
Preparation module, select the Program Announcement/Solicitation No.
for this solicitation from the pull-down list. (Grants.gov users: The
program solicitation will be pre-populated by Grants.gov on the NSF
Grant Application Cover Page.) Select the Division(s) to which the
proposal is directed. If the proposal has a cross-disciplinary research
focus, choose the Division(s) that seems most relevant (often this is
the Division corresponding to the departmental affiliation of the
Principal Investigator), and NSF staff will ensure that the proposal is
reviewed by people who have expertise that is appropriate to the
proposal's content. (Often such proposals are co-reviewed by two or
more NSF disciplinary units.) The REU-associated program within the
Division(s) that you selected will appear automatically in the "Current
List of NSF Selected Units" at the bottom of the screen. (Grants.gov
users should refer to Section VI.1.2. of the NSF Grants.gov Application
Guide for specific instructions on how to designate the NSF Unit of
Consideration.) Begin the title of the proposed project with the label
"REU Site:" and carefully choose a project title that will permit
prospective student participants to easily identify the focus of the
site. A single individual should be designated as the Principal
Investigator (PI). This individual will be responsible for overseeing
all aspects of the REU Site award. However, one additional person may
be designated as Co-PI if developing and operating the REU Site would
involve such shared responsibility. Other anticipated research
supervisors should be designated as Non-Co-PI Senior Personnel and are
not listed on the Cover Sheet.
Project Summary (limited to one page). So that program officers can
sort proposals efficiently and accurately for review, please begin the
"Overview" section of the Project Summary with the following list of
"Project Elements":
* PROJECT ELEMENTS:
+ New REU Site, or renewal of previously funded REU Site
(provide previous NSF Award No.)?:
+ Project title (as shown on Cover Sheet): "REU Site: ..."
+ Principal Investigator:
+ Submitting organization:
+ Other organizations involved in the project's operation:
+ Location(s) (universities, national labs, field stations,
etc.) at which the proposed undergraduate research will occur:
+ Main field(s) and sub-field(s) of the research:
+ No. of undergraduate participants per year:
+ Summer REU Site, or academic year REU Site?:
+ No. of weeks per year that the students will participate:
+ Does the project include an international component or an RET
component?:
+ Name, phone number, and e-mail address of point-of-contact for
student applicants:
+ Web address (URL) for information about the REU Site (if
known):
In the remainder of the Project Summary, briefly describe the project's
objectives, activities, students to be recruited, and intended impact.
Provide separate statements on the intellectual merit and broader
impacts of the proposed activity, as required by the GPG.
Project Description. Address items "(a)" through "(g)" below. The
Project Description must not exceed 15 pages.
a. Overview. Provide a brief description of the objectives of the
proposed REU Site, targeted student participants, intellectual
focus, organizational structure, timetable, and participating
organizations' commitment to the REU activity.
b. Nature of Student Activities. Proposals should address the approach
to undergraduate research training being taken and should provide
detailed descriptions of examples of research projects that
students will pursue. So that reviewers can evaluate intellectual
merit, this discussion should indicate the significance of the
research area and, when appropriate, the underlying theoretical
framework, hypotheses, research questions, etc. NSF believes that
undergraduate research experiences have their greatest impact in
situations that lead the participants from a relatively dependent
status to as independent a status as their competence warrants.
Proposals must present plans that will ensure the development of
student-faculty interaction and student-student communication.
Development of collegial relationships and interactions is an
important part of the project.
c. The Research Environment. This subsection should describe the
experience, and the record of the involvement with undergraduate
research, of the PI, the faculty who may serve as research mentors,
and the institution(s) or organization(s) where the research will
occur. The description should include information on the record of
faculty/mentors in publishing work involving undergraduate authors
and in providing professional development opportunities for student
researchers. This subsection should also discuss the diversity of
the mentor pool; any training, mentoring, or monitoring that
mentors have received or will receive to help them mentor students
effectively during the research experience; and any plans by which
mentoring relationships will be sustained after students leave the
REU Site.
d. Student Recruitment and Selection. The overall quality of the
student recruitment and selection processes and criteria will be an
important element in the evaluation of the proposal. The
recruitment plan should be described with as much specificity as
possible, including the types and/or names of academic institutions
where students will be recruited and the efforts that will be made
to attract members of underrepresented groups (women, minorities,
and persons with disabilities).
A significant fraction of the student participants at an REU Site
must come from outside the host institution or organization, and at
least half of the student participants must be recruited from
academic institutions where research opportunities in STEM are
limited (including two-year colleges). The number of students per
project should be appropriate to the institutional or
organizational setting and to the manner in which research is
conducted in the discipline. (The typical REU Site hosts 8-10
students per year.) Proposals involving fewer than six students per
year are discouraged.
Undergraduate student participants supported with NSF funds in
either REU Sites or REU Supplements must be U.S. citizens, U.S.
nationals, or permanent residents of the United States.
e. Project Evaluation and Reporting. Describe the plan to measure
qualitatively and quantitatively the success of the project in
achieving its goals, particularly the degree to which students have
learned and their perspectives on science, engineering, or
education research related to these disciplines have been expanded.
Evaluation may involve periodic measures throughout the project to
ensure that it is progressing satisfactorily according to the
project plan, and may involve pre-project and post-project measures
aimed at determining the degree of student learning that has been
achieved. In addition, it is highly desirable to have a structured
means of tracking participating students beyond graduation, with
the aim of gauging the degree to which the REU Site experience has
been a lasting influence in the students' career paths. Proposers
may wish to consult The 2010 User-Friendly Handbook for Project
Evaluation
([38]https://www.westat.com/sites/westat.com/files/2010UFHB.pdf)
for guidance on the elements in a good evaluation plan. Although
not required, REU Site PIs may wish to engage specialists in
education research (from their organization or another one) in
planning and implementing the project evaluation.
PIs are required to submit annual project reports through
Fastlane's Project Reports System. When preparing these reports,
REU Site PIs should follow the guidelines in the publication REU
Site Awards: Guidelines for Use of NSF FastLane Project Reports
System (NSF 01-124;
[39]http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf01124).
The data needed for the project report should feed into the project
evaluation plan.
f. Broader Impacts. As specified in the GPG, the Project Description
must contain, as a separate section within the narrative, a
discussion of the broader impacts of the proposed activities.
g. Results from Prior NSF Support (if applicable). If the submitting
organization has received prior support through an REU Site award
in the disciplinary area(s) of the proposal, the Project
Description must include a subsection entitled "Results from Prior
NSF Support," which may occupy up to five pages of the 15-page
Project Description. This subsection must describe the earlier REU
project(s) and outcomes in sufficient detail to permit reviewers to
reach an informed conclusion regarding the value of the results
achieved. Valuable information typically includes results from the
project evaluation; summary information about recruiting efforts
and the number of applicants, the demographic make-up of
participants and their home institutions, and career choices of
participants; and a list of publications or reports (already
published or to be submitted) resulting from the NSF award.
References Cited. A list of bibliographic citations relevant to the
proposal must be included.
Biographical Sketches. Provide Biographical Sketches for all Senior
Personnel, up to a total of 12 people. Senior Personnel include the PI,
the Co-PI (if one has been designated), and other faculty/professionals
who are anticipated to serve as research mentors. Biographical Sketches
should follow the GPG's standard specifications for format and length
but should include, if applicable, any publications with undergraduate
co-authors (with the student labeled by an asterisk) and other
activities or accomplishments relevant to a successful REU Site.
Budget. The focus of REU Sites is the student experience, and the
budget must reflect this principle. Project costs must be predominantly
for student support, which usually includes such items as participant
stipends, housing, meals, travel, and laboratory use fees. Costs in
budget categories outside Participant Support must be modest and
reasonable. For example, for summer REU Sites, many NSF units consider
up to one month of salary for the PI, or distributed among the PI and
other research mentors, to be appropriate for time spent administering
and coordinating the REU Site, training mentors, and similar
operational activities. (NSF expects that research mentors will be
supported with appropriate salary for their research activities, though
not necessarily through the REU grant.) Some budgets include costs for
limited travel by project personnel and for various activities that
enhance students' professional development.
An REU Site may not charge students an application fee. An REU Site may
not charge students tuition, or include tuition in the proposal budget,
as a requirement for participation (although it is permissible to offer
students the option of earning academic credit for participation). An
REU Site may not charge students for access to common campus facilities
such as libraries or athletic facilities.
Student stipends for summer REU Sites are expected to be approximately
$500 per student per week. Other student costs include housing, meals,
travel, and laboratory use fees and usually vary depending on the
location of the site. Amounts for academic-year REU Sites should be
comparable on a pro rata basis. All student costs should be entered as
Participant Support Costs (Line F on the FastLane budget form and Field
E on the Grants.gov budget form). Indirect costs (F&A) are not allowed
on Participant Support Costs in REU Site or REU Supplement budgets.
Total project costs--including all direct costs and indirect costs--are
generally expected not to exceed $1,200 per student per week. However,
REU Sites that involve international activities, field work in remote
locations, a Research Experiences for Teachers (RET) component, or
other exceptional circumstances may exceed this limit.
The Budget Justification (limited to three pages) should explain and
justify all major cost items and any unusual items or situations, such
as field work or international collaborations, and should address the
cost-effectiveness of the project. As noted above, projects that
involve an international component or field work in remote locations
often have larger budgets than other projects. This feature is
understandable, but the extra costs, with detailed breakdown, should be
described in the Budget Justification.
When preparing proposals, PIs are encouraged to contact the appropriate
disciplinary REU program officer (see
[40]http://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/reu/reu_contacts.jsp) with any
questions about the budget or the appropriateness of charges in it.
So as not to create a financial hardship for students, REU Sites are
encouraged to pay students their stipend and living expenses on a
regular basis or at least on an incremental basis--not, for example, in
a lump sum at the end of the summer.
Although the informal seminars, field trips, and similar gatherings
through which students interact and become attuned to the culture of
research and their discipline are often vital to the success of
undergraduate research experiences, applicants are reminded that costs
of entertainment, amusement, diversion, and social activities, and any
expenses directly associated with such activities (such as meals,
lodging, rentals, transportation, and gratuities), are unallowable in
the proposal budget. Federal/NSF funds may not be used to support these
expenses. However, costs of "working meals" at seminars and other
events at which student participation is required and for which there
is a formal agenda are generally allowable. See NSF's Award and
Administration Guide
([41]http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag), Chapter
V.C.5.
Current and Pending Support. Provide this information for all Senior
Personnel, up to a total of 12 people. Senior Personnel include the PI,
the Co-PI (if one has been designated), and other faculty/professionals
who are anticipated to serve as research mentors.
Facilities, Equipment, and Other Resources. Previous editions of the
REU solicitation instructed applicants to omit this section and include
the relevant information in the Project Description. Now this section
is required and must be completed in accordance with the instructions
in the GPG.
Supplementary Documentation. In addition to the Postdoctoral Researcher
Mentoring Plan (if applicable) and the Data Management Plan, the
proposal may include up to five signed letters of commitment
documenting collaborative arrangements of significance to the proposal.
These may be scanned and uploaded into the Supplementary Documents
section. Letters may be relevant where the awardee and performing
organizations are different, where faculty or facilities at more than
one institution or organization are to be employed, or where
international activities are planned. Other letters--for example,
letters of endorsement--are not permitted.
REQUEST FOR REU SUPPLEMENT
Many of the research programs throughout the Foundation support REU
activities that are requested either (1) as a component of a new (or
renewal) research proposal or (2) as a post-award supplement to an
existing grant or cooperative agreement. Specific guidance for the use
of either mechanism is given in the last two paragraphs of this section
(below).
Investigators are reminded that support for undergraduate students
involved in carrying out research under NSF awards should be included
as part of the research proposal itself instead of as a post-award
supplement to the research proposal, unless such undergraduate
participation was not foreseeable at the time of the original proposal.
Contacts: For guidance about preparing an REU Supplement request as a
component of a new (or renewal) research proposal, contact the program
officer who manages the relevant research program. For guidance about
preparing an REU Supplement request for an existing NSF award, contact
the program officer assigned to the NSF award that would be
supplemented. Do not contact the list of disciplinary REU program
officers at [42]http://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/reu/reu_contacts.jsp about
REU Supplements.
Regardless of which mechanism is used to request an REU Supplement, the
description of the REU activity should discuss the following: (1) the
nature of each prospective student's involvement in the research
project; (2) the experience of the PI (or other prospective research
mentors) in involving undergraduates in research, including any
previous REU Supplement support and the outcomes from that support; (3)
the nature of the mentoring that the student(s) will receive; and (4)
the process and criteria for selecting the student(s). If the student
has been pre-selected (as might be true in the case of a supplement for
an ongoing award), then the grounds for selection and a brief
biographical sketch of the student should be included.
Normally, funds may be requested for up to two students, but exceptions
will be considered for training additional qualified students who are
members of underrepresented groups (women, minorities, and persons with
disabilities). Centers or large research efforts may request support
for a number of students commensurate with the size and nature of the
project.
Student stipends for summer projects are expected to be comparable to
those of REU Site participants, approximately $500 per student per
week. Other student costs include housing, meals, travel, and
laboratory use fees and usually vary depending on location. Amounts for
academic-year projects should be comparable on a pro rata basis.
Total costs for a summer--including all direct costs and indirect
costs--are generally expected not to exceed $1,200 per student per
week. However, projects that involve international activities, field
work in remote locations, or other exceptional circumstances may exceed
this limit.
Results from any REU Supplement activities must be included in the
annual project report for the associated award. The term of an REU
Supplement may not exceed that of the associated award.
A request for an REU Supplement as part of a proposal for a new or
renewal grant or cooperative agreement should be embedded in the
proposal as follows. Enter the description of the REU activity (namely,
the information described above in the fourth paragraph under the
subheading "REQUEST FOR REU SUPPLEMENT") in the section for
Supplementary Documentation. Limit this description to three pages.
Include the budget for the REU activity in the yearly project budget.
Enter all student costs under Participant Support Costs (Line F on the
FastLane budget form and Field E on the Grants.gov budget form).
(Indirect costs [F&A] are not allowed on Participant Support Costs in
REU Site or REU Supplement budgets.) As part of the Budget
Justification, provide a separate explanation of the REU Supplement
request, with the proposed student costs itemized and justified and a
total given for the items plus associated indirect costs. If the intent
is to engage students as technicians, then an REU Supplement is not the
appropriate support mechanism; instead, support should be entered on
the Undergraduate Students line of the proposal budget.
A request for an REU Supplement to an existing NSF award should be
submitted if the need for the undergraduate student support was not
foreseen at the time of the original proposal submission, and should be
prepared by the PI in FastLane in accordance with the guidelines found
in the GPG. The following instructions supplement those found in the
GPG. After logging into FastLane, choose "Award and Reporting
Functions," and then "Supplemental Funding Request." Next, choose the
award to be supplemented. In the form entitled "Summary of Proposed
Work," state that this is a request for an REU Supplement. In the form
entitled "Justification for Supplement," include the information
described above in the fourth paragraph under the subheading "REQUEST
FOR REU SUPPLEMENT"; limit your response to three pages. If an REU
student has been pre-selected, you may place a brief biographical
sketch in Supplementary Documents. Prepare a budget, including a
justification of the funds requested for student support and their
proposed use. All student costs should be entered as Participant
Support Costs (Line F) in the proposal budget. (Indirect costs [F&A]
are not allowed on Participant Support Costs in REU Site or REU
Supplement budgets.) After you have prepared the request for
supplemental funding, forward it to your organization's Sponsored
Research Office (SRO), which will submit the request to NSF.
B. Budgetary Information
Cost Sharing: Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is
prohibited.
Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations:
Recovery of indirect costs (F&A) is prohibited on Participant Support
Costs in REU Site proposals and REU Supplemental funding requests.
Other Budgetary Limitations:
For summer REU projects, the total budget request--including all direct
costs and indirect costs--is generally expected not to exceed $1,200
per student per week. (The budget request for an academic-year REU
project should be comparable on a pro rata basis.) However, projects
that involve international activities, field work in remote locations,
a Research Experience for Teachers (RET) component, or other
exceptional circumstances may exceed this limit.
C. Due Dates
* Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):
May 24, 2013
Fourth Friday in May, Annually Thereafter
Deadline for REU Site proposals requiring access to Antarctica. All
other REU Site proposals must be submitted to the August REU
deadline.
August 28, 2013
Fourth Wednesday in August, Annually Thereafter
Deadline for REU Site proposals except those requiring access to
Antarctica
D. FastLane/Grants.gov Requirements
For Proposals Submitted Via FastLane:
To prepare and submit a proposal via FastLane, see detailed
technical instructions available at:
[43]https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/a1/newstan.htm. For FastLane user
support, call the FastLane Help Desk at 1-800-673-6188 or e-mail
[44]fastlane@nsf.gov. The FastLane Help Desk answers general
technical questions related to the use of the FastLane system.
Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be
referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII
of this funding opportunity.
For Proposals Submitted Via Grants.gov:
Before using Grants.gov for the first time, each organization must
register to create an institutional profile. Once registered, the
applicant's organization can then apply for any federal grant on
the Grants.gov website. Comprehensive information about using
Grants.gov is available on the Grants.gov Applicant Resources
webpage: [45]http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants.html. In
addition, the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide (see link in Section
V.A) provides instructions regarding the technical preparation of
proposals via Grants.gov. For Grants.gov user support, contact the
Grants.gov Contact Center at 1-800-518-4726 or by email:
[46]support@grants.gov. The Grants.gov Contact Center answers
general technical questions related to the use of Grants.gov.
Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be
referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII
of this solicitation.
Submitting the Proposal: Once all documents have been completed,
the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must submit the
application to Grants.gov and verify the desired funding
opportunity and agency to which the application is submitted. The
AOR must then sign and submit the application to Grants.gov. The
completed application will be transferred to the NSF FastLane
system for further processing.
Proposers that submitted via FastLane are strongly encouraged to use
FastLane to verify the status of their submission to NSF. For proposers
that submitted via Grants.gov, until an application has been received
and validated by NSF, the Authorized Organizational Representative may
check the status of an application on Grants.gov. After proposers have
received an e-mail notification from NSF, Research.gov should be used
to check the status of an application.
VI. NSF PROPOSAL PROCESSING AND REVIEW PROCEDURES
Proposals received by NSF are assigned to the appropriate NSF program
for acknowledgement and, if they meet NSF requirements, for review. All
proposals are carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer, or educator
serving as an NSF Program Officer, and usually by three to ten other
persons outside NSF either as ad hoc reviewers, panelists, or both, who
are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal. These
reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with oversight of
the review process. Proposers are invited to suggest names of persons
they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal
and/or persons they would prefer not review the proposal. These
suggestions may serve as one source in the reviewer selection process
at the Program Officer's discretion. Submission of such names, however,
is optional. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts
of interest with the proposal. In addition, Program Officers may obtain
comments from site visits before recommending final action on
proposals. Senior NSF staff further review recommendations for awards.
A flowchart that depicts the entire NSF proposal and award process (and
associated timeline) is included in the GPG as [47]Exhibit III-1.
A comprehensive description of the Foundation's merit review process is
available on the NSF website at:
[48]http://nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/.
Proposers should also be aware of core strategies that are essential to
the fulfillment of NSF's mission, as articulated in [49]Investing in
Science, Engineering, and Education for the Nation's Future: NSF
Strategic Plan for 2014-2018. These strategies are integrated in the
program planning and implementation process, of which proposal review
is one part. NSF's mission is particularly well-implemented through the
integration of research and education and broadening participation in
NSF programs, projects, and activities.
One of the strategic objectives in support of NSF's mission is to
foster integration of research and education through the programs,
projects, and activities it supports at academic and research
institutions. These institutions must recruit, train, and prepare a
diverse STEM workforce to advance the frontiers of science and
participate in the U.S. technology-based economy. NSF's contribution to
the national innovation ecosystem is to provide cutting-edge research
under the guidance of the Nation's most creative scientists and
engineers. NSF also supports development of a strong science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce by investing
in building the knowledge that informs improvements in STEM teaching
and learning.
NSF's mission calls for the broadening of opportunities and expanding
participation of groups, institutions, and geographic regions that are
underrepresented in STEM disciplines, which is essential to the health
and vitality of science and engineering. NSF is committed to this
principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects,
and activities it considers and supports.
A. Merit Review Principles and Criteria
The National Science Foundation strives to invest in a robust and
diverse portfolio of projects that creates new knowledge and enables
breakthroughs in understanding across all areas of science and
engineering research and education. To identify which projects to
support, NSF relies on a merit review process that incorporates
consideration of both the technical aspects of a proposed project and
its potential to contribute more broadly to advancing NSF's mission "to
promote the progress of science; to advance the national health,
prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other
purposes." NSF makes every effort to conduct a fair, competitive,
transparent merit review process for the selection of projects.
1. Merit Review Principles
These principles are to be given due diligence by PIs and organizations
when preparing proposals and managing projects, by reviewers when
reading and evaluating proposals, and by NSF program staff when
determining whether or not to recommend proposals for funding and while
overseeing awards. Given that NSF is the primary federal agency charged
with nurturing and supporting excellence in basic research and
education, the following three principles apply:
* All NSF projects should be of the highest quality and have the
potential to advance, if not transform, the frontiers of knowledge.
* NSF projects, in the aggregate, should contribute more broadly to
achieving societal goals. These "Broader Impacts" may be
accomplished through the research itself, through activities that
are directly related to specific research projects, or through
activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the
project. The project activities may be based on previously
established and/or innovative methods and approaches, but in either
case must be well justified.
* Meaningful assessment and evaluation of NSF funded projects should
be based on appropriate metrics, keeping in mind the likely
correlation between the effect of broader impacts and the resources
provided to implement projects. If the size of the activity is
limited, evaluation of that activity in isolation is not likely to
be meaningful. Thus, assessing the effectiveness of these
activities may best be done at a higher, more aggregated, level
than the individual project.
With respect to the third principle, even if assessment of Broader
Impacts outcomes for particular projects is done at an aggregated
level, PIs are expected to be accountable for carrying out the
activities described in the funded project. Thus, individual projects
should include clearly stated goals, specific descriptions of the
activities that the PI intends to do, and a plan in place to document
the outputs of those activities.
These three merit review principles provide the basis for the merit
review criteria, as well as a context within which the users of the
criteria can better understand their intent.
2. Merit Review Criteria
All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the two National Science
Board approved merit review criteria. In some instances, however, NSF
will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific
objectives of certain programs and activities.
The two merit review criteria are listed below. Both criteria are to be
given full consideration during the review and decision-making
processes; each criterion is necessary but neither, by itself, is
sufficient. Therefore, proposers must fully address both criteria.
([50]GPG Chapter II.C.2.d.i. contains additional information for use by
proposers in development of the Project Description section of the
proposal.) Reviewers are strongly encouraged to review the criteria,
including [51]GPG Chapter II.C.2.d.i., prior to the review of a
proposal.
When evaluating NSF proposals, reviewers will be asked to consider what
the proposers want to do, why they want to do it, how they plan to do
it, how they will know if they succeed, and what benefits could accrue
if the project is successful. These issues apply both to the technical
aspects of the proposal and the way in which the project may make
broader contributions. To that end, reviewers will be asked to evaluate
all proposals against two criteria:
* Intellectual Merit: The Intellectual Merit criterion encompasses
the potential to advance knowledge; and
* Broader Impacts: The Broader Impacts criterion encompasses the
potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of
specific, desired societal outcomes.
The following elements should be considered in the review for both
criteria:
1. What is the potential for the proposed activity to
a. Advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or
across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and
b. Benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader
Impacts)?
2. To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore
creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?
3. Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities well-reasoned,
well-organized, and based on a sound rationale? Does the plan
incorporate a mechanism to assess success?
4. How well qualified is the individual, team, or organization to
conduct the proposed activities?
5. Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the
home organization or through collaborations) to carry out the
proposed activities?
Broader impacts may be accomplished through the research itself,
through the activities that are directly related to specific research
projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are
complementary to, the project. NSF values the advancement of scientific
knowledge and activities that contribute to achievement of societally
relevant outcomes. Such outcomes include, but are not limited to: full
participation of women, persons with disabilities, and underrepresented
minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM);
improved STEM education and educator development at any level;
increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science
and technology; improved well-being of individuals in society;
development of a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce;
increased partnerships between academia, industry, and others; improved
national security; increased economic competitiveness of the United
States; and enhanced infrastructure for research and education.
Proposers are reminded that reviewers will also be asked to review the
Data Management Plan and the Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan, as
appropriate.
Additional Solicitation Specific Review Criteria
Reviewers will be asked to interpret the two basic NSF review criteria
in the context of the REU program. In addition, they will be asked to
place emphasis on the following considerations:
1. Appropriateness and value of the educational experience for the
student participants, particularly the appropriateness of the
research project(s) for undergraduate involvement and the nature of
the students' participation in these activities.
2. Quality of the research environment, including the facilities, the
preparedness of the research mentor(s) to guide undergraduate
research, and the professional development opportunities for the
students.
3. Appropriateness of the student recruitment and selection plans,
including those for involving students from underrepresented
groups, from outside the host institution, and from academic
institutions with limited research opportunities in STEM.
4. Quality of plans for student preparation and for follow-through
designed to promote continuation of student interest and
involvement in research.
5. Appropriateness and cost-effectiveness of the budget, effectiveness
of the plans for managing the project and evaluating the outcomes,
and commitment of partners, if relevant.
6. For renewals of previously funded REU Sites: effectiveness of the
previous site.
B. Review and Selection Process
Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be
reviewed by Ad hoc Review and/or Panel Review.
Reviewers will be asked to evaluate proposals using two National
Science Board approved merit review criteria and, if applicable,
additional program specific criteria. A summary rating and accompanying
narrative will be completed and submitted by each reviewer. The Program
Officer assigned to manage the proposal's review will consider the
advice of reviewers and will formulate a recommendation.
After scientific, technical and programmatic review and consideration
of appropriate factors, the NSF Program Officer recommends to the
cognizant Division Director whether the proposal should be declined or
recommended for award. NSF strives to be able to tell applicants
whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding
within six months. Large or particularly complex proposals or proposals
from new awardees may require additional review and processing time.
The time interval begins on the deadline or target date, or receipt
date, whichever is later. The interval ends when the Division Director
acts upon the Program Officer's recommendation.
After programmatic approval has been obtained, the proposals
recommended for funding will be forwarded to the Division of Grants and
Agreements for review of business, financial, and policy implications.
After an administrative review has occurred, Grants and Agreements
Officers perform the processing and issuance of a grant or other
agreement. Proposers are cautioned that only a Grants and Agreements
Officer may make commitments, obligations or awards on behalf of NSF or
authorize the expenditure of funds. No commitment on the part of NSF
should be inferred from technical or budgetary discussions with a NSF
Program Officer. A Principal Investigator or organization that makes
financial or personnel commitments in the absence of a grant or
cooperative agreement signed by the NSF Grants and Agreements Officer
does so at their own risk.
Once an award or declination decision has been made, Principal
Investigators are provided feedback about their proposals. In all
cases, reviews are treated as confidential documents. Verbatim copies
of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers or any
reviewer-identifying information, are sent to the Principal
Investigator/Project Director by the Program Officer. In addition, the
proposer will receive an explanation of the decision to award or
decline funding.
VII. AWARD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION
A. Notification of the Award
Notification of the award is made to the submitting organization by a
Grants Officer in the Division of Grants and Agreements. Organizations
whose proposals are declined will be advised as promptly as possible by
the cognizant NSF Program administering the program. Verbatim copies of
reviews, not including the identity of the reviewer, will be provided
automatically to the Principal Investigator. (See Section VI.B. for
additional information on the review process).
B. Award Conditions
An NSF award consists of: (1) the award notice, which includes any
special provisions applicable to the award and any numbered amendments
thereto; (2) the budget, which indicates the amounts, by categories of
expense, on which NSF has based its support (or otherwise communicates
any specific approvals or disapprovals of proposed expenditures); (3)
the proposal referenced in the award notice; (4) the applicable award
conditions, such as Grant General Conditions (GC-1)*; or Research Terms
and Conditions* and (5) any announcement or other NSF issuance that may
be incorporated by reference in the award notice. Cooperative
agreements also are administered in accordance with NSF Cooperative
Agreement Financial and Administrative Terms and Conditions (CA-FATC)
and the applicable Programmatic Terms and Conditions. NSF awards are
electronically signed by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer and
transmitted electronically to the organization via e-mail.
*These documents may be accessed electronically on NSF's Website at
[52]http://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/award_conditions.jsp?org=NSF.
Paper copies may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse,
telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from [53]nsfpubs@nsf.gov.
More comprehensive information on NSF Award Conditions and other
important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained
in the NSF Award & Administration Guide (AAG) Chapter II, available
electronically on the NSF Website at
[54]http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag.
C. Reporting Requirements
For all multi-year grants (including both standard and continuing
grants), the Principal Investigator must submit an annual project
report to the cognizant Program Officer at least 90 days prior to the
end of the current budget period. (Some programs or awards require
submission of more frequent project reports). Within 90 days following
expiration of a grant, the PI also is required to submit a final
project report, and a project outcomes report for the general public.
Failure to provide the required annual or final project reports, or the
project outcomes report, will delay NSF review and processing of any
future funding increments as well as any pending proposals for all
identified PIs and co-PIs on a given award. PIs should examine the
formats of the required reports in advance to assure availability of
required data.
PIs are required to use NSF's electronic project-reporting system,
available through Research.gov, for preparation and submission of
annual and final project reports. Such reports provide information on
accomplishments, project participants (individual and organizational),
publications, and other specific products and impacts of the project.
Submission of the report via Research.gov constitutes certification by
the PI that the contents of the report are accurate and complete. The
project outcomes report also must be prepared and submitted using
Research.gov. This report serves as a brief summary, prepared
specifically for the public, of the nature and outcomes of the project.
This report will be posted on the NSF website exactly as it is
submitted by the PI.
More comprehensive information on NSF Reporting Requirements and other
important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained
in the NSF Award & Administration Guide (AAG) Chapter II, available
electronically on the NSF Website at
[55]http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag.
Demographic data on REU student participants are required as part of
annual and final project reports. For details, see the publication REU
Site Awards: Guidelines for Use of NSF FastLane Project Reports System
(NSF 01-124;
[56]http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf01124). PIs
of REU Sites may also be required to provide information that enables
NSF to track students beyond the period of their participation in the
site.
REU Site awardees are expected to establish a Website for the
recruitment of students and dissemination of information about the REU
Site and to maintain the Website for the duration of the award. PIs are
required to furnish the URL for the Website to the cognizant NSF
program officer no later than 90 days after receiving notification of
the award.
VIII. AGENCY CONTACTS
Please note that the program contact information is current at the time
of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of
contact.
General inquiries regarding this program should be made to:
For questions related to the use of FastLane, contact:
* FastLane Help Desk, telephone: 1-800-673-6188; e-mail:
[57]fastlane@nsf.gov.
For questions relating to Grants.gov contact:
* Grants.gov Contact Center: If the Authorized Organizational
Representatives (AOR) has not received a confirmation message from
Grants.gov within 48 hours of submission of application, please
contact via telephone: 1-800-518-4726; e-mail:
[58]support@grants.gov.
NSF REU Site Contacts:
[59]http://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/reu/reu_contacts.jsp
IX. OTHER INFORMATION
The NSF website provides the most comprehensive source of information
on NSF Directorates (including contact information), programs and
funding opportunities. Use of this website by potential proposers is
strongly encouraged. In addition, "NSF Update" is an
information-delivery system designed to keep potential proposers and
other interested parties apprised of new NSF funding opportunities and
publications, important changes in proposal and award policies and
procedures, and upcoming NSF [60]Grants Conferences. Subscribers are
informed through e-mail or the user's Web browser each time new
publications are issued that match their identified interests. "NSF
Update" also is available on NSF's website at
[61]https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USNSF/subscriber/new?topic_
id=USNSF_179.
Grants.gov provides an additional electronic capability to search for
Federal government-wide grant opportunities. NSF funding opportunities
may be accessed via this mechanism. Further information on Grants.gov
may be obtained at [62]http://www.grants.gov.
Some NSF directorates/offices/divisions that manage REU Site
proposals post discipline-specific REU Web pages or fund an awardee
to host a Website providing information for the community of REU
awardees in the discipline. These discipline-specific Websites are
listed, along with the NSF REU point-of-contact for each discipline,
on the Web page at
[63]http://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/reu/reu_contacts.jsp.
The following resources summarize research on the impact of
undergraduate research experiences and might be helpful when
considering the evaluation of REU projects and the assessment of
student learning gains:
* Brownell, Jayne E., and Lynn E. Swaner. Five High-Impact Practices:
Research on Learning, Outcomes, Completion, and Quality; Chapter 4:
"Undergraduate Research." Washington, DC: Association of American
Colleges and Universities, 2010. Surveys published research on the
effectiveness and outcomes of undergraduate research.
* Crowe, Mary, and David Brakke. "Assessing the Impact of
Undergraduate-Research Experiences on Students: An Overview of
Current Literature." CUR Quarterly, Vol. 28, Issue 4 (Summer 2008),
pp. 43-50. Available online at
[64]http://www.cur.org/assets/1/7/summer08CroweBrakke1.PDF.
Annotated bibliography summarizing research on the impact of
research experiences on students.
* Laursen, Sandra, et al. Undergraduate Research in the Sciences:
Engaging Students in Real Science. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
2010. Examines what is known about the benefits of undergraduate
research, and provides advice for designing and evaluating these
experiences.
* Lopatto, David. Science in Solution: The Impact of Undergraduate
Research on Student Learning. Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation for
Science Advancement, 2009. Available online at
[65]http://web.grinnell.edu/sureiii/Science_in_Solution_Lopatto.pdf
. Findings from the author's pioneering surveys exploring the
benefits of undergraduate research.
* Taraban, Roman, and Richard L. Blanton, eds. Creating Effective
Undergraduate Research Programs in Science: The Transformation from
Student to Scientist. New York: Teachers College Press, 2008.
Collection of essays examining assessments and evaluations of
undergraduate research experiences and their benefits for students,
faculty, and institutions.
* Russell, Susan H., Mary P. Hancock, and James McCullough. "Benefits
of Undergraduate Research Experiences." Science, Vol. 316, No. 5824
(27 April 2007), pp. 548-549. Available online at
[66]http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5824/548.summary. Summary
of a large-scale, NSF-funded evaluation of undergraduate research
opportunities conducted by SRI International between 2002 and 2006.
The study included undergraduate research opportunities sponsored
by the REU program and other NSF programs.
* Evaluation of NSF Support for Undergraduate Research Opportunities
(UROs),
[67]http://csted.sri.com/projects/evaluating-benefits-undergraduate
-research-opportunities-uro-nsf. Reports and supporting materials
from SRI International's large-scale, NSF-funded evaluation of
undergraduate research opportunities.
* Survey of Participant Experiences in NSF's Research Experiences for
Undergraduates (REU) Program,
[68]http://csted.sri.com/projects/survey-participant-experiences-ns
fs-research-experiences-undergraduates-reu-program. Reports and
supporting material from an examination of the activities,
outcomes, and impacts of REU Site and Supplement awards funded by
NSF's Directorate for Engineering. Based on surveys of former REU
students, investigators, and faculty mentors conducted by SRI
International between 2007 and 2009, this study complements SRI
International's earlier study of undergraduate research
opportunities across a full range of disciplines.
Several additional resources might also be helpful to investigators
planning REU projects:
* Loretz, Christopher A., ed. Looking Beyond the Borders: A Project
Director's Handbook of Best Practices for International Research
Experiences for Undergraduates (NSF 06-204). Arlington, VA:
National Science Foundation, 2002. Available online at
[69]http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2006/nsf06204/index.html. General
information for investigators planning to take students abroad,
produced by the NSF Workshop on Best Practices for Managing
International REU Site Programs, April 9-10 and November 8-9, 2001.
* Online Ethics Center, [70]http://www.onlineethics.org/. NSF-funded
project that provides a wealth of information, references, and case
studies for exploring ethics in engineering and science.
Investigators may find this site helpful for designing activities
to introduce students to the responsible conduct of research.
* Evaluation Tools for Undergraduate Research: Undergraduate Research
Student Self-Assessment (URSSA),
[71]http://www.colorado.edu/eer/research/undergradtools.html.
NSF-funded online survey instrument for use in evaluating student
outcomes of undergraduate research experiences. Some REU Sites use
this tool or a variant of it (see, for example,
[72]http://bioreu.org/node/29) to assess student learning gains.
Other REU Sites use other tools or follow a different approach; NSF
does not prescribe any one approach to evaluation and assessment
for REU Sites.
A number of NSF programs provide research experiences for students
or teachers. Prospective investigators may wish to explore these in
addition to the REU program:
* [73]Cooperative Activity with Department of Energy Programs for
Education and Human Resource Development
* [74]Engineering Research Centers (ERC)
* [75]Engineering Research Experiences for Veterans (EREV)
* [76]Historically Black Colleges and Universities Undergraduate
Program (HBCU-UP)
* [77]International Research Experiences for Students (IRES)
* [78]I/UCRC Research Experiences for Veterans
* [79]Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation (LSAMP)
* [80]Materials Research Centers and Teams
* [81]Nanotechnology Undergraduate Education (NUE) in Engineering
* [82]Research Assistantships for High School Students (RAHSS):
Directorate for Biological Sciences
* [83]Research Experiences for Teachers (RET): Directorate for
Biological Sciences
* [84]Research Experiences for Teachers (RET) in Engineering and
Computer Science
* [85]Research Experiences for Veterans/Teachers (REV/T): Directorate
for Engineering
* [86]Research in Undergraduate Institutions (RUI)
* [87]Research Training Groups in the Mathematical Sciences (RTG)
* [88]Science and Technology Centers (STC)
* [89]Tribal Colleges and Universities Program (TCUP)
ABOUT THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent Federal agency
created by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42
USC 1861-75). The Act states the purpose of the NSF is "to promote the
progress of science; [and] to advance the national health, prosperity,
and welfare by supporting research and education in all fields of
science and engineering."
NSF funds research and education in most fields of science and
engineering. It does this through grants and cooperative agreements to
more than 2,000 colleges, universities, K-12 school systems,
businesses, informal science organizations and other research
organizations throughout the US. The Foundation accounts for about
one-fourth of Federal support to academic institutions for basic
research.
NSF receives approximately 55,000 proposals each year for research,
education and training projects, of which approximately 11,000 are
funded. In addition, the Foundation receives several thousand
applications for graduate and postdoctoral fellowships. The agency
operates no laboratories itself but does support National Research
Centers, user facilities, certain oceanographic vessels and Arctic and
Antarctic research stations. The Foundation also supports cooperative
research between universities and industry, US participation in
international scientific and engineering efforts, and educational
activities at every academic level.
Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities
provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons
with disabilities to work on NSF-supported projects. See Grant Proposal
Guide Chapter II, Section D.2 for instructions regarding preparation of
these types of proposals.
The National Science Foundation has Telephonic Device for the Deaf
(TDD) and Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) capabilities that
enable individuals with hearing impairments to communicate with the
Foundation about NSF programs, employment or general information. TDD
may be accessed at (703) 292-5090 and (800) 281-8749, FIRS at (800)
877-8339.
The National Science Foundation Information Center may be reached at
(703) 292-5111.
The National Science Foundation promotes and advances scientific
progress in the United States by competitively awarding grants and
cooperative agreements for research and education in the sciences,
mathematics, and engineering.
To get the latest information about program deadlines, to download
copies of NSF publications, and to access abstracts of awards, visit
the NSF Website at [90]http://www.nsf.gov
* Location: 4201 Wilson Blvd.
Arlington, VA 22230
* For General Information
(NSF Information Center): (703) 292-5111
* TDD (for the hearing-impaired): (703) 292-5090
* To Order Publications or Forms:
Send an e-mail to: [91]nsfpubs@nsf.gov
or telephone: (703) 292-7827
* To Locate NSF Employees: (703) 292-5111
PRIVACY ACT AND PUBLIC BURDEN STATEMENTS
The information requested on proposal forms and project reports is
solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of
1950, as amended. The information on proposal forms will be used in
connection with the selection of qualified proposals; and project
reports submitted by awardees will be used for program evaluation and
reporting within the Executive Branch and to Congress. The information
requested may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants
as part of the proposal review process; to proposer
institutions/grantees to provide or obtain data regarding the proposal
review process, award decisions, or the administration of awards; to
government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers and
educators as necessary to complete assigned work; to other government
agencies or other entities needing information regarding applicants or
nominees as part of a joint application review process, or in order to
coordinate programs or policy; and to another Federal agency, court, or
party in a court or Federal administrative proceeding if the government
is a party. Information about Principal Investigators may be added to
the Reviewer file and used to select potential candidates to serve as
peer reviewers or advisory committee members. See Systems of Records,
[92]NSF-50, "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated
Records," 69 Federal Register 26410 (May 12, 2004), and [93]NSF-51,
"Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records," 69 Federal Register
26410 (May 12, 2004). Submission of the information is voluntary.
Failure to provide full and complete information, however, may reduce
the possibility of receiving an award.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, an information collection unless it displays a valid Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OMB control number
for this collection is 3145-0058. Public reporting burden for this
collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per
response, including the time for reviewing instructions. Send comments
regarding the burden estimate and any other aspect of this collection
of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to:
Suzanne H. Plimpton
Reports Clearance Officer
Office of the General Counsel
National Science Foundation
Arlington, VA 22230
[94]Policies and Important Links
|
[95]Privacy | [96]FOIA | [97]Help | [98]Contact NSF | [99]Contact Web
Master | [100]SiteMap
National Science Foundation
The National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington,
Virginia 22230, USA
Tel: (703) 292-5111, FIRS: (800) 877-8339 | TDD: (800) 281-8749
Last Updated:
11/07/06
[101]Text Only
References
1. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13542/nsf13542.htm#toc
2. http://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/reu/reu_search.cfm
3. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg
4. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide
5. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13542/nsf13542.htm#summary
6. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13542/nsf13542.htm#pgm_intr_txt
7. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13542/nsf13542.htm#pgm_desc_txt
8. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13542/nsf13542.htm#awd_info
9. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13542/nsf13542.htm#elig
10. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13542/nsf13542.htm#prep
11. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13542/nsf13542.htm#prep
12. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13542/nsf13542.htm#budg_cst_shr_txt
13. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13542/nsf13542.htm#dates
14. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13542/nsf13542.htm#fastlane
15. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13542/nsf13542.htm#review
16. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13542/nsf13542.htm#reviewcrit
17. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13542/nsf13542.htm#reviewprot
18. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13542/nsf13542.htm#awardadmin
19. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13542/nsf13542.htm#awardnotify
20. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13542/nsf13542.htm#grantcond
21. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13542/nsf13542.htm#reportreq
22. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13542/nsf13542.htm#cont
23. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13542/nsf13542.htm#othpgm
24. http://www.nsf.gov/funding/aboutfunding.jsp
25. http://www.nsf.gov/news/priority_areas/
26. http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_list.jsp?type=xcut
27. http://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/reu/reu_contacts.jsp
28. http://www.wpafb.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=9333
29. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2006/nsf06204/index.html
30. http://www.nsf.gov/od/oise/country-list.jsp
31. http://www.irs.gov/
32. http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/
Students/Student's-Page---Higher-Education
33. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg
34. mailto:nsfpubs@nsf.gov
35. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide
36. mailto:nsfpubs@nsf.gov
37. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg
38. https://www.westat.com/sites/westat.com/files/2010UFHB.pdf
39. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf01124
40. http://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/reu/reu_contacts.jsp
41. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag
42. http://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/reu/reu_contacts.jsp
43. https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/a1/newstan.htm
44. mailto:fastlane@nsf.gov
45. http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants.html
46. mailto:support@grants.gov
47. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf14001/gpg_3ex1.pdf
48. http://nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/
49. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2014/nsf14043/nsf14043.pdf
50. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/
pappguide/nsf15001/gpg_2.jsp#IIC2di
51. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/
pappguide/nsf15001/gpg_2.jsp#IIC2di
52. http://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/
award_conditions.jsp?org=NSF
53. mailto:nsfpubs@nsf.gov
54. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag
55. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag
56. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf01124
57. mailto:fastlane@nsf.gov
58. mailto:support@grants.gov
59. http://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/reu/reu_contacts.jsp
60. http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/outreach.jsp
61. https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/
USNSF/subscriber/new?topic_id=USNSF_179
62. http://www.grants.gov/
63. http://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/reu/reu_contacts.jsp
64. http://www.cur.org/assets/1/7/summer08CroweBrakke1.PDF
65. http://web.grinnell.edu/sureiii/Science_in_Solution_Lopatto.pdf
66. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5824/548.summary
67 http://csted.sri.com/projects/evaluating-
benefits-undergraduate-research-opportunities-uro-nsf
68. http://csted.sri.com/projects/survey-participant-experiences-
nsfs-research-experiences-undergraduates-reu-program
69. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2006/nsf06204/index.html
70. http://www.onlineethics.org/
71. http://www.colorado.edu/eer/research/undergradtools.html
72. http://bioreu.org/node/29
73. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf10019
74. http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5502
75. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf12074
76. http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5481
77. http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=12831
78. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf12063
79. http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=13646
80. http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5295
81. http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=13656
82. http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=500035
83. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf12075
84. http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5736
85. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf12073
86. http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5518
87. http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5732
88. http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5541
89. http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5483
90. http://www.nsf.gov/
91. mailto:nsfpubs@nsf.gov
92. http://www.nsf.gov/policies/
SOR_PA_NSF-50_Principal_Investigator_Proposal_File.pdf
93. http://www.nsf.gov/policies/
SOR_PA_NSF-51_Reviewer_Proposal_File.pdf
94. http://www.nsf.gov/policies
95. http://www.nsf.gov/policies/privacy.jsp
96. http://www.nsf.gov/policies/foia.jsp
97. http://www.nsf.gov/help/
98. http://www.nsf.gov/help/contact.jsp
99. mailto:webmaster@nsf.gov
100. http://www.nsf.gov/help/sitemap.jsp
101. http://transcoder.usablenet.com/tt/referrer