This document has been archived and replaced by NSF 15-576
(http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf15576).
Title: Advancing Digitization of Biodiversity Collections
(ADBC)(nsf13569)
Date: 09/20/13
Replaces: NSF 12-565
Advancing Digitization of Biodiversity Collections (ADBC)
[1]Program Solicitation
NSF 13-569
Replaces Document(s):
NSF 12-565
NSF Logo
National Science Foundation
Directorate for Biological Sciences
Emerging Frontiers
Directorate for Geosciences
Division of Earth Sciences
Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):
October 18, 2013
Third Friday in October, Annually Thereafter
Third Friday in October
IMPORTANT INFORMATION AND REVISION NOTES
A revised version of the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures
Guide (PAPPG), [2]NSF 13-1, was issued on October 4, 2012 and is
effective for proposals submitted, or due, on or after January 14,
2013. Please be advised that the guidelines contained in [3]NSF 13-1
apply to proposals submitted in response to this funding opportunity.
Please be aware that significant changes have been made to the PAPPG
to implement revised merit review criteria based on the National
Science Board (NSB) report, [4]National Science Foundation's Merit
Review Criteria: Review and Revisions. While the two merit review
criteria remain unchanged (Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts),
guidance has been provided to clarify and improve the function of the
criteria. Changes will affect the project summary and project
description sections of proposals. Annual and final reports also will
be affected.
A by-chapter summary of this and other significant changes is provided
at the beginning of both the [5]Grant Proposal Guide and the [6]Award
& Administration Guide.
Please note that this program solicitation may contain supplemental
proposal preparation guidance and/or guidance that deviates from the
guidelines established in the [7]Grant Proposal Guide.
The links to the community implementation plan has been added to the
strategic plan information in the background for this solicitation.
The Partners to Existing Networks projects are allowed for any ongoing
networks and the limit on partners was removed for ongoing Thematic
Networks and reporting information has been clarified in terms of
their importance to the Thematic Networks.
The information requested for Thematic Networks sustainability plans
has been clarified.
SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
General Information
Program Title:
Advancing Digitization of Biodiversity Collections (ADBC)
Synopsis of Program:
This program seeks to enhance and expand the national resource of
digital data documenting existing vouchered biological and
paleontological collections and to advance scientific knowledge by
improving access to digitized information (including images)
residing in vouchered scientific collections across the United
States. The information associated with various collections of
organisms, such as geographic, paleogeographic and stratigraphic
distribution, environmental habitat data, phenology, information
about associated organisms, collector field notes, and tissues and
molecular data extracted from the specimens, is a rich resource
providing the baseline from which to further biodiversity research
and provide critical information about existing gaps in our
knowledge of life on earth. The national resource is structured at
three levels: a central coordinating organization, a series of
thematic networks based on an important research theme, and the
physical collections. The national resource builds upon a sizable
existing national investment in curation of the physical objects in
scientific collections and contributes vitally to scientific
research and technology interests in the United States. It will
become an invaluable tool in understanding contemporary biological
issues and challenges.
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.
* Anne M. Maglia, telephone: (703) 292-8470, email:
[8]biodigit@nsf.gov
* H. Richard Lane, telephone: 703-292-4730, email:
[9]biodigit@nsf.gov
* Judith E. Skog, telephone: (703) 292-7909, email:
[10]biodigit@nsf.gov
* Yusheng (Christopher) Liu, telephone: (703) 292-8551, email:
[11]yliu@nsf.gov
* David P. Mindell, telephone: (703) 292-5113, email:
[12]dmindell@nsf.gov
Applicable Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s):
* 47.050 --- Geosciences
* 47.074 --- Biological Sciences
Award Information
Anticipated Type of Award: Standard Grant or Continuing Grant
Estimated Number of Awards: 4 to 12
Anticipated Funding Amount: $10,000,000 Total amount available across
all awards in this program for FY2014, pending availability of funds.
Eligibility Information
Organization Limit:
Proposals may only be submitted by the following:
* Universities and Colleges - Universities and two- and four-year
colleges (including community colleges) accredited in, and having
a campus located in, the US acting on behalf of their faculty
members. Such organizations also are referred to as academic
institutions.
* Non-profit, non-academic organizations: Independent museums,
observatories, research labs, professional societies and similar
organizations in the U.S. associated with educational or research
activities.
* State and Local Governments: State educational offices or
organizations and local school districts.
PI Limit:
None Specified
Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization: 1
Only one Thematic Collections Networks (TCN) proposal may be
submitted by any one organization as the lead organization.
Organizations may be involved in more than one collaborative effort
as a non-lead proposal.
Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or Co-PI: 1
An individual may appear as PI or co-PI on no more than one ADBC
proposal submitted to any annual ADBC competition.
Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions
A. Proposal Preparation Instructions
* Letters of Intent: Not Applicable
* Preliminary Proposal Submission: Not Applicable
* 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:
[13]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:
[14]http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gran
tsgovguide)
B. Budgetary Information
* Cost Sharing Requirements: Inclusion of voluntary committed cost
sharing is prohibited.
* Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations: Not Applicable
* 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):
October 18, 2013
Third Friday in October, Annually Thereafter
Third Friday in October
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
[15]Summary of Program Requirements
I. [16]Introduction
II. [17]Program Description
III. [18]Award Information
IV. [19]Eligibility Information
V. [20]Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions
A. [21]Proposal Preparation Instructions
B. [22]Budgetary Information
C. [23]Due Dates
D. [24]FastLane/Grants.gov Requirements
VI. [25]NSF Proposal Processing and Review Procedures
A. [26]Merit Review Principles and Criteria
B. [27]Review and Selection Process
VII. [28]Award Administration Information
A. [29]Notification of the Award
B. [30]Award Conditions
C. [31]Reporting Requirements
VIII. [32]Agency Contacts
IX. [33]Other Information
I. INTRODUCTION
An estimated 1.8 million named species of organisms exist on Earth
today and many more are now extinct. This rich diversity is documented
through research collections of fossil and extant organisms housed in
natural history museums, universities, field facilities, botanical
gardens, state surveys, and other institutions maintaining collection
facilities. These vouchered collections provide validation for species
names and identifications along with a wealth of ancillary data such
as DNA sequences, field notes, stratigraphic position,
environment/habitat information, time of collection, audio recordings,
and the condition of the specimen at the time of collection.
Paleontological collections provide time of existence, evolutionary
history, proxy data, and past distribution information in space and
time.
Collections data reveal gaps in our knowledge of biodiversity and
provide the baseline from which to continue biodiversity studies.
Filling these gaps is crucial to a complete understanding of the
biodiversity of the planet, both in space and time. Specimens and
their associated data allow us to reconstruct the history of climate
and plate tectonic changes as reflected in a validated record of life
on earth. Having this baseline information allows efficiency of effort
in biodiversity exploration. Gaps in specimen collections and
associated natural history data can be used to strategically target
further research and field exploration. The effort to digitize, image,
and provide online accessibility to these data is critical for
understanding biological knowledge in space and time, and underpins
how we address contemporary scientific and societal issues, including
planetary biogeography and climate change.
Knowledge of the planet's biodiversity documented in vouchered
scientific collections represents an area of exploration and discovery
carried out over the entire course of scientific history, yet the
extent of life on earth is still not known definitively. New efforts
and approaches to understanding biodiversity and advancing our
knowledge are represented by several NSF programs (e.g., Dimensions of
Biodiversity, Systematics and Biodiversity Science, Sedimentary
Geology and Paleobiology). However, there is a digitization bottleneck
that effectively limits access to information residing in the various
existing vouchered collections across the U.S. and the world. It is
estimated that U.S. collections contain one billion specimens, but
only 10% of these are accessible online. As a consequence, the
critical information in the physical collections is underutilized, the
usefulness of scientific collections data in research remains limited,
and the importance of the collections is not appreciated.
The Interagency Working Group on Scientific Collections developed a
comprehensive report on the current status of federally owned
collections
([34]http://nscalliance.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/iwgsc
-report.pdf), and NSF, as part of that working group, surveyed
federally supported collections
([35]http://www.nsf.gov/bio/pubs/reports/prelim_findings_sc_2008.pdf
and a summary of the findings at
[36]http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2009/nsf09044/nsf09044.pdf). Both reports
emphasized the importance of leveraging past investments by digitizing
collections and making them available and searchable online to
researchers worldwide.
Responding to concerns expressed in these reports, members of the
biological and paleontological collections community developed a
ten-year strategic plan to digitize, image and mobilize biological
collections data
([37]http://digbiocol.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/niba_brochure.pdf)
and followed this strategy with an implementation plan for
accomplishing the goal that depends upon a number of stakeholder
activities
([38]http://www.aibs.org/public-policy/biocollections.html). The goal
of the digitization effort is "to produce a resource of lasting value
for answering major research questions." The plan stated the following
key objectives: "digitize data from all U.S. biological collections,
large and small, and integrate these in a web accessible interface
using shared standards and formats, develop new web interfaces,
visualization and analysis tools, data mining, georeferencing
processes and make all available for using and improving the
collections resource, create real-time upgrades of biological data and
prevent the future occurrence of non-accessible collection data
through the use of tools, training, and infrastructure." This
solicitation is a response to the community call for action and
provides funds to begin the process. It is not designed to address all
the items within the strategic and implementation plans.
II. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Digitizing and mobilizing the Nation's biological and paleontological
collections represents a grand challenge and will require development
of both technical and human resources to support the creation of an
enduring digital alliance of collections and institutions. In 2011
Integrated Digitized Biocollections (iDigBio) at the University of
Florida was established as a national resource to integrate the
digitization data and make it widely accessible. Collections
digitization is defined broadly for the purpose of this solicitation
to include the capture of digital images of specimens, transcription
into electronic format of various types of data associated with
specimens, linking ancillary data already stored in an electronic
format apart from the voucher specimens, the georeferencing of
specimen-collection localities, and mobilization of all the data
together online. In all cases the primary focus of the digitization
effort should be the physical specimens owned by the collection.
Ancillary material may be included as appropriate through links to the
specimen. Paleontological collections are included and may be
integrated with biological collections if relevant to a research
theme, or may be digitized around a research theme unique to the past.
This program will create an organizational structure and processes
inclusive of the broad biological and paleontological collections
community, provide open data access, and empower biological and
paleobiological researchers.
Proposals that address the goals of specimen digitization through
innovative plans, strong collaborations among large and small
institutions, and mechanisms to build upon existing digitization
projects are strongly encouraged. Proposals that increase efficiency
and numbers of specimens digitized will have a stronger priority for
funding (e.g. by reducing the time and cost per specimen, or by
developing new workflows). Current practices cannot achieve a goal of
digitizing the existing collections within a ten year period and if
this goal of the community strategic plan is to be achieved, there
must be new approaches applied to the effort.
The Directorate for Geosciences under the EarthCube vision seeks to
support community driven efforts in cyberinfrastructure to integrate
data and information for knowledge management. See
[39]http://www.nsf.gov/geo/earthcube/index.jsp and
[40]http://earthcube.ning.com/for further information on this
activity. Paleontological ADBC proposals should indicate their
relevance to Earth Cube goals.
Collaboration with federally held collections is encouraged, but
digitization of federally held and owned collections cannot be
supported with NSF funds. However, specimens owned by federal
institutions may be pertinent for a research theme and in those cases
integration of the existing data from all specimens should be
considered. The federal agencies are developing guidelines for
federally owned collections through the Interagency Working Group on
Scientific Collections and, where partnerships are formed with Federal
collections, coordination with the federal collections' data should be
consistent with the standards and policies being developed by the
Interagency Working Group. The proposal should articulate a plan to
accomplish this integration.
Research on the collections themselves or on the research theme itself
is not supported under this solicitation, but is supported in related
programs such as Dimensions of Biodiversity, etc. Also supplements for
research activities are not supported under this program.
Digitization of existing biological collections/specimens that are
vouchered, curated and owned by U.S. institutions is supported. To
clarify the meaning of what specimens are supported through this
program: existing specimens are defined under this program as
specimens which have been prepared, curated, placed into organized
storage units and under the ownership of the institution in which they
reside. Backlogs of specimens in boxes, jars, buckets, or like
containers following collection but pre-curation activities are not
included. Nor are collections which are not actually owned by the
institution seeking funds for digitizing. Ownership is generally
determined by or located through information associated with labels,
accession numbers, catalogues or other identifying items that indicate
the specimen has been incorporated into the institution's property.
For information about ownership of specimens collected through NSF
research activities, see the GPG under the category of Tangible
Property. It should be noted here that federal collections are being
asked to account for specimens under their ownership through
activities of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the
Interagency Working Group on Scientific Collections, and in situations
where the institution finds specimens actually owned by federal
agencies or other institutions, tagging those specimens and providing
the information about them back to the agency or institution which
owns the specimens is encouraged. If institutions housing these
collections decide to digitize these specimens, funds external of NSF
funds should be utilized for the activity.
Biomedical/medical collections are not supported. International
Institutions' collections are not eligible for direct digitization
funding but their value to certain research themes is recognized and
partnerships for integration of data are encouraged. This solicitation
does not support new collecting efforts, nor does it support
collections that are not yet curated. Improvements to research
collections, individual institution projects or small collaborative
projects which are protecting specimens and providing information
online about these specimens are supported under the Collections in
Support of Biological Research (CSBR) program in the Division of
Biological Infrastructure.
This solicitation focuses on proposals for Thematic Collections
Networks (TCN) and proposals for Partners to Existing Networks (PEN)
to link with existing TCNs, outlined below. Improvements to individual
collections are supported through CSBR.
Proposals for Thematic Collections Networks (TCNs):
Thematic Collections Network (TCN) proposals will be submissions for
two-to-four year awards to digitize existing specimens based on a
particular research theme. This research theme may be a grand
challenge for biodiversity, a part of a grand challenge, or another
important research theme requiring information from existing
collections. Specimens to be digitized should be of critical
importance to the research theme and the criteria for the specimen
assessment should be indicated in the proposal. The collaborating
institutions will conduct the actual digitization of the specimens
(including imaging and mobilization of the data). The length of award
and size of award will depend upon the number and size of the
collections to be digitized. This solicitation encourages projects of
various sizes and duration, although the expectation is that all
projects will be collaborative efforts among several institutions.
Integration across different types of collections is expected for
broad research themes, and proposals should include a description of
the metadata to be used to integrate these disparate collections.
Integration of disparate collections is needed to provide research
support to increasingly collaborative research projects and projects
which approach this problem using new methods are encouraged. TCNs
will share infrastructure among the collections involved in the
project, identify deliverable goals (one of which should be how the
data will add significantly to future research within the overall
theme of the project) and metrics for assessment, identify specific
needs for community support, and reach out to other collections for
inclusion in the digitization effort. TCNs may request a maximum
duration of 4 years; the budget should support the scope of work
proposed.
Recipients will perform fundamental collections digitization but will
also be engaged by collaboration with the National Resource for
Digitization of Biological Collections: Integrated Digitized
Biocollections at the University of Florida ([41]iDigBio) in training
activities and the development of appropriate technology and standards
to produce an interoperable network. Priorities are given to proposals
that approach the digitization problem in innovative ways, through
integration of collections, application of techniques that are
innovative, cost effective, and drive down the financial and personnel
costs of digitization of specimens and/or speed up the process of
digitization.
TCNs will partner with iDigBio, participate in iDigBio activities and
conform to the standards and practices set through the coordinating
groups of iDigBio. Outreach activities should also be coordinated with
iDigBio. All data from the TCNs will be made available through iDigBio
in a timely manner and projects will report to iDigBio on a regular
cycle. TCNs will be required to participate in the development and/or
adoption of strategies, standards, and interoperability infrastructure
in cooperation with iDigBio and the advisory bodies of the overall
national program. TCNs will be required to interact with iDigBio to
promote a community of collections, not only through integration of
collections data but also through social networking tools,
coordination workshops, or synthesis meetings held by iDigBio when
appropriate.
Proposals for Partners to Existing Networks (PENs):
Proposals to partner with and further the efforts of ongoing
NSF-funded TCNs are encouraged. The new partners must increase the
number of specimens digitized in the ongoing project and fill gaps not
addressed by the specimens in the existing TCN. The existing TCNs are
working to integrate data via the National Resource for Digitization
of Biological Collections: Integrated Digitized Biocollections at the
University of Florida (iDigBio). A list of those projects is available
through [42]iDigBio.
Collections seeking to digitize and integrate their data into the
activities of existing TCNs may submit proposals. Any TCN which is
either in progress on its NSF award or which has established itself as
a sustainable entity (i.e. part of professional society activities,
part of regional collaborations at the universities, or supported by
funding other than NSF) is eligible for including new partners. It is
expected that PEN proposals will work with the TCN to develop a budget
that is compatible with these collaborative projects. PEN awards will
be for 1 to 3 years with a maximum request of $175,000, which would
include a maximum of $150,000 for the PEN award plus up to an
additional $25,000 as a subaward to the TCN for new costs to the
existing network. PEN awards will adhere to the standards and
processes established by the existing network. The PEN proposals
should adequately indicate how the partner collection will add
information to the ongoing project, fill in gaps in digitized data and
increase value to the efforts for the research theme. The broader
impacts should be specific for the PEN institution, but also indicate
how these impacts enhance the TCN. These projects should contain most
of the elements of other proposals, but the data management plan
required (by the GPG) and project management plan must be developed
through consultation with the existing network with an indiciation of
how the PEN will contribute to project and data management of its own
collection. To indicate that the PEN will appropriately integrate with
the existing TCN, a form for commitment (found under Supplemental
Documents, below) from the existing network should be uploaded in the
Supplemental Documents section. It is expected that PEN proposals will
utilize some of the infrastructure of the existing network, thus
providing an efficient means to further the impact of the existing
network. Priority will be given to proposals that improve efficiency
of the digitization process. The length of a PEN proposal should be
adequate to describe the activity and the integration into the
existing network; a full 15 pages may not be necessary for these types
of proposals.
General Items
For both TCN and PEN proposals, priority will be given to innovative
projects that 1) fill gaps in the effort to provide online access to
specimen data for existing biological and paleobiological collections,
2) integrate with other ongoing digitization activities and 3)
increase the efficiency and lower the cost of digitization.
Both TCN and PEN proposals should include:
* a detailed management plan for accomplishing the project,
* training plan for participants and students,
* priorities for tasks,
* task analysis,
* a plan for sustaining the data and for TCN proposals, a plan for
sustaining the network beyond the life of the award, and
* plans for interacting and integrating with iDigBio.
While many of these networks will be collaborative proposals, some may
be from single institutions partnering with smaller collections to
integrate those collections into the national resource. In all
proposals, a gap analysis should be included to indicate how the
proposed digitization of data contributes to increasing the
accessibility of data on existing biological and paleobiological
collections and the importance of this data for the research theme.
The ADBC program recognizes the growing workforce needs for collection
digitization and associated outreach activities. Proposals should
include education and outreach components for training the next
generation of collection-based researchers and educators, to be
coordinated with [43]iDigBio.
III. AWARD INFORMATION
Anticipated Type of Award: Standard Grant or Continuing Grant
Estimated Number of Awards: 4 to 12
Anticipated Funding Amount: approximately $10,000,000 total amount
available across all awards in this program for FY2014, pending
availability of funds.
IV. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION
Organization Limit:
Proposals may only be submitted by the following:
* Universities and Colleges - Universities and two- and four-year
colleges (including community colleges) accredited in, and having
a campus located in, the US acting on behalf of their faculty
members. Such organizations also are referred to as academic
institutions.
* Non-profit, non-academic organizations: Independent museums,
observatories, research labs, professional societies and similar
organizations in the U.S. associated with educational or research
activities.
* State and Local Governments: State educational offices or
organizations and local school districts.
PI Limit:
None Specified
Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization: 1
Only one Thematic Collections Networks (TCN) proposal may be
submitted by any one organization as the lead organization.
Organizations may be involved in more than one collaborative effort
as a non-lead proposal.
Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or Co-PI: 1
An individual may appear as PI or co-PI on no more than one ADBC
proposal submitted to any annual ADBC competition.
Additional Eligibility Info:
It is expected that TCN projects will be collaborative efforts
among several institutions. Please refer to Chapter II.D.4 of the
Grant Proposal Guide for guidance about the submission of
collaborative proposals.
Federally-owned collections are excluded from this solicitation.
Partnerships with federal agencies are encouraged.
Eligibility criteria also apply to all subawards, i.e.,
organizations ineligible to submit to this program may not receive
subawards.
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:
[44]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
[45]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:
([46]http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgo
vguide). 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 [47]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.4 of the Grant Proposal
Guide provides additional information on collaborative proposals.
Important Proposal Preparation Information: FastLane will check for
required sections of the full proposal, in accordance with Grant
Proposal Guide (GPG) instructions described in Chapter II.C.2. The GPG
requires submission of: Project Summary; Project Description;
References Cited; Biographical Sketch(es); Budget; Budget
Justification; Current and Pending Support; Facilities, Equipment &
Other Resources; Data Management Plan; and Postdoctoral Mentoring
Plan, if applicable. If a required section is missing, FastLane will
not accept the proposal.
Please note that the proposal preparation instructions provided in
this program solicitation may deviate from the GPG instructions. If
the solicitation instructions do not require a GPG-required section to
be included in the proposal, insert text or upload a document in that
section of the proposal that states, "Not Applicable for this Program
Solicitation." Doing so will enable FastLane to accept your proposal.
The following instructions supplement those found in the GPG and NSF
Grants.gov Application Guide.
Required Information for proposals:
Titles of Proposals: Titles of proposals should begin with
"Digitization TCN:" or "Digitization PEN:" followed by the substantive
title.
Project Summary: Note that proposals must include an overview
statement of the project and address separately both of the merit
review criteria approved by the National Science Board: what is the
intellectual merit of the proposed activity and what are the broader
impacts of the proposed activity.
Proposals that do not include the overview, intellectual merit and
broader impacts sections in the project summary will not be accepted.
Project Description: In addition to the points noted in the program
description above, the project description must also address the
following:
* How the project will integrate newly digitized collections data
with established standards and existing databases and the
information gaps filled by the proposed project.
* Plan for assessment and evaluation and for the TCN proposals a
plan to sustain the network in the future, if it is warranted.
* Detailed project management plan, including plans for integration
with iDigBio.
* How training is integrated into the project.
* Plan to track use of the data produced by the project and
integration of the project into the national resource.
* Results from Prior NSF Support. If any PI or co-PI on the project
has received NSF funding in the past five years, information on
prior award(s) is required. Each PI and co-PI who has received
more than one prior award (excluding amendments) must report on
the award most closely related to the proposal. The information
required is described in the GPG. Reviewers will be asked to
comment on the quality of the prior work described in this section
of the proposal. Please note that the proposal may devote up to
five pages to describe the results, within the maximum 15 pages of
Project Description. Results may be summarized in fewer than five
pages, which would leave the balance of the 15 pages for the
Project Description.
Proposal Budget: Budgets for TCN proposals should reflect the scope of
work proposed and should not exceed four years in duration. Budgets
for PEN proposals may be up to $175,000 and may be from 1 to 3 years
in duration. The budget justification for both TCN and PEN proposals
should include an estimate of the cost per specimen for digitization.
PEN proposals must include in their budget the costs of travel to PI
meetings of the existing network and travel to iDigBio ONCE during the
first year of the project.
Special Information and Supplementary Documentation: Only the
supplemental documents listed below are allowed for this solicitation.
* List of Participants. List each participating institution, and
each participant (faculty level or equivalent), by full name, and
indicate his or her institutional and departmental affiliation.
Names should be grouped by institution, and listed alphabetically
within each group.
* Postdoc Mentoring Plan. Each project that requests funding to
support postdoctoral researchers must include, as a supplementary
document, a description of the mentoring activities that will be
provided for such individuals. This plan should indicate training
activities for both informatics and collections issues. The
mentoring plan must not exceed one page and only one plan may be
submitted for collaborative projects and all postdocs must be
covered by this single one-page document. Different institutions
on the same project may not submit different mentoring plans.
* Data Management Plan. A separate data management plan (DMP)
limited to two pages is required for all proposals submitted to
NSF. The DMP should include specific details of data standards,
accessibility, electronic dissemination, and sustainability. For
guidance, see [48]http://www.nsf.gov/bio/pubs/BIODMP061511.pdf. In
addition to the basic BIO requirements for a DMP, ADBC proposals
should provide a clear statement of how the project will manage
data, software tools and other digital resources that result from
the activities supported by the NSF award. The potential for
re-use and adoption of these resources as sustainable
cyberinfrastructure to other digitization projects, resource
providers, and communities of use should also be addressed. The
DMP should address long-term archiving, intellectual property
rights and means of dissemination. A strategy should be outlined
that will support sustainable engagement of cyberinfrastructure
resources for data storage, maintenance, and access. Proposals
should also include plans and contingencies for adoption of
standards, best practices, interoperability and needed
infrastructure. The plan should clearly detail integration of
these activities with the national resource (iDigBio).
* Integrated summary budget (for collaborative proposals only):
Organize a summary budget by the tasks to be accomplished under
all collaborative proposals and the total amount devoted to each
task (including all subawards). Cost per specimen for the
digitization should be included.
* Form for commitment letter for PEN proposals ONLY, signed by the
TCN lead PI.
To: ADBC Program Director
By signing below, as principal investigator of an ongoing
digitization project, I acknowledge the appropriateness of the
collections to be digitized as indicated in the proposal, entitled
"PEN: Digitization:____________________" with
"_______________________" as the Principal Investigator to become
part of the ongoing digitization project entitled "TCN:
Digitization: ____________________________". The appropriate
resources and activities will be made available to this new partner
in the network and the budget items in the proposal have been
reviewed for fit with the ongoing project.
Signed: _______________________
Print Name:________________________
Date: _________________________
Institution:___________________________
Single Copy Documents:
Integrated Conflicts of Interests List for Applicants: Provide a
list, in a single alphabetized table or spreadsheet of the full
names and institutional affiliations of all people with conflicts
of interest for the PI, any senior personnel, and any named
personnel whose salary is requested in the project budget. The
table should specify the nature of the conflict including: (1) PhD
thesis advisors or advisees; (2) collaborator or co-authors,
including postdocs, for the past 48 months; and (3) any other
individuals or institutions with which the PI or Co-PIs have
financial ties.
For example: a table with the name of the conflict and the
institution where that person works, the name(s) of the person(s)
on the proposal who has the conflict, and the nature of the
conflict (i.e. major advisor, collaborator, grant support). The
table should be alphabetized by the name of the conflicts, not by
the names of the personnel on the proposal.
B. Budgetary Information
Cost Sharing: Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is
prohibited
Other Budgetary Limitations:
Partners to Existing Networks (PEN) proposals may request up to
$175,000 for a maximum of 3 years.
C. Due Dates
* Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. proposer's local time):
October 18, 2013
Third Friday in October, Annually Thereafter
Third Friday in October
D. FastLane/Grants.gov Requirements
* For Proposals Submitted Via FastLane:
Detailed technical instructions regarding the technical aspects of
preparation and submission via FastLane are available at:
[49]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
[50]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.
Submission of Electronically Signed Cover Sheets. The Authorized
Organizational Representative (AOR) must electronically sign the
proposal Cover Sheet to submit the required proposal
certifications (see Chapter II, Section C of the Grant Proposal
Guide for a listing of the certifications). The AOR must provide
the required electronic certifications within five working days
following the electronic submission of the proposal. Further
instructions regarding this process are available on the FastLane
Website at: [51]https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/fastlane.jsp.
* 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: [52]http://www07.grants.gov/applicants/app_help_reso.jsp.
In addition, the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide provides
additional technical guidance regarding 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:
[53]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.
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
[54]Exhibit III-1.
A comprehensive description of the Foundation's merit review process
is available on the NSF website at:
[55]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 [56]Empowering
the Nation Through Discovery and Innovation: NSF Strategic Plan for
Fiscal Years (FY) 2011-2016. These strategies are integrated in the
program planning and implementation process, of which proposal review
is one part. NSF's mission is particularly well-implemented through
the integration of research and education and broadening participation
in NSF programs, projects, and activities.
One of the core strategies in support of NSF's mission is to foster
integration of research and education through the programs, projects
and activities it supports at academic and research institutions.
These institutions provide abundant opportunities where individuals
may concurrently assume responsibilities as researchers, educators,
and students, and where all can engage in joint efforts that infuse
education with the excitement of discovery and enrich research through
the variety of learning perspectives.
Another core strategy in support of NSF's mission is broadening
opportunities and expanding participation of groups, institutions, and
geographic regions that are underrepresented in STEM disciplines,
which is essential to the health and vitality of science and
engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems
it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and
supports.
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.
([57]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 [58]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
For TCN proposals the following items will be important, as well as
the items in the project description:
* data sustainability and sustainability plans for the network
itself
* efficiency of digitization
* integration of pertinent collections
* lack of overlap with other efforts
* importance of the collections to be digitized to the research
theme
* integration of the project with the national resource (iDigBio)
For PEN proposals the following criteria will be important:
* integration and enhancement of all parts of the existing network
by this project
* importance of the data for filling a gap in the existing network
* data sustainability
* efficiency of digitization
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 formulate a recommendation to either
support or decline each proposal. 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 is striving to be able to tell applicants
whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding
within six months. The time interval begins on the deadline or target
date, or receipt date, whichever is later. The interval ends when the
Division Director accepts the Program Officer's recommendation.
A summary rating and accompanying narrative will be completed and
submitted by each reviewer. In all cases, reviews are treated as
confidential documents. Verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the
names of the reviewers, 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.
In all cases, 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 and 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.
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 letter, 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 letter; (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 letter. 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
[59]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 [60]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
[61]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
[62]http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag.
The TCN awards may be collaborative projects, and in those cases the
annual reports should be an integrated report from all partners which
is submitted by the lead in the TCN and each collaborator should
submit a report indicating what their individual contribution has been
to the network, attaching a pdf of the lead integrated report. In
addition, all TCN reports should include statements from iDigBio
indicating that the data are now a part of the national resource and
adding such information about the utilization of the data and
conformity to the standards for integration of the data. During the
first year of the award, TCNs will report to iDigBio at months 4 and 8
in order to initiate proper integration of data. PENs will join
existing networks and report to iDigBio through the existing network
reports; however, PENs will need to submit separate annual reports to
NSF. These reports should include a statement indicating how the PEN
has enhanced the existing TCN for intellectual merit, broader impacts
and digitization activities.
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:
* Anne M. Maglia, telephone: (703) 292-8470, email:
[63]biodigit@nsf.gov
* H. Richard Lane, telephone: 703-292-4730, email:
[64]biodigit@nsf.gov
* Judith E. Skog, telephone: (703) 292-7909, email:
[65]biodigit@nsf.gov
* Yusheng (Christopher) Liu, telephone: (703) 292-8551, email:
[66]yliu@nsf.gov
* David P. Mindell, telephone: (703) 292-5113, email:
[67]dmindell@nsf.gov
For questions related to the use of FastLane, contact:
* FastLane Help Desk, telephone: 1-800-673-6188; e-mail:
[68]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:
[69]support@grants.gov.
Contacting the program may be most efficient through e-mail to the
working group at [70]BIODigit@nsf.gov
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, "My NSF" 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 [71]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. "My NSF" also is available on
NSF's website at [72]http://www.nsf.gov/mynsf/.
Grants.gov provides an additional electronic capability to search for
Federal government-wide grant opportunities. NSF funding opportunities
may be accessed via this new mechanism. Further information on
Grants.gov may be obtained at [73]http://www.grants.gov.
Related Programs:
Related programs are the Collections in Support of Biological
Research and Advances in Biological Informatics, Dimensions of
Biodiversity, Systematic Biology Program, and Sedimentary Geology
and Paleobiology Program.
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 [74]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: [75]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, [76]NSF-50, "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and
Associated Records," 69 Federal Register 26410 (May 12, 2004), and
[77]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
[78]Policies and Important Links
|
[79]Privacy | [80]FOIA | [81]Help | [82]Contact NSF | [83]Contact Web
Master | [84]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
[85]Text Only
[x.gif]
References
1. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13569/nsf13569.htm#toc
2. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf13001
3. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf13001
4. http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2011/meritreviewcriteria.pdf
5. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf13001/gpg_sigchanges.jsp
6. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf13001/aag_sigchanges.jsp
7. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf13001/gpg_index.jsp
8. mailto:biodigit@nsf.gov
9. mailto:biodigit@nsf.gov
10. mailto:biodigit@nsf.gov
11. mailto:yliu@nsf.gov
12. mailto:dmindell@nsf.gov
13. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg
14. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide
15. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13569/nsf13569.htm#summary
16. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13569/nsf13569.htm#pgm_intr_txt
17. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13569/nsf13569.htm#pgm_desc_txt
18. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13569/nsf13569.htm#awd_info
19. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13569/nsf13569.htm#elig
20. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13569/nsf13569.htm#prep
21. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13569/nsf13569.htm#prep
22. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13569/nsf13569.htm#budg_cst_shr_txt
23. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13569/nsf13569.htm#dates
24. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13569/nsf13569.htm#fastlane
25. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13569/nsf13569.htm#review
26. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13569/nsf13569.htm#reviewcrit
27. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13569/nsf13569.htm#reviewprot
28. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13569/nsf13569.htm#awardadmin
29. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13569/nsf13569.htm#awardnotify
30. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13569/nsf13569.htm#grantcond
31. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13569/nsf13569.htm#reportreq
32. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13569/nsf13569.htm#cont
33. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13569/nsf13569.htm#othpgm
34. http://nscalliance.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads
/2009/11/iwgsc-report.pdf
35. http://www.nsf.gov/bio/pubs/reports/prelim_findings_sc_2008.pdf
36. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2009/nsf09044/nsf09044.pdf
37. http://digbiocol.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/niba_brochure.pdf
38. http://www.aibs.org/public-policy/biocollections.html
39. http://www.nsf.gov/geo/earthcube/index.jsp
40. http://earthcube.ning.com/
41. https://www.idigbio.org/content/nsf-adbc-program-information
42. https://www.idigbio.org/
43. https://www.idigbio.org/content/nsf-adbc-program-information
44. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpg
45. mailto:nsfpubs@nsf.gov
46. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide
47. mailto:nsfpubs@nsf.gov
48. http://www.nsf.gov/bio/pubs/BIODMP061511.pdf
49. https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/a1/newstan.htm
50. mailto:fastlane@nsf.gov
51. https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/fastlane.jsp
52. http://www07.grants.gov/applicants/app_help_reso.jsp
53. mailto:support@grants.gov
54. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf13001/gpg_3ex1.pdf
55. http://nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/
56. http://www.nsf.gov/news/strategicplan/nsfstrategicplan_2011_2016.pdf
57. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf13001/gpg_2.jsp#IIC2di
58. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf13001/gpg_2.jsp#IIC2di
59. http://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/award_conditions.jsp?org=NSF
60. mailto:nsfpubs@nsf.gov
61. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag
62. http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=aag
63. mailto:biodigit@nsf.gov
64. mailto:biodigit@nsf.gov
65. mailto:biodigit@nsf.gov
66. mailto:yliu@nsf.gov
67. mailto:dmindell@nsf.gov
68. mailto:fastlane@nsf.gov
69. mailto:support@grants.gov
70. mailto:BIODigit@nsf.gov
71. http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/outreach.jsp
72. http://www.nsf.gov/mynsf/
73. http://www.grants.gov/
74. http://www.nsf.gov/
75. mailto:nsfpubs@nsf.gov
76. http://www.nsf.gov/policies/
SOR_PA_NSF-50_Principal_Investigator_Proposal_File.pdf
77. http://www.nsf.gov/policies/
SOR_PA_NSF-51_Reviewer_Proposal_File.pdf
78. http://www.nsf.gov/policies
79. http://www.nsf.gov/policies/privacy.jsp
80. http://www.nsf.gov/policies/foia.jsp
81. http://www.nsf.gov/help/
82. http://www.nsf.gov/help/contact.jsp
83. mailto:webmaster@nsf.gov
84. http://www.nsf.gov/help/sitemap.jsp
85. http://transcoder.usablenet.com/tt/referrer