News and Media
Re-posted from the National Science Foundation
October 31, 2016
Four New Members to join the National Science Board
October 31, 2016
The White House announced that President Barack Obama intends to appoint W. Kent Fuchs, Victor R. McCrary, Emilio F. Moran, and Julia M. Phillips to the National Science Board (NSB, Board).
“I am thrilled to welcome this diverse and accomplished group of individuals to the Board,” said Maria Zuber, NSB chair. “The breadth and variety of knowledge and expertise in this class is more than we could have asked for. I am confident that their collective expertise across the natural and social sciences, and their management experiences, will allow us to accomplish many great things.”
“I’m excited about the ideas and fresh perspective our new Board members will bring as we continue to push the frontiers of science and innovation,” said France Córdova, director of the National Science Foundation (NSF).
W. Kent Fuchs is President of the University of Florida. Previously, Dr. Fuchs was provost at Cornell University, where he led the creation of a new technology campus in New York City. He also served as Cornell’s Joseph Silbert Dean of Engineering. Dr. Fuchs is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and the Association for Computing Machinery. He has received numerous awards for teaching and research.
Victor R. McCrary is Vice President for Research and Economic Development at Morgan State University. Dr. McCrary was the Business Area Executive for Science & Technology at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, where he managed technology investment strategies for over $60 million for internal research and development (IRAD) projects targeted to the areas of national defense and national security. Dr. McCrary was also a division chief at the National Institute of Standards and Technology where he received the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Gold Medal for facilitating and developing the first global industry standard for e-books. He has published over 60 articles and is a Fellow of the American Chemical Society.
Emilio F. Moran is the John A. Hannah Distinguished Professor at the Center for Global Change and Earth Observations at Michigan State University. He is also a Research Professor at the University of Maryland’s Population Research Center. He brings experience as a NSF grantee in cultural anthropology, geography, ecosystem science, and other disciplines. He provides an important interface with the physical and biological sciences through his research on human interactions with the environment under conditions of change. Dr. Moran has published over 200 articles, 11 books and 15 edited volumes. He was elected to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences in 2010.
Julia M. Phillips is Director Emeritus at Sandia National Laboratories. As Vice President and Chief Technology Officer, she managed the Laboratory’s $160 million Laboratory Directed Research and Development Program. She was also responsible for research strategy development, implementation, and intellectual property protection and deployment. Dr. Phillips came to Sandia in 1995 after spending 14 years as technical staff and a manager at AT&T Bell Laboratories. She is a member of the National Academy of Engineering and a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
The White House also reappointed Arthur Bienenstock, W. Carl Lineberger, and Anneila Sargent to each serve a second six-year term. Dr. Bienenstock, Professor Emeritus of Photon Science at Stanford University, has led the Board’s initiatives on reducing administrative burdens on federally funded researchers. Dr. Lineberger, E. U. Condon Distinguished Professor of Chemistry at the University of Colorado, and Dr. Sargent, Ira S. Bowen Professor of Astronomy at the California Institute of Technology, have both played key roles in NSB’s oversight and guidance of major NSF facilities and programs.
The NSB began accepting nominations for the Board last fall and made recommendations to President Obama for his consideration. Every two years, eight members rotate off the Board and a new class is appointed. Board membership will be complete when one more new member is appointed to the class of 2022.
About the National Science Board
Jointly, the 25-member Board and the Director (an ex-officio member) pursue the goals and function of the Foundation. NSB establishes NSF policies within the framework of applicable national policies set forth by the President and Congress. NSB identifies issues critical to NSF’s future, approves the agency’s strategic budget directions and the annual budget submission to the Office of Management and Budget, and new major programs and awards. The Board also provides the President and Congress with a biennial report on U.S. progress in science and technology, providing comparisons to other nations in the areas of research and development, STEM education, and workforce training.
The President appoints Board members, selected for their eminence in research, education, or public service, and records of distinguished service, and who represent a variety of science and engineering disciplines and geographic areas. Board members serve six-year terms and the President may reappoint members for a second term.
Brandon Powell, National Science Board, (703) 292-2769, email@example.com
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent federal agency that supports fundamental research and education across all fields of science and engineering. In fiscal year (FY) 2016, its budget is $7.5 billion. NSF funds reach all 50 states through grants to nearly 2,000 colleges, universities and other institutions. Each year, NSF receives more than 48,000 competitive proposals for funding and makes about 12,000 new funding awards. NSF also awards about $626 million in professional and service contracts yearly.
Re-posted from the American Institute of Physics
At a House Science Committee hearing held last week, members expressed bipartisan support for the goal of reducing regulatory burdens experienced by federally funded university researchers. They asked witnesses to explain how actions such as the creation of a new Research Policy Board could help achieve that goal.
On Sept. 29, the Research and Technology Subcommittee of the House Science Committee held a hearing to discuss recommendations made in recent studies on ways to streamline federal research regulations while ensuring adequate oversight of taxpayer funds. In particular, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine issued a report on the subject in June, and the Government Accountability Office followed suit by releasing a report with a similar focus in July. Both studies were requested by Congress.
The National Academies study is sweeping in scope, proposing a revamped overarching regulatory framework as well providing numerous specific recommendations (see FYI #80). The GAO study is much narrower in scope, focusing on assessing progress the Office of Management and Budget and federal agencies have made to date in streamlining administrative requirements for university research grants. The GAO study concludes that although OMB and research agencies have made progress in areas such as standardizing requirements across agencies and making greater use of preliminary proposals, further streamlining opportunities remain.
The heads of the two studies—University of Texas at Austin President Emeritus Larry Faulkner and GAO’s Director of Natural Resources and Environment John Neumann, respectively—testified at the hearing. The committee also heard from Jim Luther, Associate Vice President for Finance and Compliance at Duke University, and Ángel Cabrera, president of George Mason University.
The last time the House Science Committee publicly examined research regulations was at a June 2014 hearing held shortly after the National Science Board issued a report on reducing the administrative workload of federally funded researchers.
Bipartisan agreement on need to reduce research regulations
“How can we cut the red tape to optimize our nation’s investment in scientific research?” asked Subcommittee Chairwoman Barbara Comstock (R-VA) at the outset of the hearing, citing surveys showing that researchers spend on average 42 percent of their time on administrative duties as evidence of excessive regulatory burdens.
Full committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) likewise framed the issue in terms of cutting red tape, although he went a step further by implying that burdensome research regulations are part of a broader pattern of regulatory overreach by the current administration. Smith went on to express his support for “common sense”reforms, such as implementing a standardized format for providing biographical information and reporting research progress across federal agencies.
Subcommittee Ranking Member Daniel Lipinski (D-IL) also referenced the 42 percent time-use figure, stating that although the number has been “challenged,”there is nevertheless consensus that current regulations are taking up too much of researchers’ time:
I think we all agree with the basic premise of this hearing and all of the related reports – too much valuable time of our researchers is wasted on excessive compliance with excessive regulations.
The oft-cited 42 percent figure comes from two surveys conducted by the Federal Demonstration Partnership (FDP), an association of federal agencies and academic research institutions focused on identifying ways to streamline research regulations. Some have noted that this number perhaps overstates the amount of time that researchers spend on administrative tasks because of the way the surveys define what constitutes “active research.” (Details on both surveys are available in FDP’s report summarizing the 2012 survey.)
Results of the two Federal Demonstration Partnership surveys of faculty workload. Both studies found that the researchers surveyed spent approximately 42 percent of their time on “administrative” tasks.
University witnesses support creation of a Research Policy Board
Both Comstock and Lipinski used their opening statements to highlight bipartisan bills they have introduced that would create new organizational structures for reviewing research regulations and soliciting stakeholder input.
Comstock’s “Research and Development Efficiency Act,” which the House passed in May 2015, would create an interagency working group charged with assessing research regulations and recommending reforms on an ongoing basis. Lipinski’s “University Regulation Streamlining and Harmonization Act,” introduced in June, would create a public-private Research Policy Board (RPB) that would serve as an advisory committee to the Office of Management and Budget on all matters relating to research regulation.
Lipinski referred to the RPB provision as the most important part of his bill. Notably, the National Academies report recommended that Congress create such an organization, although the structure of the board created by Lipinski’s bill differs from that proposed in the report.
Cabrera spoke favorably of both bills in his written testimony:
Your bills will allow for broader discussion of that monster that lurks behind every rule–the law of unintended consequences. By providing a pause button, or the ability to raise a Red Flag, a means for redress, and revisiting existing rules, you have done a tremendous service to the research enterprise and the nation’s future innovation.
Faulkner and Luther took a step further, specifically advocating in favor of establishing a RPB throughout their testimony. Luther referred to the RPB as the “enabler for everything else,” asserting that existing coordination bodies such as the FDP and the Research Business Models interagency working group are inadequate. Furthermore, Luther stated that productive interactions between university stakeholders and those developing the regulations have “historically been heavily dependent on relationships with individual agency employees.”
As an example of an area that would benefit greatly from the existence of a RPB, Luther cited the implementation of the 2013 White House Office of Science and Technology Policy directive on increasing public access to federally funded research. “I think the rollout of that is going to be ripe for something like a Research Policy Board,” he said.
Faulkner argued that there is a desperate need for additional stakeholder coordination and that this need will only increase as science advances and inevitably raises new issues requiring new regulations. He also stressed that having the RPB serve as a forum for anticipating and discussing issues before they reach the regulatory implementation stage is “the key to maintaining a sane and functional overall regulatory burden.”
Asked whether the National Academies study committee was concerned the RPB could become “just another layer of bureaucracy,” Faulkner replied that the board is envisioned solely as a coordination body and a forum for discussing emerging issues, and thus would not add a layer of approval to the existing process.
Faulkner: Research institutions ‘battleground’ for agency-inspector general disputes
Another topic of discussion was the relationship between agencies and their Inspectors General (IGs). The National Academies report includes a number of recommendations on ways to improve the relationship between agencies, their IGs, and research institutions.
Falkner noted that the legislation which created agency IGs instructs them to “promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness” as well as “prevent and detect waste, fraud, and abuse.” Falkner suggested that the IGs for federal research agencies have placed too much emphasis on the latter mission given that most research institutions are already audited annually and that “the history of inspector general engagement with the research enterprise is not one that has yielded large trophies in terms of recovered funds.”
He also argued that research institutions have suffered as a result of disagreements between agencies and their IGs with respect to interpretation of certain grant management policies: “The dispute[s], which [are] essentially between two federal actors, will get fought out on a battleground in an institution that then has to spend large amounts of money to go through the process of the audit that’s being used to fight the battle.” The National Academies study panel recommends that Congress require agency IGs to resolve disagreements over interpretation of agency policies prior to formally auditing research institutions.
One example of such a dispute, alluded to by Lipinski at the hearing, is that the National Science Foundation’s IG has repeatedly questioned certain senior salary expenses charged to grants. The IG has argued that the charges in question violated a NSF policy that limits the amount of salary compensation certain personnel can charge to grants to two months. NSF has disagreed with the IG’s interpretation and has not required the institutions in question to repay the funds. NSF’s responses to individual IG audits are posted here.
The IGs for both NSF and the National Institutes of Health issued a response to the National Academies report recommendations pertaining to agency IGs. In it, they defend the practice of having agency-IG disagreements play out over multiple audits:
Continuing to report the same finding in multiple audits keeps agency stakeholders, such as agency management, Congress, and members of the affected recipient community, constantly apprised of the differences of opinion between OIGs and agencies, and, appropriately, provides an opportunity for non-agency stakeholders to offer their input on agency policies and priorities.
About the author
Reposted from Boise State Office of Sponsored Programs
We are pleased to announce the release of a new funding opportunity through CTR-IN. Our recent data shows that this has been, and will continue to be, an important program for building success in clinical and translational research across our network. Previous CTR-IN funded investigators have obtained over $6 million in extramural grant funding from a variety of federal and non-federal sources (NIH, FDA, Foundations, etc.).
The new funding opportunity for Health Disparities Pilot Grants can be found here: http://ctrin.unlv.edu/?page_id=4640
As with our most recent pilot grant opportunities, the first step will be for your Vice President for Research, via your office of sponsored programs, to nominate up to four investigators to apply for these pilot awards. The process for selecting nominees is determined by each institution, but several institutions have approached this in a manner similar to other Limited Competition funding opportunities. You should anticipate further instructions on this process from your office of sponsored programs or other CTR-IN representatives on your campus. The final nominations will be submitted to CTR-IN by your designated institutional representative.
We thank you for your continued support of CTR-IN.
For all of those who intend on applying please notify Pre-Award no later than the close of business Friday, November 4th. firstname.lastname@example.org
It is a longstanding NIH policy that a principal investigator (PI) needs to seek prior approval from NIH before submitting a grant application with direct costs of $500,000 or more for a single budget year. You now have the option to electronically submit these prior approval requests through eRA Commons. As per current practice, the PI will first reach out via email or phone to the Program Official (PO) at the Institute/Center (IC) to discuss the request. From there, the PO can then choose to invite the PI to initiate the prior approval request through eRA Commons. Read more about how this works in the October 2016 eRA Items of Interest, and stay tuned for two tutorial videos on this process, coming soon.
Re-Posted from National Institutes of Health Office of Extramural Research, October 31st, 2016
Re-posted from: NIH Office of Extramural Research Extramural Nexus Posted on October 28, 2016 by Mike Lauer
by Mike Lauer
When applicants receive their summary statement resulting from the review of an application that was assigned a score outside of the ICs funding range, there are important decisions to be made that, ideally, should based upon evidence. What is the likelihood that an application like this one will be funded? If I resubmit the application, what changes might improve the chances for a successful resubmission?
Recall that in 2014, NIH relaxed its resubmission policy (OD-14-074) to allow applicants to submit a new (A0) application following an unsuccessful resubmission application. Also, we recently posted a piece showing that review outcomes for new applications submitted following an unsuccessful resubmission had about the same funding success as other new applications. But some applicants may wonder, what is the funding success for a resubmission application?
The data show higher success rates for applications coming in as a resubmission, but we know there may be other factors that influence whether researchers decide to resubmit an application. To that end we’re launching a survey to understand patterns of resubmission for new investigators. (If you receive an invitation, we hope you will respond and share your input with us!) In addition, today we want to provide all Open Mike readers with information about what to consider if your initial grant application to NIH is not funded.
First and foremost, we strongly encourage applicants to make an appointment for a consultation with the assigned program officer (PO). Program officers have a wealth of experience that can inform the next steps for the research proposed in the application. Program officers may be aware of other factors that can offer advantages, like new funding opportunities well suited to the science in the application. The contact information for the PO is at the top of the face page of the summary statement. Most POs prefer that to be contacted them by email to schedule a time for a phone call, giving him/her time to review the summary statement.
In the meantime, you can find a great deal of self-help information about the funding priorities of the various NIH institutes and centers, and the funding success rates associated with different types of grant applications by consulting information in the NIH data book. We have updated the Applicant Next Steps web page with more guidance to help applicants locate information on the NIH web sites about funding success, IC strategic plans, and funding policies.
For most investigators, achieving funding success usually comes from persistence and patience. The typical applicant who was successful in obtaining funding in the past few years from the NIH has submitted several applications prior to obtaining support for their research. In particular, resubmission applications have a better chance of being funded in comparison to original applications. In 2015, the NIH-wide success rate for new R01 applications was 13.1%, whereas the success rate for resubmission applications was 33.5%.
It is also important to determine the best application strategy for the specific science, and the scientist, involved in the application. Each Institute and Center (IC) has a unique funding policy that takes into account many factors, such as the New Investigator and/or Early Stage Investigator status of applicants. ICs also consider the balance of short-term (e.g. R21 and R03) versus long-term grant support (R01) within their portfolios. Knowing how the IC prioritizes different activities may influence your choice to submit an R01. It is important for New and Early Stage Investigator to note that these designations are not considered in the review of any investigator-initiated grant activities other than the R01 research grant.
We encourage all investigators who have recently learned that their application may have missed the fundable range to review the information provided on the Next Steps webpage. We hope you’ll share this blog with your colleagues and mentees, and that this information proves useful in preparing your next resubmission application.
Re-posted from: Boise State University Update: BY: CIENNA MADRID PUBLISHED 2:55 PM/ OCTOBER 28, 2016
by alivia wachsmuth
BY: CIENNA MADRID
The campus community is invited to join Tim Dunnagan, dean of the College of Health Sciences, and Ken Peterson, dean of the College of Business and Economics, for a discussion on the university’s ambitious new Blue Sky Institute held at the Bronco Zone from 11:30 a.m.-noon on Wednesday, Nov. 2.
The Blue Sky Institute (BSI or the Institute) is a collaboration that spans the university and the community to research and create solutions to complex social problems. Co-sponsored by the College of Health Sciences and College of Business and Economics, the BSI serves as a “neutral space” for stakeholders, including scholars representing diverse fields of study and practitioners across industries and organizations, to work together to find solutions to the biggest, most protracted problems we face as a society. These problems are often called “wicked problems” because they have multiple root causes, many stakeholders and are nearly impossible to solve.
The institute will play the role of facilitator, honest broker, researcher and funder for these collaborative efforts, seeking to leverage the wisdom and experience of diverse stakeholders who might otherwise not be inclined to work collectively. The first mandate is an exploration of the relevant population health issues present in our community and a deep dive into those deemed critical to community and campus stakeholders. Additionally, the institute will be home to the first executive in residence jointly appointed by two colleges when former Blue Cross of Idaho CEO Zelda Geyer-Silvia joins BSI later this fall.
Lunch is available for those who would like to stay after the presentation. The Bronco Zone is located on the third floor of the Stueckle Sky Center. Please enter through the north elevator tower to access Bronco Zone. Bronco Zone lunches are generally offered every Wednesday and Thursday through the academic year.
Check out the menu or reserve your seat online at eventservices.boisestate.edu/broncozone. The presentation is open to anyone. To enjoy Bronco Zone lunches you must be part of one of the following groups:
- Alumni Association
- Boise State University faculty and staff
- Boise State University faculty and staff emeriti
- Bronco Athletic Association
- President’s Club donors
- Varsity B members
November 14th, 2016
About the Program
The HERC Fellowship is a paid, 10-week research experience offered to students by the Institute for STEM & Diversity Initiatives. This fellowship gives students a $3,000 stipend, additional travel funds, and the opportunity to present at the 2017 Idaho Conference on Undergraduate Research (ICUR). The HERC Fellowship is open to all STEM majors, including: students in natural sciences, social sciences, and health sciences. This program encourages first year researchers to apply.
The NLN Nursing Education Research Grants Program supports high-quality studies that contribute to the development of the science of nursing education. The NLN-funded grants promote diversity of research topics and support investigators who demonstrate rigor and innovative approaches to advance the field of nursing education research. All NLN research grants relate to the NLN Priorities for Research in Nursing Education.
Access a free archived webinar that outlines the submission process for research proposals; provides tips for developing strong, competitive proposals; and encourages submissions that clearly address issues relevant to excellence in nursing education.
The NLN is deeply committed to supporting beginning researchers as well as accomplished nursing education scholars. The NLN awards three to five research grants annually up to $25,000 each to NLN individual members and faculty of NLN member schools. Funding is provided by the NLN and through endowments and donations to the NLN Foundation for Nursing Education.
- Principal investigators must be current NLN members, either through their school or through individual dues payment.
- All studies must relate to one or more of the NLN Priorities for Research in Nursing Education.
- A complete proposal includes both a Comprehensive Review File and a Blind Review File.
- The proposal must be submitted electronically by a specified deadline. Incomplete proposals or proposals submitted after this time will not be accepted for review.
- Applications must adhere to requirements for format, content, length limitations, and necessary supporting materials as outlined in the NLN Research Grant Submission Guidelines (PDF).
Components of the Comprehensive Review File
The components of the Comprehensive Review File must be submitted in one Microsoft Word document via the online submission system.
- Title page
- Proposal (including abstract)
- Support letters
- Consultants’ letters
- IRB approval and informed consent/instruments
- Demographic Data Form (DOC)
- Qualifications of the principle investigator (PI) (DOC)
- Bio sketches of PI, co-PI, and consultants (DOCX)
Components of the Blind Review File
The components of the Blind Review File must be submitted in one Microsoft Word document via the online submission system. NLN will run document inspector to remove hidden data and personal information.
- Title page with researcher’s name and affiliation removed.
- Proposal (including abstract) with all identifying information removed.
- Budget with all identifying information removed.
- Appendices with all identifying information removed.
How to Submit:
Submissions are accepted online only. If this is your first time using NLN’s online system, Fluid Review, please download the instructions for starting an online submission.
Submissions for the 2017 grants cycle are currently being accepted.
Submission Deadline: Thursday, February 9, 2017 by 11:59 ET
All proposals are submitted for blind review by carefully selected experts in nursing education research.
Letters of notification are sent to grant applicants no later than July 1st of each cycle. Funding will be available no later than September 1st of the grant cycle.
Grant recipients are formally announced at the NLN Education Summit each fall. Awardees are encouraged to attend.
For questions about the submission or review process, please contact email@example.com.
Reporting Requirements: All grant recipients will be required to complete an interim and final report using the forms below. Reminders will be emailed to the principal investigator in advance of the deadline.
Re-posted from: National League for Nursing
Research Development & Grant Writing News
A new resource is available to support faculty, students and other researchers seeking research funding and grantsmanship skills. Research Development & Grant Writing News, published by Academic Research Funding Strategies, LLC, provides information about upcoming funding opportunities from Federal agencies and private foundations, advice on developing competitive proposals, and tips for effective grant writing practices.
This monthly newsletter is available to faculty, staff, students and affiliates with log-in access to the Albertsons Library. For more information visit the newsletter information page on the OSP web site. This subscription is sponsored by the Division of Research and Economic Development with support from the Albertsons Library.
- The Straw Man Proposal
- Explain Your Rationale for Selecting Projects
- The Proposal Majordomo’s Role on Grants
- The Role of the Project Evaluator on the Writing Team
- SBIRs and STTRs: What are they and how can faculty use them?
- Don’t Let Your Proposal Wear a Disguise on Halloween
- Topics of Interest URLs
- Research Grant Writing Web Resources
- Educational Grant Writing Web Resources
- Agency Research News
- Agency Reports, Workshops & Roadmaps
- New Funding Opportunities
- About Academic Research Funding Strategies
Re-posted from Office of Sponsored Programs Funding Blast
Dear Colleague Letter: Updates to the 2017 Smart and Connected Health Solicitation
The National Science Foundation (NSF) recently released a new solicitation for Smart and Connected Health (see NSF 16-601 https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf16601). With this Dear Colleague Letter (DCL), NSF wishes to notify the community of relevant changes and additions to the program for 2017.
Changes to the 2017 SCH Solicitation: The 2017 SCH solicitation will only support Integrative Projects (INT). For these proposals, NSF and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) seek SCH research that is transdisciplinary while addressing key application areas by solving problems in multiple scientific and engineering domains. These projects are expected to further our understanding of how advances in computing, engineering and behavioral and social science, would support transformations in healthcare and improve population health. As described in the solicitation, INT project descriptions must be comprehensive and well integrated, and should make a convincing case that the collaborative contributions of the project team will be greater than the sum of each of their individual contributions. Collaborations with researchers in the health application domains are required. INT proposals should be submitted by December 8, 2016. Please note that the program is no longer soliciting the Exploratory (EXP) SCH proposals.
In addition to the changes above, the SCH program encourages submission of EArly-concept Grants for Exploratory Research (EAGER) proposing breakthrough SCH research. The SCH goal is to accelerate the development and use of innovative approaches that would support the much needed transformation of healthcare and population health in this country. SCH EAGERs provide the proof-of-concept or feasibility of novel approaches in its early stages (or untested) for potentially transformative research ideas to promote the vision of Smart and Connected Health. An EAGER proposal should be especially ‘high-risk/high-reward’ in the sense that it involves radically different approaches, applies new expertise or engages novel disciplinary or interdisciplinary perspectives. EAGERs may lead to new SCH INT activities.
EAGER proposals submitted to this DCL should follow NSF guidelines for EAGERs (https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf16001/gpg_2.jsp#IID2), including making a clear case why they are appropriate for EAGER funding, including why they do not fit into existing programs and how they constitute ‘high-risk/high-reward’ research. Budgets should be well-justified. PI(s) must contact a cognizant NSF program officer to discuss the proposal topic before submitting their EAGER proposal, to ensure whether the proposed work is appropriate for EAGER funding. EAGER proposals must be submitted by December 14, 2016.
For more information about this DCL or the SCH solicitation, please see the NSF SCH website (https://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5047397&org=CISE&sel_org=CISE&from=fund)