NSF 19-592: Ecology and Evolution of Infectious Diseases (EEID)

Program Solicitation NSF 19-592

		National Science Foundation Directorate for Biological Sciences Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences Directorate for Geosciences
		National Institutes of Health     John E. Fogarty International Center     National Institute of General Medical Sciences     National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
		National Institute of Food and Agriculture
		United Kingdom Research and Innovation
		Medical Research Council (part of UK Research and Innovation)
		U.K. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
		Natural Environment Research Council
		U.K. Economic and Social Research Council
		UK Engineering and Physical Science Research Council
		United States-Israel Binational Science Foundation
		National Natural Science Foundation of China

Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. submitter's local time):

     November 20, 2019

     Third Wednesday in November, Annually Thereafter

Important Information And Revision Notes

This revision adds the NSF Division of Geosciences and allows projects that involve marine systems. This revision also adds four new international collaborative partners from the U.K. Research and Innovation: the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), the Medical Research Council (MRC), and the Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (EPSRC). Additional three-way international collaborations are now permitted: US-UK-China and US-China-Israel. RCN projects with international collaborators may now include: US-UK, US-China, and US-UK-China.

Any proposal submitted in response to this solicitation should be submitted in accordance with the revised NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) (NSF 20-1), which is effective for proposals submitted, or due, on or after June 1, 2020.

Summary Of Program Requirements

General Information

Program Title:

Ecology and Evolution of Infectious Diseases (EEID)

Synopsis of Program:

The multi-agency Ecology and Evolution of Infectious Diseases program supports research on the ecological, evolutionary, and social drivers that influence the transmission dynamics of infectious diseases. The central theme of submitted projects must be the quantitative or computational understanding of pathogen transmission dynamics. The intent is discovery of principles of infectious disease transmission and testing mathematical or computational models that elucidate infectious disease systems. Projects should be broad, interdisciplinary efforts that go beyond the scope of typical studies. They should focus on the determinants and interactions of transmission among humans, non-human animals, and/or plants. This includes, for example, the spread of pathogens; the influence of environmental factors such as climate; the population dynamics and genetics of reservoir species or hosts; the feedback between ecological transmission and evolutionary dynamics; and the cultural, social, behavioral, and economic dimensions of pathogen transmission. Research may be on zoonotic, environmentally-borne, vector-borne, or enteric pathogens of either terrestrial or aquatic systems and organisms, including diseases of animals and plants, at any scale from specific pathogens to inclusive environmental systems. Proposals for research on disease systems of public health concern to developing countries are strongly encouraged, as are disease systems of concern in agricultural systems. Investigators are encouraged to develop the appropriate multidisciplinary team, including for example, anthropologists, modelers, ecologists, bioinformaticians, genomics researchers, social scientists, economists, oceanographers, mathematical scientists, epidemiologists, evolutionary biologists, entomologists, parasitologists, microbiologists, bacteriologists, virologists, pathologists or veterinarians, with the goal of integrating knowledge across disciplines to enhance our ability to predict and control infectious diseases.

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.

• Katharina Dittmar, Program Director, NSF/BIO, telephone: (703) 292-7799, email: kdittmar@nsf.gov

• Christine Jessup, Program Director, NIH/FIC, telephone: (301) 496-1653, fax: (301) 402-0779, email: christine.jessup@nih.gov

• Peter Johnson, National Program Leader, USDA/NIFA, telephone: (202) 401-1896, email: pjohnson@nifa.usda.gov

• Sadhana Sharma, Strategy and Policy Manager, UKRI/BBSRC, telephone: 44(0)1793-413099, email: sadhana.sharma@bbsrc.ac.uk

• Rachel (Heni) Haring, Deputy Executive Director, BSF, telephone: 972 2 5828239, email: heni@bsf.org.il

• Xiuping Liu, Division Director, NSFC, telephone: 86 10-62325377, email: liuxp@nsfc.gov.cn

• Daniel Janes, Program Director, NIH/NIGMS, telephone: (301) 594-0943, email: daniel.janes@nih.gov

• Stephanie Coomes, Health Scientist Administrator, NIH/NIAID, telephone: (301) 761-6855, email: stephanie.coomes@nih.gov

• Jing Chen, Program Manager, NSFC, telephone: 86 10-62326877, email: chenjing@nsfc.gov.cn

• Kerry Young, Senior Portfolio Manager, UKRI/ESRC, telephone: 44(0)1793-413049, email: Kerry.Young@esrc.ukri.org

• Morven Roberts, Program Manager, UKRI/MRC, telephone: 44(0)2073-952236, email: morven.roberts@mrc.ukri.org

• Victoria Wickens, Program Manager, UKRI/NERC, telephone: 44(0)7525-906284, email: victoria.wickens@nerc.ukri.org

• Rebecca Ferrell, Program Director, NSF/SBE, telephone: (703) 292-7850, email: rferrell@nsf.gov

• Daniel J. Thornhill, Program Director, NSF/GEO, telephone: (703) 292-8143, email: dthornhi@nsf.gov

• Samuel M. Scheiner, Program Director, NSF/BIO, telephone: (703) 292-7175, email: sscheine@nsf.gov

Applicable Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s):

• 10.310 --- USDA-NIFA Agriculture and Food Research Initiative
• 47.050 --- Geosciences
• 47.074 --- Biological Sciences
• 47.075 --- Social Behavioral and Economic Sciences
• 93.856 --- Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research
• 93.859 --- National Institute of General Medical Sciences
• 93.989 --- John E. Fogarty International Center

Award Information

Anticipated Type of Award: Standard Grant or Continuing Grant

Estimated Number of Awards: 10

Anticipated Funding Amount: $24,000,000

in FY 2020, pending the availability of funds. That amount includes approximately $11.0M from NSF for new standard or continuing awards, approximately $7.5M from NIH for new or continuing awards, and $5.5M from USDA for new awards. The expected funding from the UKRI for the UK component of the US-UK Collaborative Projects will be a maximum of £7M. The expected funding from the BSF for the Israeli component of the US-Israel Collaborative Projects will be a maximum of $720,000. The expected funding from the NSFC for the Chinese component of the US-China Collaborative Projects will be a maximum of ¥9M.

Eligibility Information

Who May Submit Proposals:

The categories of proposers eligible to submit proposals to the National Science Foundation are identified in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG), Chapter I.E. Unaffiliated individuals are not eligible to submit proposals in response to this solicitation.

Who May Serve as PI:

There are no restrictions or limits.

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:

There are no restrictions or limits.

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or Co-PI: 2

In a given year, an individual may participate as a PI, co-PI, or sub-award lead on no more than two proposals submitted in response to this solicitation. This limit does not include RCN proposals. In addition, an individual from Israel may participate in no more than one US-BSF proposal and an individual from China may participate in no more than one US-China proposal. Proposals in excess of the limit for any person will be returned without review in the reverse order received. Participating in a proposal as other senior personnel does not count in this limit. Changes in investigator roles post-submission to meet the eligibility limits will not be allowed. It is the responsibility of the submitters to confirm that the entire team is within the eligibility guidelines.

Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

• Letters of Intent: Not required

• Preliminary Proposal Submission: Not required

• Full Proposals:

  • Full Proposals submitted via FastLane: NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG) guidelines apply. The complete text of the PAPPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg.
  • 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: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide).

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. submitter's local time):

       November 20, 2019

       Third Wednesday in November, Annually Thereafter

Proposal Review Information Criteria

Merit Review Criteria:

National Science Board approved criteria. Additional merit review criteria apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

Award Administration Information

Award Conditions:

Additional award conditions apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

Reporting Requirements:

Additional reporting requirements apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

I. Introduction

The past twenty-five years have seen a dramatic increase in our awareness of the need to understand the ecological and evolutionary drivers of disease emergence and transmission dynamics. While our knowledge has increased about specific systems and the basic principles of simple systems, understanding of complex systems and translation of those principles into ecosystem, public health, and agricultural health management tools remains challenging. System complexity includes such factors as multiple interacting species of hosts, pathogens and/or vectors; interactions among pathogenic and non-pathogenic microbes; interactions between biological, cultural and social factors; effects of spatial and temporal structure; and evolutionary dynamics.

The emergence and the re-emergence of numerous infectious diseases around the world have coincided with unprecedented rates of change in the structure and diversity of the environment and human social and economic systems. Nearly all of the world's terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems have undergone dramatic changes due to a variety of human activities such as habitat transformation, human displacement and relocation, urbanization, rapid long-distance transport and increased international trade, species invasions, deliberate introduction of infectious diseases for biological control, wildlife trafficking, chemical waste contamination, use of antimicrobial agents in agriculture and medicine, and climate change. The coincidence of broad scale environmental changes, the expansion of human social and economic networks, and the emergence and re-emergence of infectious diseases may point to underlying predictable ecological and eco-evolutionary relationships.

We have improved our ability to define the molecular identity and dynamics of pathogens and have greatly increased our understanding of host defense systems. We are able to apply genetic knowledge to understand the evolutionary dynamics of infectious diseases. These improvements have contributed significantly to our knowledge of the epidemiology and transmission patterns of diseases. However, the relationship of these factors to the biotic and structural complexity of ecological, agricultural, and social systems in which transmission occurs remains poorly understood. For example, little is known about the transmission dynamics of interacting pathogens and non-pathogens within a common host. In addition, although these dynamics take place over evolutionary time for pathogens and in the context of social systems, insufficient attention has been given to integrating ecological, epidemiological, evolutionary, and socio-economic dynamics.

At present, basic and applied research in infectious disease ecology and evolution are not well integrated. The potential benefits of an interdisciplinary research program in this area include:

• development of disease transmission theory,
• improved understanding of how diseases (re)emerge,
• improved understanding of host population and ecosystem effects on disease transmission,
• increased capacity to forecast and respond to outbreaks,
• improved understanding of unintended health effects of development projects affecting terrestrial, freshwater, and coastal marine systems,
• enhanced safety of food supplies, and
• improved strategies to control or prevent infectious diseases and enhance biosecurity.

An understudied aspect of disease transmission is the importance of socio-ecological factors and processes. Important new insights into the drivers and control of infectious diseases in humans and other species can only be achieved by integrated approaches that take into account the ways in which the natural and social environments affect the emergence and spread of infectious disease. This concept, often called "one health," links medical, veterinary, social and environmental sciences by drawing on a common pool of knowledge between the three sectors in order to exploit the potential of animal disease research to provide insights into ecosystem, agricultural, and human health.

This activity is a continuation of the previous joint National Science Foundation/National Institutes of Health/United States Department of Agriculture (NSF/NIH/USDA) Ecology of Infectious Disease competition. Information on past awards can be found at EEID Awards. Additional information for NIH can be found at http://www.fic.nih.gov/Programs/Pages/ecology-infectious-diseases.aspx and for USDA at https://nifa.usda.gov/.

II. Program Description

The goal of the Ecology and Evolution of Infectious Diseases (EEID) program is to support important and innovative research on the ecological, evolutionary, and socio-ecological principles that influence the transmission dynamics of infectious diseases. The program's focus is on the discovery of general principles and processes and on building and testing models that elucidate these principles. Projects must address the quantitative or computational understanding of pathogen transmission dynamics. Research in EEID is expected to be an interdisciplinary effort that goes beyond the scope of typical studies funded by the standing programs of the partner agencies. Projects should bring together such areas as anthropology, bioinformatics, computational science, ecology, economics, epidemiology, evolution, food science, genomics, geography, global health, mathematics, medicine, microbiology, oceanography, plant science, population biology, sociology, physical environmental sciences, systems science, and veterinary medicine. Research within EEID is expected to generate rigorously characterized and tested models that are of value to the scientific community, but also may be useful in decision making. The history of the EEID program has shown that the most competitive proposals are those that advance broad, conceptual knowledge that reaches beyond the specific system under study and that may be useful for understanding public, agricultural or ecosystem health, natural resource use and wildlife management, and/or economic development. Such proposals are typically interdisciplinary in their approach and/or the nature of the question(s) being addressed.

Infectious disease transmission reflects complex, dynamic relationships that occur on varying spatial and temporal landscapes, are created by both ecological and evolutionary processes, and are revealed in genome architecture, physiological systems, population dynamics, and community structure, as well as behavioral and social dynamics. The interactions between disease-causing organisms, their vectors, and their host(s) are embedded within much larger networks of interacting systems, including other microorganisms that may or may not cause disease, one or more vector species, and multiple host species. Analysis of environmental influences (biological, geophysical, economic, and social) on individual and population susceptibility is fundamental to understanding these complex systems of infectious diseases. Research into the ecology (population, community, evolutionary, and social) of infectious diseases will contribute to a deeper understanding of these complex infectious disease systems, to the development of well characterized and tested models, and to the elucidation of general ecological and evolutionary principles.

Insights into the dynamics of infectious disease systems may require integration across several temporal, spatial, and functional scales including molecular, individual, population, societal, and ecosystem levels. Similarly, they may require integration across biological, socio-economic, and geophysical domains. The field of evolutionary ecology, which focuses on both the importance of ecological context in studies of evolution and the importance of evolutionary change for ecological systems, may also provide important insights into infectious disease systems. The interplay of evolution and ecology has implications for understanding how infectious agents emerge as pathogens, adapt to one or more hosts, interact with other microbial communities (e.g., microbiome), and are transmitted among hosts.

A critical goal of research supported by this program is the generation of principles and conceptual frameworks that organize and inform the research and that lead to mathematical, computational, and statistical models of infectious disease dynamics. Diverse modeling approaches are appropriate, including, but not limited to, mathematical equations, computational simulations, geospatial algorithms, and statistical models. For the EEID program, the most competitive proposals are organized around an overarching conceptual framework that leads to such a model. Models should aim to be explanatory beyond the specific system under study and must be well-characterized and rigorously tested. Proposals must describe how models will be developed, evaluated, and disseminated. Proposals must identify which individual(s) will oversee the quantitative approaches and provide evidence of demonstrated expertise in mathematical, computational, or statistical modeling and/or data analysis. Likewise, strategies for data collection must be well designed to contribute to and test model design. Proposals must include plans for dissemination of data, models, and tools developed by this program.

A variety of topics, questions, systems and approaches are appropriate. Among the areas of particular interest are: the role of social influences on the susceptibility of individuals or populations; multiway interactions between pathogenic and non-pathogenic organisms and their mutual hosts; the role of medical, agricultural or environmental practices on pathogen emergence and transmission; emergence of pathogens from non-pathogenic populations; host switching; evolutionary dynamics in an ecological context such as disease control interventions and drug resistance. These topics have significant ecological and evolutionary components that should be studied as a system, not in isolation. Depending on the hypotheses or research questions being addressed, investigations might entail some combination of laboratory experiments, field observations or manipulations, public health interventions (although clinical trials are beyond the scope of the EEID program), analysis of social and cultural processes, or ethnographic studies. Research may also focus on novel analyses of existing data and/or theoretical investigations of ecological and evolutionary dynamics. Investigations may focus on model infectious disease systems in natural (terrestrial, freshwater, or marine) or laboratory settings where those systems elucidate general principles.

Research may use a variety of study systems. The organism(s) or system(s) selected for study should be justified with respect to its suitability to study questions of ecology and/or evolutionary ecology. Research may involve a variety of infectious agents, individual diseases, or groups of diseases, and might involve one or more social systems, regions, habitats, or groups of organisms. Proposals may focus on terrestrial or aquatic systems and organisms and may include infectious diseases of humans, non-human animals, or plants. Regardless of the system or approach taken, a proposal must have a significant focus on the ecology of pathogen transmission to be eligible for funding.

Because of the complexity of studies on the ecology and evolutionary ecology of infectious diseases, multidisciplinary teams of domestic and international collaborators with expertise from diverse disciplines are likely to be most effective. Investigators are encouraged to develop collaborations with public health research communities where that is appropriate. Collaborative teams could include, for example: ecologists, epidemiologists, medical scientists, veterinary scientists, oceanographers, evolutionary biologists, social and behavioral scientists, entomologists, food scientists, microbiologists, pathologists, and parasitologists, geologists, hydrologists, geospatial analysts, and mathematical scientists. The research plan should indicate how multiple disciplines will be integrated and how new investigators in U.S. and collaborating foreign institutions will be prepared to further this research.

The EEID program is not intended to be the only avenue of support by the participating agencies for supporting research on infectious diseases. Specifically, proposals submitted in response to this announcement must address ecological dynamics and among-host transmission, even when evolutionary studies are a substantive part of the proposal. Investigations that are outside the scope of this EEID announcement include:

• those limited solely to genetic patterns of evolutionary change (e.g., comparative genomics),
• those that focus solely on human diseases without considering the broader ecological context,
• those that focus solely on pathogen discovery,
• those that focus solely on within-host biological processes,
• those that focus solely on vector species ecology, and
• those that have not pre-identified at least one pathogenic organism that will be the focus of the study.

The EEID competition broadly welcomes, but does not require, that projects include international collaborators. Three specific forms of collaboration (US-UK Collaborative Projects, US-Israel Collaborative Projects, and US-China Collaborative Projects) are described below. These specific activities do not preclude other international collaborations.

EEID Partner Interests

Fogarty International Center

The Fogarty International Center (FIC) is dedicated to advancing the mission of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) by supporting and facilitating global health research conducted by U.S. and international investigators, building partnerships between health research institutions in the U.S. and abroad, and training the next generation of scientists to address global health needs. The FIC is interested in EEID applications that include explicit plans for capacity building in Low- or Middle-Income Countries (LMICs), as defined by the World Bank and encourages applications that are focused on significant and/or emerging infectious disease threats, including zoonotic disease threats, to human health in LMICs. The FIC will consider supporting meritorious EEID research applications that address the above priorities and/or meritorious EEID Research Coordination Network (RCN) applications aimed at capacity building in LMICs.

National Institute of General Medical Sciences

The National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) supports basic research that improves understanding of biological processes and lays the foundation for advances in disease diagnoses, prevention, and treatment. NIGMS also has a strong interest in training and support of the nation’s scientific workforce. NIGMS is interested in EEID applications that address the evolution of hosts, pathogens and their interactions as well as basic biology and population genetics of hosts and pathogens as they relate to disease transmission and prevention. NIGMS will consider supporting meritorious EEID research applications as single-PI or multi-PI research program grants.

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) conducts and supports basic and applied research to better understand, treat, and ultimately prevent infectious, immunologic, and allergic diseases. NIAID supports research on nearly 300 infectious agents and investigates the biological properties of these pathogens and the immune system’s responses to them. Findings from this research are vital to NIAID efforts to create vaccines, drugs, and diagnostic tools to better diagnose, prevent, and treat infectious diseases.

USDA/NIFA

The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) supports research, education, and extension work that addresses key problems of national, regional, and multi-state importance in sustaining all components of food and agriculture, including farm efficiency and profitability, ranching, bioenergy, forestry (both urban and agroforestry), aquaculture, rural communities and entrepreneurship, human nutrition, food safety, physical and social sciences, home economics and rural human ecology, biotechnology, and conventional breeding, and including both conventional and organic food production systems.

Applicants may submit proposals that support one or more of the seven USDA’s strategic goals for FY2018-2022 (https://www.usda.gov/our-agency/about-usda/strategic-goals). Any such activity proposed (e.g., partnerships, exchanges, training, and/or travel), must first and foremost support NIFA’s domestic program goals. Applicants must clearly describe and demonstrate how international activities proposed in applications will contribute to and support advances in U.S. agriculture.

US-UK Collaborative Proposals

Recognizing the potential for international collaboration to advance EEID research and education objectives, NSF has partnered for this solicitation with the UK Research and Innovation. This partnership will facilitate coordinated funding of U.S. and U.K. research collaboration within the EEID program.

UK researchers applying under this heading must meet UKRI eligibility requirements for managed mode calls and must apply through an institution eligible to receive UKRI funding. Please see UKRI funding rules: http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/funding/apply/grants-guide.aspx.

PIs are strongly encouraged to contact the relevant Cognizant Program Officer to confirm that the UK component fits UKRI requirements. Applications with non-eligible UK partners will not be considered for funding as a US-UK Collaborative Projects.

US-Israel Collaborative Proposals

Recognizing the potential for international collaboration to advance EEID research and education objectives, NSF has partnered for this solicitation with the U.S.-Israel Binational Science Foundation (BSF), which is an organization owned by the two governments with the aim of facilitating scientific relations between them. The Israeli component of the US-Israel Collaborative Projects will be funded by the BSF using special funds provided by the Israeli government.

Israeli researchers applying under this heading must meet BSF eligibility requirements, and must apply through an institution eligible to receive BSF funding. Please see BSF eligibility rules: https://www.bsf.org.il/.

US-UK-Israel Collaborative Proposals

Multinational collaborative research projects that involve researchers from the US, UK and Israel are also welcome. Any such projects must meet the requirements of each of the NSF, the UKRI, and the BSF.

US-China Collaborative Proposals

Recognizing the potential for international collaboration to advance EEID research and education objectives, NSF has partnered for this solicitation with the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC). The Chinese component of the US-China Collaborative Projects will be funded by the NSFC using funds provided by the Chinese government.

Chinese researchers applying under this heading must meet NSFC eligibility requirements, and must apply through an institution eligible to receive NSFC funding. Please see NSFC eligibility rules: http://www.nsfc.gov.cn/english/site_1/index.html. Applications with non-eligible China partners will not be considered for funding as a US-China Collaborative Project.

US-China-UK Collaborative Proposals

Multinational collaborative research projects that involve researchers from the US, China and the UK are also welcome. Any such projects must meet the requirements of each of the NSF, the NSFC, and the UKRI.

US-China-Israel Collaborative Proposals

Multinational collaborative research projects that involve researchers from the US, China and Israel are also welcome. Any such projects must meet the requirements of each of the NSF, the NSFC, and the BSF.

Research Coordination Network (RCN) Proposals

The EEID program will accept proposals to establish Research Coordination Networks that focus on issues involving infectious disease ecology, socio-ecology, and evolution. RCN projects are also eligible to be submitted as US-UK, US-China, or US-UK-China Collaborative Projects. Information on the scope of RCN projects and the format of those proposals can be found at (https://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=11691&org=BIO&from=home). Such RCN proposals should be submitted under the EEID solicitation and deadline.

III. Award Information

Award size: Under this solicitation, the maximum total (for all years) award size is $2.5 million, including indirect costs. The minimum award size is $1.5 million total project costs for all years, or $1.0 million for the US component of US-UK, US-Israel, and US-China Collaborative Projects. Those collaborative projects can request additional funding for the international component of the project. For US-Israel Collaborative Projects, the maximum award size for the Israeli portion is $720,000. For US-China Collaborative Projects, the maximum award size for the Chinese portion is ¥4.5M total project costs for all years.

Award duration: The maximum award duration is five years.

RCN proposals: The maximum award size for RCN proposals is $500,000 as per the RCN solicitation. For international Collaborative RCN proposals, the maximum award size for the US component is $500,000.

Award number: Approximately 10 new awards are anticipated in FY 2020, depending on the quality of submissions and the availability of funds; the expected funding will be $24.0 million. That amount includes approximately $11.0M from the NSF for new standard or continuing awards, approximately $7.5M from the NIH for new or continuing awards, and $5.5M from the USDA for new awards. Of those 10 awards, up to 4 are anticipated to be US-UK Collaborative Projects, depending on the quality of submissions and the availability of funds; the expected funding from the UKRI for this call is up to £7M. This amount reflects 80% of the full economic costs in the U.K. Of those 10 awards, up to 1 is anticipated to be a US-Israel Collaborative Project, depending on the quality of submissions and the availability of funds; the expected funding from the BSF for the Israeli component of the US-Israel Collaborative Projects will be a maximum of $80,000/year. Of those 10 awards, up to 2 are anticipated to be US-China Collaborative Projects for a total of ¥9M, depending on the quality of the submissions and the availability of funds.

Upon conclusion of the review process, meritorious proposals may be recommended for funding by either NSF, NIH, or USDA, at the option of the agencies, not the proposing organizations. Proposals selected for funding by NIH or USDA will need to be reformatted and resubmitted to that agency. Subsequent submission and grant administration procedures will be in accordance with the individual policies of the awarding agency. Further information will be provided to these applicants after selection.

Proposals selected for funding consideration by the NIH will be invited to resubmit to the Division of Receipt and Referral (DRR) in NIH's Center for Scientific Review (CSR) (see Section VI.B). PIs submitting to the NIH must be registered in eRA Commons and the applicant's organization must be registered with SAM, Grants.gov and eRA Commons. PIs should therefore ensure that all registrations required for NIH submission are in place before the NIH receipt deadline.

USDA/NIFA Legislative Authority: The USDA authority for this RFA is contained in Section 7406 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (FCEA) (Pub. L. 110-246) which amends section 2(b) of the Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act (7 U.S.C. 450i(b)) to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to establish the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI); a new competitive grant program to provide funding for fundamental and applied research, extension, and education to address food and agricultural sciences. AFRI is subject to the provision found at 7 CFR Part 3430.

For US-UK Collaborative Projects, the UK component of the collaboration will be awarded through the UKRI in accordance with its policies. If the UKRI selects an application for funding, the applicant will be required to submit the costs for the UK element of the proposal via the Je-S application submission system before final sign-off. UK collaborators should therefore ensure they are registered Je-S users before the proposal is submitted.

For US-Israel Collaborative Projects, the Israeli component of the collaboration will be awarded through the BSF in accordance with its policies and regulations. The collaborative proposal must be submitted to the BSF by the Israeli scientist by the BSF-established deadline.

For US-China Collaborative Projects, the Chinese component of the collaboration will be awarded through the NSFC in accordance with its policies and regulations. The collaborative proposal must be submitted to the NSFC application submission system by the Chinese scientists by the NSFC-established deadline.

IV. Eligibility Information

Who May Submit Proposals:

The categories of proposers eligible to submit proposals to the National Science Foundation are identified in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG), Chapter I.E. Unaffiliated individuals are not eligible to submit proposals in response to this solicitation.

Who May Serve as PI:

There are no restrictions or limits.

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:

There are no restrictions or limits.

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or Co-PI: 2

In a given year, an individual may participate as a PI, co-PI, or sub-award lead on no more than two proposals submitted in response to this solicitation. This limit does not include RCN proposals. In addition, an individual from Israel may participate in no more than one US-BSF proposal and an individual from China may participate in no more than one US-China proposal. Proposals in excess of the limit for any person will be returned without review in the reverse order received. Participating in a proposal as other senior personnel does not count in this limit. Changes in investigator roles post-submission to meet the eligibility limits will not be allowed. It is the responsibility of the submitters to confirm that the entire team is within the eligibility guidelines.

Additional Eligibility Info:

NIH Eligibility: Clinical trials are not allowed. The NIH will only consider applications that do not propose clinical trials. Individuals who are considering submitting a proposal in response to this solicitation should review https://grants.nih.gov/ct-decision/ in determining whether the project meets the NIH definition of a Clinical Trial. Institutions eligible for awards by the NIH’s Fogarty International Center (FIC) include foreign institutions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), as defined by the World Bank (foreign institutions in high-income countries are not eligible for FIC awards).

USDA/NIFA Eligibility: Eligible entities for award include, (1) State agricultural experiment stations; (2) colleges and universities (including junior colleges offering associate degrees or higher); (3) university research foundations; (4) other research institutions and organizations; (5) Federal agencies, (6) national laboratories; (7) private organizations or corporations; (8) individuals who are U.S. citizens, nations, or permanent residents; and (9) any group consisting of 2 or more entities identified in (1) through (8). Eligible institutions do not include foreign and international organizations.

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 Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG). The complete text of the PAPPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg. Paper copies of the PAPPG may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-7827 or by e-mail from 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: (https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide). 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 nsfpubs@nsf.gov.

See PAPPG Chapter II.C.2 for guidance on the required sections of a full research proposal submitted to NSF. Please note that the proposal preparation instructions provided in this program solicitation may deviate from the PAPPG instructions.

Special Information and Supplementary Documentation:

• Proposals Involving Multiple Institutions. Of the two types of collaborative proposal formats described in the Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide, this solicitation allows only a single proposal submission with subawards administered by that lead organization. In the case of proposals involving multiple organizations, a single organization must be identified as the lead, and a single proposal describing the entire project must be submitted by that organization. Funds may be distributed among partner organizations via subawards from the lead organization. A budget on the standard NSF budget form should be submitted for each subawardee. The requirement for a single organization to submit the sole proposal for a project is designed to facilitate effective coordination among participating organizations and to avoid difficulties that ensue in funded projects when individuals change organizations and/or cease to fulfill project responsibilities.

• Research Experiences for Undergraduates. Funds to support Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REUs) should be included in the original proposal. A limited number of post-award supplements may be available if such activities were unforeseen at the time of submission and the request broadens participation in STEM fields. Eligibility for post-award educational supplements for REU, RET, RAHSS, and ROA projects is described on the DEB supplement request website: https://www.nsf.gov/bio/deb/suppopp.jsp. Submission Guidance: The descriptions of proposed REU activities should be included in the Supplementary Documents. For REUs, follow the guidelines for "REU supplement requests as part of a proposal" in the REU solicitation. REU projects must involve students in meaningful ways in ongoing research programs or in research projects specifically designed for the REU student. If the intent is to engage students as technicians, then an REU is not the appropriate support mechanism; instead, salary support should be entered on the Undergraduate Students line of the proposal budget. The description of these activities is limited to 3 pages. If multiple institutions on a collaborative proposal are requesting funds for REUs, all REU activities should be included in one supplementary document, limited to 3 pages. All person related costs, including stipends and/or travel should be placed in Participant Support Costs on the budget. A detailed breakdown of the budget must be included in the budget justification. Budgets for REUs are generally $6,000-8,000 per student.

• Senior Personnel List Spreadsheet. An additional spreadsheet listing all senior personnel involved in the project must be submitted. This spreadsheet is separate from the spreadsheet that lists collaborators and other affiliations (COA) information. The spreadsheet template can be found at https://www.nsf.gov/bio/deb/debpersonnellist.xlsx. Please read the instructions carefully. Using the template, compile an Excel file that provides information for all persons identified in the proposal as: "PI or co-PI" (i.e., those listed on the cover page); "Other Senior Personnel/Subawardee"; or "Other Personnel" who have a biosketch included in the proposal, including all international collaborators. Only one spreadsheet should be submitted per project. The file must include the FastLane proposal ID assigned after submission of your proposal (i.e., not the Temporary ID # or Grants.gov ID #). Once completed, the file should be submitted by email to debtemplate@nsf.gov within one business day of proposal submission.

• Letters of Collaboration. Supplementary Documents may include letters of collaboration from individuals or organizations that are integral parts of the proposed project but are not listed as PI, co-PI, or other senior personnel on the main proposal or any subaward. Such involvement may include subsidiary involvement in some aspect of the project, cooperation on outreach efforts, or documentation of permission to access materials or data. Letters of collaboration should focus solely on affirming that the individual or organization is willing to collaborate on the project as specified in the project description. No additional text, especially elaboration of the nature of activities to be undertaken by the collaborator and endorsements of the potential value or significance of the project for the collaborator, may be included. The template that must be used for the preparation of letters of collaboration is provided below.

Letters of collaboration should not be provided from any individual designated as a principal investigator or a senior personnel, nor are letters of collaboration required from any organization that will be a subawardee in the proposal budget.

Each letter of collaboration must be signed by the designated collaborator. Requests to collaborators for letters of collaboration should be made by the PI well in advance of the proposal submission deadline, because they must be included at the time of proposal submission. Letters deviating from this template will not be accepted and may be grounds for returning the proposal without review.

Template to be used for letters of collaboration

To: NSF _________(Program Title)___________ Program

From: ____________________________________

(Printed name of the individual collaborator or name of the organization and name and position of the official submitting this memo)

By signing below (or transmitting electronically), I acknowledge that I am listed as a collaborator on this proposal, entitled "_____(proposal title)_______," with _______(PI name)______ as the Principal Investigator. I agree to undertake the tasks assigned to me or my organization, as described in the project description of the proposal, and I commit to provide or make available the resources specified therein.

Signed: _______________________

Organization: ________________________________

Date: _________________________

Research Coordination Network proposals

These proposals should begin the title with "RCN:" and follow the proposal preparation instructions in the RCN solicitation (https://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=11691&org=BIO&from=home).

US-UK Collaborative proposals

For full application: These proposals should begin the title with "US-UK Collab:". Collaborative RCN proposals should begin the title with "US-UK Collab: RCN:" Information for the UK portion of US-UK Collaborative Proposals should be included as Supplementary Documents or as a single copy document as specified below. That information should include the following, and only the following:

1. Biographical sketches of UK senior personnel: Those biographical sketches must conform to NSF format and limitations.
2. UK budget: Costs for the UK component of the project should be entered onto the Je-S system but the completed form SHOULD NOT be submitted electronically to the UKRI at this stage. Instead, a PDF version of the form should be saved and sent to the US lead PI for inclusion as a supplementary document in the proposal. Also, an electronic copy of this document should be sent to UKRI Cognizant Programme Officer no later than the NSF submission deadline. Full details on what is required can be obtained at (http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/eeid). Applicants should ensure that they contact the main UK Cognizant Programme Officer at UKRI to discuss the remit of their proposal and to confirm whether they should complete a Je-S form. The researchers will be asked to attend a meeting to be held at either the National Science Foundation or an alternate location. Include the necessary travel costs for attendance at the meeting in the proposed budget.
3. Letters of collaboration: Letters of collaboration from UK scientists are required. These letters must be restricted to a statement of intent to collaborate only as described above. Additional information on the nature of the collaboration and the roles of the investigators should be included in the Project Description.
4. Institutional endorsement: An institutional certification of the submission must be a signed letter from an authorized U.K. institutional representative with the following text:

"I confirm on behalf of [insert name of institution] that the U.S.-U.K.Collaborative proposal between [insert name of US PI and institution] and [insert name of UK PI] is endorsed and has been submitted by [name of Research Office]."

5. Sharing of unattributed reviews: Unattributed reviews will be shared with UKRI. The following text must be included in a Single Copy Document and signed by the lead investigator, confirming that the investigators involved in the proposal acknowledge and confirm this fact.

On behalf of the proposal investigators, I, ___________ (insert Lead PI Name), consent that the proposal as well as its unattributed reviews will be shared with the EEID partner-funding agencies.

Signed: _______________________

Organization: ________________________________

Date: _________________________

US-Israel Collaborative proposals

These proposals should begin the title with ”US-Israel Collab:”. Information for the Israel portion of the US-Israel Collaborative Proposals should be included as Supplementary Documents or as a single copy document as specified below. That information should include the following, and only the following:

1. Biographical sketches of Israeli PIs: Those biographical sketches must conform to NSF format and limitations.
2. Israeli budget: Costs for the Israeli component should be copied from the BSF submission of the proposal using the BSF format: https://www.bsf.org.il/
3. Letters of collaboration: Letters of collaboration from scientists on the Israeli component are required. These letters must be restricted to a statement of intent to collaborate only as described above. Additional information on the nature of the collaboration and the roles of the investigators should be included in the Project Description.
4. Institutional endorsement: An institutional certification of the submission must be a signed letter from an authorized Israeli institutional representative with the following text:

"I confirm on behalf of [insert name of institution] that the U.S.-Israel Collaborative proposal between [insert name of US PI and institution] and [insert name of Israeli PI] is endorsed and has been submitted by [name of Research Office]."

5. Sharing of unattributed reviews: Unattributed reviews will be shared with the BSF. The following text must be included in a Single Copy Document and signed by the lead investigator, confirming that the investigators involved in the proposal acknowledge and confirm this fact.

On behalf of the proposal investigators, I, ___________ (insert Lead PI Name), consent that the proposal as well as its unattributed reviews will be shared with the EEID partner-funding agencies.

Signed: _______________________

Organization: ________________________________

Date: _________________________

Full proposals that include an Israeli collaboration must be also submitted to the BSF by the Israeli partner, using the BSF submission system: http://login.bsf.org.il/ElectronicSubmission/GatewayFormsAndGuidelines.aspx?PageId=7&innerTextID=0. Additional information can be found at: https://www.bsf.org.il.

US-UK-Israel Collaborative proposals

These proposals should begin the title with ”US-UK-Israel Collab:”. Information for the UK and Israel portion should be included as Supplementary Documents as described above.

US-China Collaborative proposals

These proposals should begin the title with ”US-China Collab:”. Collaborative RCN proposals should begin the title with "US-China Collab: RCN:" Information for the China portion of the US-China Collaborative Proposals should be included as Supplementary Documents or as a single copy document as specified below. That information should include the following, and only the following:

1. Biographical sketches of Chinese PIs: Those biographical sketches must conform to NSF format and limitations.
2. Chinese budget: Costs for the Chinese component should be copied from the Chinese submission of the proposal using the NSFC format.
3. Letters of collaboration: Letters of collaboration from Chinese scientists are required. These letters must be restricted to a statement of intent to collaborate only as described above. Additional information on the nature of the collaboration and the roles of the investigators should be included in the Project Description.
4. Sharing of unattributed reviews: Unattributed reviews will be shared with the NSFC. The following text must be included in a Single Copy Document and signed by the lead investigator, confirming that the investigators involved in the proposal acknowledge and confirm this fact.

On behalf of the proposal investigators, I, (insert Lead PI Name), consent that the proposal as well as its unattributed reviews will be shared with the EEID partner-funding agencies.

Signed: _______________________

Organization: ________________________________

Date: _________________________

Full proposals that include an Chinese collaboration must be also submitted to the NSFC by the Chinese partner as supplementary documents, including the Letters of Collaboration, to their online applications, using the NSFC application submission system: http://isisn.nsfc.gov.cn/egrantweb/

US-UK-China Collaborative proposals

These proposals should begin the title with ”US-UK-China Collab:”. Collaborative RCN proposals should begin the title with "US-UK-China Collab: RCN:" Information for the UK and China portion should be included as Supplementary Documents as described above.

US-China-Israel Collaborative proposals

These proposals should begin the title with ”US-China-Israel Collab:”. Information for the China and Israel portion should be included as Supplementary Documents as described above.

B. Budgetary Information

Cost Sharing:

Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.

Other Budgetary Limitations:

EEID projects must have a minimum budget of $1,500,000 in total project costs for all years; US-UK Collaborative, US-Israel, and US-China Collaborative projects must have a minimum budget of $1,000,000 in total project costs for all years. Research that falls within the scope of the EEID initiative but with project aims that do not require budgets of this magnitude should be directed to the appropriate core program.

Budget Preparation Instructions:

Subawards

In accordance with the applicable award terms and conditions, proposers are reminded of their responsibilities with regard to subawardees. Should an award be made, the primary awardee is responsible for ensuring compliance with the appropriate terms and conditions to, as well as the management and oversight of, any subawardees on the project, including any foreign subawardees.

C. Due Dates

• Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. submitter's local time):

       November 20, 2019

       Third Wednesday in November, Annually Thereafter

D. FastLane/Research.gov/Grants.gov Requirements

For Proposals Submitted Via FastLane or Research.gov:

To prepare and submit a proposal via FastLane, see detailed technical instructions available at: https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/a1/newstan.htm. To prepare and submit a proposal via Research.gov, see detailed technical instructions available at: https://www.research.gov/research-portal/appmanager/base/desktop?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=research_node_display&_nodePath=/researchGov/Service/Desktop/ProposalPreparationandSubmission.html. For FastLane or Research.gov user support, call the FastLane and Research.gov Help Desk at 1-800-673-6188 or e-mail fastlane@nsf.gov or rgov@nsf.gov. The FastLane and Research.gov Help Desk answers general technical questions related to the use of the FastLane and Research.gov systems. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this funding opportunity.

For Proposals Submitted Via Grants.gov:

Before using Grants.gov for the first time, each organization must register to create an institutional profile. Once registered, the applicant's organization can then apply for any federal grant on the Grants.gov website. Comprehensive information about using Grants.gov is available on the Grants.gov Applicant Resources webpage: https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants.html. In addition, the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide (see link in Section V.A) provides instructions regarding the technical preparation of proposals via Grants.gov. For Grants.gov user support, contact the Grants.gov Contact Center at 1-800-518-4726 or by email: support@grants.gov. The Grants.gov Contact Center answers general technical questions related to the use of Grants.gov. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this solicitation.

Submitting the Proposal: Once all documents have been completed, the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must submit the application to Grants.gov and verify the desired funding opportunity and agency to which the application is submitted. The AOR must then sign and submit the application to Grants.gov. The completed application will be transferred to the NSF FastLane system for further processing.

Proposers that submitted via FastLane or Research.gov may use Research.gov to verify the status of their submission to NSF. For proposers that submitted via Grants.gov, until an application has been received and validated by NSF, the Authorized Organizational Representative may check the status of an application on Grants.gov. After proposers have received an e-mail notification from NSF, Research.gov should be used to check the status of an application.

VI. NSF Proposal Processing And Review Procedures

Proposals received by NSF are assigned to the appropriate NSF program for acknowledgement and, if they meet NSF requirements, for review. All proposals are carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer, or educator serving as an NSF Program Officer, and usually by three to ten other persons outside NSF either as ad hoc reviewers, panelists, or both, who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with oversight of the review process. Proposers are invited to suggest names of persons they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal and/or persons they would prefer not review the proposal. These suggestions may serve as one source in the reviewer selection process at the Program Officer's discretion. Submission of such names, however, is optional. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the proposal. In addition, Program Officers may obtain comments from site visits before recommending final action on proposals. Senior NSF staff further review recommendations for awards. A flowchart that depicts the entire NSF proposal and award process (and associated timeline) is included in PAPPG Exhibit III-1.

A comprehensive description of the Foundation's merit review process is available on the NSF website at: https://www.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 Building the Future: Investing in Discovery and Innovation - NSF Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years (FY) 2018 – 2022. These strategies are integrated in the program planning and implementation process, of which proposal review is one part. NSF's mission is particularly well-implemented through the integration of research and education and broadening participation in NSF programs, projects, and activities.

One of the strategic objectives in support of NSF's mission is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects, and activities it supports at academic and research institutions. These institutions must recruit, train, and prepare a diverse STEM workforce to advance the frontiers of science and participate in the U.S. technology-based economy. NSF's contribution to the national innovation ecosystem is to provide cutting-edge research under the guidance of the Nation's most creative scientists and engineers. NSF also supports development of a strong science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce by investing in building the knowledge that informs improvements in STEM teaching and learning.

NSF's mission calls for the broadening of opportunities and expanding participation of groups, institutions, and geographic regions that are underrepresented in STEM disciplines, which is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports.

A. Merit Review Principles and Criteria

The National Science Foundation strives to invest in a robust and diverse portfolio of projects that creates new knowledge and enables breakthroughs in understanding across all areas of science and engineering research and education. To identify which projects to support, NSF relies on a merit review process that incorporates consideration of both the technical aspects of a proposed project and its potential to contribute more broadly to advancing NSF's mission "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes." NSF makes every effort to conduct a fair, competitive, transparent merit review process for the selection of projects.

1. Merit Review Principles

These principles are to be given due diligence by PIs and organizations when preparing proposals and managing projects, by reviewers when reading and evaluating proposals, and by NSF program staff when determining whether or not to recommend proposals for funding and while overseeing awards. Given that NSF is the primary federal agency charged with nurturing and supporting excellence in basic research and education, the following three principles apply:

• All NSF projects should be of the highest quality and have the potential to advance, if not transform, the frontiers of knowledge.
• NSF projects, in the aggregate, should contribute more broadly to achieving societal goals. These "Broader Impacts" may be accomplished through the research itself, through activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. The project activities may be based on previously established and/or innovative methods and approaches, but in either case must be well justified.
• Meaningful assessment and evaluation of NSF funded projects should be based on appropriate metrics, keeping in mind the likely correlation between the effect of broader impacts and the resources provided to implement projects. If the size of the activity is limited, evaluation of that activity in isolation is not likely to be meaningful. Thus, assessing the effectiveness of these activities may best be done at a higher, more aggregated, level than the individual project.

With respect to the third principle, even if assessment of Broader Impacts outcomes for particular projects is done at an aggregated level, PIs are expected to be accountable for carrying out the activities described in the funded project. Thus, individual projects should include clearly stated goals, specific descriptions of the activities that the PI intends to do, and a plan in place to document the outputs of those activities.

These three merit review principles provide the basis for the merit review criteria, as well as a context within which the users of the criteria can better understand their intent.

2. Merit Review Criteria

All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the two National Science Board approved merit review criteria. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities.

The two merit review criteria are listed below. Both criteria are to be given full consideration during the review and decision-making processes; each criterion is necessary but neither, by itself, is sufficient. Therefore, proposers must fully address both criteria. (PAPPG 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 PAPPG 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
   1. Advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and
   2. Benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader Impacts)?
2. To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?
3. Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities well-reasoned, well-organized, and based on a sound rationale? Does the plan incorporate a mechanism to assess success?
4. How well qualified is the individual, team, or organization to conduct the proposed activities?
5. Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home organization or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities?

Broader impacts may be accomplished through the research itself, through the activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. NSF values the advancement of scientific knowledge and activities that contribute to achievement of societally relevant outcomes. Such outcomes include, but are not limited to: full participation of women, persons with disabilities, and underrepresented minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); improved STEM education and educator development at any level; increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology; improved well-being of individuals in society; development of a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce; increased partnerships between academia, industry, and others; improved national security; increased economic competitiveness of the United States; and enhanced infrastructure for research and education.

Proposers are reminded that reviewers will also be asked to review the Data Management Plan and the Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan, as appropriate.

Additional Solicitation Specific Review Criteria

Reviewers may be requested to provide numeric NIH overall impact scores based upon their evaluations of the intellectual merits and broader impacts of the applications. Overall Impact is the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, and is based on the following five scored review criteria and applicable additional review criteria. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact. The five core review criteria for NIH are:

Review Criteria

• Significance. Does the project address weaknesses, gaps, important problems, or critical barriers to progress in the field? Is the prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project rigorous? If the project aims are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? Will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, treatments, technologies, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?
• Investigator(s). Are the PD(s)/PI(s), collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? For those in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training? For more established investigators, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project?
• Innovation. Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?
• Approach. Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned, appropriate, and supported by rigor in the prior research to accomplish the project’s specific aims? Have the investigators included plans to address weaknesses in the rigor of prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project? Have the investigators presented strategies to ensure a robust and unbiased approach, as appropriate for the work proposed? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed? Have the investigators presented adequate plans to address relevant biological variables (e.g. sex, age, weight, health condition, human ethnicity, animal species and strains, etc.) for studies in vertebrate animals or human subjects? If the project involves human subjects, are there plans for the protection of human subjects from research risks, and the inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals on the basis of sex/gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as the inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals of all ages (including children and older adults), justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?
• Environment. Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements?

In addition to the above review criteria, the following criteria will be addressed and considered in the determination of scientific merit and rating (as part of the Overall Impact score) if any are relevant to the proposed project.

• Protections for Human Subjects. To be considered human subjects research, the participating individuals must be living and identifiable, and the data and/or specimens are specifically obtained for the proposed research. For research that involves human subjects but does not involve one of the categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46.104, the committee will evaluate the justification for involvement of human subjects and the proposed protections from research risk relating to their participation according to the following five review criteria: 1) risk to subjects, 2) adequacy of protection against risks, 3) potential benefits to the subjects and others, 4) importance of the knowledge to be gained, and 5) data and safety monitoring for clinical trials. For research that involves human subjects and meets the criteria for one or more of the eight categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46.104, the committee will evaluate: 1) the justification for the exemption, 2) human subjects involvement and characteristics, and 3) sources of materials.
• Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Individuals Across the Lifespan. When the proposed project involves human subjects and/or NIH-defined clinical research, the committee will evaluate the proposed plans for the inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals on the basis of sex/gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as the inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals of all ages (including children and older adults) to determine if it is justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed.
• Vertebrate Animals. The committee will evaluate the involvement of live vertebrate animals as part of the scientific assessment according to the following criteria: (1) description of proposed procedures involving animals, including species, strains, ages, sex, and total number to be used; (2) justifications for the use of animals versus alternative models and for the appropriateness of the species proposed; (3) interventions to minimize discomfort, distress, pain and injury; and (4) justification for euthanasia method if NOT consistent with the AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals. Reviewers will assess the use of chimpanzees as they would any other application proposing the use of vertebrate animals.
• Biohazards. Reviewers will identify potential biohazards (biological organisms or their products (such as toxins) that pose a threat to human health) and other hazards (such as radioactivity, dangerous chemicals, or recombinant DNA that are known in their professional community to pose a particularly significant risk to research personnel and/or the environment). Reviewers will assess whether materials or procedures proposed are potentially hazardous to research personnel and/or the environment, and if needed, determine whether adequate protection is proposed.

As applicable for the proposed project, reviewers will address each of the following review considerations, but will not consider them in providing an NIH Overall Impact score.

• Applications from Foreign Organizations. Reviewers will assess whether the project presents special opportunities for furthering research programs through the use of unusual talent, resources, populations, or environmental conditions that exist in other countries and either are not readily available in the United States or augment existing U.S. resources.
• Select Agent Research. If the study involves a Select Agent (refer to http://www.selectagents.gov/SelectAgentsandToxinsList.html), reviewers will assess the information provided in this section of the application, including 1) the Select Agent(s) to be used in the proposed research, 2) the registration status of all entities where Select Agent(s) will be used, 3) the procedures that will be used to monitor possession use and transfer of Select Agent(s), and 4) plans for appropriate biosafety, biocontainment, and security of the Select Agent(s).
• Budget and Period of Support. Reviewers will consider whether the budget and the requested period of support are fully justified and reasonable in relation to the proposed research.

International Collaborations and Expenditures

For all proposals involving international collaborations, reviewers will consider: mutual benefits, true intellectual collaboration with the foreign partner(s), benefits to be realized from the expertise and specialized skills, facilities, sites and/or resources of the international counterpart, and active research engagement of U.S. students and early-career researchers, where such individuals are engaged in the research. Furthermore, the justification for funding for an international branch campus of a US IHE, or involvement of a foreign organization (e.g., through use of subawards or consultant arrangements), as described in PAPPG Chapter I.E, will be specifically reviewed to assure that conditions for the justification of such expenditures have been met, as detailed in PAPPG Chapter I.E.6.

US-UK, US-Israel and US-China Collaborative Projects will also be reviewed with respect to the extent which they demonstrate a substantial collaboration between the US and foreign partners and enhance research on infectious disease transmission.

B. Review and Selection Process

NSF will manage the review of proposals in consultation with NIH and USDA, and in the case of US-UK, US-Israel or US-China Collaborative Projects, the UKRI, BSF or NSFC, respectively. Copies of proposals and unattributed reviews will be shared with the partner funding organizations, as appropriate. Upon conclusion of the review process, meritorious projects may be recommended for funding by any of the partner funding organizations at the option of the agencies, not the proposing organizations.

Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed by Ad hoc Review and/or Panel Review.

Reviewers will be asked to evaluate proposals using two National Science Board approved merit review criteria and, if applicable, additional program specific criteria. A summary rating and accompanying narrative will generally be completed and submitted by each reviewer and/or panel. The Program Officer assigned to manage the proposal's review will consider the advice of reviewers and will formulate a recommendation.

NSF Process: Those proposals selected for funding by NSF will be handled in accordance with standard NSF procedures. 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.

NIH Process: Proposals selected for funding consideration by NIH will be invited to submit reformatted applications to the Division of Receipt and Referral (DRR) in NIH's Center for Scientific Review (CSR). A receipt date of approximately March 15 annually is in effect for the NIH formatted applications. Following the initial peer review, recommended applications that have been resubmitted to the NIH are required to go to second level review by the Advisory Council or Advisory Board of the awarding Institute or Center. The following will be considered in making funding decisions:

• Scientific and technical merit of the proposed project as determined by scientific peer review.
• Availability of funds.
• Relevance of the proposed project to program priorities.

Subsequent award processing and grant administration procedures will be in accordance with NIH policies and procedures.

USDA/NIFA Process: Applicants submitting proposals selected for funding by USDA/NIFA will receive specific instructions outlining what additional information is needed in accordance with the policies of the agency. USDA/NIFA will make final funding decisions based on the results of the peer review process. Applications selected for funding by NIFA will be forwarded to the USDA/NIFA Awards Management Division for award processing in accordance with the USDA/NIFA procedures. All proposals selected for funding by USDA/NIFA, in FY 2020 will be limited to 30 percent indirect cost rate. Therefore, the recovery of indirect costs on awards made by NIFA under this program area may not exceed the lesser of the institution's official negotiated indirect cost rate or the equivalent of 30 percent of total Federal funds awarded. If the limitation of indirect costs changes, the applicant will be notified.

US-UK Collaborative Projects: The UK component of the collaboration will be awarded through the UKRI in accordance with the policies of that agency. If the UKRI selects an application for funding, the costs for the UK element of the proposal must be submitted via the UKRI's Je-S application submission system before final sign-off. UK collaborators should therefore ensure they are registered Je-S users before the proposal is submitted.

US-Israel Collaborative Projects: The Israeli component of the collaboration will be awarded through the BSF in accordance with its policies and regulations. The collaborative proposal must also be submitted to the BSF by the Israeli scientists and include the US scientists' information, after being submitted to the NSF.

US-China Collaborative Projects: The Chinese component of the collaboration will be awarded through the NSFC in accordance with its policies and regulations. The collaborative proposal must be submitted by the Chinese scientists to the NSFC as a supplementary document to their online applications by the NSFC-established deadline.

VII. Award Administration Information

A. Notification of the Award

NSF Process: 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.)

NIH Process: If the application is under consideration for NIH funding, NIH will request "just-in-time" information from the applicant as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.

A formal notification in the form of a Notice of Award (NoA) will be provided to the applicant organization for successful applications. The NoA signed by the grants management officer is the authorizing document and will be sent via email to the grantee's business official.

NIFA Process: Notification of a recommended award is made to the submitting PI by a National Program Leader at NIFA. Verbatim copies of reviews, not including the identity of the reviewers, will be provided to the Principal Investigator at the time of the award recommendation notification.

B. Award Conditions

An NSF award consists of: (1) the award notice, which includes any special provisions applicable to the award and any numbered amendments thereto; (2) the budget, which indicates the amounts, by categories of expense, on which NSF has based its support (or otherwise communicates any specific approvals or disapprovals of proposed expenditures); (3) the proposal referenced in the award notice; (4) the applicable award conditions, such as Grant General Conditions (GC-1)*; or Research Terms and Conditions* and (5) any announcement or other NSF issuance that may be incorporated by reference in the award notice. Cooperative agreements also are administered in accordance with NSF Cooperative Agreement Financial and Administrative Terms and Conditions (CA-FATC) and the applicable Programmatic Terms and Conditions. NSF awards are electronically signed by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer and transmitted electronically to the organization via e-mail.

*These documents may be accessed electronically on NSF's Website at https://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/award_conditions.jsp?org=NSF. Paper copies may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from 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 Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Chapter VII, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg.

Special Award Conditions:

Proposals funded by NIH:

Selection of an application for award is not an authorization to begin performance. Any costs incurred before receipt of the Notice of Award are at the recipient's risk. These costs may be reimbursed only to the extent considered allowable pre-award costs.

Any application awarded by NIH in response to this solicitation will be subject to the DUNS, CCR Registration, and Transparency Act requirements as noted on the Award Conditions and Information for NIH Grants website.

All NIH grant and cooperative agreement awards include the NIH Grants Policy Statement as part of the NoA. For these terms of award, see the NIH Grants Policy Statement Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart A: General and Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart B: Terms and Conditions for Specific Types of Grants, Grantees, and Activities. More information is provided at Award Conditions and Information for NIH Grants.

Proposals funded by USDA/NIFA:

Awards issued as a result of this RFA will have designated the Automated Standard Applications for Payment System (ASAP), operated by the Department of Treasury’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service, as the payment system for funds. For more information see https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/.

Several federal statutes and regulations apply to grant applications considered for review and to project grants awarded under this program. These may include, but are not limited to, the ones listed on the NIFA web page - http://nifa.usda.gov/federal-regulations.

NIFA Federal Assistance Policy Guide—a compendium of basic NIFA policies and procedures that apply to all NIFA awards, unless there are statutory, regulatory, or award-specific requirements to the contrary is available at http://nifa.usda.gov/policy-guide.

Other Requirements

USDA/NIFA:

1. Delegation of Fiscal Responsibility

Unless the terms and conditions of the grant state otherwise, the grantee may not, in whole or in part, delegate or transfer to another person, institution, or organization the responsibility for use or expenditure of grant funds.

2. Changes in Project Plans

The permissible changes by the grantee, PD(s), or other key project personnel in the approved project grant shall be limited to changes in methodology, techniques, or other similar aspects of the project to expedite achievement of the project's approved goals. If the grantee or the PD(s) is uncertain as to whether a change complies with this provision, the question must be referred to the Authorized Departmental Officer (ADO) for a final determination. The ADO is the signatory of the award document, not the program contact.

• Changes in approved goals or objectives shall be requested by the grantee and approved in writing by the ADO prior to effecting such changes. In no event shall requests for such changes be approved which are outside the scope of the original approved project.
• Changes in approved project leadership or the replacement or reassignment of other key project personnel shall be requested by the grantee and approved in writing by the ADO prior to effecting such changes.
• Transfers of actual performance of the substantive programmatic work in whole or in part and provisions for payment of funds, whether or not Federal funds are involved, shall be requested by the grantee and approved in writing by the ADO prior to effecting such transfers, unless prescribed otherwise in the terms and conditions of the grant.
• Changes in Project Period: The project period may be extended by USDA/NIFA without additional financial support, for such additional period(s) as the ADO determines may be necessary to complete or fulfill the purposes of an approved project, but in no case shall the total project period exceed ten years. Any extension of time shall be conditioned upon prior request by the grantee and approval in writing by the ADO, unless prescribed otherwise in the terms and conditions of a grant.
• Changes in Approved Budget: Changes in an approved budget must be requested by the grantee and approved in writing by the ADO prior to instituting such changes if the revision will involve transfers or expenditures of amounts requiring prior approval as set forth in the applicable Federal cost principles, Departmental regulations, or grant award.

US-UK Collaborative projects:

UKRI Awardees are subject to UKRI reporting and administration requirements as appropriate and outlined in the Research Funding Guide at http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/funding/apply/grants-guide.aspx. US-UK Collaborative Projects should report on activities of the entire collaborative effort and submit that information to both NSF and UKRI as part of the annual and final reports.

US-Israel Collaborative projects:

BSF Awardees are subject to BSF reporting and administration requirements as appropriate and outlined in the BSF website: https://www.bsf.org.il/. US-Israel Collaborative Projects should report on activities of the entire collaborative effort and submit that information to both NSF and BSF as part of the annual and final reports.

US-China Collaborative projects:

NSFC Awardees are subject to NSFC reporting and administration requirements as appropriate and outlined in the NSFC website: http://www.nsfc.gov.cn/english/site_1/index.html. US-China Collaborative Projects should report on activities of the entire collaborative effort and submit that information to both NSF and NSFC as part of the annual and final reports.

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 no later than 90 days prior to the end of the current budget period. (Some programs or awards require submission of more frequent project reports). No later than 120 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 Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Chapter VII, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg.

Reporting on NIH Awards:

Awardees will be required to submit the Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR) annually and financial statements as required in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.

A final progress report, invention statement, and the expenditure data portion of the Federal Financial Report are required for closeout of an award, as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.

The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Transparency Act), includes a requirement for awardees of Federal grants to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards issued in FY2011 or later. All awardees of applicable NIH grants and cooperative agreements are required to report to the Federal Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) available at www.fsrs.gov on all subawards over $25,000. See the NIH Grants Policy Statement for additional information on this reporting requirement.

Reporting on USDA Awards:
Grantees are to submit initial project information and annual summary reports to NIFA's electronic, Web-based inventory system that facilitates both grantee submissions of project outcomes and public access to information on Federally-funded projects. The details of these reporting requirements are included in the award terms and conditions.

Any additional reporting requirements will be identified in the terms and conditions of the award (see Part VII, B. above for a link to view the NIFA award terms and conditions).

For informational purposes, the "Federal Financial Report," Form SF-425, consolidates into a single report the former Financial Status Report (SF-269 and SF-269A) and the Federal Cash Transactions Report (SF-272 and SF-272A). The NIFA Agency-specific Terms and Conditions include the requirement that Form SF-425 is due on a annual basis no later than 90 days following the award's anniversary date (i.e., one year following the month and day of which the project period begins and each year thereafter up until a final report is required). A final "Federal Financial Report," Form SF-425, is due 90 days after the expiration date of this award.

US-UK Collaborative projects:

UKRI Awardees are subject to UKRI reporting requirements as outlined in the Research Funding Guide at http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/funding/apply/grants-guide.aspx. US-UK Collaborative Projects should report on activities of the entire collaborative effort and submit that information to both NSF and UKRI as part of the annual and final reports.

US-Israel Collaborative projects:

BSF Awardees are subject to BSF reporting and administration requirements as appropriate and outlined in the BSF website: https://www.bsf.org.il. US-Israel Collaborative Projects should report on activities of the entire collaborative effort and submit that information to both NSF and BSF as part of the annual and final reports.

US-China Collaborative projects:

NSFC Awardees are subject to NSFC reporting and administration requirements as appropriate and outlined in the NSFC website: http://www.nsfc.gov.cn/english/site_1/index.html. US-China Collaborative Projects should report on activities of the entire collaborative effort and submit that information to both NSF and NSFC as part of the annual and final reports.

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:

• Katharina Dittmar, Program Director, NSF/BIO, telephone: (703) 292-7799, email: kdittmar@nsf.gov

• Christine Jessup, Program Director, NIH/FIC, telephone: (301) 496-1653, fax: (301) 402-0779, email: christine.jessup@nih.gov

• Peter Johnson, National Program Leader, USDA/NIFA, telephone: (202) 401-1896, email: pjohnson@nifa.usda.gov

• Sadhana Sharma, Strategy and Policy Manager, UKRI/BBSRC, telephone: 44(0)1793-413099, email: sadhana.sharma@bbsrc.ac.uk

• Rachel (Heni) Haring, Deputy Executive Director, BSF, telephone: 972 2 5828239, email: heni@bsf.org.il

• Xiuping Liu, Division Director, NSFC, telephone: 86 10-62325377, email: liuxp@nsfc.gov.cn

• Daniel Janes, Program Director, NIH/NIGMS, telephone: (301) 594-0943, email: daniel.janes@nih.gov

• Stephanie Coomes, Health Scientist Administrator, NIH/NIAID, telephone: (301) 761-6855, email: stephanie.coomes@nih.gov

• Jing Chen, Program Manager, NSFC, telephone: 86 10-62326877, email: chenjing@nsfc.gov.cn

• Kerry Young, Senior Portfolio Manager, UKRI/ESRC, telephone: 44(0)1793-413049, email: Kerry.Young@esrc.ukri.org

• Morven Roberts, Program Manager, UKRI/MRC, telephone: 44(0)2073-952236, email: morven.roberts@mrc.ukri.org

• Victoria Wickens, Program Manager, UKRI/NERC, telephone: 44(0)7525-906284, email: victoria.wickens@nerc.ukri.org

• Rebecca Ferrell, Program Director, NSF/SBE, telephone: (703) 292-7850, email: rferrell@nsf.gov

• Daniel J. Thornhill, Program Director, NSF/GEO, telephone: (703) 292-8143, email: dthornhi@nsf.gov

• Samuel M. Scheiner, Program Director, NSF/BIO, telephone: (703) 292-7175, email: sscheine@nsf.gov

For questions related to the use of FastLane or Research.gov, contact:

• FastLane and Research.gov Help Desk: 1-800-673-6188

  FastLane Help Desk e-mail: fastlane@nsf.gov.

  Research.gov Help Desk e-mail: rgov@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: support@grants.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, "NSF Update" is an information-delivery system designed to keep potential proposers and other interested parties apprised of new NSF funding opportunities and publications, important changes in proposal and award policies and procedures, and upcoming NSF Grants Conferences. Subscribers are informed through e-mail or the user's Web browser each time new publications are issued that match their identified interests. "NSF Update" also is available on NSF's website.

Grants.gov provides an additional electronic capability to search for Federal government-wide grant opportunities. NSF funding opportunities may be accessed via this mechanism. Further information on Grants.gov may be obtained at https://www.grants.gov.

A notice on the Ecology and Evolution of Infectious Disease research initiative and this announcement is also posted in the NIH Guide to Grants and Contracts https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/index.html along with all NIH opportunities.

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 (FASED) provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities to work on NSF-supported projects. See the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide Chapter II.E.6 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 https://www.nsf.gov Location: 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314 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: 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 System of Record Notices, NSF-50, "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," and NSF-51, "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records.” 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
Alexandria, VA 22314