Presentation on theme: "What is EPSCoR and what does it mean for Missouri?"— Presentation transcript:
What is EPSCoR and what does it mean for Missouri?
EPSCoR Personnel Joe Polacco, PD. Office of Research ( academic home, Biochemistry Department ) Anna Waldron, co-PD. Director, Science Outreach, Department of Learning, Teaching & Curriculum Women behind the scenes: Mary Licklider, Sherri Sachdev, Grantwriters. Jeni Hart, Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis
What is EPSCoR? The Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) fulfills the NSF to promote scientific progress nationwide. EPSCoR is directed at jurisdictions (states, mainly) that have received lesser amounts of NSF Research and Development (R&D) funding (0.75% of total pie). NSF EPSCoR establishes partnerships with government higher education and industry to effect sustained improvements in a jurisdiction’s R&D capacity.
And what does EPSCoR mean for Missouri? We are now EPSCoR-Eligible Not MU, not UM, but YOU, MISSOURI
Where are we now? Missouri’s NSF funding made it EPSCoR-eligible in Fall 2011 (0.72% of NSF Total). A statewide team submitted a required planning grant proposal in January 2012. If that proposal is awarded, we have 12 months to submit a RII Track-1 proposal. That was going to be submitted in October 2012. However, since the initial news of our eligibility, our share has dropped to 0.62%. We are now aiming for a “quality” over “speed” proposal- - projected June/July 2013 submission
Research Infrastructure Improvement Program Track-1 (RII Track-1) awards provide up to $4 million per year for up to 5 years Support physical, human, and cyber infrastructure improvements in research areas selected by the jurisdiction's EPSCoR Governing Committee
a.Organize a GOVERNING COMMITTEE that represents business, workforce, research and academic sectors b.Compare Missouri’s success at NSF with its strengths in R & D c.Identify key limiting factors for enhancement of Missouri’s R & D success Planning Grant: Planning for Planning WHAT WE DID
a.Organize a GOVERNING COMMITTEE that represents business, workforce, research and academic sectors b.Compare Missouri’s success at NSF with its strengths in R & D c.Identify key limiting factors for enhancement of Missouri’s R & D success d.Solicit input from the state: info on how to “de- limit” those factors (open the bottleneck) -- sustainable infrastructure improvement Planning Grant: Planning for Planning WHAT WE DID, and WHAT WE ARE DOING
a. Governing Committee Rob DuncanMU (Vice-Provost for Research) Lisa K. Bonneau2-year institutions Chris ChungMissouri Partnership (Business Recruitment) Gary ClappAnimal health corridor business interests Carmen DeHartSmall Business Dan Getman (Keith Gary)Kansas City Area Life Sciences Institute Gale “Hap” HairstonMissouri Department of Education Jason HallMissouri Technology Corporation Deb HollingsworthAT&T Even KharaschWashington University Krishna KrishnamurthyMissouri S&T Todd MocklerDanforth Plant Sciences Center Wenping Qiu4-year institutions (Missouri State) David RussellCommissioner of Higher Education Gouranga SahaLincoln University Kurt SchaeferChair, Senate Appropriations Bill SimonCenter for Emerging Technologies Raymond Tait(SLU) Chair of RAM Carter WardMissouri School Boards Association
Planning Grant: Planning for Planning b.Compare Missouri’s success at NSF with its strengths in R & D Top-funded Institutions Top-funded Disciplines Overlap with Missouri’s Target Clusters (for economic development) Does a Consensus for Infrastructure Improvement Clearly Emerge from Disciplines and Target Clusters?
Overview of Missouri NSF Bioscience Awards InstitutionFY09FY10FY11Total MU21372684 Washington University17253476 UMSL89623 SLU61512 MS&T1528 TOTAL BIOSCIENCE AWARDS (5 Institutions) 537673203 TOTAL BIOSCIENCE AWARDS (STATEWIDE) 589286236 We’re Strong in Biosciences at NSF
Overview of Missouri NSF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Awards InstitutionFY09FY10FY11Total MU0347 UMKC0314 UMSL1067 Washington University39719 MS&T0213 TOTAL INFORMATION AWARDS (TOP 5 Institutions) 4171940 TOTAL INFORMATION AWARDS (STATEWIDE) 7182146 We’re Coming on at NSF in Information Technology
Planning Grant: Planning for Planning b.Compare Missouri’s success at NSF with its strengths in R & D Top-funded Institutions Top-funded Disciplines Overlap with Missouri’s Target Clusters (for economic development) Does a consensus for infrastructure improvement clearly emerge from disciplines and target clusters?
Planning Grant: Planning for Planning c.Identify key limiting factors for enhancement of Missouri’s R & D success Top-funded Institutions Top-funded institutions Top-funded disciplines Overlap with Missouri’s Target Clusters (for economic development) Does a Consensus for Infrastructure Improvement Clearly Emerge from Disciplines and Target Clusters? We have identified the cyber-bioscience interface
Advanced Manufacturing Energy Solutions Biosciences Health Sciences & Services Information Technology Financial & Professional Services Transportation & Logistics Percent of Missouri workers 22.712215 or 16.4<48.317 Percent with LQ ≥ 1.019.5152630.84128.1<23 Occupations with salaries ≥ $39.250 >9092>6065.482.465.661 Multiplier effects2.02-3.731.26-5.551.28-2.812.7-3.721.42-2.771.25-4.83 Average wage$73,023$57,346$61,814$51,303$62,882$55,304$49,639 * NSF “Target Disciplin es * * * Target Clusters
Planning Grant: Planning for Planning We have identified the cyber-bioscience interface: Clearly, BioSciences and Information Technology fit under this rubric. BUT, Energy solutions, Advanced Manufacturing can, as well.
FY 09-11 NSF Awards to Missouri By Target Cluster TARGET CLUSTER/ Organization FY09FY10FY11Total Advanced Manufacturing (nano & engineering) 10221646 Bioscience (all inclusive)589286236 Avila University0101 Botanical Society of America0011 Donald Danforth Plant Sci Ctr1315 Equinosis LLC0011 Lincoln University0022 Missouri Botanical Garden1146 Missouri State University0303 Missouri S&T1528 Missouri Western State Univ.0101 Rocco, Nicholas T0011 Saint Louis University61512 Southeast Missouri State Univ.0112 Truman State University0314 University of Missouri21372684 Univ. of Missouri-Kansas City3216 Univ. of Missouri-St. Louis89623 Washington University17253476 Energy Solutions16916 Financial/Professional Services36918 Health Care Sciences/Services0246 Information Technology7182146 Transportation and Logistics0022 TOTAL AWARDS79146147372
NSF award dollars per MO institution Thanks to Sherri Sachdev
Planning Grant: Planning for Planning a.Organize a GOVERNING COMMITTEE that represents business, workforce, research and academic sectors b.Compare Missouri’s success at NSF with its strengths in R & D c.Identify key limiting factors for enhancement of Missouri’s R & D success d.Solicit input from the state, info on how to “de-limit” those factors (open the bottleneck) leading to sustainable infrastructure improvement
How can you get involved? Submit a concept paper Due June 15 Think BIG! Think statewide, regional! Think national model! d. Solicit input from the state, info on how to “de-limit” those factors (open the bottleneck) leading to sustainable infrastructure improvement Planning Grant: WHAT WE ARE DOING
Concept Paper Maximum 6 pages (including the cover page and narrative) 2-page NSF-formatted biographical sketch for each author listed (not counted in page limit) Maximum of THREE authors of a concept paper. Maximum of THREE papers per author Maximum of ONE senior-authored paper per individual Pays to Interdigitate
Concept Paper To RII-Track 1 Proposal We have named (are naming) an External Advisory Committee Share papers among External Advisory and Governing Committees and EPSCoR Consultant Finalize objectives, based on recommendations
Concept Papers to RII-Track 1 DATESTEP in PROCESS June 15 (FRIDAY)Concept Papers received June 19 (TUESDAY) Triage proposals that don’t meet requirements. Mortal sin: Lack of networking, too “centric,” no enhancement of INFRASTRUCTURE-PLATFORM June 20 (WEDNESDAY) Proposals available on Sharepoint to Advisory Committee/Board Reviewers July 04 (WEDNESDAY)Proposal reviews due back from Advisory Committee/Board July 11 (WEDNESDAY)Advisory Committee meets via teleconference (2 hrs) to discuss its findings July 13 (FRI), 16 (MON) or 17 (TUES) Governing board meets via teleconference (3 hrs) to discuss top-rated papers FALL, 2012‘Winning’ concepts authors meet at ‘constitutional convention, Columbia (or, Philadelphia)
Types of Infrastructure Physical Cyber Personnel And, of course, combinations of the above
Types of Infrastructure Leveraged state resources... For example, drought studies and crop performance in different state regions -- analysis under FIELD conditions: Rain shelters (physical) Real-time data sharing (cyber-infrastructure) Genomics/transcriptomics (core Facilities, HPC) Start-up Packages (personnel) Broader impacts/STEM
Types of Infrastructure Expand and LINK regional initiatives and resources statewide Grapevine genomics initiated in Mountain Grove, Missouri State University. Links with other genomics, phenotyping, improvement efforts-- Plants AND Animal (Bees, Bulls and Bulbs) Cyber links: MU Informatics Institute (MUII); KC area HPC; MOREnet; Efforts North and South of I-70 Improved software platforms: Phenotyping, Metabolic-to- ecological scaling, Protein and RNA modeling (drug-binding, protein engineering The Human Circuits Project (Why not a plant?)
“Biological research is in crisis, and in Alan Turing’s work there is much to guide us. Technology gives us the tools to analyze organisms at all scales, but we are drowning in a sea of data and thirsting for some theoretical framework with which to understand it. Although many believe that ‘more is better’, history tells us that ‘least is best’. We need theory and a firm grasp on the nature of the objects we study to predict the rest.” ------ Sydney Brenner (2012) Nature 482: 461 (An issue celebrating Alan Turing’s 100th birthday) IS MORE BETTER?
Electron Microscopy – remote management of microscope Videography Chi-Ren Shyu – search tool that will search for patterns in pathology slides 3D architectural lab – immersion visualization (NEW ACRONYM: “ CAVE ” = COMPUTER-ASSISTED VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENT) Geospatial – environmental/sociological/climate Informatics TYPES OF VISUALIZATION
Seven of 8 state neighbors are EPSCoR juridictions: leveraging leveraged dollars Natural products → pharmaceuticals- tap plant diversity (IA, AK, KS) -- employ high school students Plant genomics initiatives with IA, KS (maize, wheat, soybean) Watershed management, climatological studies with Arkansas, Oklahoma and other states (Panama Canal Zone-- $3 M from NSF Bio) Types of Collaboration
Missouri STRENGTHS -- animal and plant agriculture: Dog models of human cancers (genomics, GWAS in humans vs genetic mapping of “pre-conditoned” dog genes) Animal-plant-human nexus in nutrition Adaptation to a warmer, drier/wetter Missouri -- animals AND plants Types of Collaboration
Strong MO tradition mining (UMRolla) and in mineral nutrition Mineral::Bio Interface Bio-mining (rare earths?) Mineral markers in animal and plant phenotypes Nanotechnology, new catalysts/reactive surfaces? MURR involvement Types of Collaboration
I think an audience of engaged and driven scientists will have no problem making connections BUT do not neglect the “Broader Impacts” EMBRACE them, make them part of the science -- engage multiple demographic segments of the state Types of Collaboration
Admonition from Jim Gosz (Idaho EPSCoR) Senior Program Director, NSF EPSCoR Program (2005-2007) Merit Review Criteria Intellectual Merit is the easy part! Broader Impacts continue to be difficult for research proposals, however, if the diversity, education and outreach plans are developed well, EPSCoR proposals fare well Pay close attention to the additional review criteria in the RII announcement. Panels are instructed to review those criteria and expertise is built into the panel to do that rigorously TUNE IN ON ANNA WALDRON’S 2 PM PRESENTATION, TODATY
Thank you for your time. I will be happy to TRY to answer your questions