1. Information Session: W. M
Information Session: W. M. Keck Foundation Concept Paper Deadline: January 6, 2015
Maureen Martin, Executive Director, Foundation Relations
Office of University Development

2. Agenda General Overview The Application Process Q&A Foundations
W. M. Keck Foundation
The Application Process
Q&A

3. General Overview: Why Foundation Funding?
Prestige – junior and senior faculty awards – Packard, Sloan, BWF, Ellison, etc
Support “out-of-the-box” ideas
Fund higher-risk projects
Some offer a focus on a particular disease
Pilot funding, proof of concept
Round out funding for a larger project (or support salary or lab costs)

4. Why Foundations support Science
Push the envelop of science (bridge innovative ideas into the feds - they want to be where no one else is)
Some think federal grant system of review is broken or isn’t paying enough attention to their particular area of interest.
Focus researchers attention on a particular problem or disease (this can include associations and venture philanthropy)
Think private philanthropy can have quicker ‘on the ground’ answers and impact to the world’s problems (Gates)
Support Junior Faculty in launching their careers

5. What does the (Development) Foundation Relations office do?
Provide ideas of Foundations that would be interested in your work
Advise on approach to a Foundation
Feedback on proposal drafts
Recruit mentors for particular applications
Celebrate your success
Track opportunities as they arise - advertise and target

6. W. M. Keck Foundation Motivation
The W.M. Keck Foundation was founded by William Myron Keck ( ), an entrepreneur and innovator in the oil business, as well as a wild cat oil man who founded Superior Oil Company. Mr. Keck pioneered many of the oil extraction methods still used today including directional drilling, seismic exploration and off-shore drilling.
The foundation was created in 1954 to further Mr. Keck’s passion for imaginative and innovative science. Mr. Keck broke barriers in science and oil exploration, and the breakthroughs that he made had an impact on many other industries as well. The W.M. Keck Foundation continues his legacy by funding projects that can unlock the boundaries of current science or find new ways of doing research that advance science in new domains.

7. Award Overview
Two very connected Research programs within the Foundation
Science and Engineering - Supports pioneering science and engineering research and the development of promising new technologies.
Medical Science – Seeks to advance the frontiers of the life sciences by supporting basic research that is high-risk
Both seek projects that are distinctive and novel in their approach to problems, or question the prevailing paradigm, or push the edge/break open new territory/have the potential to transform their field.

8. Research Project Award Overview
Award Amount: $500,000 to $5,000,000 (for 2-3 years) direct costs Likely - $1.5m to $2m, with some affection for $3m
Number of awards in 2013: 22
No predetermination of how many awards in each of their two programs. 50/50 in 2013.
Abstracts are available online.
Funding has some restrictions
No indirect costs (can be considered UM contribution)
No tuition (also considered UM contribution)
No more than 10% of PI’s salary allowed
No more than 10% of the cost of renovation

9. Application Process - Overview
Internal Concept Papers for funding eleven months later – June and January
Selection of up to 4 concepts in each program to present to foundation for feedback and advice – before August 15 and February 15
UMOR reviews with foundation staff in July and January
Advice used to select up to one idea to move forward to each program
Phase I Foundation Deadlines – November 1 and May 1
3 Pages, optimally delivered to the foundation one to two weeks early
Deep, concise and compelling language. Examples available.
Phase II – invitation only – quick turnaround for February 15 and August 15
Site Visit – Approximately 1-2 months after Phase II deadline
Final Decision - Board selects finalists at June and December meeting (start date July 1 or January 1)
January/Winter concept cycle is funded at following December board meeting
July/ Summer concept cycle is funded at following June board meeting
Feedback loop with Keck Foundation and Foundation Relations team on ideas from University to put forward. This gives the University the opportunity to present ideas to the Foundation to get a sense of the types of ideas that strike Keck as interesting for this round. It also allows us to hear their feedback on specific directions they would like to see an idea taken. They put a cut off date out there, after which they won't give feedback. This is usually by the end of March but they've moved it to end of Feb. This takes the form of a written draft outlining the idea (sometimes a visit if we weren't pressed for time). It can take the look and feel of a rough sketch of the pre-proposal that comes in Phase 2.

10. Characteristics of Success
Explain clearly the overarching goal of the project, articulating both the approach (what) and methodology (how) that will be used. How might this be transformational? What’s the big deal?
Focus on emerging areas of research
Envision the future state their work would enable
Have the potential to develop breakthrough technologies, instrumentation or methodologies
Are innovative, distinctive and interdisciplinary
Demonstrate a high level of risk due to unconventional approaches, or by challenging the prevailing paradigm
Have the potential for transformative impact, such as founding a new field of research, impacting multiple fields simultaneously, enabling observations not previously possible or the altering the perception of a previously intractable problem
Bring together a complementary team of researchers from unique disciplines, each one delivering innovative work

11. Applying: Getting Started
Step 1: Treat the internal call like a full competition
Step 2: Research past winners
Get a sense of the high-risk ideas being funded
Review their documentation and the intensity of the language they use
Note their science advisors and the caliber of their work
Abstract provided in grants lists is part of the proposal – your first paragraph should be this accessible and clear.

12. Applying: Writing the Proposal
Step 3: Tell the Story Well
Grantsmanship makes a difference
Write good science that is accessible to a smart 'lay' audience of scientists (we can help)
Communicate clearly and build excitement for your work: be explicit about why and how your work is innovative and risky - you are poised to have a huge impact on your field
Be clear on what you will do and how you will achieve success
Explain why Keck funding is necessary to carry out your work (why isn't this fundable by federal sources).
Envision how your work will change the game in the fields being engaged

13. Keck instructions on concept papers
Two-page concepts in 12 point font with 1 inch margins should include:
PI name and the Keck category for funding
an introduction for internal reviewers of what the work is and why it’s amazing.
an overview of the proposed project emphasizing any unique aspects and pilot studies (for Research Program concepts, indicate area of emphasis for project - medical research or science and engineering research);
a description of the methodologies and key personnel; why each one
a brief justification of the need for Keck support; and
an estimated budget broken down, if possible, by major areas, e.g., personnel, equipment, consumable supplies, etc. (budgets can be rough approximations at this stage).
If there’s room, the authors are free to add other details (e.g., background to put the research into perspective, description of the institution’s prominence in the field, etc.).  Avoid illustrations in these single-pagers – the researchers will need all the room for text.  If a reference is necessary, abbreviate it as (Science, 323, 45, ‘11).  DO NOT USE (Jones et al., 2011).

14. Sample Outline - Concept Paper
Include PI name, Project Title and Team at the top of the page.
Impact Statement: one to two sentences in bold that describe your idea and its potential impact.
Describe the following three things: 1) the problem your idea is trying to solve, 2) how current barriers will be overcome, and 3) a clear vision of what will be gained. Include a statement on why your idea is an unconventional or creative approach to the stated problem.
Describe the scientific basis for your proposed idea and why you expect it to succeed
Describe your experimental plan: Highlight the ‘What’ and “How”
Why Keck: Be explicit about why the proposed project is outside the range of federal sponsors? (have you proposed your idea to them? Talked to program officers, etc).
Alternative Paragraph 1: Summarize your idea: 1) what is the big question and your vision what it will look like when this question can be answered, 2) what are the current barriers to realizing this vision, 3) envision what it will look like if vision is realized, 4) problems with current approach(s), and 5) your BIG idea and how you are going to overcome the current barriers.

15. Common Strengths
Idea clearly pushing boundary of science forward. Clearly a big deal.
Well written – clear and explicit statements that lead the reviewer to understand why the idea is ‘cool’, ‘big’, ‘game-changer’, tranformative – your overview paragraph is the ‘hook’
Strong Team – pushing boundaries in each engaged discipline
Developing a completely new instrument/ new methodology
Controversial approach, not current ‘fad’
Counter to current focus of the field

16. Common Strengths: Feedback from the Foundation
Common Comments from the W. M. Keck Foundation:
There is sufficient information in the ‘what’ the team will do and the ‘how’ – not too much space spent on the ‘why’
Clear, explicit statements on what the big impact will be of the work, if successful
The best concepts clearly distinguish proposed work from the field (they often say ‘we see a lot of proposals in this space’)
Case can be strengthened if faculty have applied and been declined by federal agency (can be just a phone call with the program officer)

17. Common Weaknesses Lacks problem statement
Missing key partners (e.g. technology proposal lacks expert in biological field where they plan to use their technology)
We can’t see why THIS work will be transformative. Didn’t the big thing happen at the last stage?
Doable – not risky. Too iterative
Proposal too far along, already have had funding in this space
Doesn’t differentiate the proposed work from work currently funded by the engaged PIs (e.g. innovator award, career award, etc.)

18. Common Weaknesses
Work is too applied (e.g. focused on drug discovery, device to be used in the clinic, etc). Too far downstream in a particular disease.
Lacks collaborators
Writing is not accessible to diverse set of reviewers (Advice: Write to an non-expert audience of smart scientists and engineers)
Doesn’t challenge ideas, is a conventional approach
Too focused on a particular disease (Advice: focus more on methods being developed that could transform the basic science)

19. Questions?
Contact Information
Maureen S Martin, Executive Director, Foundation Relations
Phone:
Submit your concept to: