Research Response

6/23/09

Reporting Requirements for Stimulus-Funded Awards
The purpose of this Guidance is to provide Federal agencies and Funding recipients with information necessary to effectively implement the Reporting requirements included in Section 1512 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“Recovery Act,” or “the Act”)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/memoranda_fy2009/m09-21.pdf

04/20/09

DOE releases Smart Grid Notices (ARRA) Action
The Department of Energy (DOE) has listed its first Notice of Intent (NOI) and draft Financial Opportunity Announcement (FOA) on Smart Grid ARRA and released a breakdown of its ARRA spending on Smart Grid.  In summary, of the $4.5 billion DOE ARRA investment:
(1)   $3.375 billion has been allocated for Smart Grid Investment Grants (technology deployment R & D) with the FOA anticipated June 17, 2009.  Another $500,000 to $20 million has been allocated for smart grid technology deployments.  DOE will also provide grants of $100,000 to $5 million for the deployment of grid monitoring devices. Note: This program provides matching grants of up to 50 percent for investments planned by electric utilities and other entities to deploy smart grid technologies.  The program will use a competitive, merit-based process to select qualified projects to receive funding.

(2)   $615 million has been allocated for Smart Grid Demonstration Projects (storage, monitoring and technology viability) with the FOA to be finalized May 6, 2009.  Smart Grid Regional Demonstrations will quantify smart grid costs and benefits, verify technology viability, and examine new business models; Utility-Scale Energy Storage Demonstrations can include technologies such as advanced battery systems, ultra-capacitors, flywheels, compressed air energy systems, and applications such as wind and photovoltaic integration and grid congestion relief. Grid Monitoring Demonstrations will support the installation and networking of multiple high-resolution, time-synchronized grid monitoring devices (“phasor measurement units”) that allow transmission system operators to see, and therefore influence, electric flows in real-time.

04/13/09

RO1 revisions now available from NCRR
The National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) has announced the opportunity for investigators and United States institutions/organizations with active R01 and other investigator-initiated awards to submit revision applications (formerly termed competitive supplements) to leverage the resources, expertise, and infrastructure of the NCRR Centers and Center-like Programs through significant expansion of the scope or research protocol of approved and funded projects.  Support for these revision applications will come from funds provided to NIH through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“Recovery Act” or “ARRA”), Public Law 111-5.   Please see www.ncrr.nih.gov/recovery/revisions/details for further information.

04/12/09

NIH summer research experiences
NIH is supporting summer research experiences for local high school and college students, and elementary, middle, and secondary school science teachers, and faculty from non-research intensive institutions through the ARRA. These administrative supplements are available, on an expedited basis, to NIH-funded faculty (See NOT-OD-09-060 or http://grants.nih.gov/recovery/summer_opps_contacts/add.htm).

Creating the next generation of scientists is an interest shared by NIH and leaders at research institutions around the country. Through these supplements, young people interested in careers as scientists and teachers can get closely involved in top-tier research projects at their local institutions and hopefully be inspired to pursue careers in biomedical research.  If you have questions, or wish to update the information entered into the on-line tool, please send an e-mail to SummerResearch@mail.nih.gov. 

04/11/09

HHS says $338 M for Community Health Centers
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has $338 million (in ARRA funding) to expand services offered at the nation’s community health centers. 

IDS (Increased Demand for Services) grants are being distributed to  distributed 1,128 federally qualified health center grantees that will use the funds over the next two years to create or retain approximately 6,400 health center jobs and add new providers, and expand hours of operations or services. 

The IDS awards are the second set of health center grants provided through the Recovery Act.  On March 2, President Obama announced grants worth $155 million to establish 126 new health centers. 

Health centers served more than 16 million patients in 2007, about 40 percent of whom had no health insurance.  To see a list of grantees by state, http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/hrsa/idsgawards.html

04/03/09

Grants.gov and Adobe Reader: Tips on Successful Proposal Submissions
The majority of grant proposals  submitted to federal funding agencies are required to use Grants.gov electronic routing system. Grants.gov requires the use of specific versions of Adobe Reader software.  Proposals submitted through the Grants.gov using a non-compatible version of Adobe creates errors in the submission process and increases the likelihood that a proposal will be rejected.  The following are  some easy steps to assist you with ensuring that you have an appropriate version of Adobe.

1. Go to http://www.grants.gov
   
   
2. At the bottom of this screen in a light blue box you will find  a link that reads “Verify your Adobe Reader Version is Compatible with Grants.gov”. [Click on this link]
   
   
3. When the page opens you will see a second link that reads “ADOBE VERSIONING TEST APPLICATION PACKAGE”. [Click on this link]
   
   
4. If the Grants.gov package opens then you have a compatible software package [No further action is needed]. NOTE: If you plan on working from home or from a laptop – repeat this process on those specific computers.
   
   
5. If you receive an error instead of an opened Grants.gov package (as explained in step #4) you will need to update you Adobe software. This software can be downloaded from the same page as the ADOBE VERSIONING TEST APPLICATION PACKAGE or
    http://www.grants.gov/help/download_software.jsp#adobe811 

Click here for Challenge Grant Checklist

04/01/09

NIH announces new “GO Grants”
NIH has announced new GO grants (Research and Research Infrastructure “Grand Opportunities”). These (AARA–funded) GO Grants will support projects addressing large, specific biomedical and biobehavioral research benefitting from significant 2-year only funding.  Only applications with budgets greater than $500,000 total costs per year for a two year project period will be considered.   For more information, http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-OD-09-004.html.

The GO Grant initiative seeks:  novel approaches in areas addressing specific knowledge gaps, scientific opportunities, new technologies, data generation, or research methods that would--with significant 2-year funding-- quickly advance the area in significant ways. Applicants may propose (1) to address either a specific research question or (2) creation of a unique infrastructure/resource designed to accelerate future scientific progress.  All trans-NIH GO grant funded research should (1) have high short-term impact and likelihood of enabling growth and investment in biomedical research and development, public health, and health care delivery, and (2) possibly lay the foundation for new fields of investigation.

GO Grants will utilize the NIH RC2 award mechanism to support large-scale research projects that accelerate critical breakthroughs, early and applied research on cutting-edge technologies, and new approaches to improve synergy and interactions among multi and interdisciplinary research teams. (Projects spanning the missions of Institutes, Centers and Offices may be supported with ARRA funds allocated to the Common Fund.)

Total annual cost for individual awards will differ depending on project scope and the number of participating institutions. Award size will vary with the nature and scope of the proposed research. The total amount awarded and the number of awards made will depend upon the numbers, quality, and costs of applications selected. Additional information regarding available funds and awards anticipated may be found at the participating IC websites. See http://grants.nih.gov/recovery/ic_go.html

Office of Research and Graduate Education in cooperation with the Office of Sponsored Awards Management (SAM) is implementing a mandatory internal deadline of MAY 22, 2009 for NIH “GO” proposals. These proposals must be complete in the required Grants.gov format and submitted to SAM no later than May 22nd.   Proposals received after this time will be reviewed and submitted as time allows with no assurance of meeting the NIH deadline. Your cooperation in helping to make this process go as smoothly as possible is greatly appreciated. 

03/24/09

REMINDER: Internal Deadline for NIH Challenge Grant Proposals - April 22
The Offices of Research and Graduate Education and Sponsored Award Management (SAM) expect the recent announcements of stimulus related funding opportunities to generate an unusually high volume of proposal submissions for the various agency deadlines.  While this is a unique and welcome opportunity, it will come with some logistical challenges.  The primary concern will be assuring that all proposals are processed and submitted in time to meet agency deadlines. The first major test will be the NIH Challenge Grant deadline of April 27th.

The Challenge Grant program has created an unprecedented amount of interest at USC and throughout the nation. The volume of proposals responding to this program is certain to push the recently implemented federal electronic proposal submission system, Grants.gov, beyond its limits.  This has been recognized by the Office of Management and Budget. Last week it instructed agencies to develop alternate plans to handle the increasing volume of activity related to the stimulus funded programs.

While SAM long has maintained an internal guideline requesting that proposals be submitted three days prior to the deadline, the norm is for proposals to arrive for submittal on the day of the agency deadline.  This is proving to be very risky as SAM staff members routinely encounter significant difficulty submitting proposals via Grants.gov.  Single proposals often require multiple attempts and take hours before submission is accepted by the Grants.gov system.  Because proposals must be submitted through this system, there is no option to “sign and send” off through FedEx.   Thus, it is only a matter of time before a USC researcher‘s proposal misses a deadline.

To lessen the chances of this occurring and to allow for an orderly submission process, the Office of Research and Graduate Education is implementing a mandatory internal deadline of April 22, 2009 for NIH Challenge Grant proposals. These proposals must be complete in the required Grants.gov format and submitted to SAM no later than April 22nd.   Proposals received after this time will be reviewed and submitted as time allows with no assurance of meeting the NIH deadline. Your cooperation in helping to make this process go as smoothly as possible is greatly appreciated.

03/23/09

Meeting Notes: NIH Opportunities and ARRA
Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Attendees: Rose Booze, Russ Pate, Helmut Ablrecht,  Arlene Andrews, Suzi Baxter, Frank Berger, Steve Blair, John Dawson, Dimitar Deliyski, Don Edwards, Paul Eleazer, Naomi Farber,  Lyndie Forthofer, Maryah Fram, Darcy Freedman, Julius Fridriksson, Norma Frizzell, Edward Frongillo, Paulo Guimaraes, Sue Heiney, Beth Herron, Victor Hirth, Steve Hooker, Menia Lee, Robert McKeown, DeAnne Messias, Lee Pearson (for Donna Richter), Edsel Pena, Ron Prinz, David Reisman John Rose, Richard Schulz, Rita Snyder, Donna Stafkey-Mailey, Hildy Teegen, Pam Weiss, Wanda Hutto, Danielle McElwain, Melissa Mattison, and Richard White

Notes:
Dr. Booze opened the presentation with a brief welcome, a reminder that informational packets were available, and provided an overview of the NIH’s approach to ARRA stimulus funding or grants. 

The meeting began with a summary of the NIH’s funding opportunities available to faculty.   Dr. Booze noted that $10.4 billion would be made available to support scientific research priorities ($8.2 billion), extramural construction ($1 billion), shared instrumentation ($300 million), and comparative effectiveness research ($400 million). 

She said for the Extramural Research Facilities Improvement Program (C06) - RFA-RR-09-008, USC has identified three priority areas: Discovery Building, Medical School Building 3 and Animal Facilities Area for improvements. Also said that if awarded, the shell spaces in Discovery Building and Medical School Building 3 would be upfitted for general lab space and occupants will be decided at a later date.  Noted that the Animal Facilities Area improvements would benefit all faculty who use animals in their research. 

Moving to the High-End Instrumentation Grant Program (S10) - PAR-09-118, Booze noted that its purpose was to support purchase of a single major item of biomedical research equipment costing between $600,000 and $8 million. She added that funding totaled approximately $160 M and that this was to be divided into about 40 new awards.  Dr. Booze said applications must be for different types of equipment and identify three or more NIH funded investigators (Principal Investigators of active P01, R01, U01, R35, R37, DP1 or DP2 research grants) who will use it.

Regarding the Shared Instrumentation Grant Program (S10) - PAR-09-028 she described its purpose as support for purchase or upgrade of commercially available instruments costing between $100,000 and up to $500,000.  She added that the available totaled $43 M and was designed to fund approximately 125 new awards. She also said applications must be for different types of equipment and identify three or more NIH funded investigators (Principal Investigators of active P01, R01, U01, R35, R37, DP1 or DP2 research grants) who will use it.

Segueing into that morning’s announcement of Competitive Revisions & Administrative Supplements for currently funded NIH projects, Dr. Booze noted these grants are not limited (a) one to investigator or (b) one per project. She also described the relative ease with which she’d been able to assess opportunities in her own field and confirm her conclusions with a NIDA program officer.

After fielding a few questions from meeting attendees, Dr. Booze introduced Dr. Pate who presented information on Challenge Grant funding, purpose, topics, special requirements, and budget (he noted that the total costs per year is $500,000 which includes direct and indirect costs).   
Dr. Pate noted that the Challenge grants were specifically intended to fund high impact biomedical or behavioral science, and/or public health research that would benefit from significant 2-year jumpstart funds.

He suggested that the broad range of designated topics-- including  Behavior, Behavioral Change, and Prevention,  Bioethics,  Biomarker Discovery and Validation, Clinical Research,  Genomics,  Enhancing Clinical Trials,  Enabling Technologies,  Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER),  Health Disparities, Information Technology for Processing Health Care Data,  Regenerative Medicine,  Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Education (STEM),  Translational Science,  Stem Cells, and  Smart Biomaterials – Theranostics—should provide USC investigators with numerous  writing opportunities.

After Dr. Pate added that research plans were limited to 12 pages, the bibliography/literature citations to 1 page, and biosketches to 3 pages (inclusive of 3 sections)  and publication citations to the most relevant 10 (or less), Dr. Booze then joined in with comments on eligibility and submission dates, emphasizing that the volume of anticipated applications from all institutions compounded by technical issues related to electronic processing made it necessary to establish and adhere to an April 22 internal submission deadline for the NIH Challenge Grants.

Additional questions were then proffered by the attendees and addressed by Drs. Booze and Pate. The questions, which were recorded and answered, have been used to create the FAQ below:

FAQ: USC & NIH ARRA Opportunities

1. Will any stimulus money be used to fund existing or pending grants? 
   Information is not available at this time.
   
   
2. Is there a Web site for USC researchers that explains the NIH  stimulus-funded oportunties? 
   http://www.sc.edu/research/stimulus/
   
   
3.  Is NIH still soliciting applications for core facilities grants (G20 grant opportunity)?
   Yes, but only two applications may be submitted from USC.  At this time we are still receiving abstracts and will select the two applicants to go forward in the very near future.
   
   
4. Has USC already selected areas for the Extramural Research Facilities Improvement Program (CO6 grant opportunities)?
   USC has identified three priority areas: Discovery Building, Medical School Building 3 and Animal Facilities Area  for improvements.  If awarded, the shell spaces in Discovery Building and Medical School Building 3 will be upfitted for general lab space and occupants will be decided at a later date.  The Animal Facilities area improvements will benefit all faculty who use animals in their research. 
   
   
5. Do all three NIH investigators referenced in the S10 guidelines have to be from the same institution?
   The guidelines state that major users can be individual researchers, or a group of investigators within the same department or from several departments at the applicant institution. NIH extramural awardees from other nearby institutions may also be included.
   
   
6. What’s the difference between the Administrative Supplements Providing Summer Research Experiences for Students and Science Educators (NOT-OD-09-060) and Administrative Supplements (NOT-OD-09-056) grants?
   The NOT-OD-09-060 grants are meant to fund summer research experiences like REU’s, but are also for K-12 teachers, community college faculty and faculty from non-research intensive institutions.  The Administrative Supplements (NOT-OD-09-056) grants are being made available to accelerate the work pace of your current award.
   
   
7. On the Competitive Revision Applications (NOT-OD-096-058), does my existing grant have to be active during the two year period? In other words, how much time do I need to have left on my existing grant?                                                   
   According to the guidelines, to be eligible, the parent grant must be active at the time the revision application is submitted. That is, the period of support requested for the revision cannot exceed the current project period end date of the parent grant, including projects on a no-cost extension.  Also, a no-cost extension must be in place before the revision application is submitted.
   
   
8. How does NIH differ from NSF in approaching stimulus funded grants?
   It appears the NIH and the NSF received quite different allocations (about $10 billion vs. $3 billion, respectively) and have adopted quite different approaches for spending it. The NIH has voiced a desire to spread the stimulus money around with geographical evenness while getting the money out the door quickly by funding old grant applications that have already been reviewed and accepted by the agency. The NSF has stated that it will focus on longer-term projects and doesn't seem as keen to spread the wealth around.
   
   
9. Do supplements have a variety of due dates?
   Yes, you should check your institutes/centers website for due dates and other special criteria for the supplements.
   
   
10. Do (NIH) institutes have priority funding areas?
    Yes, all of the institutes and centers have designated priority areas for the stimulus funding, however, these seem to be changing periodically.
    
    
11. What is the total cost of the NIH funding for the Challenge Grants?
     $500,000 in total costs (direct and indirect) per year for two years. 
    
    
12. Where can I find topic preferences (priority areas)?
    Each institute has priority areas listed on its website with designated for those areas.  The program managers are your best contact for accessing this information.
    
    
13. Any chance NIH may “sweeten the pot” in terms of challenge grant payouts?
    There is no indication of that at this time.
    
    
14. Do early stage/new PIs forfeit that status if they receive a challenge grant?
    The guidelines state that because the awards made under this program are substantial competing NIH research grants, recipients will not be considered New PIs or ESIs when they apply for NIH research grants in the future.
    
    
15. Will Grants.gov be the processing gatekeeper for these NIH funds?
    Check guidelines for submission instructions.
    
    
16. Does the supplement letter/PDF have to go through USCeRA? Grants.gov?
    Yes, all requests for funds must go through USCeRA.  Check institute/center guidelines for submission instructions regarding use of grants.gov.                    
                 
17. Should something be mentioned about job creation or economic impact in the application?
    Yes, this is a focus of the stimulus money and the guidelines for each type of application instructor you on how this should be addressed.
    
    
18. Sustainability—do you have to talk about that?                                                
    You are not required to address sustainability for these RFAs.
    
    
19. Will the initial challenge grants be received via e-mail?
    No, they must be submitted through grants.gov
    
    
20.  Can I write more than one Challenge grant?
    Yes, investigators may submit multiple viable proposals.

03/19/09
Need help with economic impact statements?
For Moore School of Business assistance with economic impact estimates for stimulus proposals, contact Jan Collins (7-4426 or JanC@moore.sc.edu)

03/18/09

Questionnaire on Comparative Effectiveness Research Priorities
As called for in ARRA, the NIH Institute of Medicine (IOM) will recommend national priorities for comparative effectiveness research (CER) in a report to Congress and the Secretary of Health and Human Services delivered by June 30, 2009.

Note that the Secretary will consider this report in designating activities to receive the $400 million of ARRA CER funds. As ARRA also states that stakeholder input must be considered in the development of this report, USC faculty may want to contribute to the “stakeholder input” called for by the ARRA.

IOM will solicit stakeholder input through the following:

1) Questionnaire (see http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3809/63608/63674.aspx), a primary vehicle by which the committee will collect information on the priorities of all stakeholders in health care (e.g., patients, consumers, providers, federal agencies, employers, manufacturers, policy makers).The questionnaire will be active from March 6, 2009 - March 27, 2009. All responses will be compiled into a database that will be reviewed by the committee. The questionnaire can be accessed through the committee's website or through the link in the forwarded announcement

03/18/09

Columbia mayor announces $20.5 M in ARRA allocations
In an update on the allocations that the City of Columbia expects to receive through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) Stimulus Package, Mayor Bob Coble provides the following information: (Click on the headings to read additional information on how the allocated funds will be spent and their impact on the local economy.)

Department of Justice

• Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) - $597,483

Department of Housing and Urban Development

• Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) - $342,783
• Homeless Prevention Fund - $524,731
• Public Housing Fund (to be administered by the Columbia Housing Authority) - $5,259,694
• Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance - $1,951,043

Department of Transportation

• Transit Capital Assistance Grant (for the Columbia metropolitan area) - $5,346,374
• Columbia Area Transportation Study (COATS) - $14.5 million; Of the $14.5 million allocation, an estimated $6.5 million expected to go towards the North Main Street Reconfiguration Phase 1B. 

Department of the Energy

• Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) - Definite allocations have not been released but are expected the week of March 15, 2009.

While the City has been notified of these impending funds (to-date totaling, $20,522,108) monies have not yet been received. In the meantime, the City and the affected agencies are in the process of gathering information on projects to be funded and completing the various applications necessary to acquire and disburse funds.

03/17/09

$7.2 billion stimulus for high-speed data networks to go quickly
Federal agencies overseeing $7.2 billion for broadband deployment the economic stimulus bill 
have unveiled an aggressive plan for allocating funding-- with a rough timetable.

Of the $7.2 billion allocated for broadband in the stimulus package, $4.7 billion is to be administered by the National Telecommunications Information Administration (NTIA), a division of the Commerce Department, with the Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service (RUS) overseeing the remaining $2.5 billion. The bill directs the FCC to develop and report to Congress a national broadband strategy, and advise the other agencie s as they begin to award grants and loans for broadband projects.

At the Department of Commerce, heads of the three agencies pledged to move swiftly to allocate the money, intended both to create jobs in the short-term through the network expansion projects, and to shore up the nation's digital infrastructure.

"Broadband is the central infrastructure challenge of our time," said Michael Copps, acting chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. "The years of broadband drift and growing digital divide are coming to an end."

The NTIA and RUS have opened a period of public comment and set dates for six additional public meetings to be held on a compressed schedule between March 16 and March 24. Four of the meetings will be held in Washington. One will be held in Las Vegas, the other in Flagstaff, Ariz. In keeping with the spirit of the initiative, each will be Webcast.

Through the meetings and the comment period, the agencies plan to refine the conditions that will be attached to stimulus funding, and then hold three application periods. Bernadette McGuirre-Rivera, associate administrator of the NTIA, said the agency is planning the first grant-review period roughly from April to June, the second between October and December, with the final review coming between April and June of next year. A representative from RUS said his agency 
is planning a similar timetable, though both emphasized that the schedule remains fluid at this point.

The agencies are directed to commit all the funding by Sept. 2010, and to ensure that the projects are substantively completed within two years of issuing the grants.

03/16/09

DOE says $84 Million to EGS
DOE has issued two Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOAs) for enhanced geothermal systems (EGS), an advanced geothermal technology that drills deep wells into hot rocks, fractures them, and circulates a fluid through the fractures to extract heat. EGS technologies can create new "engineered" geothermal reservoirs or stimulate existing geothermal reservoirs. Together, the two FOAs offer up to $84 million over six year ($20 million in fiscal year 2009 funding with future funding subject to congressional appropriations).

The first FOA offers $35 million for component research, development, and analysis. The funding will support 20 to 30 projects to develop advanced technologies addressing important aspects of creating, managing, and using engineered geothermal reservoirs. The second FOA offers $49 million to support 5-10 domestic EGS demonstration projects in a variety of geologic formations. These projects must quantitatively demonstrate and validate reservoir creation techniques that sustain sufficient fluid flow and heat extraction rates for 5-7 years, and produce at least 5 megawatts of electricity. To learn more click here.

03/11/09

Clyburn urges SC lawmakers spend stimulus funds
U.S. House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., said yesterday that the SC General Assembly should spend stimulus funds as intended by Congress. He also said that if SC leaders do not step up and accept the funds offered by Congress, the money will be redistributed to other states.

Clyburn said that a provision in the stimulus bill that allows lawmakers to bypass the governor was described in congressional talks as "a governor workaround, "so that no governor could bar a willing Legislature from spending the money.

"Hopefully, the Legislature will use the authority it has been given to accept the money," he said

SC is slated to receive more than $2.8 billion from the federal stimulus plan, of which Gov.
Sandford has been an outspoken opponent. His staff has said 75.3%, or $2.14 billion, will go directly to programs - meaning his administration can't redirect or refuse the funds. But the governor has discretionary control over the other 24.7%, or $700 million, Sanford said. He said he won't refuse the funds but wants to use them to pay down debt.

President Barack Obama has the authority to grant waivers, Clyburn said, but he disputes the $700 million mark cited by Sanford, saying the figure was closer to $126 million. Clyburn said he will urge the president not to grant a wavier and is hopeful the state Legislature will use its authority against the governor's proposal.

"This (stimulus) is designed to stabilize communities, to save and create jobs and help our economy move into a growth mode," he said. "You don't do that by paying down debt."

03/10/09 

ASTRA offers ARRA “snapshot”
The Alliance for Science and Technology Research in America has created a preliminary graphic analysis of significant R&D funding components of the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act package. See it here.

03/09/09 

Stem cell research restrictions lifted
President Obama has lifted restrictions on federal support for stem cell research and also ordered the director of the National Institutes of Health to develop "provisions establishing appropriate safeguards, and issue new NIH guidance on such research that is consistent with this order."   In addition, Obama signed a "memorandum" Monday, March 9, outlining steps the White House science office should take to "guarantee scientific integrity throughout the executive branch." The memorandum calls for the creation of policies that will ensure that:

• "The selection and retention of candidates for science and technology positions in the executive branch should be based on the candidate's knowledge, credentials, experience, and integrity."
• Each federal agency should "have appropriate rules and procedures to ensure the integrity of the scientific process within the agency."
• "When scientific or technological information is considered in policy decisions, the information should be subject to well-established scientific processes, including peer review where appropriate, and each agency should appropriately and accurately reflect that information in complying with and applying relevant statutory standards."
• With limited exceptions, "each agency should make available to the public the scientific or technological findings or conclusions considered or relied on in policy decisions."

The planned policies respond to a series of incidents in the Bush administration in which critics -- including some within federal agencies -- charged that sound scientific findings on climate change, endangered species or other topics were squelched.

03/06/09

ARRA sends States $1.2 billion for “Green” Infrastructure Projects
The $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act specifically includes $7.22 billion for EPA administered projects and programs that will protect and promote both green jobs and a healthier environment according to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson.  As a result, the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) will receive a total of $6 billion. Twenty percent of that figure-- $1.2 billion--  must be expended on green infrastructure-- stormwater mitigation, water or energy efficiency improvements or other environmentally innovative activities.

Although many states have already set early March deadlines for project applications for the stimulus funding, all the states must make a concerted effort to identify “green projects” even if that means seeking out a second round of applications.  States may not tell EPA that they could not find enough green projects for the 20% setaside before  August 17, and EPA has indicated that it will ensure that the green projects that get approved meet the spirit of the law.

Under ARRA, to count as a CWSRF or a DWSRF “Green Project,” a clear, documented business case for the project investment must be made and include identifiable and substantial benefits; technical information from maintenance or operations records; engineering studies; planning documents; and problem descriptions (including any data on water and/or energy inefficiencies) for an existing facility that clarify the technical benefits from the project in water and/or energy efficiency terms. A Solar Energy Powers Wastewater Treatment Works and Biogas Energy Production at a Wastewater Treatment plant are two examples of ARRA approved “Green” projects.

Click here to see a power point of official guidance on the 20% green setaside for the $6 billion in stimulus funds that will be distributed through the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds.

For more information visit http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwsrf/.  

03/02/09

Geography Department Chair Will Graf and other USC faculty and staff are visiting NSF this week (March 1, 2009) and report that $3 Billion in Stimulus funding will come to NSF from the present budget (FY2009) and that $2 Billion of this will be distributed through the agency’s six directorates. Despite this, only some relatively general guidelines have been established—e.g. (1) Stimulus money will only be spent on existing, ranked proposals, and (2) Stimulus money will be used to free other money to fund NSF research not directly related to immediate job creation or economic development.

The USC party also learned a major push to connect the geosciences directorate with the Social Sciences Directorate; biological connections continue. Also of note, the Obama administration’s desire for more research related to climate change, including human interaction with climate change, is driving an emphasis on interdisciplinary work in the next round of new proposals.

Meanwhile, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has indicated the government’s expectation that for FY 2009 NSF will achieve its 30% success rate of ten years ago rather than its current 20% success rate.  And, In FY 2010, the agency’s success rate is expected to be between 20% and 30% (barring an “avalanche” of proposals).

Lastly, we have learned from another source that it appears NSF will dedicate $200 million in stimulus funds to laboratory up-fits and renovations. However, at this time NSF doesn’t seem to know how it will distribute this relatively small amount.  

02/26/09

Dr. Rosemarie Booze welcomed faculty and staff in attendance:  Dr. Stan Fowler, Dr. Kim Connolly, Dr. Brian Benicewicz, Dr. Roger Sawyer, Dr. Rita Snyder, Dr. Tim Mousseau, Dr. Greg Hand, Dr. Madilyn Fletcher, Dr. Lyndie Forthhofer, Ms. Pam Weiss, Dr. Rita Snyder, Dr. Barbara Koons-Witt, Mr. Richard White, and Ms. Wanda Hutto.  Dr. Booze briefly summarized NIH approach to using the Federal Economic Stimulus Package, then contrasted it with the NSF approach.  She specifically noted NSF’s retention of a four-year funding window, its de-emphasis on immediate results, and the agency’s stated lack of concern for geographic distribution (consideration for EPSCoR states which penalizes SC).  

Dr. Booze introduced Mr. Steve Beckham, USC Representative of Federal Relations (in attendance via telephone conference call). Mr. Beckham concurred with her summary adding that he had conversed with the  new NSF Assistant Director Cora B. Marrett, who told him that (subject to board approval) NSF will receive $300 million for implementation, $200 million for lab renovation and $2 billion to fund programmatic grants previously approved but still unfunded.  Mr. Beckham also referenced an OMB document (to be posted on the web site) summarizing the Stimulus bill. He described it as “helpful in understanding general parameters.”  In response to questions from Drs. Fletcher and Fowler, Mr. Beckham said he would get more information on Stimulus funding allocations for DOE, NASA and NOAA.

Group discussion generated Dr. Booze’s observation that all the federal agencies appear to be scrambling to effectively and efficiently use the Stimulus dollars producing the challenge of having “more money than they know how to spend” as well as sensitivity over “lots of scrutiny” and “transparency” associated with any expenditures. 
Dr. Booze also provided information on:

• Recovery.gov, the White House dedicated Stimulus Web site (designed to track how the money is spent)
• Office of Research and Graduate Education’s Stimulus Response (draft) web site for comment (positive reception)
• SC Delegation’s efforts to assess how the money is being spent
• Stability funding and local concern over the situation developing between the state legislature and the governor 
• Washington sensitivity to earmark terminology (proposed earmarks may be posted on the sponsoring member’s  web site).

Dr.  Mousseau commented on NSF’s opposition to the supplementary funding approach used at NIH and noted that the Stimulus bill is so vague the agencies have a large hand in developing their spending approaches. Also reported that CDC is getting zero direct Stimulus dollars, but will receive pass-through money from HHS.

Dr. Booze noted Washington conversation currently focused on the Stimulus and its potential impact on the FY 09 Omnibus Budget Bill as well as President Obama’s FY10 budget.  Commented on resulting need to be very aggressive w/ Stimulus funding opportunities as a “cliff’ may be coming and Stimulus money may be all the agencies have for a while.   She also noted that USC is working with city and state officials on how Stimulus money will flow through SC. Suggested that March will be month of allocations to agencies, with solicitations expected in April-May. Group consensus was to resubmit declined proposals early and often and anticipate lean funding after FY2010.

Dr. Fletcher suggested need for curriculum development for green jobs and Dr. Booze responded there was Stimulus money for this citing NSF as the example.

Meeting closed w/ Dr.Booze calling for Task Force Volunteers/State agency contacts.

02/26/09 NIH Response

NIH Acting Director Raynard Kington’s first comments on Stimulus package funding for the health care and biomedical research community noted NIH is in the early stages of planning, and that we should expect a detailed announcement of those plans “soon” as well as a solicitation by May.

The agency’s total $8.4 billion allocation is two year money (only available through the end of FY 2010).  A total of $8.2 billion of that will be available for research projects with $7.4 billion to be distributed to institutes and centers (proportionate to their stake in the federal budget).  The Office of the Director will retain $800 million (for funding a range of scientific efforts) with no formula for allocation other than “scientific priorities.”  In addition, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality will pass $400 million to NIH for comparative health effectiveness research.

NIH expects to focus on the number of jobs created/ preserved and their local economic impact by using two funding criteria: (1) the expenditures' short-term economic impact and (2) the the expenditures' long-term investment impact.

Kington said the NIH stimulus funding research agenda will be prioritized by three “buckets”:

1. R01 (Research Project Grants) and related meritorious research mechanisms over two rather than the usual four year period. Funding will not (1) be done in a “formulaic way” or (2)be used for “restoring cuts” in research grants. Some new R01s may be added with two-year funding for research that will make advances, but there will be  no commitments for out-year funding.

2. Funding to supplement existing grants that expand research related to an original proposal goal. Some of these supplements will be awarded competitively; some administratively, and some may be for training and equipment.

3. (Floor) funding of $100 million to $200 million for a new “NIH Challenge Grant” program that will award two-year grants (of $500,000/ year) in areas identified by institutes and centers for cross-cutting research in scientific and public health fields.  A new peer-reviewed Request for Applications with a shortened application process will be used to inform NIH’s decision-making.  NIH will be sensitive to geographic distribution of the grants (because this is "simulative” funding for the national economy),

In addition, Kington said potential applicants should: Take advantage of existing grant applications and start development of new proposals now.  In both instances, he said we should make a compelling case for two-year project completion, stressing stimulus money is meant to be used in two years and that an application should not be made “if you can’t obligate and get the money out the door inside that deadline.”

He ended his comments by saying we should expect: (1) themes to be developed  within the agency and within institutes and centers, (2) NIH to use the peer review system currently in place, and (3) no restorations of cuts in already awarded grants. He added that no explicit decisions had been made regarding (1) funding for clinical and translational research versus basic research or (2) funding eligibility of grant renewals.

He also said that (1) HIV/AIDS research proposals will be welcome, but there is no specific funding formula,(2) SBIRs are not a priority, and (3) that NIH will not compromise standards of science to address geographic distribution issues.

02/11/09

Dr. Rosemarie Booze welcomed faculty in attendance and introduced Mr. Steve Beckham, USC Representative of Federal Relations.    Meeting participants:  Dr. Rose Booze, Mr. Steve Beckham, Dr. Russ Pate, Dr. Gordon Baylis, Dr. Rita Snyder, Dr. Tim Mousseau, Dr. Greg Hand, Dr. Tom Vogt, Dr. Harry Ploehn, Dr. Ken Reifsnider, Dr. Madilyn Fletcher, Ms. Pam Weiss, Mr. Richard White, and Ms. Wanda Hutto.

Mr. Beckham provided an update of the Federal Economic Stimulus Package.   Reviewed the general differences of the House and Senate bills.   Stressed that House and Senate bills still had to be reconciled to determine final funding amounts.  Noted that University administration has developed strategies for major capital initiatives such as funding for new infrastructure, and that President Pastides continues to communicate with the federal delegation to review the best strategy for USC. 

Group discussion centered on anecdotal reports of recent contact with funding agency program officers/contacts. Following this, in summary, it was recommended to connect with federal and state contacts to build momentum and to develop an approach to benefit from this new opportunity. 

Dr.  Mousseau

• SC DHEC, Water, Air and Solid Waste Divisions
• CESU
• Department of Agriculture (Clemson Extension)

Dr.  Fletcher

• Department of Agriculture (John Shafer)
• SC Energy Office (Trish Jerman and other graduates)
• SCDHEC, Environmental Division

Drs. Pate and Hand

• SC DHEC, Health Division (Lisa Waddell)
• Department of Social Services
• Veterans Affairs (Sue Haddock)

It was also agreed that the Stimulus “window” for faculty proposal submissions and resubmissions  would close by Summer 2009 and that such activity should begin immediately with the objective of having the “pipeline” full when the final version of the Stimulus is passed (not waiting to “fill it” after passage). 

An observation gleaned from the stimulus materials reviewed was despite Senate reductions in most programs in the House bill (exception: Senate is suggesting more funding for biomedical research) substantial funding (“low hanging fruit”).  It appears to remain in line items for Higher education and the following programs where USC has existing research efforts: early childhood education, energy efficiency projects, electricity grid, renewable energy research, advanced batteries, environmental cleanup, health information technology, biomedical research, NOAA, and Homeland Security.

Strategically, it should be noted that the (promoted) point of the Stimulus Bill is to create jobs, and that NSF has pledged a focus on new awards to young investigators (an estimated 25,000 direct jobs created) and basic research in chemistry, nanotechnology, engineering, and materials science (an estimated 200,000 indirect jobs created) as well as to technology transfer start-ups (SBIR/STTRs).  Again, USC should be well positioned to exploit these focus points.