Closed Limited Submissions

(CLOSED) CDC RFA-DP-23-001: Assessing the Effectiveness of Programs, Policies, or Practices that Affect Social Determinants of Health to Promote Health Equity and Reduce Health Disparities in Chronic Diseases

Slots: 1

Deadlines

Internal Deadline: Friday, January 13, 2023, 5pm PT

LOI: N/A

External Deadline: February 9, 2023

Award Information

Award Type: Coperative Agreement

Estimated Number of Awards: 12

Anticipated Award Amount: $28,500,000

Who May Serve as PI:

Any individual(s) with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to carry out the proposed
research as the Project Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) is invited to work with his/her
organization to develop an application for support. Individuals from underrepresented racial and
ethnic groups as well as individuals with disabilities are always encouraged to apply for
HHS/CDC support.

Link to Award: https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/view-opportunity.html?oppId=340501

Process for Limited Submissions

PIs must submit their application as a Limited Submission through the Office of Research Application Portal: https://rii.usc.edu/oor-portal/.

Materials to submit include:

(1) Single Page Proposal Summary (0.5” margins; single-spaced; font type: Arial, Helvetica, or Georgia typeface; font size: 11 pt). Page limit includes references and illustrations. Pages that exceed the 1-page limit will be excluded from review.
(2) CV – (5 pages maximum)

Note: The portal requires information about the PIs and Co-PIs in addition to department and contact information, including the 10-digit USC ID#, Gender, and Ethnicity. Please have this material prepared before beginning this application.

Purpose

Cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, obesity, and lung diseases are the most common causes of illness, disability, and death in the United States, and wide variations exist in their prevalence and outcomes across communities and populations. These disparities in health outcomes are closely linked with social, demographic, environmental, and geographic factors. Many chronic diseases tend to be more common, diagnosed later, and result in worse outcomes for people with lower incomes, people with lower educational attainment, those living in rural or hard-to-reach communities, racial and ethnic minority groups, and people with disabilities [1, 2]. Despite decades of research and interventions to reduce and eliminate these health disparities, they persist and, in some cases, are widening [3]. Disparities in health do not have a single cause. The socioecological framework highlights the interrelationships between aspects of the social and physical environments that operate at multiple levels to influence health [4]. Consistent with this framework, change can occur at individual, interpersonal, community, and structural levels to promote chronic disease prevention and significantly reduce health disparities. The structural social determinants or the social determinants of health (SDOH), the focus of this NOFO, correspond to the bottom tiers of the Health Impact Pyramid, where action taken can have the greatest population impact [5].

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) define SDOH as “conditions in the environments in which people are born, live, learn, work, play, worship, and age that affect a wide range of health, functioning, and quality-of-life outcomes and risks.” [6]. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Healthy People 2030 highlights the importance of addressing SDOH by including “social and physical environments that promote good health for all” as one of the four overarching goals for the next decade (Social Determinants of Health – Healthy People 2030 | health.gov). The key priorities of CDC’s National Center for Chronic Page 7 of 78 Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP) support this charge by focusing on advancing health equity and addressing structural social determinants that drive inequity in health outcomes.

Visit our Institutionally Limited Submission webpage for more updates and other announcements.

(CLOSED) RFA-OD-23-005: NIH Research Evaluation and Commercialization Hubs (REACH) Awards (U01 Clinical Trial Optional)

Slots: 1

Deadlines

Internal Deadline: Closed.

LOI: N/A

External Deadline: February 9, 2023

Award Information

Award Type: Cooperative Agreement

Estimated Number of Awards: 5

Anticipated Award Amount: $20,000,000

Who May Serve as PI: Standard NIH requirements.

Link to Award: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-OD-23-005.html

Process for Limited Submissions

PIs must submit their application as a Limited Submission through the Office of Research Application Portal: https://rii.usc.edu/oor-portal/.

Materials to submit include:

(1) Single Page Proposal Summary (0.5” margins; single-spaced; font type: Arial, Helvetica, or Georgia typeface; font size: 11 pt). Page limit includes references and illustrations. Pages that exceed the 1-page limit will be excluded from review.
(2) CV – (5 pages maximum)

Purpose

The NIH Research Evaluation and Commercialization Hub (REACH) program is a partnership program between NIH and the qualifying research institutions to accelerate the creation of small businesses and the transition of discoveries originating from academic research into products that improve patient care and enhance health. REACH Hubs foster the advancement of therapeutics, preventatives, diagnostics, devices, and research tools that address unmet patient and public health needs across the entire NIH mission. Applicants are encouraged to focus on building robust entrepreneurial ecosystems in the areas of highest U.S. burden of disease and disability and areas that historically attract lower levels of private biomedical capital investment.

The new REACH Hubs will build upon lessons learned from previous awardees to transition promising technologies to the next stage of commercialization. Proposed technology development projects should have already advanced from scientific discovery into the early stages of product development. As a guiding principle, proposed technology development projects should be within one or two steps of a commercial transaction (selling, partnering, licensing, startup, or entry into another suitable program to continue development), but require additional validation in order to be considered competitive for a Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) or Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) award. Although every technology development project is unique, broad guidelines for different types of projects are as follows:

Small Molecule Therapeutics: The compound is at the lead optimization or preclinical stage. The target is known, and/or there is some method or assay to determine its effect.
Biologics or Cell Based Therapies: The biologic or cell population has been identified and some reasonable method of development, sourcing, manufacture, or proliferation is proposed. Mechanism of action has been determined to a sufficient level that there is a reasonable understanding of the product to be developed or tested in the project.
Interventional Medical Device: The proposal includes prototype development and testing, either on the bench or in animals. Physiologic experiments have been conducted or reported in the literature, providing rationale for prototype development.
Diagnostic Medical Device/IVD/MDx: The proposal includes prototype development and some method of testing.
Health IT, Software, Apps, and Algorithms: The proposal should be beyond the concept stage and already have an existing code base. The idea should be grounded in previous experiments or solid peer reviewed evidence. The proposal should include steps to validate the technology by demonstrating its efficacy versus the standard of care or utility in pilot studies or user testing, or, if already validated, to refine the technology to make it appropriate for commercialization.

The program aims to strengthen and de-risk technologies toward this goal through a team-based developmental approach that addresses downstream requirements, including but not limited to intellectual property, regulatory, and reimbursement issues, and business case development. It is expected that spinout companies will be in a position to submit strong SBIR and STTR program applications. The Hubs will establish novel partnerships, strengthen existing alliances between stakeholders (including academic, non-profit, and industry sectors), provide entrepreneurial educational opportunities for innovators from diverse backgrounds, and create cultural and systemic changes to more rapidly transform breakthrough innovations into products that will have health, economic, and societal impact.

Objectives and Requirements for this FOA

Each Hub will assemble a diverse group of experts in biomedical product development and will have the expertise to identify and source technology development projects that have progressed to a point where a potential commercial product can be envisioned, but additional research and development efforts are required to define the product (demonstrate feasibility and proof-of-concept). Through a combination of in-house efforts and collaboration, each Hub funded under this FOA will perform functions to address the critical knowledge and funding gaps that hinder the early steps needed to turn novel discoveries into products with health, economic, and societal impact. The work supported by the REACH Hubs should include technical validation, facilitating business development opportunities, clarifying intellectual property and identifying barriers to entry, performing market research (including market needs and competitive advantages), and clarifying regulatory, manufacturing, clinical, or payer requirements.

Hubs must meet all the following requirements:

1) Hub Leadership: Be governed by leadership with a documented track record of success in biomedical product development.

2) Collaborations and Partnerships: Develop the necessary collaborations and partnerships with stakeholders (including academic, non-profit, and industry sectors) to meet the goals of this FOA. Each Hub is expected to partner with existing federal government resources, including those within the Hub’s ecosystem, as appropriate, such as: EDA’s Build to Scale (B2S), NSF’s Regional Innovation Engines, Innovation Corps (I-Corps™) and the National Innovation Network; SBA Growth Accelerators, SBA Federal and State Technology (FAST) Awardees, NCATS Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA), NIBIB’s Concept to Clinic: Commercializing Innovation Program (C3i) and Point-of-Care Technologies Research Network (POCTRN); NIGMS’ Regional Technology Transfer Accelerator Hubs for IDeA States and IDeA Regional Entrepreneurship Development Program (I-RED), IDeA Networks of Biomedical Research Excellence (INBRE), IDeA Networks for Clinical and Translational Research (IDeA-CTR), and Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence (COBRE); NIH Centers for Accelerated Innovations (NCAI) and REACH, and the Coulter Translational Partnership Award in Biomedical Engineering (TP) or other appropriate programs identified by the Hub.

Hubs are strongly encouraged to partner with several educational institutions, particularly those that are Minority Serving Institutions [including but not limited to Hispanic-serving Institutions, Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCUs), Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions, and/or Asian American Native American Pacific Islander Serving Institutions (AANAPISIs)], those institutions that have not been major recipients of past NIH support, and/or institutions in IDeA states.

This FOA encourages cost matching. Each Hub is encouraged to have identified at the time of application and committed at the time of award a minimum of $250,000/year of matching funds to augment the federal investment for product definition studies. Matching funds can originate from any non-federal source (e.g., awardee institution, foundations, for-profit investors, state or local economic development resources).

3) Regional and Local Impact: Make a unique impact on small business development, entrepreneurial culture, workforce diversity, and health disparities. Hubs should serve innovators from diverse backgrounds (see Notice of NIH’s Interest in Diversity) or meet pressing local or regional needs in areas such as economic development, entrepreneurial education, research funding, disease burden, and health disparities.

4) Technology Development: Demonstrate the ability to support technology development ranging from early-stage laboratory-based technology feasibility through pre-clinical testing for technologies across the breadth of the NIH mission. Hubs must provide infrastructure to solicit, evaluate, and select the most promising technology opportunities with health, economic, and societal impact that otherwise would not receive support for early-stage proof-of-concept work. In addition to supporting technology development projects from innovators within the Hub’s partner institutions, each Hub should develop and implement efficient strategies to support technology development projects from innovators at other institutions within their research and development ecosystem. The budget of any technology development project can utilize a maximum of $100,000 from the REACH award, with the balance coming from the Hub’s matching funds. It is expected that Hubs will be continuously developing 4 – 6 technologies each year.

5) Project Management: Develop and implement milestone-driven, market-focused project management oversight and decision-making processes. Each Hub should use project management processes that enable continuous assessment of progress relative to established milestones in order to make strategic decisions regarding the support of each technology development project (e.g., discontinue a failing project early, pivot to a new application, or provide additional resources). Hubs are expected to provide agile management to assemble a package of resources and services tailored to each technology development project. Hubs are strongly encouraged to utilize project managers with formal project management training and/or biomedical industry experience. Salary support for the project manager is considered to be part of the direct cost of each technology development project. The Hubs should leverage best practices from current pilot programs and any other relevant program to promote and facilitate the open exchange of information regarding the scope, methods, analysis, results, and lessons learned from each technology development project.

6) Educational Activities: Provide innovators from diverse backgrounds, including innovators from underrepresented groups access to skills development, hands-on entrepreneurial experience, and educational and networking activities. Each Hub must provide entrepreneurial educational opportunities to academic investigators at all career levels about the design and conduct of technology development projects and the commercialization processes required for transition promising technologies to the next stage of commercialization (e.g., additional financing, spinout company development, or university licensing). The Hub should catalyze professional development by:

Training innovators to assess the commercial potential of their research discoveries and to develop comprehensive product development plans
Bringing together experienced entrepreneurs and scientists to provide guidance and mentoring
Providing the broader investigator community with access to forums, seminars, workshops, and related activities
Providing connections between research performing institutions and life science businesses, industries, and sources of private capital
Providing focused entrepreneur support and “hands-on learning” targeted at the needs of the innovator, so that scientists have the opportunity to engage in entrepreneurial activities. Cross-disciplinary (science, business, regulatory, reimbursement, etc.) career development is highly encouraged to achieve the goal of exposing innovators to the myriad processes required to translate discoveries into marketable products.

Applicants are encouraged to review examples of Healthcare Commercialization Programs, which are designed to teach innovators to identify valuable product opportunities resulting from academic research, and gain entrepreneurial skills through stakeholder discovery and guidance from development experts.

7) Sustainability Plan: Develop and implement a plan for ensuring that the capacity developed under their REACH award will be sustained at their institutions, including assimilation into existing or new innovation management strategies, academic entrepreneurship support functions, technology transfer or commercialization offices, and other supportive programs and policies at their institutions.

Each Hub should demonstrate the core competencies necessary to fulfill all the objectives of this FOA.

Visit our Institutionally Limited Submission webpage for more updates and other announcements.

(CLOSED) The Teagle Foundation – Education for American Civic Life

Slots: 1

Deadlines

Internal Deadline: Closed.

LOI: N/A

External Deadline: March 1, 2023

Recurring Info: August 1, 2023; December 12, 2023, etc. for 3-5 years.

Award Information

Award Type: Grant

Anticipated Award Amount: $100,000 – $300,000 over a 24-36 month period. The size of the grant will be based on the scope of the project.

Link to Award: https://www.teaglefoundation.org/Call-for-Proposals/RFPs/Education-for-American-Civic-Life-RFP

Process for Limited Submissions

PIs must submit their application as a Limited Submission through the Office of Research Application Portal: https://rii.usc.edu/oor-portal/.

Materials to submit include:

(1) Single Page Proposal Summary (0.5” margins; single-spaced; font type: Arial, Helvetica, or Georgia typeface; font size: 11 pt). Page limit includes references and illustrations. Pages that exceed the 1-page limit will be excluded from review.
(2) CV – (5 pages maximum)

Purpose

Through Education for American Civic Life, the Foundation seeks to elevate the civic objectives of liberal arts education by partnering with institutions offering bold and coherent initiatives that endow students with the content, skills, and sensibility to participate in a political system designed for self-governance. While progress has been made at many institutions of higher education to promote civic action and various forms of community service as part of the undergraduate experience, the Foundation is especially concerned with grounding such action and service in comprehensive civic knowledge through teaching, reading, debate, and discussion centered in the curriculum.

CRITERIA

The Teagle Foundation welcomes the participation of a diverse array of institutions—community colleges, liberal arts colleges, comprehensive and research universities—in this initiative. Grants of varying amounts, ranging from $100,000-$300,000 over a 24-36-month period, will be made to each funded project participating in this initiative. Requests from both single institutions and multiple institutions partnering together will be considered. The size of the grant will be based on the scope of the project. Proposals for planning grants in the range of $25,000 over 6-12 months are strongly encouraged.

Through this initiative, the Foundation seeks ambitious projects that confront gaps in undergraduates’ civic knowledge and prepare them for the intellectual demands of democratic participation. Successful proposals will seek to promote learning about the formation of the American republic, the crafting of its Constitution, the history of contention over the interpretation of the Constitution, the development of representative political structures, and the principles of democracy. Civic education is strongest when it is not treated as a theoretical or abstract subject but when it becomes part of the lived experience of students and links their work across disciplines. For this reason, the majority of our grants go to institutions that give students an opportunity to connect big questions in areas like governance, history, and law, to the local history and current conditions of the community outside the campus gates.

SPECIFIC AREAS OF INTEREST

The Education for American Civic Life Initiative is focused on funding in two particular areas: (1) anchoring significant questions in democratic thought in local history and community and (2) strengthening preparation for public service.

Anchor Significant Civic Questions of Democracy in Local History
Projects are anchored by a significant question concerning the past and present challenges of democracy in the community in which the college or university is located—whether this is a metropolitan center such as Newark, New Jersey, with a long history of successive migrations into and out of the city, or rural Virginia, site of a major Civil War campaign and the struggle over segregation and civil rights. Some of our partner institutions design first-year core curricula while others work within divisions such as an honors college or a pre-professional program. In both cases, faculty design a series of courses to ensure that students are prepared to be informed and engaged civic participants in their local and national communities. These programs explicitly help students grasp the lived experience—past and present—of their neighbors outside the campus gates as a valuable aspect of a civic education that builds on their education in areas like governance, history, literature, and law.
Strengthen Preparation for Public Service
The Foundation is committed to giving students the education they need to participate in public service, whether by formal post-college employment in the public sector or as public-minded participants in civic life. In addition to valuable curricular interventions, the Foundation supports programs that explicitly offer students a supported pathway to public service. Typically, Teagle-funded programs offer foundational courses in civic education followed by opportunities to learn about and work in public service. Strong initiatives have taken students through rigorous humanities seminars in democratic theory followed by opportunities to solve significant civic challenges and participate in public service internships.

REQUIRED ATTRIBUTES

Invest in Faculty Leadership and Learning
The Foundation believes in faculty leadership. All grants should name the faculty members that will lead the planning and implementation process. As colleges and universities work to deepen civic education, they come to recognize that faculty, who are often educated in a single specialized discipline, are likely to need their own learning opportunities to ensure that they become better equipped to teach the variety of texts presented and discussed in a strong civic curriculum. The Foundation is therefore invested in building learning opportunities for faculty focused on the knowledge and skills they need to give undergraduates a comprehensive civic education.
Focus on Undergraduate Education
All Teagle grantees are able to explain how their work reaches undergraduate students in the classroom. Successful proposals will seek to promote learning about the formation of the American republic, the crafting of its Constitution, the history of contention over the interpretation of the Constitution, the development of representative political structures, and the principles of democracy. We give priority to proposals designed to reach a significant proportion, if not all, of the undergraduate student body and that infuse civic education in and across the curriculum.
Sustainability
Successful applicants will clearly articulate how proposed programs are aligned with institutional priorities; how they will be enacted, as appropriate, through institutional governance structures; and how they will be sustained beyond the life of the grant. Projects are expected to move beyond additions to course catalogs and reflect content integration to support civic learning outcomes. Grants from the Teagle Foundation are made in the expectation that once the formal grant period ends, should the piloted efforts be successful, the costs associated with supporting the work will be absorbed by the participating institution(s).
Assessment
Proposals must provide clearly articulated goals for undergraduate civic learning and how they will be measured. The Teagle Foundation may wish to collaborate with grantees in an external evaluation to assess the short- and longer-term outcomes of funded projects, including follow-up studies three to five years after the conclusion of the funded projects.
Dissemination
Active dissemination efforts will be important to spread the knowledge and practices developed by grantees to higher education stakeholders. Dissemination might take the form of publicly available instructional materials; action-oriented toolkits or other publications; webinars; websites and blogs; and conference presentations and workshops.

SUBMISSION PROCESS

Requests for grant support will be considered following our two-stage application process. First, we ask that prospective grantees share brief (3-5 page) concept papers. After review of the concept papers, a limited number of applicants will then be invited to submit full proposals. For complete details on the submission process, please refer to information on how we grant.

We encourage interested institutions to submit a concept paper that names all the campus partners and sketches the project description, with an eye towards meeting the criteria discussed above. The guiding question to keep in mind while developing your concept paper (and if invited, your proposal) is: in what ways will your curricula be substantively different as a result of a grant? And how will those curricular innovations be sustained beyond the life of a grant?

Concept papers for this initiative will be reviewed three times per year with submissions due by December 1, March 1, and August 1. The Teagle Foundation’s fiscal year begins on July 1 and its Board of Directors reviews all grant requests when it meets in November, February, and May. If a proposal is invited, program staff will confer with applicants to determine the appropriate timeline for submitting a full proposal in line for potential review by the board. All concept papers should be submitted electronically at proposals@teagle.org. If invited, full proposals will be submitted through the Foundation’s online application system.

Visit our Institutionally Limited Submission webpage for more updates and other announcements.

NSF-23-519: NSF Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) Program

Slots: The NSF MRI program is an institutionally limited funding opportunity. Eligible institutions may submit up to 3 proposals total (no more than two in Track 1 and no more than one in Track 2). USC has already received applications for Track 1; as such, we are accepting only Track 2 and Track 3 applications at this time.

Track 1: Proposals that request total funds from NSF between $100,000 and $1,000,000.
Track 2: Proposals that request total funds from NSF between $1,000,000 and $4,000,000.
Track 3: MRI proposals are those that request funds from NSF greater than or equal to $100,000¹ and less than or equal to $4,000,000 that include the purchase, installation, operation, and maintenance of equipment and instrumentation to conserve or reduce the consumption of helium. Institutions may submit no more than one Track 3 proposal. Submission of a Track 3 proposal does not impact limits that apply for Track 1 and Track 2 proposals.

Deadlines

Internal Deadline: Monday, December 12, 2022, 5pm PT (for Track 2 and Track 3 only).

LOI: N/A

External Deadline: January 19, 2023

Recurring Deadlines: November 15, 2023; November 15, 2024; November 14, 2025; November 16, 2026.

Award Information

Award Type: Standard Grant

Estimated Number of Awards: 150

Anticipated Award Amount: $75,000,000

Who May Serve as PI: Applicants to the NSF MRI program must be full-time faculty at USC; visiting and adjunct faculty are not eligible. The program especially seeks broad representation of PIs, including women, underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities. Since demographic diversity may be greater among early career researchers, the program also encourages proposals by early career PIs and those that benefit early career researchers.

As this is a limited submission competition, all proposals must be submitted for review by Research Initiatives and Infrastructure (RII) for selection of final candidates, whether or not the PI is requesting cost share from the Office of Research.

Link to Award: https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2023/nsf23519/nsf23519.htm

Cost Sharing: Cost sharing requirements for new awards in the MRI Program are waived for a period of 5 years beginning with the FY 2023 MRI competition. Institutional submission limits for Track 1, Track 2 and Track 3 proposals remain.

Process for Limited Submissions

PIs must submit their application through the “Core Laboratory/Shared Instrumentation” link listed under “Institutionally Limited External Competitions” through https://provost.sma.usc.edu/prog/CI/.

In the application form itself: if you would still like to apply for cost share, select ‘Type B1’. If you are not, select ‘Type B2.’

Materials to submit include:

(1) Four-Page Proposal Summary (0.5” margins; single-spaced; font type: Arial, Helvetica, or Georgia typeface; font size: 11 pt). Page limit includes references and illustrations.
(2) CV – (5 pages maximum)
See below for more material that is required, under the Core Laboratory/Shared Instrumentation heading.

Purpose

The goal of the NSF Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) program is to increase access to shared-use/multi-user instrumentation for scientific and engineering research and training. NSF MRI awards are intended to be a capacity-building program and to enhance research training of students who will become the next generation of instrument users, designers, and builders. The program supports two different types of proposals, as described here: https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2023/nsf23519/nsf23519.htm.

Internal Proposal Review Process: The internal NSF MRI proposals will be reviewed by faculty and relevant Office of Research staff, who will provide reviews to the proposers and a prioritized list of recommendations to the Vice President of Research.

Review Criteria:

Impact: The degree to which the proposed equipment will make a substantial difference in USC’s research activities and fulfill an unmet need.
Strategic Importance: The proposal should demonstrate how the equipment meets a strategic need.
Participation: An indication of the faculty who would utilize the equipment and the degree to which the user base spans multiple schools and campuses.
Commitment: Commitment for ongoing support and maintenance from the PI, PI’s school, center, or department.

CORE LABORATORY / SHARED INSTRUMENTATION GRANT

PURPOSE
The Core Laboratory / Shared Instrumentation Fund supports acquisition of shared instrumentation – including equipment, datasets, and repositories – that enables major research endeavors in the sciences, medicine and engineering, as well as non-STEM fields, and provides USC researchers with greater access to shared equipment and key resources.
This solicitation invites proposals from core facilities for the acquisition of equipment, datasets, computing resources and repositories (Type A) or from those seeking external funding where a match/cost share may be required (Type B1/B2). While the fund is not intended for purchase of computers, unless they are integrated with other types of instrumentation, requests for funding for large computing resources (such as GPUs) are eligible.
Awards under this program are made through a competitive peer-reviewed process. All equipment supported under this announcement must be made available to the entire university community and proposals must include a list of users/user base to be competitive.

WHO SHOULD APPLY TO THIS ANNOUNCEMENT
This Request for Proposals is for USC faculty members and core laboratory directors (or their designees).

Type B1 – requests of up to $200,000 made by those seeking cost share from the Office of Research for
either limited or not-limited external funding opportunities – will not be relevant again until 2027 at the earliest.

ELIGIBILITY

Applicants must be permanent, full-time, tenured, tenure-track or non-tenure track faculty; adjunct and visiting faculty are not eligible.

Applications seeking to establish a new core facility need pre-approval to apply. Contact the Office of Research Initiatives & Facilities at rii@usc.edu for assistance.

A “core laboratory” is defined as a shared-use facility, with (1) an established recharge center account, which offers specialized instruments, access to datasets or repositories, and/or other research-related services and (2) is open to the entire USC research community.

AWARD CONDITIONS

Applicants are permitted to submit multiple proposals to the Core Instrumentation program, which will be reviewed individually. However, the program is unlikely to fund multiple proposals originating from the same laboratory or core facility within the same grant cycle.

Awardees commit to using FBS Priority Software, which supports reservation, training, tracking, billing and payment for services, as well as core facility compliance to federal regulations. In addition to using FBS, awardees are also encouraged to create a website (or updating an existing website) providing information on instruments/services provided.

Core facilities or individual faculty awardees that do not charge for services (i.e., are supported by grants) are required to use FBS but are not required to obtain a recharge center account. For more information on FBS, go to: https://rii.usc.edu/shared-resources/fbs/.

Awardees, along with the core’s associated center, department or school (as applicable), are required to sign a Core Laboratory/Shared Instrument Agreement, committing to the ongoing operation and maintenance of the equipment, ensuring equipment is available to the entire university community and use of FBS software.

NOTIFICATION AND TERM OF AWARD

Awards may be made at different times throughout the year, depending on the outcome of externally submitted proposals. Investigators will be notified as funds become available.

PROPOSAL REVIEW PROCESS

A reviewer panel comprised of faculty and/or staff, with related expertise will review all requests and provide a prioritized list of recommendations to the Vice President of Research and the Director of Research Initiatives & Facilities. In addition, potential users may be surveyed to ascertain the actual impact of the equipment on their research programs.

REVIEW CRITERIA

Impact: Degree to which the proposed equipment will make a substantial difference in USC’s research activities.
Strategic Importance: The proposal should demonstrate how the equipment meets a strategic need.
Participation: Number of faculty who would utilize the laboratory, and the degree to which the user-base spans multiple schools and campuses. The annual research expenditure activity of existing core facilities will also be a consideration, as reflected in billing through FBS software.
Usage & Tracking: How are users instructed and reminded about citing the facility in their publications and grant proposals, and how compliance is verified. How is actual usage time tracked (i.e., actual total time in hours that the instrument is used for research)?
Leverage and Cost: Priority will be given to requests that are leveraged against other funding sources, thereby minimizing the need for Office of Research support.
Commitment/Sustainment: Commitment for ongoing support and maintenance from a university school, center or department or other sources, such as recharge costs and/or from splitting costs with all participating PIs, is required.

FURTHER INFORMATION AND PROGRAM CONTACT INFORMATION

Questions about the Core Instrumentation Fund or the application submission process can be directed to Amy Wood at rii@usc.edu.

GUIDELINES

Before preparing a proposal, applicants should read closely the program description,

including the sections on eligibility and evaluation criteria.

Proposals must be submitted using the Office of Research application portal (here).

Format: use a standard font, 12 point, single-spaced, with one-inch margins.

PROPOSAL COMPONENTS

Cover page information (to be filled out on-line)

Principal Investigator contact information and 10-digit USC ID number;
Proposal title and type;
Instrument/dataset/repository name and manufacturer/provider;
Amount requested to the Office of Research (as applicable);
Amount requested to external sponsor (as applicable);
Link to external sponsor Request for Proposals (as applicable);
Core information name, URL, Core Director, and Core Manager contact information and 10-digit USC ID number (as applicable);
Co-PI information and 10-digit USC ID number (as applicable).

Sections to be uploaded: It is requested that applicants follow instructions carefully and do not submit additional materials not requested by this RFP. Information that is uploaded beyond what is requested will not be included in the proposal package provided to reviewers. Please upload each of the sections below as PDF documents.

Brief description (not to exceed 60 words) A succinct description of the proposed work.
Abstract: (not to exceed 20 lines of text) A stand-alone succinct description of the proposed work.
Proposal Narrative: (not to exceed 4 pages) Page limits are inclusive of figures and tables; headers (below) should be included in the narrative

Research Impact

Describe the nature of research that will be supported as a result of the proposed funding. Explain the relationship of the proposed funding to the research of the faculty who will utilize the laboratory. Provide evidence that the faculty have a strong track record of externally funded research, as well as publications. Describe how the funding will enable expansion of research in new directions, and, if relevant, recruitment of new faculty

Need

Describe the current state of related core laboratories at USC, as well as at other nearby institutions (as applicable). Provide information on the current condition of USC’s equipment (if any), and the degree to which USC’s equipment is being used at or near capacity. Explain how faculty are currently conducting experiments in the absence of the proposed equipment.

Acquisition

Provide details (supported by quotes) on the full cost of equipment acquisition, including installation, and taxes. Space renovation or infrastructure upgrades/refurbishment/repair to core or lab infrastructure are not supported by the Core Instrumentation/Shared Instrumentation grant. Provide a budget to show the portion of this cost that will be covered by the core instrumentation fund, and the portion that will be covered by other sources, such as federal programs. For external sources, provide details on any cost-share requirements of the sponsor, along with the program from which support will be sought. State where the equipment will be installed and how potential users will be made aware of and gain access to the equipment.

Sustainment

Describe the commitment from a school, department or center or other sources, such as recharge costs (with demonstration calculation) to support the ongoing maintenance and operation of the laboratory in a shared-use environment, available to the entire university community. Provide the proposed annual budget for the core or laboratory in a format consistent with USC’s policy on recharge centers. Demonstrate the source of funding for ongoing maintenance and operation of any newly acquired equipment and demonstrate the source of funding for technical and/or administrative staff (as applicable).

Prior Support: Describe any prior support received by the core facility under this program, and the outcomes of the prior support, in terms of the equipment acquired and the resulting research.

Usage & Tracking (not to exceed one page): Explain how users will be instructed and reminded about citing the facility in their publications, and how compliance will be verified. Explain a plan to track scientific publications citing the facility, track actual usage time (i.e., actual total time in hours that they instrument is used for research) and maintain a record of users and their hours of use.

Budget Justification (not to exceed one page): provide a brief explanation of each of the components of the budget.

Manufacturer Quote

List of Core Users: provide the name and email address of at least 5 expected users of the proposed equipment/dataset/repository.

References: (not to exceed one page)
Letter(s) of Support: Provide a letter of support from the unit(s) that has(have) committed to ongoing maintenance and operation of the requested equipment.

Curriculum Vitae: (not to exceed 5 pages): Provide a brief CV or biosketch of the PI (and Co-PI, as applicable).

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

Submit your proposal application utilizing the Office of Research application submission portal. Click here to log in (or create an account for yourself), using your USC email address.

APPLICATION DEADLINES

Monday, December 12, 2022, 5pm PT for Track 2 and Track 3 proposals only.

Signatures: By submitting the online application, applicants indicate their agreement to comply with the terms and conditions of the Core/Shared Instrumentation Fund program as well as all other applicable USC policies.

FURTHER INFORMATION AND PROGRAM CONTACT INFORMATION

For questions about the application submission process or the Core/Shared Instrumentation Fund Program, please contact Mike Yarsky at ORIF@usc.edu.

Good luck on your proposal application!!

Visit our Institutionally Limited Submission webpage for more updates and other announcements.

Questions about the NSF-MRI award or the application submission process should be directed to Mike Yarsky at orif@usc.edu.

PAR-22-079: High-End Instrumentation (HEI) Grant Program (S10 Clinical Trial Not Allowed)

Slots: There is no restriction on the number of applications an institution (as identified by a specific Unique Entity Identifier (UEI)) can submit to the Shared Instrumentation Grant (SIG) and the HEI Programs each year, provided the applications request different types of equipment. However, only one application to the Basic Instrumentation Grant (BIG) Program is allowed per receipt date. Concurrent SIG, HEI, or BIG applications for the same instrument (or the same type of instrument with added special accessories – for example, to meet the HEI budget requirement), are not allowed unless documentation from a high-level institutional official must be provided, clarifying that this is not an unintended duplication, but part of a campus-wide instrumentation plan. Applicants are advised to discuss with the HEI Scientific/Research Contact (see Section VII) about potential duplications before submitting two applications for the same type of instrument.

Deadlines

Internal Deadline: TBA

LOI: N/A

External Deadline: June 1, 2023

Recurring Deadline: June 3, 2024

Award Information

Award Type: Grant

Estimated Number of Awards: The number of awards is contingent upon NIH appropriations and the submission of a sufficient number of meritorious applications.

Anticipated Award Amount:

Applications will be accepted that request a single, commercially available instrument or an integrated instrumentation system. The minimum award is $600,001. There is no upper limit on the cost of the instrument, but the maximum award is $2,000,000. Since the cost of the various instruments will vary, it is anticipated that the amount of the award will also vary. S10 awards do not allow indirect costs.

It is expected that applicants will employ the most economical approaches, including securing academic discounts, to formulate a cost-effective budget while meeting users’ scientific needs. See Section IV. 6. Funding Restrictions for additional details. Awards are made for one year only.

Who May Serve as PI:

The PD/PI should document (in the biographical sketch) technical expertise directly related to the type of the requested instrument. The PD/PI does not need to have an NIH research grant or any other research support but is expected to be an expert on the requested instrument. The PD/PI may be a core director, tenured, or non-tenured faculty member of the applicant organization. The PD/PI must be affiliated with the applicant organization and must be registered on eRA Commons.

Multiple PDs/PIs are not allowed under the S10 mechanism.

Link to Award: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-22-079.html

Process for Limited Submissions

PIs must submit their application as a Limited Submission through the Office of Research Application Portal: https://rii.usc.edu/oor-portal/.

Materials to submit include:

(1) Single Page Proposal Summary (0.5” margins; single-spaced; font type: Arial, Helvetica, or Georgia typeface; font size: 11 pt). Page limit includes references and illustrations. Pages that exceed the 1-page limit will be excluded from review.
(2) CV – (5 pages maximum)

Purpose

The purpose of this funding opportunity is to continue the High-End Instrumentation (HEI) Grant Program administered by ORIP. The objective of the Program is to make available to institutions high-end research instruments that can only be justified on a shared-use basis and that are needed for NIH-supported projects in basic, translational, and clinical biomedical or biobehavioral research. The HEI program provides funds to purchase or upgrade a single item of expensive, leading-edge, specialized, commercially available instrument or an integrated instrumentation system. An integrated instrumentation system is one in which the components, when used in conjunction with one another, perform a function that no single component can provide. The components must be dedicated to the system and not used independently.

Types of supported instruments include, but are not limited to: X-ray diffractometers, mass spectrometers, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectrometers, DNA and protein sequencers, biosensors, electron and light microscopes, flow cytometers, high throughput robotic screening systems, and biomedical imagers. Applications for standalone computer systems (supercomputers, computer clusters and data storage systems) will only be considered if the system is solely dedicated to biomedical research.

In particular, the HEI program enables the introduction of advanced leading-edge technologies providing new capabilities to biomedical research. In such cases, a risk-return trade-off is expected and allowed. Due to the novelty of the technologies and the uniqueness of their implementation, specialized and technologically savvy groups of investigators will be needed to lead the adoption of such advanced instruments for biomedical research and to develop innovative biomedical applications. Therefore, if such a novel instrument is requested, the applicant should demonstrate special technical expertise, merging multiple fields of science and technology, such as biology, physics, and bioinformatics. For integrated systems, the applicant must provide a detailed description about how the system will be put together and about the technical expertise of the individual(s) who will be responsible for assembling the system. The applicant must also provide a detailed description of training for the investigators listed in the application about the use of the novel technology in advancing their research. Accordingly, the HEI program requires that any unique instrument or an integrated system must be developed by reliable commercial vendors and guaranteed by the manufacturer’s one-year warranty.

All instruments and integrated systems must be dedicated to biomedical research only.

In rare special circumstances when an institution cannot justify sole use of the high-end instrument for NIH-supported and other biomedical research, the institution may request a Special Use Instrument (SUI). Eligibility requirements for SUI requests are described in Section III.3.

Foreign-made instruments are allowed.

The HEI Program will not support requests for:

An instrument with a base cost of less than $600,001.
Multiple instruments bundled together.
Purely instructional equipment other than under the conditions of SUI – see Section III.3.
Instruments that are not commercially available and do not have a manufacturer warranty.
Institutional administrative management systems or clinical management systems.
Instruments to be used for clinical (billable) care, other than under the conditions of SUI – see Section III.3.
Software, unless it is integrated in the operation of the instrument and/or necessary for the generation of high-quality output experimental data from the instrument.
Additional stand-alone workstations for data processing, licenses, and duplicate software items.
General purpose equipment (such as standard machine shop equipment), instruments to furnish a research facility (such as autoclaves, hoods, equipment to upgrade animal facilities), and equipment for routine sustaining infrastructure (such as standard computer networks or data storage systems).
Disposable devices, office furniture, and supplies.
Alteration or renovation of space to house the instruments.

Applicants are advised to discuss with the HEI Scientific/Research Contact (See Section VII) any questions about appropriate types of equipment, eligibility, and Program requirements, prior to submitting an application for an integrated instrumentation system.

To promote cost effectiveness, encourage optimal sharing among individual investigators, and foster a collaborative multidisciplinary environment, the instrument should be integrated in a core facility, whenever possible.

Each applicant institution must propose a Program Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) who can assume administrative and scientific oversight responsibility for the requested instrument. See Section III.1for qualifications for the PD/PI. The PD/PI will also be responsible for:

Requesting no-cost extensions of the project period, if needed.
Preparing (and working with the institution to submit) a Final Research Performance Progress Report (Final RPPR) at the end of the project period. See Section VI.3 for the content of the Final RPPR.
Preparing and submitting Annual Usage Reports (AURs) of the instrument to the NIH for a period of four years after the project end date, see Section VI.3.

An Advisory Committee must be named to assist the PD/PI in administering the grant and overseeing the usage of the instrument. For details on the composition of the Advisory Committee, see Section IV.2 under “Administration.” The PD/PI and the Advisory Committee are responsible for the development of guidelines for:

Maximum utilization of the instrument, including time allocation.
A detailed plan for the day-to-day management and safe operation of the instrument.
A plan to ensure that access to the instrument is limited to users whose projects have received approval from the Institutional Review Board, the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee or the Biosafety Committee, as applicable.
A financial plan for the long-term operation and maintenance of the instrument during the post-award period.
Relocation of the instrument within or outside the institution or change of ownership if such change is necessary.
Recommending a new PD/PI, if such a need arises.

The PD/PI and the Advisory Committee should convene meetings and issue annual reports on the instrument status, including their recommendations for instrument operations.

NIGMS is interested in co-funding S10 applications that include research projects aligned with the mission of NIGMS. NIGMS-supported research may utilize specific cells or organ systems if they serve as models for understanding general systemic principles. NIGMS also supports research in specific clinical areas that affect multiple organ systems

In parallel, NIGMS is especially interested in promoting participation of Institutional Development Award (IDeA) states and programs in the S10 Program. The IDeA program will provide co-funding for scientifically meritorious applications from IDeA states and encourage sharing and collaboration among institutions, programs, and states.

Visit our Institutionally Limited Submission webpage for more updates and other announcements.

(CLOSED) PAR-22-080: Shared Instrumentation Grant (SIG) Program (S10 Clinical Trial Not Allowed)

Slots: There is no restriction on the number of applications an institution (as identified by a specific UEI number) can submit to the SIG and/or High-End Instrumentation (HEI) Programs each year, provided the applications request different types of equipment. However, only one application to the Basic Instrumentation Grant (BIG) Program is allowed per receipt date. Concurrent SIG, HEI or BIG applications for the same instrument (or the same type of instrument with added special accessories – for example, to meet the HEI budget requirement) are not allowed unless documentation from a high-level institutional official is provided, stating that this is not an unintended duplication, but part of a campus-wide instrumentation plan. Applicants are advised to discuss with the SIG Scientific/Research Contact (Section VII) potential duplicates before submitting two applications for the same type of instrument.

Deadlines

Internal Deadline: TBA

LOI: N/A

External Deadline: June 1, 2023

Recurring Deadlines: June 3, 2024

Award Information

Award Type: Grant

Estimated Number of Awards: The number of awards is contingent upon NIH appropriations and the submission of a sufficient number of meritorious applications.

Anticipated Award Amount:

Applications will be accepted that request a single, commercially available instrument or an integrated instrumentation system. The minimum award is $50,000. There is no upper limit on the cost of the instrument, but the maximum award is $600,000. Since the cost of various instruments will vary, it is anticipated that the amount of the award will also vary. S10 awards do not allow indirect costs.

It is expected that applicants will employ the most economical approaches, including securing academic discounts, to formulate a cost-effective budget while meeting users’ scientific needs.See Section IV. 6. Funding Restrictions Funding Restrictions for additional details.

Who May Serve as PI:

The PD/PI should document (in the biographical sketch) technical expertise directly related to the type of requested instrument. The PD/PI does not need to have an NIH research grant or any other research support but is expected to be an expert on the requested instrument. The PD/PI may be a core director, tenured, or non-tenured faculty member of the applicant organization. The PD/PI must be affiliated with the applicant organization and must be registered on eRA Commons.

Multiple PDs/PIs are not allowed under the S10 mechanism.

Link to Award: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-22-081.html

Process for Limited Submissions

PIs must submit their application as a Limited Submission through the Office of Research Application Portal: https://rii.usc.edu/oor-portal/.

Materials to submit include:

(1) Single Page Proposal Summary (0.5” margins; single-spaced; font type: Arial, Helvetica, or Georgia typeface; font size: 11 pt). Page limit includes references and illustrations. Pages that exceed the 1-page limit will be excluded from review.
(2) CV – (5 pages maximum)

Purpose

The purpose of this funding opportunity is to continue the Shared Instrumentation Grant (SIG) Program administered by ORIP. The objective of the Program is to make available to institutions high-priced research instruments that can only be justified on a shared-use basis and that are needed for NIH-supported projects in basic, translational, or clinical biomedical and biobehavioral research. The SIG Program provides funds to purchase or upgrade a single item of expensive, state-of-the-art, specialized, commercially available instrument or an integrated instrumentation system. An integrated instrumentation system is one in which the components, when used in conjunction with one another, perform a function that no single component can provide. The components must be dedicated to the system and not used independently.

All instruments, integrated systems, and computer systems must be dedicated to research only.

Foreign-made instruments are allowed.

The SIG Program will not support requests for:

An instrument with a base cost of less than $50,000;
Multiple instruments bundled together;
Purely instructional equipment;
Instruments used for clinical (billable) care;
Instruments or integrated systems that are not commercially available and do not have a manufacturer warranty
Institutional administrative management systems, clinical management systems;
Software, unless it is integrated in the operation of the instrument and/or necessary for generation of high-quality experimental data from the instrument;
Multiple stand-alone workstations for data processing, software licenses, and duplicate software items;
General purpose equipment (such as standard machine shop equipment), instruments to furnish a research facility (such as autoclaves, hoods, equipment to upgrade animal facilities), equipment for routine sustaining infrastructure (such as standard computer networks or data storage systems);
Disposable devices, office furniture, and supplies;
Alteration or renovation of space to house the instruments.

Applicants are advised to discuss with the SIG Scientific/Research Contact (See Section VII) any questions about appropriate types of equipment, eligibility, and Program requirements, prior to submitting an application for an integrated instrumentation system.

To promote cost effectiveness, to encourage optimal sharing among individual investigators, research groups and departments, and to foster a collaborative multidisciplinary environment, the instrument should be integrated in a core facility or another shared resource, whenever possible.

Each applicant institution must propose a Program Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) who can assume administrative and scientific oversight responsibility for the requested instrument. See Section III.1 for qualifications for the PD/PI. The PD/PI also will be responsible for:

Requesting no-cost extensions of the project period, if needed.
Preparing (and working with the institution to submit) a Final Research Performance Progress Report (Final RPPR) at the end of the project period. See Section VI.3 for the content of a Final RPPR;
Preparing and submitting Annual Usage Reports (AURs) of the instrument to the NIH for a period of four years after the project end date, see Section VI.3.

Maximum utilization of the instrument, including time allocation.
A detailed plan for the day-to-day management and safe operation of the instrument.
A plan to ensure that access to the instrument is limited to users whose projects have received approval from the Institutional Review Board, the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee or a Biosafety Committee, as applicable.
A financial plan for the long-term operation and maintenance of the instrument during the post-award period.
A relocation of the instrument within or outside the institution or change(s) of ownership, if such changes are necessary.
Recommending a new PD/PI, if such a need arises.

The PD/PI and the Advisory Committee should convene meetings and issue annual reports on the instrument status, including their recommendations for the instrument operations.

In parallel, NIGMS is especially interested in promoting participation of Institutional Development Award (IDeA) states and programs in the S10 Program. The IDeA program will provide co-funding for scientifically meritorious applications from IDeA states and encourages sharing and collaboration among institutions, programs, and states.

Visit our Institutionally Limited Submission webpage for more updates and other announcements.