To subscribe to e-mail notification of Grants Bulletin updates with a link to this page, fill out the Subscription Form.
August 31, 2007
SBIR/STTR Proposal Preparation Workshops - Sept 11 & 12, 19, 20
SBIR-STTR proposal writing is different than the traditional government grant proposal
When and Where?
Louisville, KY (NIH focus)
September 11 and 12, 2007 (1.5 days)
Lexington, KY (General)
September 19, 2007 (All Day)
Bowling Green, KY (General)
September 20, 2007 (All Day)
The SBIR-STTR Program: This fiscal year, 11 federal agencies will award more than $2.2 billion to small and start-up firms that perform innovative, high-risk R&D, and commercialize the resulting technologies. These awards will be made through the Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs.
The Workshop Speakers: Two speakers are giving separate workshops at three different locations.
Lisa Kurek, Biotechnology Business Consultants, will focus on NIH SBIR-STTR program and include electronic submission of proposals on October 10-11, 2006 in Louisville. She will give an intensive workshop covering all aspects of preparing a competitive NIH SBIR or STTR Phase I proposal.
Dr. Bob Berger of Robert Berger Consulting will share insights into what elements are needed to generally develop a winning SBIR/STTR Phase I proposal that will grab the attention of the reviewers, on September 19, 2007 in Lexington and on September 20 in Bowling Green. The focus of the workshop will be to demystify the proposal preparation process in easy to understand steps. The workshop will allow time for questions and answers to understand the application components and get you started.
Deadlines & Fees:
Please register before Thursday, September 6, 2007, for either of the workshops. The registration fees include presentation materials, continental breakfast, lunch on first day, and refreshment breaks. (See http://ksef.kstc.com for more details.)
Interested in more information?
Visit our website (above) for the conference and workshop agendas. For additional questions contact Mahendra Jain at KSEF (firstname.lastname@example.org; 859-255-3613 x 230).
- KSEF / KSTC
- University of Kentucky
- University of Louisville
- Western Kentucky University & South Central ICC
- Commerce Lexington Inc.
"Human Subject Protection: The Long and Winding Road" - Oct. 19
Attention All University of Kentucky Research Investigators, Research Staff, and Study Personnel:
The University of Kentucky Office of Research Integrity, along with the University of Cincinnati and Schulman Associates IRB, Inc., is again hosting a one-day conference titled "Human Subject Protection: The Long and Winding Road" on Friday, October 19, 2007 from 9:00 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. at the Northern Kentucky Convention Center in Covington, Kentucky.
Your attendance at this conference will satisfy UK's mandatory human research protection continuing education requirements.
Click here for the Microsoft Word registration form and agenda. For more information, contact Scott McIntosh at email@example.com.
Note that PAYMENT for registration may be made by check (payable to the University of Kentucky) or credited to cost center 1013200030. PAYMENT for CME/Nursing credit may be made by check only (payable to the University of Cincinnati).
NSF ADVANCE: Increasing the Participation and Advancement of Women in Academic Science and Engineering Careers
The goal of the NSF ADVANCE program is to develop systemic approaches to increase the representation and advancement of women in academic science and engineering careers, thereby contributing to the development of a more diverse science and engineering workforce. Creative strategies to realize this goal are sought from women and men. Members of underrepresented minority groups and individuals with disabilities are especially encouraged to apply. Proposals that address the participation and advancement of women with disabilities and of women from underrepresented minority groups are encouraged. Click here for details and deadlines on UK's Limited Submissions webpage.
August 24, 2007
Consortium Offers Compound Library and Screening Facilities to UK Researchers
A very unusual, and beneficial, research resource is now available to UK researchers: a world-class compound library and associated high-throughput screening facilities and expertise. The resource is larger and more targeted than most comparable resources, such as the NIH compound repository. This resource can be used for any biomolecular screen; such approaches are not restricted to drug discovery. This resource may be one that can stimulate research collaborations. UK has taken considerable care with respect to IP terms; use of the library is very unencumbered by IP restrictions. The bulk of the compounds are known, commercially-available molecules that are very well-characterized.
UK has joined with the University of Cincinnati Genome Research Institute and the Research Institute of the Children’s Hospital of Cincinnati as members of a consortium to make available to our researchers and research collaborators a drug-discovery compound library, high-throughput screening technology, and expertise to use the library, which we call the UC/GRI Compound Library. The library was recently donated to the University of Cincinnati for consortium use. This library was carefully designed and maintained in order to provide the ability to screen biological targets for novel biochemical tools, probes and drug leads. This memo links to basic information on the library, links to presentations by UC/GRI that describe the library and their facilities and expertise, and the guidelines for UK researchers wishing to use the library.
Guidelines for UK Researchers
The Office of the Vice President for Research funded consortium access. Initially, to encourage screening, we will provide up to 25,000 compounds to a UK researcher who develops a screening plan with UC/GRI, essentially as a cost-free minigrant. Larger or additional screens may be done at a subsidized cost. The actual cost of screening assays, etc, will be borne by the researcher. A UK researcher should read the associated library description, contact UC/GRI’s lead on this project, Dr. Bill Seibel at firstname.lastname@example.org, develop a plan, then submit a very brief description of the plan to Associate Vice President for Research Chuck Staben for approval. Response to requests will be vetted in our office with a very quick response time.
For more information, visit the Compound Library webpage: www.research.uky.edu/compound.
"Sub-awards: A Survivors Guide of Key Concepts and Principles" - Sept. 11
National Council of University Research Administrators Satellite Teleconference
September 11, 2007
11:30 a.m. - 3:30 p.m.
Student Center Theater
This broadcast is intended as a review for mid-level research administrators and will provide enough basic information to help those who are new to the world of subcontracting to – survive! The faculty will share a number of case studies, discuss the Do's and Don'ts and dispel myths that may have been creating high anxiety to those new to this arena.
Faculty will touch on the following areas:
- Key concepts and terminology associated with subawards
- An overview of the typical flow of activity
- Factors to consider when issuing a sub-award
- Elements of a sub-award
- Terms and Conditions – do they all “flow down”?
- Basic principles of sub-award negotiation
- Administering sub-awards
Moderator: David Mayo, Associate Director, Office of Sponsored Research, California Institute of Technology
- Steve Erickson, Director, Office for Research Compliance and Intellectual Property Management, Boston College;
- Ruth Farrell, Associate Vice President for Research Administration, University of Vermont
- Nancy Daneau, Associate Director of Research Administration Training and Institutional Liaison, Office of the Senior Vice Provost for Research, New York University
Sponsor: Office of Sponsored Projects Administration
To sign up, please call or e-mail Heather Crowley (257-9424 or email@example.com). Lunch will be provided for participants who register prior to the conference.
IdeaFestival - Sept. 13-15
Take your inner genius out to play....register today!
For three days in Louisville in September the 2007 IdeaFestival® brings together some of the brightest, deepest, strangest, most groundbreaking, cloud-clearing, mind-moving ideas out there in science, food, business, fashion, the arts, design, you name it. It’s random, it’s fun, it’s a synapse-stirring celebration of innovation, creativity and the power of big ideas. Visit http://www.ideafestival.com for this year’s wide-range of events and presenters. Events are filling fast so get your passes now!
August 17, 2007
Reviewing Peer Review: NIH Needs Your Help!
From the Desk of the NIH Director Elias Zerhouni, M.D.
Please take a few minutes to respond to the NIH Request for Information on Peer Review at: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-07-074.html.
We all rely on the NIH peer review system to ensure that we support the best biomedical and behavioral research in the world. Today, we can all agree that the system faces challenges. These challenges include, among others, a rising number of applications, rapid changes in science, and increasingly competitive funding levels, all of which require many investigators to apply multiple times to obtain funding.
For more than half a century, the NIH peer review system has been the gold standard for funding science of the highest quality. The scientific community, including members of NIH advisory councils and Institute and Center Directors, all agree that we must continue to fund the best science and the best scientists, with a minimum of bureaucracy. And so, like all things great, our peer review system must be regularly examined, critiqued, and improved if we are to maintain its quality. We have therefore arrived at another juncture when it is time to review peer review.
The NIH Center for Scientific Review and Office of Extramural Research are working to respond to these challenges. We are making efforts to reduce review times, especially for new investigators; experiment with new formats for review; and assess the need to streamline the application, while successfully implementing electronic submission for most grants. A series of open houses to review the performance of each Integrated Review Groups (IRGs) is beginning.
We are also launching a comprehensive effort to examine the NIH peer review process, one that is broader than many previous efforts. The ultimate goal of this new study is to optimize the entire system used by NIH to support biomedical and behavioral research. We welcome suggestions about the review process per se, as well as suggestions regarding how to structure our grant mechanisms in order to facilitate review and reduce the need for scientists to spend more time on the application process, rather than doing science. This requires broad and comprehensive input from the scientific community. We are particularly interested in creative suggestions about how we can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the system, even if this involves radical changes to the current approach. The entire NIH leadership, including myself, has decided to make this issue a top priority for NIH this year.
And I am making a direct appeal to you to respond to our call for ideas, spread the word to your colleagues about this effort, and encourage their participation.
To help ensure we receive the most thoughtful advice possible, I recently established two Working Groups, each with differing experience and perspectives. These groups will work in concert by gathering both external and internal input.
- One group is a Working Group of the Advisory Committee to the NIH Director (ACD), our outside scientific advisors. This Working Group is led by Drs. Keith Yamamoto and Larry Tabak and will focus on gathering input from the extramural community. Members of this group (http://enhancing-peer-review.nih.gov/rosters/acd.html) will also identify a number of scientific leaders, who will be asked to serve as liaisons between various scientific communities and the Working Group. Each liaison will survey their community about the key elements of the system used to support science and ideas for change. To ensure we receive the broadest input possible on the strengths and weaknesses of the current system and ideas for improvements, this Working Group will also conduct a series of regional meetings around the country with external scientists and the broad stakeholder community. This will also be done through a web-based request for comment.
- In a parallel effort, an internal NIH Working Group, led by Drs. Jeremy Berg and Larry Tabak (http://enhancing-peer-review.nih.gov/rosters/adhoc.html), will gather input on the peer review process from the NIH community, complementing input already received from NIH staff, including NIH Institute and Center Directors.
The Working Groups Mandate for Change and Coordination with the ongoing activities in the Center for Scientific Review
The two Working Groups will then integrate their findings in the form of a white paper that will prioritize issues with the current system and articulate the best approaches towards effecting change. They have a wide-ranging mandate to examine and discuss any and all potential approaches to enhance the entire system. These ideas will then be transformed into a series of implementation pilots that will be designed to address both feasibility and effectiveness. This will take into consideration ongoing efforts recently undertaken by the Center for Scientific Review to streamline and improve the efficiency of the current peer review system by shortening review cycles, decreasing the length of the applications, and enhancing the use of electronic reviews. The final recommendations, including modifications to peer review policies and practices, will then be approved by NIH leadership, including both Institute and Center Directors, the NIH Director, and in consultation with advisory councils.
Ultimately, NIH will develop new policies that could include, for example:
- Exploring ways to integrate a broader understanding of the scientific context into the Peer Review process;
- Ensuring that creativity, impact, and significance are emphasized in the applications themselves, as well as in their review;
- Improving the culture of review by encouraging the most accomplished scientists to want to serve on study sections; and,
- Devising alternate strategies to support science that would better synergize with an enhanced peer review process while reducing the bureaucratic burden on our applicants.
Additional options will certainly emerge.
Because these issues can have an impact on the entire NIH community, I am committed to absolute transparency as NIH conducts this study and subsequent policy development. Please visit the website: http://enhancing-peer-review.nih.gov/ for more background information and for up-to-the-minute updates as we move forward with this effort.
Thanking you in advance
Again, I urge you to participate, either by responding fully and candidly to committee members if asked, or by offering your direct input at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-07-074.html.
Because of the level of interest in this effort, we have just extended the closing date of the Request for Information on Peer Review to September 7.
NIH will continue to ensure that our processes serve the overarching mission of NIH — making important medical discoveries that improve health and save lives — during this unprecedented time of scientific advancement and opportunity. I know you share this goal and I am counting on your help!
I invite you to share any comments you have with me, directly, at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Elias A. Zerhouni, M.D., Director
National Institutes of Health
National Institute for Hometown Security Project Solicitation - Sept. 14 deadline
The National Institute for Hometown Security
Kentucky Critical Infrastructure Protection Program Conference
Project Solicitation Conference
August 14, 2007
In a Project Solicitation Conference held in Somerset, Kentucky, agency officials from The National Institute for Hometown Security (NIHS) offered key insights to investigators interested in funding under the 2007 RFP for the Kentucky Critical Infrastructure Protection (KCIP) Program.
This is a sizable opportunity offering $10-12 million in available funding for Kentucky researchers. UK has competed very successfully for these funds in the past, with multiple funded projects (http://www.thenihs.org/program_kci_history.php). No preset number of projects to be funded has been determined.
NIHS technical topic areas (http://www.thenihs.org/program_kci_requirements.php) focus on a national-level framework of resiliency in homeland security, i.e., the ability to prepare, respond, and recover from infrastructure disruptions from a community-based perspective. Energy topics are excluded for this round. Speakers offered the following guidance for preparation of white papers (due 9/14/07) and invited full proposals (due 12/12/07):
- Familiarization with the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) and Integrated Product Team (IPT) Reports is vital, as topics reflect high-priority technology needs within the Infrastructure Protection/Geophysical Division (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/NIPP_Plan.pdf) of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Directorate of Science and Technology.
- Research must reflect a systems approach, i.e., research is practical, effective, sustainable, and attractive in the marketplace and leads to commercialization with reasonable final product costs or a bridge to policy as an endpoint.
- Project periods may range up to three years with budgets of $300,000 to $1.5 million. Projects will:
- Respond to a needs and requirements-driven enterprise, not simply offer a mild tie to DHS priorities.
- Identify a highly focused problem with real-world deployability as a research outcome.
- Explain benefits to the Department of Homeland Security and the nation.
- Describe consequences that would be avoided and explain how resiliency would be improved.
- Make a Business Case for the use of the final product, i.e., cost avoidance, lower risks, cost of implementation, and return on investment. (UK’s Von Allmen Center for Entrepreneurship (http://www.lexicc.com/) may be a useful resource for UK investigators. Also consult the Council on Competitiveness (http://www.compete-resilience.org/) in Washington, DC for assistance.)
- Lead universities must demonstrate evidence of real university/industry collaboration and sustainable team efforts; collaborators must bring needed core competencies.
- Proposals should demonstrate evidence of outreach to relevant government agencies on current research and advances and critical data and resources (e.g., NIHS, USDA, University of Louisville Center for Health Hazards Preparedness, etc.)
- White papers (2-3 pages) should have little technical detail but emphasize the problem and broad impact of the solution through a local project, the business case, the estimated cost of the end product, the commercialization or policy potential, and related research. No biosketches are necessary for the white paper submission.
- Unusual draft contract terms are currently being reviewed by UK; additional guidance will be offered soon; however, applicants should include full indirect costs in the white paper budget total.
- Close national project scrutiny at the technical and commercial levels is reflected in mandatory monthly, quarterly, and semi-annual progress reports and four annual program review conferences at the state and national levels.
Other Contacts and Resources
- UK Proposal Development Office, 257-2861, www.research.uky.edu/pdo, for copies of handouts, proposal review
- National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center (NISAC), http://www.sandia.gov/mission/homeland/programs/critical/nisac.html
- The National Strategy for the Physical Protection of Critical Infrastructures and Key Assets, http://www.whitehouse.gov/pcipb/physical_strategy.pdf
- Center for Health Hazards Preparedness, http://louisville.edu/sphis/chhp/
August 10, 2007
UK Internal Selection Process for 2008 Humanities Summer Stipends - Aug. 28 deadline
The National Endowment for the Humanities Summer Stipends provide $6,000 for two consecutive months of full-time research and writing on a humanities project that contributes to scholarly knowledge or to the public’s understanding of the humanities. Recipients usually produce scholarly articles, monographs on specialized subjects, books on broad topics, archaeological site reports, translations, editions, or other scholarly tools. Summer Stipends may not be used for specific policy studies or educational or technical impact assessments; preparation or publication of textbooks; studies of teaching methods or theories, surveys of courses and programs, or curriculum development; inventories of collections; works in the creative or performing arts; projects that seek to promote a particular political, philosophical, religious, or ideological point of view; or projects that advocate a particular program of social action. Additional information and guidelines are available at the following NEH website: www.neh.gov/grants/guidelines/stipends.html.
The University of Kentucky is limited to two nominations. Each nominee can either be a junior faculty member (assistant professor) or a senior faculty member (associate or full professor). The internal selection process will be coordinated through the Office of the Provost. Individuals who have held a major fellowship or research grant or its equivalent within the last three academic years prior to October 2 are ineligible. (A “major fellowship or research grant” is a postdoctoral research award with a stipend of at least $10,000. Sabbaticals and grants from an individual’s own institution and stipends and grants from other sources supporting study and research during the summer are not considered major fellowships.) Recipients of an NEH Summer Stipend in 2003 or after are ineligible.
Prospective and eligible applicants interested in submitting a proposal to this program should submit the following information electronically to Ms. Kristine Hobson (email@example.com), Office of the Provost, and a copy to their Dean by Tuesday, August 28, 2007.
- Project narrative (maximum three single-space pages) to include the ideas, objectives, and methods of the proposed project. The NEH guidelines provide additional suggestions for addressing the narrative.
- Project bibliography (one singled-spaced page)
- Curriculum vitae (two-pages)
Dr. Leonidas Bachas, Associate Dean for Research, College of Arts and Sciences, will chair the committee convened to review the proposals. The two applications that are chosen will be prepared online and submitted electronically for the October 2 deadline.
“Muscle weakness and fatigue: Redox mechanisms and new treatment strategies” - Sept. 6
Michael B. Reid, Ph.D., Professor and Chair, University of Kentucky, Department of Physiology
Noon to 1 p.m.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Hospital Auditorium, HG611
- To show that free radicals limit muscle performance in health and disease.
- To demonstrate that antioxidants can preserve muscle performance in humans.
- To explain the balance between free radicals and antioxidants.
- To define the mechanism by which oxidants depress contractile function.
Lunch available at 11:45 a.m. Presentation begins at noon.
Please RSVP by 9/3/07 to Jessica Wehle, firstname.lastname@example.org. If you require special physical arrangements to attend this meeting, please call 323-8150.
August 3, 2007
“Human Research Protection Update” - Aug. 30
Ada Sue Selwitz, Director, Office of Research Integrity, Adjunct Associate Professor, Behavioral Science
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Lunch and Pre-Show at 11:30 a.m.
Presentation: Noon to 1 p.m.
At the conclusion of this presentation, participants will -
- Be able to describe selected Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Programs’ recommendations for changes in the UK IRB review process
- Be able to discuss recent federal policy changes which will impact the UK IRB review process
Please call or email (323-8545, email@example.com) the UKCRO office by Friday, August 24, to reserve your place.
The University of Kentucky, College of Nursing is accredited as a provider of continuing nursing education by the American Nurses Credentialing Center’s Commission on Accreditation.
The Kentucky Board of Nursing approves The University of Kentucky, College of Nursing as a provider as well. Kentucky Board of Nursing approval of an individual continuing nursing education provider does not constitute endorsement of program content. This educational activity is approved for a maximum of 1 KBN contact hour and 1 ANCC contact hour for nurses who complete program. Provider #: 3-0008-7-07-206. Expiration date: December 31, 2007, a certificate will be issued to participants after the conference.