W.M. Keck Foundation's Science and Engineering Program

Date/Time: 
02/21/2012, 5:00 PM

Below please find a limited submission opportunity with one proposal allowed per institution per cycle. If you are interested in applying to this program please email Melinda LeLacheur with a concept paper per the instructions below by February 21, 2012.

2012 W. M. Keck Foundation’s Science and Engineering Program

Award average: $1,000,000

As a result of the W. M. Keck Foundation limitations on submissions, the Office of Corporate and Foundation Relations and the Office of Research Affairs collaborate to provide this notice for the internal UMA vetting process for this round of Keck’s Science and Engineering Program. There are two cycles for both the Keck Science and Engineering and the Medical Research programs per year. Only one project may be brought forward for formal submission per cycle per Keck program. Formal applications must carry the endorsement of the Chancellor through participation in the following process. There are 3 steps to the process.

1.      Internal vetting process for awards determined in December 2012:

Submit a concept paper to Melinda LeLacheur per the below instructions*. Deadline: February 21, 2012. The internal review committee will use Keck grant criteria to determine which project will move forward to the Phase I application stage. Notification by UMass Review Committee - March 12.

2.      Phase I application submission to Keck: Deadline May 1, 2012. Notification by Keck - July 15, 2012.

3.      Phase II application: Deadline August 23. Notification by Keck – December, 2012.

 

Guidance

This is not an early investigator program. While Keck encourages participation by early investigators, the team should include more senior investigators. An unsuccessful applicant may only submit a project once to Keck, but an investigator may submit for different projects in the future. Fundable projects:

                 

  • should develop pioneering instrumentation, new technologies and novel methodologies, as these new tools can then be available to be used in the field or across fields. Keck is not interested in funding projects that they view as incremental moves forward. If the project can achieve its goal through a series of RO1's, Keck will not fund it.
  • have the potential to lead to breakthrough technologies.
  • are innovative, distinctive, preferably interdisciplinary, and are in an emerging area of research at the forefront of science or engineering.
  • demonstrate a high level of risk in that the research pushes the edge of its field, represents unconventional approaches to intransigent problems, or challenges the prevailing paradigm. If a project has a 50-50 chance or better of working, it will not be competitive.
  • have the potential for transformative impact – e.g., create a new field of research, develop new instrumentation enabling observations not previously possible, or discover new knowledge that challenges prevailing perspectives
  • fall outside the mission of public funding agencies.For that reason, Keck noted that research regarding the environment or alternative energy is discouraged.
  • demonstrate that private philanthropy generally, and the W. M. Keck Foundation in particular, is essential to the project’s success. This is proved by documentation of a rejection from a federal agency, even if only verbal, for this project.

If an early investigator is the PI, the team must include an accomplished researcher who has received federal funding but not for this project. Keck seeks a diverse set of individuals according to their career stages and research topics as well as gender and ethnicity. The proposal must convince the readers that this work could only be done here at UMass - e.g. because of unique qualifications and experience of the project team, facilities or equipment. Requests do not have to be for equipment. The project should build on acknowledged strengths within the institution. 

 

Proposals should precisely describe the scientific question under consideration and the proposed work plan.Briefly explain how the response is a new approach, and how it will have broader impact on the field. Keck readers are familiar with the science, so include only a sentence or two about this and more detail on the process that will be undertaken - exactly what you will do and how.Note that

 

*ONE PAGE concept papersshould include:

  1. an abstract/overview of the research proposed emphasizing any unique aspects
  2. a description of the workplan including the methodology
  3. mention of any pilot studies or data that supports the idea a brief description of the key personnel, why this group is uniquely capable of doing this research, and why this work has to be done at UMA
  4. a brief justification of the need for Keck support, including evidence – preferably a rejection by a  federal funding organization – that government funding is not available for this research. The Keck reviewers are aware of NSF priorities and will not fund areas that are receiving federal funding
  5. an estimated budget broken down by major areas, e.g., personnel, equipment, consumable supplies,  - only percentages or rough approximations at this stage. 
  6. confirmation of the availability of adequate space to house any new equipment.
  7. cost share of close to $1M is expected. Preliminary plan for match should be included.

Criteria

Big Science questions:  Address important challenges or gaps in scientific knowledge. If there is potential for application once the research is completed, that helps demonstrate a bigger societal imperative to resolve the challenge.  Successful applicants have played both cards well: "Our research will shed new light on the pathways of disease long invisible to scientists and medical researchers, and can be used to develop new interventions and therapies"

 

Team in place:  Projects from the western part of the country are given priority; if all things are equal, a proposal from the west will be given preference. To be competitive,Keck needs to be convinced that the project has to happen here at UMass and cannot occur anywhere else. An existing strong interdisciplinary team with clearly defined roles and responsibilities can make that case.  It's ok if the team has not won a joint award, but individually, there must be demonstrated expertise (awards, honors, publications). RA or support positions are ok, as long as they are temporary or the costs will be assumed by the institution at the end of the grant. There should be evidence of institutional capacities and strength for the project, which should build on acknowledged strengths within the institution.

 

Keck guidelines: http://www.wmkeck.org/grant-programs/science-engineering/application-process.html. If you have technical questions, please contact Linda Sopp Foundation Relations.