Definition of DBPs
|
|
| AY – interplay between TOPs and DBPs DBPs aren’t going to be evaluated Their interaction with TOPs will be evaluated TOPs need to make technology accessible to non-experts
AY – dissemination sounds like it’s already a major focus DM – can we present indsutrial applications as DBPs They might not be able to disclose their use in any detail AY – reviewers will evaluate how that industrial use contributes to optimization of the technology collaborations with DBPs are not expected to persist through entire lifespan of center Need to elaborate a process for turning over DBPs HN – Industrial users need to provide feedback to promote optimization JC & DM – yes, Bayer (in particular) is very good about that
JC – admin & management plan Scientific leadership from academics professional management Equipment budget – can we spend this on cloud computing infrastructure? Don’t have an answer on that yet, but leaning toward on-site physical equipment contract for services probably will be excluded DM – there may be a route through UCI, where we buy compute equipment and park it at UCI
Does the admin & managememnt structure, where scientific leadership is external and professional staff is internal, work?
JC – sustainability plans OMSF creates industry consortia When these projects are “too big to fail” for industry, they will support HN – create a plan for gradual growth into sustainability, long-term and short-term. AY – more important for subsequent renewals. But definitely important to have a plan for how dissemination will continue after the center
JC – overlap with R01 Do we have to relinquish R01? Segregate functions over the lifetime of R01? AY – MIRA awardees can have BTODs HN – just need to be clear what is optimization and what is method development JC – maybe we carve out optimization from the R01, and remaining research activities are supported on reduced budget
JC – what is the role of letters of support (beyond DBPs)? JC – is the January deadline workable for you POs? HN – If you can do it, go for it! AY – agreed. JC – it’s a cakewalk compared to other applications I have submitted recently DM – we are already doing most of this, with different support, so it’s not too hard to describe HN – you have to be able to describe connection between TOPs and feedback mechanisms JC – no particular advantages / disadvantages to any of the upcoming application deadlines? AY & HN – correct AY – time to award will be different because of fiscal year JC – it’s 11 months either way, no? AY – but the March decisions deadline aligns with federal budget, but if we don’t have a budget we can’t fund. So there’s not much pressure to get it in in January
AY we have mail-in reviews that evaluate the science, engagement plans DM – do you expect funding rates to be different between the deadlines? AY – applications tend to be held till later rounds if we can’t make a decision. From year-to-year, we don’t anticipate funding rate changing dramatically Program, senior staff, and counsel are involved in secondary review HN – NOFO has been around more than 1 year already
|