2023-11-29 NIH RM1 BTOD concept discussion Meeting notes

• OMSF can hire software engineers so we don’t have to shoehorn skilled people into postdoc positions

•  

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

  • Needs to become self-sustaining within up to 15 years

  • CE activities need to keep it going

• 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

    • PM, Project leads, technical leads

  • 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?

    • AY – we don’t put too many requirements here

      • We don’t want to exploit students or postdocs

• 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

    • MIRA funds experimental work

    • BTOD funds optimization

    • These questions can be resolved prior to award (after submission)

  • 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

    • HN – it’s my job to figure this out

• JC – what is the role of letters of support (beyond DBPs)?

  • AY – NOFO has a section on letters of support

    • hidden in submission instructions

    • limited to institutional support, projects that are described in the application itself

    • information there is the nature of the collaboration

• 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

    • some applications are criticized for missing this

    • include a diagram for each project

      • information they provide to you can be used as input to do more refinement

  • 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

      • Panel is an editorial process that takes in the mail-in reviews and evaluates the entire project

    • 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

        • We hope to get a large number of applications coming in after that webinar

•