Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
S
Information Session:W. M. Keck Foundation
Concept Paper Deadline: December 18, 2015
Maureen Martin, Executive Director, Foundation RelationsOffice of University Development
Agenda
General OverviewFoundationsW. M. Keck Foundation
The Application Process This state: concept paper and cover memo
Q&A
Why Foundations Support Science
Push the envelop of science (bridge innovative ideas into the feds - they want to be where no one else is)
Some think federal grant system of review isn’t paying enough attention to innovative fields and ideas
Focus researchers attention on a particular problem or disease (this can include associations and venture philanthropy)
Think private philanthropy can have quicker ‘on the ground’ answers and impact to the world’s problems (Gates)
General Overview:
Why Foundation Funding?
Prestige – junior and senior faculty awards – Keck, Packard, Sloan, Burroughs Wellcome, Simons, Allen, etc
Support “out-of-the-box” ideas, new kinds of work
Fund higher-risk projects – you do not need hard data up front
Pilot funding, proof of concept, seed money
What does the (Development) Foundation Relations office do?
Provide ideas about Foundations that would be interested in your work (survey the field for you)
Advise on approach to a Foundation – program officer or LOI or online form etc. (advise on process)
Feedback on proposal drafts (editing)
Recruit mentors for particular applications (networking)
Celebrate your success (PR, presidential letters)
Track opportunities for you - advertise and target (w ORSP)
W. M. Keck Foundation Motivation
The W.M. Keck Foundation was founded by William Myron Keck (1880-1964), an entrepreneur and innovator in the oil business, as well as a wild cat oilman. Mr. Keck pioneered many of the oil extraction methods still used today including directional drilling, seismic exploration and off-shore drilling.
The foundation was created in 1954 to further Mr. Keck’s passion for imaginative and innovative science. The W.M. Keck Foundation continues his legacy by funding projects that can unlock the boundaries of current science or find new ways of doing research that advance science in new domains.
Award Overview
Two connected research programs within the Foundation that fund risky and breakthrough work:
Science and Engineering - Supports pioneering science and engineering research and the development of promising new technologies.
Medical Science – Seeks to advance the frontiers of the life sciences by supporting basic research that is high-risk
Both seek projects that are distinctive and novel in their approach to problems, or question the prevailing paradigm, or push the edge/break open new territory/have the potential to transform their field.
Research Project Award Overview
Award Amount: $500,000 to $5,000,000 (for 2-3 years) direct costs
Likely - $1.2m to $1.5m Only 2 $2m awards in Dec 2014
Number of awards in 2014: 24 Abstracts are available online.
Funding has some restrictions No indirect costs (can be considered UM contribution)
No tuition (also considered UM contribution)
No more than 10% of PI’s salary allowed
No more than 10% of the cost of renovation
Application Process - Overview
Internal Concept Papers – due to UMOR in June and December Call for one-page short concepts in June and
December One page memo (or less) to internal reviewers that
explains in lay terms the ‘so what’ and offers greater depth on why you can succeed
UMOR reviews top 8 ideas (one page concepts) with Keck Foundation staff
UMOR selects one idea in each program for Keck’s Phase I contest
Phase I Foundation Deadlines – November 1 and May 1 3 Pages, Deep, concise and compelling language. Examples
available.
Phase II: quick turnaround for February 15 and August 15. 2 page executive summary; 12 pages narrative.
Characteristics of Success
Explains the overarching goal of the project, articulating both the approach (what) and methodology (how) that will be used.
They push us hard on: How is this proposed work transformational? What’s the big deal? Where is the breakthrough? Where is the risk?
Envision the future state the work would enable – what is the magnitude of the improvement?
Develop breakthrough technologies, instrumentation or methodologies
The work is innovative, distinctive and interdisciplinary
Demonstrate a high level of risk due to unconventional approaches, or by challenging the prevailing paradigm
Potential for transformative impact - founding a new field of research, impacting multiple fields simultaneously, enabling observations not previously possible or the altering the perception of an intractable problem
Applying:Getting Started
Step 1: Treat the internal call like a full competition. Give it the time to tell the story well and in compelling language.
Step 2: Research past winners Get a sense of the high-risk ideas being funded Review their documentation and the intensity of the language
they use. Note the lack of humility (not federal-speak) Abstract provided in grants lists is part of the proposal – your
abstract should this accessible and clear Note the Keck science advisors (lists at the end of the
presentation - and note the caliber of their work
Applying: Writing the Proposal
Step 3: Tell Your Story Well and Differentiate Your Work Write good science that is accessible to a smart 'lay' audience of
scientists. Frame it as close to basic as possible – no disease specificity.
Build excitement for your work: be explicit about why and how your work is innovative and risky, about how this will deliver huge impact
Be clear on what you will do, where the risk is in that plan, and how you will achieve success. Tell us the order of magnitude difference the work will make. Don’t spend much time on why you will do so.
Explain why this isn't fundable by federal or other sources. If you have feedback, share it. They are preferencing those who have at least spoken with federal program officers.
Envision how your work will change the game in the fields being engaged.
Keck instructions on concept papers
For the document we move forward to Keck for early review and feedback: one-page concepts in 12 point font with 1 inch margins should include: PI name(s) and the Keck category for funding an overview of the proposed project emphasizing any
unique aspects and pilot studies. Say what the breakthrough may be.
a description of the methodologies and key personnel – note which aspects are greatest risk and why you can address that risk
a justification of the need for Keck support (feedback from agency optimal); and
A roughly-estimated budget broken down by major areas, e.g., personnel, equipment, consumable supplies, etc. (one sentence)
Sample Outline - Concept Paper
Impact Statement: one to two sentences in bold that describe your idea and its potential impact. (not a whole lot of why, mostly what and how)
Describe: 1) the problem(s) your idea is trying to solve, 2) how current barriers will be overcome, and 3) a clear vision of what might be gained. Include why your idea is an unconventional or creative approach to the stated problem. Especially if the field is crowded and generally fundable.
Describe the scientific basis for your proposed idea/team strengths and why you expect it to succeed. The big idea should be in the future not the past.
Describe your experimental plan: Highlight the ‘What’ and “How”
Why Keck: Be explicit about why the proposed project is outside the range of federal sponsors? (have you proposed your idea to them? Talked to program officers, etc).
Common Strengths
Idea clearly pushing boundary of science forward. Clearly a big deal.
Well written – clear and explicit statements that lead the reviewer to understand why the idea is ‘cool’, ‘big’, ‘game-changer’, transformative – your overview paragraph is the ‘hook’
Strong Team – pushing boundaries in each engaged discipline
Developing a completely new instrument/ new methodology in the proposed work (not prior to it – not the next step in a former innovation)
Controversial approach, not current ‘fad’
Counter to current focus of the field. Really creative approach.
Common Strengths:Feedback from the
FoundationCommon Comments from the W. M. Keck Foundation:
There is sufficient information in the ‘what’ the team will do and the ‘how’ – not too much space spent on the ‘why’
Clear, explicit statements on what the big impact will be of the work, if successful
The best concepts clearly distinguish proposed work from the field (they often say ‘we see a lot of proposals in this space’)
Case can be strengthened if faculty have applied and been declined by federal agency (can be just a phone call with the program officer)
Common Weaknesses
Lacks problem statement – who cares about this work? What difference will it make?
Missing key partners (e.g. technology proposal lacks expert in biological field where they plan to use the technology)
We can’t see why THIS work will be transformative. Didn’t the big thing happen at the last stage?
Doable – not risky. Too iterative. Too applied. (We don’t do disease and we don’t do drug delivery.)
Proposal too far along, already have had funding in this space
Doesn’t differentiate the proposed work from work currently funded by the engaged PIs (e.g. innovator award, career award, etc.)
Questions?
Contact Information Maureen S Martin, Executive Director, Foundation
Relations [email protected] office: 734-647-6074
Joe Piffaretti, Senior Director, CFR, UMHS office: 734-763-1318 | [email protected]
Submit your concept to: [email protected]
Medical Research
Medical Research
Dr. Richard N. Foster, Chairman
Peter K. Barker
Dr. William R. Brody
Matt Day, Sr.
Robert A. Day
Theodore J. Day
Dr. James S. Economou
Stephen M. Keck
W. M. Keck III
Kent Kresa
Sherry Lansing
Grant Committee
Science and Engineering
Science and Engineering
Dr. Edward C. Stone, Jr. Chairman
Dr. William R. Brody
John E. Bryson
Matt Day, Sr. (Ex Officio)
Robert A. Day
Joseph Deegan-Day
Dr. James S. Economou
Dr. Richard N. Foster
Howard B. Keck, Jr.
Theodore J. Keck
Kent Kresa
Grant Committee
