Dear UC Merced Faculty,
In an effort to get higher quality proposals to the CITRIS Seed Funding program, I am providing here some quick considerations to help any faculty choosing to submit a proposal to CITRIS. The full call is here: http://citris-uc.org/2017-citris-seed-funding-rfp/
The Center for Information Technology Research in the Interest of Society (CITRIS) and the Banatao Institute have recently announced the 2017 Seed Funding program, with proposed collaborative research projects eligible to receive up to $60,000 in funding. UC Merced has historically fared quite well in this program, typically submitting four or more successful proposals each year. Proposals are due January 27th and do require a PI “membership” application prior to submission, and while this is typically pro forma, please note that it can take several days to process.
Please also note that proposals must:
a) Focus on “technology research in the interest of society;”
b) consist of investigators from at least two of the four CITRIS campuses (Berkeley, Davis, Santa Cruz, and Merced) or specifically with UC Riverside (this is a separate competition);
c) and fall into one of the four areas of interest: Connected Communities, Health, People and Robots, and Sustainable Infrastructures. These topic areas are very broad, and UC Merced has had successful proposals from all three schools (SOE, SNS, and SSHA). The CITRIS website has more information about these thematic areas of engagement.
For the past several years I have had the opportunity to review all of the proposals that have been submitted, and the following information summarizes what I have seen to differentiate successful from unsuccessful proposals.
1) The proposed collaboration needs to be very clear. Investigators can be from the same field, but more often than not, the fields of research are complementary to, if not very different from, each other. Reviewers recognize the high risk that this type of collaboration poses for successful research; however, the outcomes can be novel and a good use of seed funding. To that end, however, the actual collaboration needs to show up clearly in the proposal.
2) The proposed research needs to address how it is contributing to upstream breakthroughs. In other words, to what end is the proposed research ahead of current thinking or current technology? Why is such a breakthrough needed?
3) The proposed research should have some commercialization potential. What are the plans for commercialization? Can the outcome cycle into NSF STTR/SBIR pathways? Will the outcome result in a start-up launch (see http://citrisfoundry.org/)?
4) The proposed seed funds should clearly result in a pathway to follow-on funding, such as large scale NSF/NIH funding. How will this effort prime the productivity pump, and how will that be evidenced?
5) The proposed budget should be realistic and show collaboration. In other words, funds should be shared between campuses to indicate that proposed collaboration is not in name only. Funds are rarely granted for equipment or professional staff, and can never be used on summer salary. Further, funds that subcontract to commercial companies or support students outside of California are rarely awarded. Support for current undergraduate and graduate students, post-docs, and modest travel/supplies are typically embraced. As these are UCOP funds, there are no indirect costs included.
To get a better sense of what has been successful, reviewing the awards funded in 2016 can be helpful (http://citris-uc.org/citris-and-the-banatao-institute-award-575000-to-te...).
With warm regards in 2017, and I hope to see your proposal submitted!
