I just wanted to clarify the issue on matching funds. We have been told by NPS that the language in the bill will likely be ammended so that ARS labs will be able to effectively compete for funding. It's not clear how it will be re-written but they said the intent of the bill was to be as inclusive as possible.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org on behalf of Peace, Cameron Sent: Tue 6/3/2008 9:38 PM To: email@example.com Subject: [ROSEXEC-LIST] Specialty Crops funding opportunity
I've been away from internet access since our teleconference yesterday. Anne-Marie Thro was at the PGOC meeting in Ft Collins the last couple of days (following our teleconference), and informed Gayle, myself, and a few others in our community about a couple of extra things concerning the Specialty Crops funding opportunity. She also confirmed much of what was conveyed on the teleconference. Yes, the RFA should be out mid June. However, 1) they are probably going to concentrate on the larger project types (i.e. CSP and CAP) this year, and only consider funding specific smaller project proposals if they are very well justified and written. Next year they will focus more on those smaller projects types (less than $1 mil). 2) She believes that there WILL be a matching requirement for these projects (a big challenge with huge projects in a short amount of time, but that reduces the competition if you look on the bright side). This matching fund requirement may be in-kind (salaries, field maintenance, equipment use, etc), but such resources from federal institutions are not counted. So USDA-ARS scientists' time is not counted, nor is other NRI funding.
Regarding the discussion initiated by Jay, I agree with him. RosEXEC should not shy away from its very useful coordination role. This new information above on the likely size of the projects to be funded strongly influences this discussion. What I got out of the teleconference was that in addtion to RosCAP, we have perhaps 3-5 (maybe more) BIG ideas from the Rosaceae community that we could rally around and submit as CAP-level proposals. The role of RosEXEC here would be to recommend the list of these large project ideas and help get people together to put them together. The ones mentioned so far were along the lines of GDR/RING, GRIN-Rosaceae, postharvest genomics-genetics-breeding-production-marketing system, increasing consumer appreciation of Rosaceae products, and a Rosaceae genome consortium.
As for RosCAP, if we are to submit it as a larger CSP-level project, the challenge (opportunity) is to include the distribution/processing and consumer/marketing components. Otherwise, RosCAP submitted as just a large CAP-level proposal might also suit - the important thing is, I think, that it is submitted as a symbol of the wider community's collaboration on a very high plane.
Okay, my plane is leaving now, gotta go.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org on behalf of Dardick, Chris Sent: Tue 6/3/2008 9:47 AM To: Norelli, Jay; Folta, Kevin M.; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Dhingra, Amit; Bassil, Nahla; Jim Luby; Volk, Gayle; Sue Gardiner; Jasper Rees; Dan Sargent (EMR); email@example.com Cc: Bert Abbott Subject: Re: [ROSEXEC-LIST] Slight Time Change ### RosEXEC Conferencecall-Date:Monday June 2 Time NOW 4:15 PM Eastern US
I too missed the call but I strongly agree with Jay. Remember why RosEXEC was formed in the first place. RosEXEC should not be a gateway for individual proposals but it is essential that we know (in general) what people are doing in order to coordinate larger integrated projects. We undermine ourselves if, for example, in RosCAP we propose to develop SNP profiling tools and someone secretly has already done it. Like Jay said, we are looking for general goals not details.
It was probably discussed during the meeting but I think we should wait for the RFA before making any decisions on RosCAP or other projects. As far as waiting until 2009 for RosCAP, we would be passing up a big opportunity.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org on behalf of Norelli, Jay Sent: Tue 6/3/2008 9:32 AM To: Folta, Kevin M.; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Dhingra, Amit; Bassil, Nahla; Dardick, Chris; Jim Luby; Volk, Gayle; Sue Gardiner; Jasper Rees; Dan Sargent (EMR); email@example.com Cc: Bert Abbott Subject: Re: [ROSEXEC-LIST] Slight Time Change ### RosEXEC Conferencecall-Date:Monday June 2 Time NOW 4:15 PM Eastern US
Stating your general objectives does not reveal much of your hand.
Does the RosEXEC have no role to play in facilitating the community's response to this granting opportunity? PIs could choose to not reveal the details of their proposals to other PIs. If the community is so competitive that we do not even want to reveal our intentions to submit a proposal, can the RosEXEC expect to do much more than periodically revise the White Paper.
From: Folta, Kevin M. [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 12:07 PM To: Norelli, Jay; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; Amit Dhingra; Bassil, Nahla; Dardick, Chris; Jim Luby; Volk, Gayle; Sue Gardiner; Jasper Rees; Dan Sargent (EMR); email@example.com Cc: Bert Abbott Subject: RE: [ROSEXEC-LIST] Slight Time Change ### RosEXEC Conference call-Date:Monday June 2 Time NOW 4:15 PM Eastern US
I could not be on the c-call... inaccessible this week.
I hope that RosEXEC has a minimal role in gatekeeping/organizing etc. We each know the players and the best way to pursue teambuilding. Why broadcast our intentions to the rest of the world when they aren't showing their cards? Especially innovative topics (that may arise) from Rosaceae proposals should be kept under the hat, especially with the short time frame.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [email@example.com] On Behalf Of Norelli, Jay [Jay.Norelli@ARS.USDA.GOV] Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 11:36 AM To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Amit Dhingra; Bassil, Nahla; Dardick, Chris; Jim Luby; Volk, Gayle; Sue Gardiner; Jasper Rees; Dan Sargent (EMR); firstname.lastname@example.org Cc: Bert Abbott Subject: Re: [ROSEXEC-LIST] Slight Time Change ### RosEXEC Conference call -Date:Monday June 2 Time NOW 4:15 PM Eastern US
Excellent discussion yesterday. In our next conference call I suggest we try to focus on resolving some specific questions. Here are my top 3:
1. Will the FY08 NRI RoseCAP be submitted to the Specialty Crop Program ? My read of the discussion was that the NRI RoseCAP would not be submitted to the Specialty Crop Program as a CAP proposal. There were 2 alternatives presented a) it be withheld for submission as a FY09 NRI CAP proposal and b) it serve as the basis for a larger Coordinated Systems Project (CSP).
2. What role will the RosEXEC play in the Specialty Crop Program grant submission process? It is clear that there will be several proposals submitted from the Rosaceae community to this program. I do not think the RosEXEC can or should try to be a gatekeeper in the grant submission process. Rather, I think we will better serve the community by functioning as a conduit for communication and community organization. I suggest that we a) forward information about the Specialty Crop Program to the entire US Rosaceae community through the GDR and b) we request community members to make us aware if they plan to submit a proposal to the program, the type of proposal they plan to submit, and the project objectives. The RosEXEC could then make PIs aware of other members of the community with similar objectives to facilitate team building. The PIs could then determine for themselves if team building makes sense or they wish to submit competing or different proposals.
3. Will the RosEXEC attempt to coordinate the submission of a single CSP from the Rosaceae community or leave it to individual community members to organize their own proposals?
Best regards, Jay Norelli