Agreements
RIDC 2011 Call for Proposals
RIDC Program (Research, Innovation and Dissemination Centers)
Call for Research Proposals 2011
SCIENTIFIC MERIT REVIEW FORM
- Phase 2, available at: www.fapesp.br/formularios/cepid/cepid2011_meritreview_fase2.doc
- Phase 1 (closed): www.fapesp.br/formularios/cepid/cepid2011_meritreview.doc
1 Introduction
2 Research, Innovation and Dissemination (RIDCs)
3 Definitions
3.1 Requirements for Main Responsible Investigators and Principal Investigators
4 Necessary conditions to create a Center
5 Support offered by FAPESP
5.1 Items which may be financed with resources requested from FAPESP
5.2 Restrictions
6 Required institutional support
7 Supervision of Centers supported
8 Program resources
9 Presentation of proposals
9.1 PHASE 1 of the selective process: Pre-proposals
9.2 PHASE 2 of the selective process (only for Pre-proposals selected in PHASE 1): Full Proposals (drafted in English)
10 Assessment of the Proposals
10.1 Assessment in PHASE 1 and PHASE 2
10.2 Assessment in PHASE 2: Full Proposals
11 Timeline
12 Further information
Annex I: Items which may be financed by FAPESP under the RIDC Program
1 Funding of the research project
2 Technical Reserve
3 Research infrastructure aid
4 Complementary requests
1 Introduction (return to contents)
One of today’s challenges to the progress of knowledge is the complexity of the problems faced, which oftentimes requires additional time to the 2 to 5 years of financing traditionally offered by the FAPESP in Grants for Regular Research or for Thematic Projects, so that the approaches used in research can have the necessary edge. In many areas of knowledge, the appropriate approach to complex research objectives may require a multidisciplinary focus.
To the contrary, the development of society in Brazil demands that leaders from the scientific community make effective contributions to spreading scientific knowledge in their areas of specialty.
Furthermore, especially interesting opportunities that can be used to transform the complexity challenges and solutions into knowledge are often found in more daring research activities. This could benefit society in the medium or short term based, via technology transfer (whether to the corporate, non-governmental, or public sectors), which includes formulation of public policies based on scientific evidence and analysis.
To deal with these world class research challenges that require a special boldness, in an effort involving intense development of opportunities for Education and Dissemination of Knowledge which, insofar as is possible within the area of knowledge, creates opportunities for Transferring Technology and knowledge, terms of financing that are longer than those traditionally offered by research development agencies are necessary as is a coupling with several instruments of development (visiting researchers grants, grants of several types), flexibility in using funds and strong institutional support for infrastructure, administration and project management.
The Special RIDC Program (Research, Innovation and Dissemination Centers) at FAPESP was started in 1998 and is the first research finance program that has sought to join some of these features, subject, as per usual, to the conditions of the financing situation and execution of the research in the country at the time.
The most important feature of the RIDCs is the multiplicity of their missions. At the base of its activities, a RIDC's core mission is to establish a World Class Research Center throughout its existence as the focus of its interest. In addition to the primary mission of developing research, focused on specific, fundamental, or applied, themes or objectives, in some cases actively seeking opportunities to contribute to innovation, the RIDCs are characterized by their development of effective means of Transferring Technology and of Education and Dissemination of Knowledge.
The RIDCs, regardless of the focus of their research, should carry out activities to disseminate or to contribute to improving the teaching of sciences. Thus, all RIDCs should contribute to the scientific education of children and youth, in the activity of promoting science, whether by interacting with schools or directly interacting with the public at large. In addition to developing undergraduate and graduate level science research programs, the Centers are also responsible for holding basic education extension activities, such as science research for secondary education students and teachers, teacher training, and science dissemination courses. In addition to their intrinsic value, these activities contribute to development a culture where the researcher feels partially responsible for basic education in the country and effectively contributes to the scientific education of the population.
The RIDCs should also take advantage of every opportunity to transfer knowledge for the benefit of society. The intensity and mechanisms could vary according to the nature and focus of the research. The Center should develop partnerships with companies and/or organizations that are responsible for implementing public policies. These Centers may also provide incentives to small companies that are in formation and whose products or services incorporate results of research developed. The emphasis placed on the transfer of knowledge to the productive, public or third sectors leads to a stronger bond between research institutions and the outside environment, which contributes to bringing new challenges in research to institutions, guaranteeing that social benefits created by the research done are maximized.
The complex set of activities at these Centers requires long term financing and autonomous use of resources, as previously mentioned. This requirement makes it imperative that there be strict supervision of their activities by development agencies.
All international assessments currently done at the RIDCs involving financing terms pursuant to the 1998 list and prolonged once to close of this year, show that this program, which was originally conceived of as an experiment, should be continued.
In addition to the objectives already described, FAPESP hopes that, on one hand, the program allows for creation of alternative institutional paradigms to the multidisciplinary, fundamental or applied research organization actively seeks opportunities to contribute to innovation, which encourages transfer and Education and Dissemination of Knowledge. On the other hand, with long-term and larger investments, plans are to continue to change the scale of the dimensions of the government’s scientific and technological research system - a priority held by the Foundation.
2 Research, Innovation and Dissemination Centers (RIDCs) (back to contents)
FAPESP aims to foster creation of Research, Innovation and Dissemination Centers in order to develop internationally competitive research in all areas of knowledge which contribute to the following goals:
a) World class research on the cutting edge of either fundamental or applied knowledge, where in either case there is an active exploration of opportunities to contribute to social impact and to innovation.
b) Transfer of knowledge to society, including to the corporate and/or non-governmental and/or public sectors. Some examples of valuable achievements towards this objective are:
b.1. Carrying out projects in partnership with governmental or non-governmental agencies or companies that are responsible for public policies. These projects may benefit from other FAPESP programs such as PITE or PPP.
b.2. Startup of small businesses that incorporate results of research developed by the Center for their products or services. These small businesses may benefit from the Innovative Research in Small Business (PIPE) at FAPESP.
c) Interaction with the educational system, especially at the primary and secondary levels; an example of this would be using the FAPESP Public Education Research Program.
In any case, the essential premise on which a RIDC is based and which it uses as guidance is that the central activity at the Center be internationally competitive research which follows the best global benchmarks for excellence. The other objectives listed above should result from this activity.
A determining factor to the success of a Center is the existence of a team with balanced composition of Principal Investigators, Associate Investigators, Visiting Researchers, Post-Doctoral Researchers, graduate and undergraduate students, and technical support personnel, supported by top quality administrative and management services.
Not only should a RIDC have world class excellence, but it should also be justified by each of the following reasons:
a) The complexity of the problems to be researched, which in many cases (but perhaps not all) may require a multidisciplinary approach.
b) The scale and duration of research activities to be realized;
c) The need for continuous interaction between team members in order to achieve scientific or technological objectives and the objectives of transferring and diffusing knowledge.
The dimensions, structure, and form of operation of each Center should be determined based on the activities to be carried out regarding research and dissemination and transfer of knowledge. In particular, although each Center should have a Host Institution, its operation may involve several research institutions in the state of São Paulo.
The requirement of one common scientific/technological focus that articulates research activities to be developed is mandatory. This is not an institutional support program, which is why research divisions, departments, units and institutions will not be supported as such. Financing of Center activities will be long term, limited to 11 years, with assessments and any consequences of said assessments throughout this period. Resources allocated may be used with a degree of autonomy; in turn, FAPESP will maintain permanent supervision with periodic evaluations of Center activities.
Each RIDC should be run by an Executive Committee (CE) composed of a Director (Main Responsible Investigator for the proposal with FAPESP), a Vice Director, a Coordinator of Education and Dissemination of Knowledge, and a Technology Transfer Coordinator. The CE should be aided by managers, professionals to be hired by the Host Institution who should carry out and supervise all management and administrative tasks necessary for the Center to function.
Each RIDC should establish an International Advisory Board (CCI) made up of renowned scientists in the Center’s field of focus. The CCI should include at least two foreign scientists who are active in the cutting edge of the knowledge in their areas of competency. FAPESP expects the CCI to perform the main role of supervising the functioning of the Center and guiding the team regarding opportunities and research, new directions to take, and increased international competitiveness of the science created by the Center.
Furthermore, the Project submitted must include a proposal on the academic organization management systems at the Center which unequivocally demonstrate the possibility of reaching the established objectives.
3 Definitions (back to contents)
a) Main Responsible Investigator (MRI): is the researcher who takes responsibility for preparing and submitting the Proposal and for scientific and administrative coordination of the Project if it is approved by FAPESP.
a.1) The Main Responsible Investigator is always one of the project's Principal Investigators.
a.2) At a RIDC, the Main Responsible Investigator is the Center Director.
b) Principal Investigator (PI): team researchers, assigned by the Main Responsible Investigator and approved by FAPESP, who has an excellent research background, whose participation is well specified within the Research Project submitted, and who is essential to the development of this Research Project. The PIs may provide justification for Complementary Benefits in Grants approved.
b.1) At the RIDCs, there may be more than one Principal Investigator in addition to the Main Responsible Investigator, as long as approved by FAPESP.
c) Associate Investigator (AI): team researchers, assigned by the Main Responsible Investigator and approved by FAPESP, who are responsible for contributing to well defined parts of the Research Project submitted.
d) Host Institution: is the institution which houses the Project and, in general, is the institution connected to the Main Responsible Investigator. The connection is not necessarily of employment, but in any case it is necessary that a formal connection be established in a satisfactory manner for FAPESP regarding the commitments of the Main Responsible Investigator and the Host Institution to the Project. The Host Institution should commit to storing and accessing material and equipment with institutional support for the research project.
3.1 Requirements of the Main Responsible Investigator and Principal Investigators (back to contents)
a) Have a doctoral degree or equivalent qualification.
b) Have a formal connection with a research institution in the state of São Paulo.
b.1) When the connection is not employment-based, a copy of the document stating the formal bond between the Main Responsible Investigator and the institution will be necessary.
c) Have proven substantial scientific or technological production and leadership on large and bold research projects.
e) Have proven experience and competence in the area in which the Project is inserted, shown by:
e.1) Quality, regularity and impact of researcher’s scientific and technological production.
e.2) Training of researchers at the graduate level.
e.3) Experience with scientific exchange and execution or research projects in collaboration with researchers from institutions in Brazil and in other countries.
e.4) Ability to form research groups with results recognized by the area community.
4 Necessary conditions to create a Center (back to contents)
Minimal essential conditions to justify a Center are:
a) Research Plan: the Proposal for a Center should be centered around a daring and original research plan that is highly competitive both nationally and internationally.
b) Host Institution: the Center must be housed in one or more institutions of higher education and research or research institutions, which are public or private and are not for profit, within the state of São Paulo and which commit to ensure complete feasibility. This formal commitment from the Host Institution(s) must necessarily include:
b.1. A detailed description of the institutional counterpart as well as timelines for disbursement and/or hiring of personnel. In this official document, there should be details on counterparts regarding the following:
b.1.i. Physical space and infrastructure: the physical area set aside for the Center should not only provide for perfect functioning of activities related to research, innovation and diffusion, but also permanent interaction among its researchers. When this does not fully exist, the proposal must include a commitment to and timeline for construction.
b.1.ii. Personnel assigned to the perfect administration and management of the Project,
b.1.iii. Technical support personnel;
b.2. In the case of projects involving several institutions, these institutions must prepare a single document listing all institutional commitments and signed by the highest level director of each one.
c) Center Director and Team: the experiences of the RIDCs and similar centers in other countries have shown that the success of implementing the Centers is highly dependent on the appropriate choice of its Director and Team of Researchers.
c.1. The Center Director must be a researcher with a solid background of internationally competitive scientific achievements in the area in which the Center works, who should also have the ability to lead and to manage in order to develop large scale projects.
c.2. The Research Team must stand out for its excellence. All Team Researchers must be researchers who have produced scientific work of international impact and have shown competence for cooperative research within the Center's theme. The Team is expected to include some young researchers with proven potential for research. The composition of the Team must reflect the multidisciplinary nature of the Research Project.
c.2.i. The Complete Proposal (in PHASE 2 of selection, see section 9) for the Center may be accompanied by requests for Research Assistance – Young Researcher prepared within FAPESP standards for the modality, which will be analyzed along with the Proposal for the Center.
c.3. There may be Researchers in other countries or other states of Brazil taking part on the Team, provided they have proven excellence in research. In this case, the budget proposed may provide funds for transportation of these researchers to the Host Institution and for their maintenance, within the standards of the Visiting Research Assistance from FAPESP.
d) The Center must have an Education and Knowledge Dissemination Coordinator and a Technology Transfer Coordinator (to companies and/or to the public sector and/or to the non-profit sector).
d.1. The Education and Knowledge Dissemination Coordinator should be experienced in developing projects in this area and will be assisted by a Manager of Education and Dissemination of Knowledge, who must be hired by the Host Institution.
d.2. The Technology Transfer Coordinator should be a researcher experienced in Technology Management who will be assisted by a Technology Transfer Manager, who should be hired by the Host Institution.
e) Team Researchers must dedicate themselves to Center activities with priority.
e.1. Principal Investigators are expected to dedicate at least 20 hours per week.
e.2. Other Team members may be less dedicated, if justifiable and compatible with their duties on the project.
5 Support offered by FAPESP (back to contents)
a) For the Centers selected, financing will initially be conceded for a 5 year period, which may be renewed, at most, for two more 3 year periods. In any event, after eleven years have passed, FAPESP will not have any commitment to maintain the Center.
b) FAPESP financing is not expected to be the sole and exclusive support of the Center – within the Project there should be documentation of total necessary budgeting for the operation of the Center and the sources, including FAPESP, which will contribute to each item.
c) A significant factor in providing value to the Proposal during the selection process is the existence of financing from sources beyond FAPESP and the Host Institution, provided they are aimed at objectives that are in line with the mission of the Center, as defined in the Project considered by FAPESP.
d) Annual support from FAPESP to the Center may vary, bearing in mind the diversity of needs of the areas of knowledge, and should not surpass R$ 4 million annually; included in this total are the amount of the Payment for Direct Infrastructure Costs for the Project (see section 2.2 of Annex I) and the Technical Reserves of the grants given.
5.1 Items which may be financed with resources requested from FAPESP (back to contents)
FAPESP is forbidden by law from supporting administrative activities. For this reason, support for all administrative activities as an institutional contribution will be essential to making creation of a Center feasible.
Items which may be financed with resources requested from FAPESP are: grants (scientific initiation, technical training, master's, doctorate, post-doctoral degree, and visiting researcher), organization of work meetings, research equipment, consumables, third-party services, per diems, transportation, visitor room and board. Financing may cover civil construction of research infrastructure to remodel or adapt already existing structures (provided that there is no increase in built area), which are essential to the appropriate execution of the Research Project. The rules for Financeable Items are detailed in Annex I.
5.2 Restrictions (back to contents)
a) There may be no additional salary payments of any nature made using FAPESP resources.
b) The law also prohibits FAPESP from supporting administrative activities of any kind. Of course, these activities are necessary for the success of the Center and should be fully guaranteed by the Host Institution(s), with complementary resources coming from any other sources being well document.
c) FAPESP resources may be used to finance neither construction of new buildings nor of annexes to already existing buildings.
6 Required institutional support (back to contents)
FAPESP is forbidden by law from supporting administrative activities and paying salaries. For this reason, support for all administrative activities (procurement, management, secretary services, and others) and payment of research support personnel as an institutional contribution will be essential to making creation of a Center feasible. Thus, guaranteeing administrative infrastructure is an essential part of the institutional contribution.
Moreover, the Host Institution must ensure
a) Personnel and services for administration and management, including at least:
a.1. One EXECUTIVE Manager of the Center.
a.2. One TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER Manager.
a.3. One Manager of EDUCATION AND KNOWLEDGE DISSEMINATION.
a.4. All technical personnel needed for perfect support of research and other activities.
a.5. Plan for admitting new researchers/professors: item not required, but adds significant value to the proposal.
b) Total technical support and facilities for the Center.
c) Administrative support for procurement, scheduling, accounting, and all other administrative tasks needed for successful functioning of a Center of the intended size.
All institutional contributions must be described and quantified in physical data and financial and economic numbers: earmarking, salaries for researchers and support personnel, facilities (layout of the area to be occupied by the Center), equipment and infrastructure to which the Center will have access (communication, computer network, support workshops, administrative resources), etc. The intensity of the institutional support considered necessary and approved by FAPESP will be an important item in FAPESP assessment of the proposals.
7 Supervision of Centers supported (back to contents)
The activities at each Center will be assessed annually via the Progress Reports. At the end of the second, fourth, and seventh years, wide-ranging assessments will be carried out that may include visits. The results of these assessments will be decisive to continued support from FAPESP.
a) Centers which are not approved in the 2nd year assessment will have 6 more months of reduced support in order to deactivate.
b) Centers that were approved in the 4th year will have their support renewed for 6 more years, starting at the beginning of the sixth year.
c) Centers that were not approved in the 4th year assessment or in any of the subsequent assessments will have one additional year of reduced support to deactivate or find new sources of financing.
d) The maximum support time for Centers is 11 years.
8 Program resources (back to contents)
FAPESP will reserve up to R$ 45 million annually to implement the program, with up to 15 proposals expected to be selected.
9 Presentation of proposals (back to contents)
The Proposals will be analyzed in two phases:
a) For the First Phase of preliminary analysis, a Pre-proposal, drafted in English, should be submitted.
b) Pre-proposals selected for the Second Phase will be invited to present Full Proposals, which must also be drafted in English.
c) Pre-proposals and Full Proposals should be submitted within the times set forth in the Timeline (item 11 of this Call). All should be submitted by mail to FAPESP at the following address: Rua Pio XI, 1500, CEP 05468-901, São Paulo/SP, with “Chamada CEPID 2011” written on the envelope.
9.1 PHASE 1 of the selection process: Pre-proposals (back to contents)
All Pre-proposals will be submitted to international auditing, which is why they must be presented in ENGLISH.
During the analysis process, the auditor may consult the Lattes curricula of the PIs and other members of the scientific team; therefore, it is highly recommended that these curricula be up to date within the Lattes system.
The Pre-proposal must be submitted by the Main Responsible Investigator (the potential Center Director), with the endorsement of the appropriate institutional directors (for example, at a State University there should be an endorsement from the Unit Director, the Dean of Research, and the University President), and of the Principal Investigators listed. Addendum on 5/Aug/2011: on form 27a, field 10 (Manifestation of the Director of the Main Host Institution where the Project will be carried out) may be signed by any one of the aforementioned directors. In Phase 2, the formal endorsement of the Dean, University President, and Unit Director will be jointly requested.
For PHASE 1 of the evaluation, proposals must be submitted as Pre-proposals using a specific form containing the topics described below (forms available at www.fapesp.br/cepid/forms):
1) Investigator’s records
2) Identification (forms 27a and 27b)
3) Summary, in English and Portuguese (forms 27a and 27b)
4) Description, in English, of the scientific team (Principal Investigators, Associate Investigators, Visiting Researchers - if any, Post-Doctorate Researchers, expectation of number of students and technical support staff).
5) Résumés for Principal Investigators, in English, prepared according to the format specified by FAPESP.
6) Annex I – Research Proposal (in English), containing:
6.1 Justification for the Center (2,500 characters including spaces).
6.2 General lines of the Research Plan and defense of its relevance and potential impact in relation to the international state of the art in the Center’s focal theme: the Research Plan should articulate the vision for the Center, outlining the scientific macro-challenges that will be faced and/or the sought after scientific discoveries. The plan needs to specifically justify, in terms of complexity of problems and/or scale and potential of scientific relevance, the special support that is offered and the potential time span of 11 years. (12,500 characters including spaces)
6.3 Action Plan for Education and Knowledge Dissemination, demonstrating its connection with the Research Plan. (5,000 characters including spaces)
6.4 Action Plan for Technology Transfer demonstrating its connection with the Research Plan. (5,000 characters including spaces)
6.5 Timeline of the most important events for implementation and operation of the Center (5,000 characters including spaces.
7) Annex II – Budget (in English)
7.1 Total Annual Estimated Budget for Center operations, detailed in Sources and Uses, including the Estimate of the institutional counterpart, by Head Institution participating in the proposal ("Total Center Budget by source and use” Excel file spreadsheet available at www.fapesp.br/cepid/forms).
7.2 Expected Budget to be requested from FAPESP, containing an estimate for permanent materials and equipment and a justification for this and the other items requested.
9.2 PHASE 2 of the selective process (only for Pre-proposals selected in PHASE 1): Full Proposals (drafted in English) (back to contents)
|
Identification on Cover Sheet |
Main Responsible Investigator, name of the Center, name of main Host Institution and associates, names and connections of Coordinators proposed for Education and Dissemination of Knowledge and Technology Transfer. |
|
Abstract (15 lines) |
Summary of proposal. |
|
Summary (up to two pages) |
a) description of the Center and its specific features; b) focus of research activities and, if applicable, their multidisciplinary articulation; c) expected Technology Transfer and Education and Dissemination of Knowledge activities; d) justification for creation of the Center; e) brief description of the institutional contribution. |
|
1) Justification for the Center (up to three pages) |
The existence of the Center must be justified based on the nature, importance, and feasibility of the activities to be developed. It should be base on each of these reasons: a) complexity of the problems to be researched; b) scale and duration of the research activities to be carried out; c) multidisciplinary character of the research planned; d) need for continual interaction between Team members. |
|
2) Research Plan and defense of its scientific relevance (up to 20 pages, including bibliographic references) |
The Research Plan is the founding core of the Center Proposal. It should describe the scientific and technological challenges to be faced, as well as the means, methods, and materials necessary face them. It should list activities proposed with the state of the art in the area. A bold and original Research Plan that is highly competitive nationally and internationally is expected. How the chosen strategy will impact the area of research in a significant manner should be shown. The Research Plan should articulate the vision for the Center, outlining the scientific macro-challenges that will be faced and/or the sought after scientific discoveries. The plan needs to specifically justify, in terms of complexity of problems and/or scale and potential of scientific relevance, the special support that is offered and the potential time span of 11 years. The scientific objectives of the Center and the research activities should be described in a sufficiently detailed manner to allow for assessment of their merit as well as of the need for a Center to carry them out. The Research Plan should also show how the integration between Education and Dissemination of Knowledge and Technology Transfer will contribute to advancing research. The Research Plan should also include some specific examples of lines of research with enough detail to allow for analysis by auditors consulted. |
|
3) Action Plan for Education and Knowledge Dissemination (EDC) (up to five pages, including bibliographical references) |
The activities of the Center must include training of human resources at every level, and Education and Dissemination of Knowledge. In addition to developing the usual undergraduate and graduate level science research programs, the Centers are also responsible for holding basic education extension activities, such as secondary education student and teacher activities, teacher training, and science diffusion courses, and continuing education programs. Prior experience of participants with this type of activity should be succinctly described, emphasizing documented results. The Proposals are expected to contribute to Education and Dissemination of Knowledge and to improving the teaching of sciences at every level, such as research programs for faculty and students, projects in partnership with schools, Education and Dissemination of scientific and technological Knowledge activities, creation of techniques and vehicles that provide this diffusion, etc. The project team must include a Coordinator responsible for these activities and a Manager hired by the Host Institution. |
|
4) Action Plan for Technology Transfer (TT) (up to five pages including bibliographic references) |
Research activities at the Center should have great potential for exchange with other research and knowledge transfer institutions to the productive and government sectors. The Technology Transfer proposal should describe how the Center will develop and implement these activities. Prior experience of participants with this type of activity should be succinctly described, emphasizing documented results (projects, co-authored publications, licensed or co-licensed patents, absorption of graduate students by collaborator companies, etc.). The plan must be described and the viability of technology transfer activities must be shown via projects done in partnership, incubation of companies, continuing education programs, and other activities. The project team must include a Coordinator responsible for these activities and a Manager hired by the Host Institution. |
|
Management Plan and Organizational Structure for Center operations, including: |
|
|
5.a) Management Plan and Structure (up to three pages) |
The Center must have an organizational structure and management plan that are adequate to the complexity and diversity of its goals. The organizational chart must include Coordinators responsible for the education and diffusion of knowledge activities and the Coordinator of the technology transfer activities, in addition to other coordinators that the proposers consider to be necessary. The Management Plan should also show how the Center will be located within the institutional structure which will house it. The Management Plan should detail the management model for activities and mechanisms of collaboration. In terms of team meetings, at least one Annual Meeting should be included in which the results and/or projects and/or plans for the coming period will be presented and discussed, held in addition to regular team meetings. At the Annual Meeting, the attendance of the Advisory Board Members and all of the Center’s Researchers and Students is required. A FAPESP observer must be invited via notice given within a reasonable amount of time. |
|
5.b) Executive Committee (CE) (one page) |
This should be made up of at least the Main Responsible Investigator responsible for the proposal (Center Director), the Vice Director, and the Technology Transfer and Education and Dissemination of Knowledge Coordinators. There may be other members if it is found to be necessary by the proposers. The CE should supervise all day to day operations at the Center and should be assisted by an appropriate support team connected to the Host Institution. |
|
5.c) Proposal for composition of the International Advisory Board (CCI) (up to two pages) |
Suggested names, their justification, and modus operandi of the CCI. FAPESP expects the CCI to perform the main role of supervising the functioning of the Center and guiding the team regarding opportunities and research, new directions to take, and increased international competitiveness of the science created by the Center. Members should be both researchers who are very highly regarded for their international excellence and people to whom the Center Director and Coordinators have easy access. |
|
6) Team (up to five pages) |
List of Team Members, including researchers (including post-doctorate members with grants), technicians, administrative support personnel, and students. A description of the responsibilities of each of the Principal Investigators should be included in the Research Plan. The Center is expected to have a Team with a balanced distribution between Principal Investigators, Associate Investigators, Visiting Researchers, Post-Doctorate Researchers, and students and the corresponding technical and administrative support. In addition to the Center’s Director and Vice Director, the Proposal must include: a) The Coordinator responsible for Education and Dissemination of Knowledge activities; b) The Coordinator responsible for Technology Transfer activities; c) The team of researchers responsible for executing research projects to be developed; d) For each member of the scientific team (Main Responsible Investigator - Director, Vice Director, TT and EDC Coordinators, and Principal Investigators) the proposal must include the Résumé (form available at www.fapesp.br/RIDC/forms); e) The Director, Vice Director of the Center, TT and EDC Coordinators, and the Principal Investigators should furthermore fill out the Researcher Registration, also available on the FAPESP website; f) The description of the most important achievements already made as a result of collaboration between the PIs (one page maximum). |
|
7) Estimate of Total Annual Budget for the Center (appropriate form) |
This should include all Sources of resources to which the Center will have access, listing Uses (Sources and Uses spreadsheet) of resources in terms of general items (Scientific Personnel, Technical Personnel, Administrative Personnel, Students, Permanent Equipment and Material, Consumables, Third-Party Services). |
|
8) Budget Request for FAPESP (appropriate form plus justification sheets) |
Detailed budget on FAPESP forms for this purpose. This should include justification (based on terms of objectives for the RESEARCH plan or the TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER and EDCUATION AND DISSEMINATION OF KNOLWEDGE Plans) for all of the items valued at more than R$ 25 thousand (national or imported), detailing the relationship of the need with the Proposal item. This budget request for FAPESP should be prepared for the first three years of the Center’s operation in a detailed manner and in the other years, with justifiable estimates. The budget should include the support requested from FAPESP for RESEARCH, TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER and EDCUATION AND DISSEMINATION OF KNOWLEDGE, detailing the function to be met for each item (RESEARCH, TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER, and EDUCATION AND DISSEMINATION OF KNOWLEDGE). |
|
9) Details of institutional support and its costs (up to five pages) |
Description of the institutional support offered by the Head Institution(s), including detailed information on the costs of each item of support. |
|
10) Details on other current and expected support (up to two pages) |
List of other support a) Other current support already contracted; b) Other expected support. |
10 Assessment of Proposals (back to contents)
Proposals will undergo a competitive assessment, considering the degree to which each one of the conditions listed in sections 2 and 4 of this Call for Proposals is met.
The parties responsible for Pre-proposals selected at the end of PHASE 1 will be invited to present details in the Full Proposals.
The assessment process, in either of its two phases, may at the discretion of FAPESP include interview with the Proposing Researcher, said Researcher’s team, and directors of the Host Institution, as well as visits to the homes of Centers.
10.1 Assessment in PHASE 1 and PHASE 2 (back to contents)
1) SCIENTIFIC MERIT Boldness of the Proposal benchmarked by analysis of the international state of the art for the area. The Project should be strategic and present reachable and measurable objectives to be met during the duration of the Program. It is essential that realistic and detailed timelines be made for the first three years of the Project. The research plan should allow for evaluation of the potential for creating a Center that may become a World Class reference in the area in which it works. One of the important elements of the plan should be the strategy for effective international cooperation.
2) FOCUS. One common scientific/technological focus that articulates research activities to be developed is mandatory.
3) JUSTIFICATION FOR CREATION OF THE RIDC. The Proposal must explain the need to create a RIDC. This Program is not simply a mechanism for financing, but rather intends to contribute to building a world class Center capable of creating cutting edge science and transferring and diffusing knowledge.
4) DIRECTOR QUALIFICATIONS. The Center Director must be a researcher with a solid background of internationally competitive scientific achievements in the area in which the Center works, who should also have the ability to lead and to manage in order to develop large scale projects.
5) QUALIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS. It is essential that the Director have an academic profile that is compatible with the proposals of the Plan and that the Principal Investigators have the potential to occupy the Director position.
6) QUALIFICATION OF THE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER COORDINATOR. Experience in research and in Management and Transfer of Technology.
7) QUALIFICATIONS OF THE COORDINATOR OF EDUCATION AND DISSEMINATION OF KNOWLEDGE. Experience in research and development of projects in the area of Education and Dissemination of Knowledge.
8) ADEQUATION OF THE SCIENTIFIC TEAM. Qualification, size, recent academic background, balance between senior and junior team members, participation of emerging leaders, involvement of post-doctoral researchers with grants on recent research done by Principal Investigators. The team is expected to have a balanced composition of Principal Investigators, Associate Investigators, Visiting Researchers, Post-Doctoral Researchers, graduate and undergraduate students, and technical support personnel, supported by top quality administrative and management services.
9) INSTITUTIONAL COMITMENT TO THE CREATION OF THE RIDC. The quality and quantity of the institutional contribution, including physical space to be used by the Center and administrative and management support, need to be compatible with the boldness of the proposal objectives.
10) TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER PROPOSAL. The transfer of knowledge to the productive, public or third sectors, with an allowance for variation in intensity based on the Project focus, should lead to a stronger bond between research institutions and the outside environment and contribute to bringing new challenges in research to institutions, guaranteeing that social benefits created by the research done are maximized.
11) EDUCATION AND KNOWLEDGE DISSEMINATION PROPOSAL. Mechanisms for diffusion and education that consolidate existing processes or propose radical innovations with the potential for improving teaching and the perception of science by society.
12) ADAPTATION OF THE TOTAL ESTIMATED BUDGET. Sources and uses; balance between costs and personnel and cost of equipment; adaptation to objectives; effective and appropriate use of existing multi-user infrastructure; access to other confirmed or prospective sources; institutional support.
10.2 Assessment in PHASE 2: Full Proposals (back to contents)
In addition to the 12 items described in the previous section, the following will be evaluated:
13) MANAGEMENT PLAN
14) COMPOSITION OF THE INTERNATIONAL ADVISORY COMITTEE
11 Timeline (back to contents)
|
Deadline for submission of pre-proposals |
By 15/Aug/2011 |
|
Announcement of Pre-proposals selected to present full Proposals |
03/Oct/2011 |
|
Deadline for request for reconsideration regarding selection of Pre-proposals |
By 24/Oct/2011 |
|
Announcement of Pre-proposals selected to present full Proposals |
By 31/Oct/2011 |
|
Deadline for FAPESP to receive full Proposals |
By 30/Dec/2011 |
|
Announcement of Proposals selected |
30/Apr/2012 |
|
Deadline for request for reconsideration regarding selection |
By 14/May/2012 |
|
Announcement of Proposals selected following reconsideration |
30/May/2012 |
12 For further information (back to contents)
Email: chamada_RIDC_2011@fapesp.br
Addendum – 10/Jun/2011
The contact person at FAPESP for answering questions about this Call for Research Proposals is:
Dr. Patrícia Monteiro
Scientific Department
FAPESP
Email: chamada_RIDC_2011@fapesp.br
Annex 1: Items which may be financed by FAPESP under the RIDC Program (back to contents)
The research project budget presented to FAPESP must be detailed and each item must be specifically justified in terms of objectives of the proposed plans. It is recommended that you read the Accountability Manual: https://fapesp.br/5835.
Items that may not be financed are: salaries of any nature, third-party services of a non-technical and sporadic nature, civil construction, acquisition of publications, travel (except for field research and to present work at scientific conferences), administrative services and materials.
Items qualifying for financing include the following.
1 Cost of the research project (back to contents)
a) Permanent material acquired in Brazil or imported;
b) Consumables acquired in Brazil or imported;
c) Third-Party Services acquired in Brazil or abroad;
d) Transportation and Per Diem Expenses for activities connected directly with carrying out the proposed research, including for visits from Visiting Researchers;
e) Grants: Grants Given as a Budgetary item (BCO) under the following modalities and pursuant to FAPESP standards may be requested: Post-Doctoral (PD), Doctoral (DR), Direct Doctoral (DD), Master’s (MS), Basic Scientific (IC), and Technical Training (TT);
e.1) The advisor/supervisor for each person awarded a grant must be one of the Principal Investigators.
e.2) For each grant requested, a Plan of Activities must be presented with the initial proposal containing up to two pages, including the Grant Project Title, Summary, and Plan Description (providing sufficient information to allow for auditor analysis).
e.3) The plan for each grant needs to be consistent with the research proposal and should be referenced within the research proposal in a manner that makes it possible for the auditor to see the connection with and importance to the project proposed.
e.4) The name of the person receiving the grant should not be indicated on the proposal. If a project containing this item is approved, the Researcher Responsible for the Aid (RIDC Director) must hold a selective and publicly announced process to select grant winners based on academic merit.
e.5) Rules for awarding Grants as a budget item (BCO) are available at www.fapesp.br/materia/2615/linha-regular/bolsas-concedidas-como-itens-orcamentarios-em-auxilios.htm.
e.5.i. Undergraduate Scientific Research Grant candidates should have already concluded a sufficient number of relevant subjects to develop the research project and to take full advantage of it.
e.5.ii. Candidates for Doctoral, Direct Doctoral, and Master’s level Grants should have been accepted into the project Host Institution’s graduate program.
e.5.iii. In the case of Post-Doctoral Grants given as a budget item of the project, the selective process must necessarily be international and must be documented at the time that each Grant is awarded.
e.5.iv. If documents proving that the public and international selective process was held are not presented at the time that the Post-Doctoral candidate for a grant is named, the grant will not be implemented by FAPESP.
e.6) IC, MS, DR, DD and PD Grants may also be requested separately, as Complementary Requests, in accordance with what is set forth in item 4 below, connected to RIDC Projects in specific proposals, according to the traditional procedures for the FAPESP Grant Programs.
2 Technical Reserve (back to contents)
a) For the RIDC Program, the rules for the Technical Reserve of Thematic Projects are valid, with due modifications required for adaptation to the time span.
b) The Technical Reserve is composed of three parts:
b.1) Complementary Benefits;
b.2) Payment for Direct Project Infrastructure Costs;
b.3) Payment for Institutional Infrastructure Costs for Research.
c) The detailed rules for use of the Technical Reserve are available at www.fapesp.br/4566.
3 Research infrastructure assistance (back to contents)
a) In the initial request or at the time when the second scientific report is presented, the Main Responsible Investigator may request resources for small remodeling projects, aimed at guaranteeing the infrastructure needed to develop the project. New construction is prohibited. This request should be justified in detail and be associated with relevant funding contributed by the Host Institution.
4 Complementary requests (back to contents)
The items needed to develop the project are expected to be requested in the proposal; however, exceptionally, FAPESP may receive additional requests associated with the proposal.
Complementary Requests are those requests associated with current RIDC Project objectives whose consideration or treatment has undergone some modification as a result of this condition. Processes that are under consideration as complementary requests to the RIDC Project are called “Connected Processes.” The concept applies to requests for Research Assistance – Visiting Researcher, Research Assistance – Publication, and requests for Grants within Brazil – Regular and Foreign Research Grant – Regular.
a) Complementary Requests should be effective for a time compatible with that of the RIDC Project to which they are connected and may not, under any circumstances, exceed the effective time of the RIDC Project.
a.1) For Research Assistance from a Visiting Researcher, the duration of the stay should be contained in the duration of the RIDC Research Assistance to which it is connected.
a.2) For Grants, the start date should be such that there is an appropriate overlap between the effectiveness of the initial awarding of the grant and the remaining effectiveness to the Assistance to which it is connected. Adaptation of the connection will be analyzed by the Scientific Department considering items such as the nature of the work plan and the effective dates for the Assistance in relation to the effective dates for the grant.
a.2.i. If the overlap is not found to be appropriate, the Grant request will be analyzed, but it will not qualify as a Complementary Request.
b) Complementary Requests must necessarily be endorsed by the Main Responsible Investigator for the RIDC Project to which they are connected.
c) Requests submitted to FAPESP as “Complementary Requests" and which are not classifiable in the definition above will be received, but will be considered as independent and non-connected requests.
d) Complementary Requests for Research Assistance in the modalities of Visiting Researcher and Publication Assistance associated with the RIDC Project may be waived from being sent for external auditing and be analyzed under the auspices of the Area and/or Adjunct Coordination.
e) Complementary Requests for Master's, Doctoral, Direct Doctor, and Post-Doctoral Grants connected to the RIDC Projects will be given priority in the respective sessions of comparative analysis, provided that they are equal in conditions and in academic items to the other proposals under analysis.
f) For Complementary requests for Post-Doctoral Grants, there is differential treatment regarding the duration of the grant. (see rules at www.fapesp.br/270#285).
g) Complementary Requests must be made individually using the appropriate forms and accompanied with pertinent documentation, as described in the respective manual. Furthermore, they must be accompanied by the RIDC Project summary, which is an indispensable item for analyzing the activity proposed within the project’s context, highlighting the fact that this is a complementary request to a RIDC Project and citing the process number.
g.1) These requests will be new processes at FAPESP, with their own reports and accountability. The resources awarded will not be subtracted from the RIDC Project budget.