2022 national critical research infrastructure grant

• Info & Links
• or New User Registration

Archived Grant Opportunity View - GO5456

MRFF 2022 National Critical Research Infrastructure Grant Opportunity

Contact Details

Phone : 132846

Email Address : [email protected]

Web Address : https://business.gov.au/NCRI

The 2022 National Critical Research Infrastructure grant is part of the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) and the National Critical Research Infrastructure Initiative. This 3 stream program will fund organisations to undertake innovative project solutions to complex health problems in areas of unmet need to improve Australian's quality of life and the health system sustainability.

The successful organisations aim to improve health outcomes, by:

• enhancing Australia's research infrastructure
• addressing areas of unmet need in the research sector through greater access to quality data and health interventions
• utilising investment through greater collaboration with industry, government and medical sector to enable research to be translated into greater health benefits.

The objective of this program is to provide grants to Australian medical research and innovation projects that align with the following streams:

Stream 1 Address an area of unmet need by promoting the development and implementation of new research methodologies or applications including ‘omics’-led approaches and enhanced infrastructure linkage strategies by supporting development and/or expansion of research enablers such as:

• tissue repositories
• novel platforms
• secure health data environments to create valuable research resources.

Stream 2 Develop and translate into practice:

• digital therapeutics
• artificial intelligence enabled health interventions and technologies (eg wearables integrated into clinical practice)
• applications or other software for use in clinical practice.

Stream 3 Utilise co-investment with the research sector, state and territory governments and industry in significant critical research infrastructure (eg facilities and equipment) to support:

• development of research capacity
• capability and/or effectiveness in an area of need
• easily accessible facilities and platforms for the wider research community, including within industry.

You can apply if you meet the eligibility criteria. The eligibility criteria are a set of rules that describe who we can consider for this grant. You can apply if you:

• are an eligible entity
• have an eligible project
• have eligible expenditure.

If applying under Stream 3, you must be part of a consortia and contribute at least 34% of project costs in cash.

The rules are in the grant opportunity guidelines.

$73,000,000.00

From $0.00 to $10,000,000.00

To apply, go to:  https://business.gov.au/NCRI

business.gov.au provides information and advice to customers via a range of channels including phone (13 28 46), email and web chat. Contact us for assistance.

Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care

MRFF grant opportunities calendar

See what Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) grant opportunities are open, forecast and closed.

Current grant opportunities

The table presents information on open MRFF grant opportunities and their status, as of 27 March 2024.

Visit GrantConnect to see current MRFF grant opportunities and register to receive notifications when new opportunities open.

Forecast grant opportunities

The table presents information on MRFF grant opportunities anticipated to open from April 2024. We will update the table and, as appropriate, add to it on a quarterly basis.

The anticipated grant opportunities and dates are indicative only and subject to change.

The proposed grant opportunities align with investments outlined in the MRFF 2nd 10-year Investment Plan (2022-23 to 2031-32) .

Closed grant opportunities

This table presents information on closed MRFF grant opportunities from 1 January 2020. 'Funding awarded’ includes grants that have been awarded or announced.

Visit GrantConnect to generate reports on MRFF grant opportunities before 1 January 2020

See a list of MRFF grant recipients .

• Health data and medical research
• Medical Research Future Fund

Is there anything wrong with this page?

Help us improve health.gov.au

If you would like a response please use the enquiries form instead.

MRFF 2022 National Critical Research Infrastructure Grant Opportunity

Updated 2 years ago

Popular Searches:

• clinical trial expertise
• clinical trial support
• clinical trials
• collaboration opportunities
• commercialisation
• early phase clinical trials
• establish a clinical trial
• ethics and governance
• facilitate resolution
• good clinical practice
• human research ethics committee
• key contacts
• motor neurone disease
• news articles
• problem solving
• publications
• solution service
• standard operating procedures
• start a clinical trial
• translational research

MRFF 2022 National Critical Research Infrastructure Program

What is the mrff 2022 national critical research infrastructure program.

The MRFF 2022 National Critical Research Infrastructure Program is a grant opportunity to help organisations and researchers to collaborate on research infrastructure projects that translate into health benefits for Australians.

The 2022 National Critical Research Infrastructure grant is part of the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) and the National Critical Research Infrastructure Initiative. This 3 stream program will fund organisations to undertake innovative project solutions to complex health problems in areas of unmet need to improve Australian’s quality of life and the health system sustainability.

The successful organisations aim to improve health outcomes, by:

• enhancing Australia’s research infrastructure
• addressing areas of unmet need in the research sector through greater access to quality data and health interventions
• utilising investment through greater collaboration with industry, government and medical sector to enable research to be translated into greater health benefits.

The objective of this program is to provide grants to Australian medical research and innovation projects that align with the following streams:

Address an area of unmet need by promoting the development and implementation of new research methodologies or applications including ‘omics’-led approaches and enhanced infrastructure linkage strategies by supporting development and/or expansion of research enablers such as:

• tissue repositories
• novel platforms
• secure health data environments to create valuable research resources.

Develop and translate into practice:

• digital therapeutics
• artificial intelligence enabled health interventions and technologies (eg wearables integrated into clinical practice)
• applications or other software for use in clinical practice.

Utilise co-investment with the research sector, state and territory governments and industry in significant critical research infrastructure (eg facilities and equipment) to support:

• development of research capacity
• capability and/or effectiveness in an area of need
• easily accessible facilities and platforms for the wider research community, including within industry.

For this grant opportunity, up to $73 million is available over two years from 2022-23 for the three Streams.

• $53 million in 2022-23 ( $8 million in Stream 1, $8 million in Stream 2, $30 million in Stream 3, $7 million for all Streams)
• $20 million in 2023-24 ( $7 million in Stream 1, $7 million in Stream 2, $6 million for both Streams).

Eligible Projects

The MRFF 2022 National Critical Research Infrastructure Program can only accept applications that provide:

• a list of up to 15 chief investigators using the mandatory templates on business.gov.au – with none of these people permitted to be listed on any other application
• evidence from your board (or chief executive officer or equivalent if there is no board) that the project is supported, that you can complete the project and meet any costs not covered by grant funding
• letters of support from each project partner/consortia partner
• a detailed project plan (max 12 pages)
• a detailed project budget
• a one-page statement of how your project will contribute to the Measures of Success for the MRFF as described in the MRFF Evaluation, Monitoring and Learning Strategy
• a detailed risk management plan (max 2 pages)
• details of IP arrangements if not included within the written content of the application

Eligible Applicants

You can apply if you:

• have an Australian business number (ABN)
• are incorporated in Australia

You must also be one of the following entities:

• a medical research institute
• a university
• a corporate Commonwealth entity
• a corporation (including businesses and not for profits).

You can partner with one or more other organisations but you must decide who the lead organisation is. Stream 3 applicants must have at least one partner from an academic organisation and another from industry or state/territory government.

The lead organisation must fill out the application form and enter into the grant agreement with the Commonwealth.

Applications close 7 September 2022 . 

More Information

• MRFF 2022 National Critical Research Infrastructure Program Guidelines

What is the #1 grant for start-ups?

12,000+ companies access the R&D tax incentive per year that yields a CASH REBATE of up to 43.5%. This might be perfect your start up. Do you want to know more?

• What exactly is the R&D Tax Incentive?
• How can my startup qualify?
• What defines eligible R&D activities?
• What expenditure can be claimed?
• How do I calculate the potential rebate?
• How can I identify if my product qualiies for R&D?
• What is the process to apply?
• How can I best document my R&D?
• What are common misconceptions about it?
• How can we help you through this process?

Bulletpoint is a Melbourne-based consultancy specialising in guiding businesses through the complex process of the R&D tax incentive. With a decade of experience under our belt, we’re proud to be led by Australia’s highest-rated R&D tax consultant. We’ve successfully lodged over 500 R&D claims, demonstrating a proven track record.

Our approach is straightforward and personable, focusing on cutting through the jargon to help businesses truly understand the definition of R&D in government terms. We’re passionate about what we do, and our clients appreciate this, often commenting on the difference our expertise has made to their businesses. They’ve praised us for uncovering grants they wouldn’t have otherwise known about and for making the whole process less stressful for them.

We’re proud to have an average rating of 4.8 stars from over 250 Google reviews. Despite our success, we continue to strive for improvement, learning from every piece of feedback we receive.

At Bulletpoint, we excel in helping businesses navigate the complexities of the R&D tax incentive process, ensuring they reap the benefits they deserve. As experts in our field, we’re well-versed in what works and what doesn’t when it comes to aligning businesses’ perceptions of R&D with the government’s eligibility criteria.

So, if you’re looking for accessible expertise and a proven success rate, you’ll find it with us at Bulletpoint. We’re ready to guide you through the R&D tax incentive process with a blend of professionalism and personality, ensuring your experience with us is not just successful, but enjoyable as well.

Top 10 Consultant Tips to Maximise the R&D Tax Incentive

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

#protect2024 Secure Our World Shields Up Report A Cyber Issue

National Infrastructure Protection Plan and Resources

Our Nation's well-being relies upon secure and resilient critical infrastructure—the assets, systems, and networks that underpin American society. The National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP)—NIPP 2013:  Partnering for Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience —outlines how government and private sector participants in the critical infrastructure community work together to manage risks and achieve security and resilience outcomes.

NIPP 2013  Partnering for Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience

NIPP 2013 represents an evolution from concepts introduced in the initial version of the NIPP released in 2006 and revised in 2009. The National Plan is streamlined and adaptable to the current risk, policy, and strategic environments. It provides the foundation for an integrated and collaborative approach to achieve the vision of:  "[a] Nation in which physical and cyber critical infrastructure remain secure and resilient, with vulnerabilities reduced, consequences minimized, threats identified and disrupted, and response and recovery hastened."

NIPP 2013 meets the requirements of  Presidential Policy Directive (PPD) 21: Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience , signed in February 2013. The Plan was developed through a collaborative process involving stakeholders from all 16 critical infrastructure sectors, all 50 states, and from all levels of government and industry. It provides a clear call to action to leverage partnerships, innovate for risk management, and focus on outcomes.

Read the 2013 National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) and its fact sheet.

The Plan was developed through a collaborative process involving stakeholders from all 16 critical infrastructure sectors, all 50 states, and from all levels of government and industry. It provides a clear call to action to leverage partnerships, innovate for risk management, and focus on outcomes.

2013 NIPP And Fact Sheet  

NIPP 2013 Supplements

NIPP following supplements serve as tools and resources that can be used for members of the critical infrastructure community as they implement specific aspects of the Plan.

Connecting to the NICC and the NCCIC

Executing a critical infrastructure risk management approach, incorporating resilience into critical infrastructure projects, critical infrastructure threat information sharing framework, training courses.

An array of independent study courses is available to the critical infrastructure community. These courses were developed by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency's  Infrastructure Security Division  and are available through the  Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Emergency Management Institute .

Critical Infrastructure Partnership Courses

• IS 913.a  Achieving Results through Critical Infrastructure Partnership and Collaboration
• IS 921.a  Implementing Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience

Security Awareness Series Courses

• IS 906  Workplace Security Awareness
• IS 907  Active Shooter: What You Can Do
• IS 912  Retail Security Awareness: Understanding the Hidden Hazards
• IS 914  Surveillance Awareness: What You Can Do
• IS 915  Protecting Critical Infrastructure Against Insider Threat
• IS 916  Critical Infrastructure Security: Theft and Diversion - What You Can Do

Authorities

Homeland security act of 2002, executive order (eo) 13636, presidential policy directive (ppd) 21, national institute of standards and technology cybersecurity framework, homeland security presidential directive 7: critical infrastructure identification, prioritization, and protection, ppd-8: national preparedness.

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Science and Technology
• Research & Development
• Physical Security and Critical Infrastructure Resilience
• Critical Infrastructure Security & Resilience Research Program

Critical Infrastructure Security & Resilience Research (CISRR) Program

On November 15, 2021, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act became Public Law 117-58, tasking the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) to conduct critical infrastructure and resilience research, development, test, and evaluation. 

In support of the Act, S&T developed a strategic framework and spend plan for supporting critical infrastructure security and resilience, and created the Critical Infrastructure Security & Resilience Research (CISRR) Program to manage the broad range of related activities conducted throughout S&T to address critical infrastructure community needs with a whole-of-government approach.

S&T supports this effort through the following areas of focus:

Special Event Assessment Rating (SEAR) Planning Tools

Strategic context.

Special Event Assessment Ratings (SEARs) are applied to events that are not designated as national special security events; these tend to be pre-planned domestic special events that have been submitted and assessed using the SEAR methodology. Most of these events are state and local events that may require support augmentations from the federal government.

Ensure effective physical security at SEAR events; including enhancing SEAR methodology and the dissemination of SEAR information.

Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) and Geo-Magnetic Disturbances (GMD)

Whether caused by man or nature, electromagnetic pulse (EMP) and geo-magnetic disturbance (GMD) events have the potential to disrupt or permanently damage electrical components and systems within the critical infrastructure sectors and large-scale infrastructure. While EMP hardening standards exist for military applications, they are often too case-specific, expensive, and impractical for the private sector to implement, leading to very little action being taken to address this threat, despite it having the potential to affect the nation at large.

Improve understanding of the effects of EMP/GMD events on communications infrastructure and drive research activities to provide practical, data-driven, specific, and actionable information, concepts, techniques, technologies, and tools to critical infrastructure owners and operators.

Learn more about additional S&T efforts in  Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) and Geo-Magnetic Disturbances (GMD) .

Position, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) Capabilities

Because of the evolution of an increasingly interoperable world and the way technology is designed, U.S. critical infrastructure relies on the uninterrupted and accurate nature of position, navigation, and timing (PNT) capabilities services. Disruption or corruption of these services can lead to safety-of-life issues or complete system failure throughout infrastructure networks.

Develop approaches, best practices, and solutions to ensure continued resilience for critical infrastructure to counter PNT threats and disruptions in an ever-evolving technological landscape.

Learn more about additional S&T efforts in  Position, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) Capabilities .  

Public Safety and Violence Prevention/Soft Target Security

From foreign terrorist organizations to domestic criminals, lone wolves, and other threats, there are many types of threat actors who could attempt to target soft targets and crowded places. Through the observation of actual or perceived successes, trial and error, and the exchange of information over the internet and social media, these actors’ tactics have the potential to evolve over time; so, too, must the nation’s security measures.

Enhance soft target and crowded places security across the spectrum of prevention, protection, response, and mitigation efforts and activities, including advancing the base of knowledge in public safety and violence prevention to increase soft target security, strengthening physical security through capability advancements, and improving capabilities in countering improvised explosive devices (IEDs).

Learn more about additional S&T efforts in  Public Safety and Violence Prevention .

Security Testing Capabilities for Telecommunications Equipment, Industry Control Systems (ICS), and Open-Source Software (OSS)

From the nation’s telecommunications networks to factories, power plants, water systems, industrial facilities, and smart cities, at the heart of most critical infrastructure are intricate software systems and networks, both open-source and proprietary, that our modern world relies upon. With the anticipated adoption of internet-connected-devices, and the Internet of Things (IoT) expected to grow at a rapid pace, it is more important than ever to secure these systems and networks from the threat of cyberattacks.

Develop and promote the use of standards-based protocols and solutions to protect the nation’s telecommunications networks; better understand and bolster industry against the threat—current and future—of cyberattacks; and promote an informed approach to innovative tool and capability development to mitigate security vulnerabilities and operational risk in the open-source software community. 

• News Release: Technologically Speaking Podcast Launches New Infrastructure-Focused Season
• Blog: Protecting Our Critical Infrastructure During Uncertain Times
• News Release: DHS S&T Invites Critical Infrastructure Owners and Operators to GPS Spoofing Test Event
• Blog: S&T Makes Headway on Infrastructure Investment
• Critical Infrastructure Security & Resilience Research (CISRR) Fact Sheet

[email protected]  

Learn more about us and discover how your organization can partner with S&T to make the homeland more secure.

• Critical Infrastructure

Part 1. Overview Information

National Institutes of Health ( NIH )

National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research ( NIDCR )

National Institute on Drug Abuse ( NIDA )

G11 Extramural Associate Research Development Award (EARDA)

February 27, 2024 - Notice of Pre-Application Webinar for PAR-22-153 Infrastructure Development Training Programs for Critical HIV Research at Low-and Middle-Income Country Institutions (G11 Clinical Trials Not Allowed). See Notice NOT-TW-24-003

NOT-OD-23-012 Reminder: FORMS-H Grant Application Forms and Instructions Must be Used for Due Dates On or After January 25, 2023 - New Grant Application Instructions Now Available

NOT-OD-22-190 - Adjustments to NIH and AHRQ Grant Application Due Dates Between September 22 and September 30, 2022

See Section III. 3. Additional Information on Eligibility .

The overall goal of the Fogarty HIV Research Training (HIVRT) Program is to strengthen the scientific capacity of institutions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) by enhancing the functional resources required to conduct HIV research on the evolving HIV epidemic in their countries.

This Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) encourages collaborative applications from U.S. and LMIC institutions to develop training programs to achieve technical, administrative, and financial management expertise required for one of several research infrastructure support functions considered critical to a successful high-quality research environment. These are: a) research administration and management, b) research integrity oversight, c) ethical review of research for the protection of human subjects, d) laboratory animal welfare oversight, e) advanced laboratory instrument services, f) health sciences library and information services, g) information and communications technology systems (ICT) for research, h) biostatistics and data analysis, i) technology transfer and intellectual property protection, j) harassment and discrimination policy and prevention and k) any area not mentioned above that justifiably will contribute to enhancing Institutional services that can support research activities.

Training programs to support research infrastructure will maximize previous investments, further strengthen the LMIC institution's research capabilities, and potentially provide more accessible research infrastructure training opportunities to others at Institutions in their own country and in other LMICs.

30 days before application due date.

All applications are due by 5:00 PM local time of applicant organization.

Applicants are encouraged to apply early to allow adequate time to make any corrections to errors found in the application during the submission process by the due date.

Not Applicable

It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the Research (R) Instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide ,except where instructed to do otherwise (in this FOA or in a Notice from NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts ).

Conformance to all requirements (both in the Application Guide and the FOA) is required and strictly enforced. Applicants must read and follow all application instructions in the Application Guide as well as any program-specific instructions noted in Section IV . When the program-specific instructions deviate from those in the Application Guide, follow the program-specific instructions.

Applications that do not comply with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.

There are several options available to submit your application through Grants.gov to NIH and Department of Health and Human Services partners. You must use one of these submission options to access the application forms for this opportunity.

• Use the NIH ASSIST system to prepare, submit and track your application online.
• Use an institutional system-to-system (S2S) solution to prepare and submit your application to Grants.gov and eRA Commons to track your application. Check with your institutional officials regarding availability.
• Use Grants.gov Workspace to prepare and submit your application and eRA Commons to track your application.

Part 2. Full Text of Announcement

Section i. funding opportunity description.

Program Objectives

The overall goal of the Fogarty HIV Research Training (HIVRT) Program is to strengthen the scientific capacity of institutions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to conduct HIV research related to the evolving HIV epidemic in their country.

The HIVRT Program currently invites applications under three different Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOAs). This FOA (G11) encourages applications for infrastructure development training programs to strengthen one of several infrastructure functions critical to support HIV research at LMIC institutions. Applicants interested in scientific research training should consult the D43 FOA ( PAR-22-151 ) . A third FOA (D71), ( PAR-22-152 ) , provides the option for a planning grant to LMIC institutions prior to an application for the D43 research training grant.

This FOA complements the other two FOAs in the HIVRT Program, which are focused on scientific research training, by supporting training that addresses several infrastructure functions considered critical to successful high-quality research. Research infrastructure training programs will maximize previous investments and further strengthen the LMIC institution's research capabilities, as well as potentially provide more accessible research infrastructure training opportunities to other Institutionsin their own country and in other LMICs.

This FOA will support training related to acquiring and/or enhancing technical expertise, administration, and management skills, including the following functions:

• Research administration and management - The general business management practices common to the administration of all grants, such as financial accountability, reporting, equipment management, and retention of records. These include the development and implementation of standard operating procedures for tracking grant expenditures and compliance with NIH and other donor funding policies during pre and post-award periods.
• Research integrity and compliance oversight - Administrative processes in place at an institution to promote research ethics, and to handle allegations of research misconduct among its leadership, faculty, investigators, trainees, and administrative staff.
• Ethical review of research for the protection of human subjects - An institutional system that reviews proposed research, using a framework based on established, internationally recognized ethical principles, to safeguard the rights and welfare of individuals who participate as subjects in research activities.
• Advanced laboratory instrument services A core Institutional resource center available for investigators such as biomedical and molecular imaging, flow cytometry, genomics, proteomics, and structural analysis services.
• Biostatistics and data analysis An institutional center that is staffed with experts able to provide researchers with statistical and data analysis help to meet rigor and reproducibility standards in biological studies.
• Laboratory animal welfare oversight- An institutional system that addresses the humane use of animals in research, using a framework based on established internationally recognized guiding principles for biomedical research involving animals.
• Health sciences library and information services - Print collection and electronic information resources on a wide range of health science topics that are organized by an institution as a service to its researchers, faculty, staff, and students.
• Information and communications technology systems (ICT) for research- Computer systems that provide, coordinate, and manage information technology, and advance computational science.
• Technology transfer and Intellectual Property protection An institutional body that can educate researchers on intellectual property and patentable inventions as well as information on commercializing their discoveries.
• Harassment and Discrimination Policy and Prevention - An institutional office to develop policy, procedure, awareness, and training for preventing and responding to allegations of harassment including sexual harassment.
• Any area not mentioned above that justifiably will contribute to enhancing Institutional services that can support research activities.

Within the context of the topic areas mentioned above it is expected that applicant Institutions have sufficient level of HIV/AIDS research ongoing at their Institutions. NIDCR will support Infrastructure Development Training Programs for institutions conducting HIV research and research training as it relates to dental, oral and craniofacial health. Participation of schools of dentistry is encouraged. For more information on NIDCR HIV/AIDS research priorities, see: https://www.nidcr.nih.gov/grants-funding/grant-programs/hiv-aids-oral-health-research-program/more . .

The Fogarty International Center (FIC), with co-funding from other NIH Institutes, Centers and Offices (ICOs), provided over 30 years of support to enhance HIV research through HIV research training programs. Awards supported research training of LMIC scientists, who have participated in important HIV research conducted at LMIC institutions, often in partnership with U.S. and other international scientists and scientific institutions. Over the years, some of the most important recent scientific advances in HIV/AIDS, including interventions to reduce mother-to-child HIV transmission, address HIV/TB co-infection, and prevent HIV infection through behavior change, microbicides, and antiretroviral drugs, were facilitated through partnerships with LMIC scientists and supported by the FIC research training programs. Continued investment in training to strengthen research at LMIC institutions is needed to address the on-going HIV epidemic and to achieve the goals of a "Cure" and an "AIDS-Free Generation".

Efforts to implement research findings in the context of increased HIV prevention, care, and treatment services in LMICs over the past ten years led to the emergence of new issues, such as how to best combine HIV prevention interventions, link newly diagnosed individuals into care programs, and integrate HIV programs with other health services. As LMICs implement HIV prevention, care, and treatment programs, these and other, yet undefined, issues will need evidence-based solutions.

The social context of an LMIC influences the design of research to answer many of these evolving HIV research questions, therefore LMIC institutions and researchers are best positioned to conduct the most relevant HIV research, disseminate the results in-country, and influence policymakers, program managers and medical/public health practice.

In the HIVRT Program, each research training award is expected to focus on strengthening specific high priority HIV research capacity at an identified LMIC institution and collaborating partner institutions.

The HIVRT Program is designed to move beyond simple output indicators such as number and type of people trained, or research products/grants, to outcome indicators such as increased institutional research support capacity available to all research faculty, staff, and students at the LMIC institution. Applicants are expected to design a monitoring and evaluation plan to address those goals.

Program Considerations

This FOA provides opportunities for a U.S. or LMIC institution to collaborate with their partners to fill gaps in a particular research infrastructure function that will strengthen the HIV research capacity at the proposed LMIC institution by training LMIC scientists and staff at the LMIC institution(s) to support those functions. The resulting strengthened infrastructure should allow these institutions to be more responsive to research needs at the institution(s) and enhance their capacity to obtain funds from and collaborate with the NIH, U.S. Government, other donors, and LMICs in their HIV/AIDS efforts.

The selected infrastructure function may need expertise that crosses disciplines. Applicants are encouraged to develop programs that include training in all disciplines needed to address the selected infrastructure function. The training proposed is expected to raise the LMIC institution to the next level of capacity in the selected infrastructure function.

In some cases, it is anticipated that the proposed program will complement ongoing efforts to strengthen the research support function at the LMIC institution(s). Proposed training should be designed to be synergistic and not duplicative of these programs and a clear justification provided for why additional training is required. The justification should include the level of HIV research ongoing at the applicant Institution and collaborating LMIC partners.

It is anticipated that some LMIC institutions could serve as training sites in the selected research support function for other LMIC institutions. Faculty and staff from LMIC institutions with a more developed capability may serve as training faculty. As a result, three different scenarios for applications may be proposed: a) a U.S. institution as the applicant with an LMIC institution as beneficiary of the training; b) a LMIC institution as applicant in collaboration with U.S. and other appropriate partners, with their own institution as the beneficiary of the training to further strengthen its own capacity; and c) an eligible LMIC institution with a developed capability for the research support function as applicant with one or more additional LMIC institutions as the beneficiary of the training. The beneficiary as noted above is the Institution and not an individual training or research program.

Proposed programs can support a combination of short- (three months or less), medium- (over three months and up to six months) and long- (six months and longer) term training to support increased capacity in the specified infrastructure function at the LMIC institution. Emphasis should be given to training that provides the theoretical and applied depth needed by an individual or by a group of individuals in the LMIC institution to sustain the higher level of capacity in the selected infrastructure function after the three-year training period.

Innovative training models such as practicum experiences to gain technical expertise, collaborative exchanges, organizational planning, and mediation/negotiation training may be proposed. Distance learning with sufficient mentoring and support at the LMIC institution are encouraged. Training-related projects must be conducted at or involve data from the LMIC institution or, if relevant, from other participating LMIC sites, identified in the application.

Applicants are encouraged to review the NIH HIV/AIDS Research Priorities ( https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-20-018.html ), the NIH Plan for HIV-Related Research ( https://www.oar.nih.gov/sites/default/files/NIH_StrategicPlan_FY2021-2025.pdf ), and the FIC Strategic Plan ( https://www.fic.nih.gov/about/pages/strategic-plan.aspx ) to inform the planning process proposed.

See Frequently Asked Questions for the Fogarty HIV Research Training for more information.

See Section VIII. Other Information for award authorities and regulations.

Section II. Award Information

Grant: A support mechanism providing money, property, or both to an eligible entity to carry out an approved project or activity.

The OER Glossary and the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide provide details on these application types. Only those application types listed here are allowed for this FOA.

Not Allowed: Only accepting applications that do not propose clinical trials.

Need help determining whether you are doing a clinical trial?

The number of awards is contingent upon NIH appropriations and the submission of a sufficient number of meritorious applications.

Future year amounts will depend on annual appropriations.

Application budgets are limited to $94,000 direct costs per year exclusive of consortium indirect costs.

Indirect Costs (also known as Facilities & Administrative [F&A] Costs) are reimbursed at 8% of modified total direct costs (exclusive of tuition and fees, consortium costs in excess of $25,000, and expenditures for equipment), rather than on the basis of a negotiated rate agreement. The Indirect Cost limitation applies to direct awards and to subcontracts.

Awards may support travel for trainees to participate in appropriate training experiences at other institutions or to attend scientific meetings and workshops that the training program determines to be necessary f

Awards may support travel for trainees to present training-related research results at conferences and meetings.

• Funds may be requested for lodging and per diem at other institutions for short-term trainees.

NIH grants policies as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement will apply to the applications submitted and awards made from this FOA.

Section III. Eligibility Information

1. Eligible Applicants

Higher Education Institutions

• Public/State Controlled Institutions of Higher Education
• Private Institutions of Higher Education

The following types of Higher Education Institutions are always encouraged to apply for NIH support as Public or Private Institutions of Higher Education:

• Hispanic-serving Institutions
• Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs)
• Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCUs)
• Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions
• Asian American Native American Pacific Islander Serving Institutions (AANAPISIs)

Nonprofits Other Than Institutions of Higher Education

• Nonprofits with 501(c)(3) IRS Status (Other than Institutions of Higher Education)
• Nonprofits without 501(c)(3) IRS Status (Other than Institutions of Higher Education)
• Non-domestic (non-U.S.) Entities (Foreign Institutions)

An application may be submitted by a foreign institution in a LMIC or by a domestic (U.S.) institution that demonstrates active HIV research collaborations with the LMIC institution named in the application. Collaboration should be documented by strong prior scientific/professional interactions, such as, conference organization, joint publications, grants or previous research training activities. The applicant institution must have a strong and high-quality program in the research infrastructure function proposed under this FOA and must have the requisite training staff and facilities to conduct the proposed training program.

LMICs are defined by the World Bank classification system according to Gross National Income (GNI) per capita as low-income, lower-middle-income, and upper-middle-income ( http://data.worldbank.org/about/country-classifications/country-and-lending-groups ). Additional restrictions outlined in Country Eligibility for Fogarty International Training Grants ( http://www.fic.nih.gov/Grants/Pages/country-eligibility.aspx https://www.fic.nih.gov/Grants/Pages/country-eligibility.aspx ) now apply to this G11 FOA. If there are any questions about eligibility, please contact the Scientific Officer named below. Other High-Income Country (HIC) Faculty and institutions, and institutions that fall under restricted eligibility for training in the linked Notice, may be named as partners and serve as training sites.

The applicant institution must have a strong and high-quality research program in the area(s) proposed under this FOA and must have the requisite faculty, staff, potential trainees, and facilities on site to conduct the proposed institutional program. In many cases, it is anticipated that the proposed program will complement other ongoing research training programs occurring at the applicant institution and that a substantial number of program faculty will have active research projects in which participating trainees may gain relevant experiences consistent with their research interests and goals.

Non-domestic (non-U.S.) Entities (Foreign Institutions) are eligible to apply.

Non-domestic (non-U.S.) components of U.S. Organizations are eligible to apply.

Foreign components, as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement , are allowed.

Applicant organizations

Applicant organizations must complete and maintain the following registrations as described in the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide to be eligible to apply for or receive an award. All registrations must be completed prior to the application being submitted. Registration can take 6 weeks or more, so applicants should begin the registration process as soon as possible. The NIH Policy on Late Submission of Grant Applications states that failure to complete registrations in advance of a due date is not a valid reason for a late submission.

• NATO Commercial and Government Entity (NCAGE) Code Foreign organizations must obtain an NCAGE code (in lieu of a CAGE code) in order to register in SAM.
• Unique Entity Identifier (UEI)- A UEI is issued as part of the SAM.gov registration process. SAM registrations prior to fall 2021 were updated to include a UEI. For applications due on or after January 25, 2022, the UEI must be provided on the application forms (e.g., FORMS-G); the same UEI must be used for all registrations, as well as on the grant application.
• Dun and Bradstreet Universal Numbering System (DUNS) Organization registrations prior to April 2022 require applicants to obtain a DUNS prior to registering in SAM. By April 2022, the federal government will stop using the DUNS number as an entity identifier and will transition to the Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) issued by SAM. Prior to April 2022, after obtaining a DUNS number, applicants can begin both SAM and eRA Commons registrations. The same DUNS number must be used for all registrations, as well as on the grant application.
• eRA Commons - Once the unique organization identifier (DUNS prior to April 2022; UEI after April 2022) is established, organizations can register with eRA Commons in tandem with completing their full SAM and Grants.gov registrations; all registrations must be in place by time of submission. eRA Commons requires organizations to identify at least one Signing Official (SO) and at least one Program Director/Principal Investigator (PD/PI) account in order to submit an application.
• Grants.gov Applicants must have an active SAM registration in order to complete the Grants.gov registration.

Program Directors/Principal Investigators (PD(s)/PI(s))

All PD(s)/PI(s) must have an eRA Commons account. PD(s)/PI(s) should work with their organizational officials to either create a new account or to affiliate their existing account with the applicant organization in eRA Commons. If the PD/PI is also the organizational Signing Official, they must have two distinct eRA Commons accounts, one for each role. Obtaining an eRA Commons account can take up to 2 weeks.

Any individual(s) with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to carry out the proposed research as the Program Director(s)/Principal Investigator(s) (PD(s)/PI(s)) is invited to work with his/her organization to develop an application for support. Individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups as well as individuals with disabilities are always encouraged to apply for NIH support.

For institutions/organizations proposing multiple PDs/PIs, visit the Multiple Program Director/Principal Investigator Policy and submission details in the Senior/Key Person Profile (Expanded) Component of the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

The PD(s)/PI(s) should be an established expert in the research infrastructure function to which the application is targeted and capable of providing both administrative and professional leadership to the development and implementation of the proposed training. The PD(s)/PI(s) should have experience in supporting high priority HIV research and be knowledgeable about the infrastructure needs of the LMIC institution. The PD(s)/PI(s) will be expected to monitor and assess the program and submit all documents and reports as required. The PD(s)/PI(s) is responsible for appointing members of the Training Advisory Committee (TAC) and for establishing a structure to obtain regular feedback from the TAC.

Applicants are encouraged to include LMIC individuals who meet the eligibility requirement as a Multiple PD/PI (see https://grants.nih.gov/grants/multi_pi/ for more information).

This FOA strongly encourages inclusion of women and individuals from groups underrepresented in clinical, biomedical, and socio-behavioral research (including individuals from racial, ethnic, and socially disadvantaged backgrounds and those living with disabilities) as principal investigators/program directors, faculty, and scientific collaborators.

2. Cost Sharing

This FOA does not require cost sharing as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.

3. Additional Information on Eligibility

Number of Applications

Applicant organizations may submit more than one application, provided that each application is scientifically distinct.

The NIH will not accept duplicate or highly overlapping applications under review at the same time, per 2.3.7.4 Submission of Resubmission Application . This means that the NIH will not accept:

• A new (A0) application that is submitted before issuance of the summary statement from the review of an overlapping new (A0) or resubmission (A1) application.
• A resubmission (A1) application that is submitted before issuance of the summary statement from the review of the previous new (A0) application.
• An application that has substantial overlap with another application pending appeal of initial peer review (see 2.3.9.4 Similar, Essentially Identical, or Identical Applications ).

Faculty/Mentors

Proposed training staff and mentors should have expertise and experience relevant to the proposed training program to build or enhance the specific research infrastructure function. Mentors must be committed to continue their involvement throughout the total period of the trainee’s participation in this award.

Only LMIC individuals who are or are expected to be associated with that LMIC institution are eligible for training under this FOA. Individuals who also have citizenship or permanent residency in the U.S. or other high-income countries are not eligible for support under this FOA.

Section IV. Application and Submission Information

1. Requesting an Application Package

The application forms package specific to this opportunity must be accessed through ASSIST, Grants.gov Workspace or an institutional system-to-system solution. Links to apply using ASSIST or Grants.gov Workspace are available in Part 1 of this FOA. See your administrative office for instructions if you plan to use an institutional system-to-system solution.

2. Content and Form of Application Submission

Letter of Intent

Although a letter of intent is not required, is not binding, and does not enter into the review of a subsequent application, the information that it contains allows IC staff to estimate the potential review workload and plan the review.

By the date listed in Part 1. Overview Information , prospective applicants are asked to submit a letter of intent that includes the following information:

• Descriptive title of proposed activity
• Name(s), address(es), and telephone number(s) of the PD(s)/PI(s)
• Names of other key personnel
• Participating institution(s)
• Number and title of this funding opportunity

The letter of intent should be sent to:

Geetha P. Bansal, Ph.D. Telephone: 301-496-1492 Email: [email protected]

Page Limitations

All page limitations described in the SF424 Application Guide and the Table of Page Limits must be followed.

Instructions for Application Submission

Note: Effective for due dates on or after January 25, 2023 a Data Management and Sharing Plan is not applicable for this FOA.

The following section supplements the instructions found in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide and should be used for preparing an application to this FOA.

SF424(R&R) Cover

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.

SF424(R&R) Project/Performance Site Locations

All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed, with the following additional instructions:

Include the applicant institution, the LMIC institution and any other participating institutions, both U.S. and foreign, as performance sites.

SF424(R&R) Other Project Information

Project Summary/Abstract : Provide an abstract of the entire application, including the long-term goals and objectives of the program, key elements of the training plan, and a brief description of the planned training program. Include the name(s) of the LMIC(s), and the name of the in-country institution. Identify the research infrastructure function for which training is proposed, and how the increased capacity will strengthen the HIV research capacity at the LMIC institution. Include the rationale and design of the program, the expected increased capacity in the infrastructure function and the measures the applicant will use to demonstrate the impact of the increased infrastructure capacity.

Project Narrative : Include the selected research infrastructure function for which training is proposed, and how this addresses the HIV research priorities identified by NIH as "aligned". Include the LMIC and name of the in-country institution. Describe the public health relevance of the strengthened infrastructure support to the HIV research enterprise that will be supported at the LMIC institution.

Other Attachments:

Advisory Committee: A Training Advisory Committee (TAC) is required for this grant. A description of the responsibilities, frequency of meetings, and other relevant information should be included. Describe the composition of the TAC, identifying the role and the desired expertise of members. The TAC should include expert faculty and staff in the research infrastructure function proposed and persons with experience in training and mentoring LMIC staff or supporting HIV research at the LMIC institution. TAC members can be from the LMICs, U.S., or other countries. Describe how the TAC will provide feedback and advice to the PD(s)/PI(s) in the implementation of the training program. They should be included as key personnel as described in SF 424(R&R) Senior/Key Person Profile Expanded Component. Please name your file Advisory_Committee.pdf .

The filename provided for each Other Attachment will be the name used for the bookmark in the electronic application in eRA Commons.

SF424(R&R) Senior/Key Person Profile

• Describe the qualifications and experience, including relevant scientific or professional background and relevant training experience in LMICs, of the proposed PI(s)/PD(s) to lead the proposed training program should be described in the bio-sketch.
• For applications from U.S. institutions, include the name of one person at the LMIC institution who will serve as the main collaborator(s), select Other, and list their role as Key Collaborator.
• Include at least ONE person at all of the other U.S. and foreign participating institutions as senior/Key Personnel and identify their role.
• Describe the roles of the investigators and their qualifications to provide and sustain the required training.
• List all members of the Training Advisory Committee (TAC) as Senior/Key Personnel, select Other and list their role as TAC member .
• Use " Senior/Key Person" section for Senior/Key personnel. The salary requested must be commensurate with the salary structure and benefits at the institution where they are employed and within the limits described at https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/salcap_summary.htm . Collaborators may receive appropriate compensation for significant activities on the program.
• Use " Other Personnel section to submit costs for salary support for administrative staff. The salary requested must be commensurate with the salary structure and benefits at the institution where they are employed and within the limits described at https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/salcap_summary.htm . Use Section E for trainee expenses.
• Use the " Travel section to submit costs for key personnel and staff travel that is directly related to the training program and to attend necessary meetings and HIV Research Training Program network meetings, usually held in the U.S. Support for senior/key personnel, faculty and collaborators to attend scientific meetings and conferences is not allowed.
• Use the Participant/Trainee Support Costs section to submit costs for:
• Trainees Tuition and Fees for tuition and academic fees at the U.S. or foreign institutions. Include health insurance under Training Related Expenses category rather than in the Tuition/Fees/health insurance category
• Stipend as a subsistence allowance for trainees to help defray living expenses during the training experience in accordance with their institutional policy. Partial stipends for part time trainees should reflect the amount of time they need to be supported for training in the budget and be described in the budget justification. Living expense for trainees should be covered by per diem and included under Trainee Travel expenses
• Trainee Travel to allow trainees to participate in training experiences in other institutions or to attend scientific meetings and workshops related to their area of training that the training program determines to be necessary for the individual’s training. Awards may support travel for current trainees to present training-related results at conferences and meetings.
• Do not use the Subsistence category.
• health insurance (self-only or family, as applicable)
• trainee project costs
• laptop computers
• internet connectivity
• relevant journal subscriptions and publication costs.
• Use "Other Direct Costs" to request costs for short- term courses. Equipment, software and other non-training expenses are not allowed.
• Provide details in the budget justification for expenses requested in each section.

R&R Subaward Budget

PHS 398 Cover Page Supplement

PHS 398 Research Plan

Specific Aims :

The specific aims page should:

• List succinctly the specific objectives of the proposed training.
• Identify the research infrastructure support function and the LMIC institution that will benefit from the proposed training.
• State concisely the goals of the proposed training and summarize the expected outcome(s), including the impact that the results of the proposed training will exert on the high priority HIV research capacity of the LMIC institution.

Research Strategy: Include the following information:

• Provide the rationale for the selection of the specific research infrastructure support function.
• Describe the current level of capacity in the selected research support function at the LMIC institution and describe how training will further strengthen that infrastructure to support high priority HIV research at the proposed training sites.
• Describe the current funded HIV research at the participating institutions.
• Identify the research support gaps that will be addressed by this training program.
• Indicate how the proposed program relates to prior and current training activities at the proposed training sites, regardless of funding source, that are relevant to the selected infrastructure function. Provide justification for more training at the LMIC institution and describe how the proposed training will leverage and support, but not duplicate, other training activities.
• Innovation:
• Describe strategies that will be used to engage trainees in training-related research infrastructure activities that will directly benefit the on-going priority HIV research at the LMIC institution(s). Highlight the innovative aspects of the training models and/or strategies for these activities that are likely to prepare them to support HIV research at the LMIC institution(s).
• If relevant, describe how the training program will be designed to enable the proposed training sites to become future training sites in the infrastructure function for other LMIC institutions, and, if relevant, other partnering LMIC institutions.
• Describe the administrative structure of the training program and the distribution of responsibilities, including a description of how the PD(s)/PI(s) will obtain continuing advice with respect to the operation of the program from collaborators, professional staff at the LMIC institution, other participating institutions, and the TAC.
• Provide a three-year training implementation plan that describes and provides the rationale for the type of training, topics of the training and the expected candidates for each type of training included.
• Describe courses and research support infrastructure project opportunities that will be available to trainees.
• Describe a plan for providing mentoring that will support trainees while in courses and conducting training-related projects.
• Describe the criteria, recruitment and selection procedures for trainees to ensure that trainees have appropriate prior training or experience and are likely to complete the training and contribute to the increased capacity of the LMIC institution in the selected infrastructure function.
• Describe the role of the LMIC institution and their professional staff in the recruitment and selection of trainees. Describe recruitment efforts to attract women and other populations who are under-represented in the proposed infrastructure function in that LMIC to apply for training opportunities.
• If multiple PD(s)/PI(s) are involved in the training program, describe how they will coordinate their efforts, resolve disputes, and provide additional value to the training program.
• Describe the pool of potential trainees. Identify any potential trainees from existing LMIC institution staff and why they would be recruited.
• Describe a plan for retaining trainees after completion of training.
• Describe the increased capacity in the function expected at the end of the three-year funding period and how it will strengthen high priority HIV research capacity at the LMIC institution
• Describe an evaluation plan that will assess the quality and effectiveness of the training over the three-year period. Include a process to obtain feedback from current and former trainees
• Include measures in the evaluation plan that can be used to demonstrate increased capacity in the infrastructure function at the end of and beyond the three-year funding period. Describe how the data will be collected and monitored over time.
• Describe the extent of HIV and HIV-related scientific research environment being conducted at the LMIC Institution and partnering LMIC institutions.
• Describe the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators from each of the participating institutions to carry out the training program.
• Describe the administrative and training support provided for the program from each of the participating institutions.

Letters of Support: The application should include letters of support from institutional leaders from all the collaborating institutions, and from the leaders of the research infrastructure function at the LMIC institution proposed for training. The letters of support should describe how the proposed training program will collaborate/synergize with other research and training programs and how the institution will provide future career development opportunities for trainees.

Training faculty and mentors who do not have bio-sketches included in the application should submit a letter of support to indicate their contribution and role in the proposed training, and their willingness to participate.

Resource Sharing Plan : Individuals are required to comply with the instructions for the Resource Sharing Plans as provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

The following modifications also apply:

• Applicants are expected to describe how the outcomes of this grant will help in the long-term sustained enhancement of the research infrastructure. Applicants are expected to describe a plan for sharing the outcomes with other LMIC institutions and how these resources will enhance collaborative capacity building for the LMIC.

Only limited Appendix materials are allowed. Follow all instructions for the Appendix as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

• No publications or other material, with the exception of blank questionnaires or blank surveys, may be included in the Appendix.

PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information

When involving human subjects research, clinical research, and/or NIH-defined clinical trials (and when applicable, clinical trials research experience) follow all instructions for the PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information form in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, with the following additional instructions:

If you answered Yes to the question Are Human Subjects Involved? on the R&R Other Project Information form, you must include at least one human subjects study record using the Study Record: PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information form or Delayed Onset Study record.

Study Record: PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information

Delayed Onset Study

Note: Delayed onset does NOT apply to a study that can be described but will not start immediately (i.e., delayed start).All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.

PHS Assignment Request Form

Foreign Institutions

Foreign (non-U.S.) institutions must follow policies described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement , and procedures for foreign institutions described throughout the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

3. Unique Entity Identifier and System for Award Management (SAM)

See Part 1. Section III.1 for information regarding the requirement for obtaining a unique entity identifier and for completing and maintaining active registrations in System for Award Management (SAM), NATO Commercial and Government Entity (NCAGE) Code (if applicable), eRA Commons, and Grants.gov

4. Submission Dates and Times

Part I. Overview Information contains information about Key Dates and times. Applicants are encouraged to submit applications before the due date to ensure they have time to make any application corrections that might be necessary for successful submission. When a submission date falls on a weekend or Federal holiday , the application deadline is automatically extended to the next business day.

Organizations must submit applications to Grants.gov (the online portal to find and apply for grants across all Federal agencies). Applicants must then complete the submission process by tracking the status of the application in the eRA Commons , NIH’s electronic system for grants administration. NIH and Grants.gov systems check the application against many of the application instructions upon submission. Errors must be corrected and a changed/corrected application must be submitted to Grants.gov on or before the application due date and time. If a Changed/Corrected application is submitted after the deadline, the application will be considered late. Applications that miss the due date and time are subjected to the NIH Policy on Late Application Submission.

Applicants are responsible for viewing their application before the due date in the eRA Commons to ensure accurate and successful submission.

Information on the submission process and a definition of on-time submission are provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

5. Intergovernmental Review (E.O. 12372)

This initiative is not subject to intergovernmental review.

6. Funding Restrictions

All NIH awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement .

Pre-award costs are allowable only as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement .

7. Other Submission Requirements and Information

Applications must be submitted electronically following the instructions described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide. Paper applications will not be accepted.

Applicants must complete all required registrations before the application due date. Section III. Eligibility Information contains information about registration.

For assistance with your electronic application or for more information on the electronic submission process, visit How to Apply Application Guide . If you encounter a system issue beyond your control that threatens your ability to complete the submission process on-time, you must follow the Dealing with System Issues guidance. For assistance with application submission, contact the Application Submission Contacts in Section VII .

Important reminders:

All PD(s)/PI(s) must include their eRA Commons ID in the Credential fieldof the Senior/Key Person Profile form . Failure to register in the Commons and to include a valid PD/PI Commons ID in the credential field will prevent the successful submission of an electronic application to NIH. See Section III of this FOA for information on registration requirements.

The applicant organization must ensure that the unique entity identifier (DUNS number or UEI as required) provided on the application is the same number used in the organization’s profile in the eRA Commons and for the System for Award Management. Additional information may be found in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.

See more tips for avoiding common errors.

Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for completeness and compliance with application instructions by the Center for Scientific Review, NIH. Applications that are incomplete or non-compliant will not be reviewed.

In order to expedite review, applicants are requested to notify Dr. Geetha Bansal by email at {[email protected]} when the application has been submitted. Please include the FOA number and title, PD/PI name, and title of the application.

Post Submission Materials

Applicants are required to follow the instructions for post-submission materials, as described in the policy . Any instructions provided here are in addition to the instructions in the policy.

Section V. Application Review Information

1. Criteria

Only the review criteria described below will be considered in the review process. Applications submitted to the NIH in support of the NIH mission are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer review system.

Overall Impact

Reviewers will provide an overall impact score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following review criteria and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed).

Reviewers will consider each of the review criteria below in the determination of scientific merit, and give a separate score for each. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact. For example, a project that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field.

Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? Is the prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project rigorous? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?

Specific to this FOA:

Does the project address an important problem in research support at the LMIC institution or a critical barrier to research at the institution? If the aims of the project are achieved, will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the institutional environment to enhance the ability to carry out high priority HIV research?

Are the PD(s)/PI(s), collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or those in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project?

Are sufficient numbers of experienced professional staff and mentors with appropriate expertise available to support the proposed training program? Do the professional staff/mentors have strong records supporting priority HIV research? Do the training staff and mentors have strong records of training individuals from LMICs?

Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?

Has the applicant described innovative training models and/or innovative strategies for trainees to engage in the research support infrastructure function proposed that are likely to prepare them to support HIV research at the LMIC institution(s)?

Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Have the investigators included plans to address weaknesses in the rigor of prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project? Have the investigators presented strategies to ensure a robust and unbiased approach, as appropriate for the work proposed? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed? Have the investigators presented adequate plans to address relevant biological variables, such as sex, for studies in vertebrate animals or human subjects?

If the project involves human subjects and/or NIH-defined clinical research, are the plans to address 1) the protection of human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals on the basis of sex/gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as the inclusion or exclusion of individuals of all ages (including children and older adults), justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?

Specific to

Will the design of the proposed training (learning objectives and mix of short-, medium- and long- term training) provide an effective training program in the proposed research infrastructure function? Does the proposed training program build on the LMIC institution’s research infrastructure and investments from FIC, NIH, and other organizations?

Will the proposed recruitment, selection criteria and retention strategies engage and sustain the highest quality trainees?

Does the applicant describe a rigorous evaluation plan to assess the quality and effectiveness of the training over the three-year period? Are effective mechanisms in place for obtaining feedback from current and former trainees? Does the applicant define measures to demonstrate increased capacity in the selected infrastructure function at the end of the three-year funding period? Is the proposed method to monitor the long-term impact of training in the proposed function on the HIV research capacity at the LMIC institution adequate?

If relevant, will the training approach result in expected increased capacity in the infrastructure function at the LMIC institution, and other participating LMIC institutions?

Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements?

Will the proposed training benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements at the applicant, LMIC institution or other partners?

Is sufficient administrative and training support provided for the program? Do/does the application and training program design ensure equitable partnerships among all collaborating institutions?

As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will evaluate the following additional items while determining scientific and technical merit, and in providing an overall impact score, but will not give separate scores for these items.

For research that involves human subjects but does not involve one of the categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate the justification for involvement of human subjects and the proposed protections from research risk relating to their participation according to the following five review criteria: 1) risk to subjects, 2) adequacy of protection against risks, 3) potential benefits to the subjects and others, 4) importance of the knowledge to be gained, and 5) data and safety monitoring for clinical trials.

For research that involves human subjects and meets the criteria for one or more of the categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate: 1) the justification for the exemption, 2) human subjects involvement and characteristics, and 3) sources of materials. For additional information on review of the Human Subjects section, please refer to the Guidelines for the Review of Human Subjects .

When the proposed project involves human subjects and/or NIH-defined clinical research, the committee will evaluate the proposed plans for the inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals on the basis of sex/gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as the inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals of all ages (including children and older adults) to determine if it is justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed. For additional information on review of the Inclusion section, please refer to the Guidelines for the Review of Inclusion in Clinical Research .

The committee will evaluate the involvement of live vertebrate animals as part of the scientific assessment according to the following criteria: (1) description of proposed procedures involving animals, including species, strains, ages, sex, and total number to be used; (2) justifications for the use of animals versus alternative models and for the appropriateness of the species proposed; (3) interventions to minimize discomfort, distress, pain and injury; and (4) justification for euthanasia method if NOT consistent with the AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals. Reviewers will assess the use of chimpanzees as they would any other application proposing the use of vertebrate animals. For additional information on review of the Vertebrate Animals section, please refer to the Worksheet for Review of the Vertebrate Animal Section .

Reviewers will assess whether materials or procedures proposed are potentially hazardous to research personnel and/or the environment, and if needed, determine whether adequate protection is proposed.

For Resubmissions, the committee will evaluate the application as now presented, taking into consideration the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group and changes made to the project.

Not applicable

Note: Effective for due dates on or after January 25, 2023, the Data Sharing Plan and Genomic Data Sharing Plan (GDS) as part of the Resource Sharing Plan will not be evaluated at time of review, and a Data Management and Sharing Plan is not applicable for this FOA.

As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will consider each of the following items, but will not give scores for these items, and should not consider them in providing an overall impact score.

Reviewers will assess whether the project presents special opportunities for furthering research programs through the use of unusual talent, resources, populations, or environmental conditions that exist in other countries and either are not readily available in the United States or augment existing U.S. resources.

Reviewers will assess the information provided in this section of the application, including 1) the Select Agent(s) to be used in the proposed research, 2) the registration status of all entities where Select Agent(s) will be used, 3) the procedures that will be used to monitor possession use and transfer of Select Agent(s), and 4) plans for appropriate biosafety, biocontainment, and security of the Select Agent(s).

Reviewers will comment on whether the following Resource Sharing Plans, or the rationale for not sharing the following types of resources, are reasonable: (1) Data Sharing Plan ; (2) Sharing Model Organisms ; and (3) Genomic Data Sharing Plan (GDS) .

For projects involving key biological and/or chemical resources, reviewers will comment on the brief plans proposed for identifying and ensuring the validity of those resources.

Reviewers will consider whether the budget and the requested period of support are fully justified and reasonable in relation to the proposed research.

2. Review and Selection Process

Applications will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by (an) appropriate Scientific Review Group(s), convened by the Center for Scientific Reviewin accordance with NIH peer review policy and procedures , using the stated review criteria . Assignment to a Scientific Review Group will be shown in the eRA Commons.

As part of the scientific peer review, all applications will receive a written critique.

Applications may undergo a selection process in which only those applications deemed to have the highest scientific and technical merit (generally the top half of applications under review) will be discussed and assigned an overall impact score.

Applications will be assigned to the Fogarty International Center (FIC). Applications will compete for available funds with all other recommended applications submitted in response to this FOA. Following initial peer review, recommended applications will receive a second level of review by the FIC Advisory Board. The following will be considered in making funding decisions:

• Scientific and technical merit of the proposed project as determined by scientific peer review.
• Availability of funds.
• Relevance of the proposed project to program priorities of FIC and partnering ICs.
• Consideration of geographic balance of projects..
• Consideration of programmatic balance of topics.

3. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates

After the peer review of the application is completed, the PD/PI will be able to access his or her Summary Statement (written critique) via the eRA Commons . Refer to Part 1 for dates for peer review, advisory council review, and earliest start date.

Information regarding the disposition of applications is available in the NIH Grants Policy Statement .

Section VI. Award Administration Information

1. Award Notices

If the application is under consideration for funding, NIH will request "just-in-time" information from the applicant as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement .

A formal notification in the form of a Notice of Award (NoA) will be provided to the applicant organization for successful applications. The NoA signed by the grants management officer is the authorizing document and will be sent via email to the recipient's business official.

Recipients must comply with any funding restrictions described in Section IV.6. Funding Restrictions. Selection of an application for award is not an authorization to begin performance. Any costs incurred before receipt of the NoA are at the recipient's risk. These costs may be reimbursed only to the extent considered allowable pre-award costs.

Any application awarded in response to this FOA will be subject to terms and conditions found on the Award Conditions and Information for NIH Grants website. This includes any recent legislation and policy applicable to awards that is highlighted on this website.

Institutional Review Board or Independent Ethics Committee Approval: Recipient institutions must ensure that protocols are reviewed by their IRB or IEC. To help ensure the safety of participants enrolled in NIH-funded studies, the recipient must provide NIH copies of documents related to all major changes in the status of ongoing protocols.

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements

All NIH grant and cooperative agreement awards include the NIH Grants Policy Statement as part of the NoA. For these terms of award, see the NIH Grants Policy Statement Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart A: General and Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart B: Terms and Conditions for Specific Types of Grants, Recipients, and Activities , including of note, but not limited to:

• Federalwide Research Terms and Conditions
• Prohibition on Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment
• Acknowledgment of Federal Funding

If a recipient is successful and receives a Notice of Award, in accepting the award, the recipient agrees that any activities under the award are subject to all provisions currently in effect or implemented during the period of the award, other Department regulations and policies in effect at the time of the award, and applicable statutory provisions.

Should the applicant organization successfully compete for an award, recipients of federal financial assistance (FFA) from HHS must administer their programs in compliance with federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, age and, in some circumstances, religion, conscience, and sex (including gender identify, sexual orientation, and pregnancy). This includes ensuring programs are accessible to persons with limited English proficiency and persons with disabilities. The HHS Office for Civil Rights provides guidance on complying with civil rights laws enforced by HHS. Please see https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-providers/provider-obligations/index.html and https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/nondiscrimination/index.html

HHS recognizes that research projects are often limited in scope for many reasons that are nondiscriminatory, such as the principal investigator’s scientific interest, funding limitations, recruitment requirements, and other considerations. Thus, criteria in research protocols that target or exclude certain populations are warranted where nondiscriminatory justifications establish that such criteria are appropriate with respect to the health or safety of the subjects, the scientific study design, or the purpose of the research. For additional guidance regarding how the provisions apply to NIH grant programs, please contact the Scientific/Research Contact that is identified in Section VII under Agency Contacts of this FOA.

• Recipients of FFA must ensure that their programs are accessible to persons with limited English proficiency. For guidance on meeting the legal obligation to take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to programs or activities by limited English proficient individuals see https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/special-topics/limited-english-proficiency/fact-sheet-guidance/index.html and https://www.lep.gov .
• For information on an institution’s specific legal obligations for serving qualified individuals with disabilities, including reasonable accommodations and making services accessible to them, see http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/understanding/disability/index.html .
• HHS funded health and education programs must be administered in an environment free of sexual harassment, see https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/sex-discrimination/index.html . For information about NIH's commitment to supporting a safe and respectful work environment, who to contact with questions or concerns, and what NIH's expectations are for institutions and the individuals supported on NIH-funded awards, please see https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/harassment.htm .
• For guidance on administering programs in compliance with applicable federal conscience protection and associated anti-discrimination laws see https://www.hhs.gov/conscience/conscience-protections/index.html and https://www.hhs.gov/conscience/religious-freedom/index.html .

Please contact the HHS Office for Civil Rights for more information about obligations and prohibitions under federal civil rights laws at https://www.hhs.gov/ocr/about-us/contact-us/index.html or call 1-800-368-1019 or TDD 1-800-537-7697.

In accordance with the statutory provisions contained in Section 872 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), NIH awards will be subject to the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) requirements. FAPIIS requires Federal award making officials to review and consider information about an applicant in the designated integrity and performance system (currently FAPIIS) prior to making an award. An applicant, at its option, may review information in the designated integrity and performance systems accessible through FAPIIS and comment on any information about itself that a Federal agency previously entered and is currently in FAPIIS. The Federal awarding agency will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to other information in FAPIIS, in making a judgement about the applicant’s integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants as described in 45 CFR Part 75.205 and 2 CFR Part 200.206 Federal awarding agency review of risk posed by applicants. This provision will apply to all NIH grants and cooperative agreements except fellowships.

3. Reporting

When multiple years are involved, recipients will be required to submit the Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR) annually and financial statements as required in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.

A final RPPR, invention statement, and the expenditure data portion of the Federal Financial Report are required for closeout of an award, as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement . NIH FOAs outline intended research goals and objectives. Post award, NIH will review and measure performance based on the details and outcomes that are shared within the RPPR, as described at 45 CFR Part 75.301 and 2 CFR Part 200.301.

The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Transparency Act), includes a requirement for recipients of Federal grants to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards issued in FY2011 or later. All recipients of applicable NIH grants and cooperative agreements are required to report to the Federal Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) available at www.fsrs.gov on all subawards over the threshold. See the NIH Grants Policy Statement for additional information on this reporting requirement.

In accordance with the regulatory requirements provided at 45 CFR 75.113 and 2 CFR Part 200.113 and Appendix XII to 45 CFR Part 75 and 2 CFR Part 200, recipients that have currently active Federal grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from all Federal awarding agencies with a cumulative total value greater than $10,000,000 for any period of time during the period of performance of a Federal award, must report and maintain the currency of information reported in the System for Award Management (SAM) about civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings in connection with the award or performance of a Federal award that reached final disposition within the most recent five-year period. The recipient must also make semiannual disclosures regarding such proceedings. Proceedings information will be made publicly available in the designated integrity and performance system (currently FAPIIS). This is a statutory requirement under section 872 of Public Law 110-417, as amended (41 U.S.C. 2313). As required by section 3010 of Public Law 111-212, all information posted in the designated integrity and performance system on or after April 15, 2011, except past performance reviews required for Federal procurement contracts, will be publicly available. Full reporting requirements and procedures are found in Appendix XII to 45 CFR Part 75 and 2 CFR Part 200 Award Term and Condition for Recipient Integrity and Performance Matters.

Section VII. Agency Contacts

We encourage inquiries concerning this funding opportunity and welcome the opportunity to answer questions from potential applicants.

eRA Service Desk (Questions regarding ASSIST, eRA Commons, application errors and warnings, documenting system problems that threaten submission by the due date, and post-submission issues)

Finding Help Online: http://grants.nih.gov/support/ (preferred method of contact) Telephone: 301-402-7469 or 866-504-9552 (Toll Free)

General Grants Information (Questions regarding application instructions, application processes, and NIH grant resources) Email: [email protected] (preferred method of contact) Telephone: 301-637-3015

Grants.gov Customer Support (Questions regarding Grants.gov registration and Workspace) Contact Center Telephone: 800-518-4726 Email: [email protected]

Geetha P. Bansal, Ph.D. Fogarty International Center (FIC) Telephone: 301-496-1492 Email: [email protected]

Vasundhara Varthakavi National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Phone: 240-669-5020 E-mail: [email protected]

Hongen Yin, MD, PhD, MHSc National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR) Telephone: 301-496-0525 Email: [email protected]

Anissa J. Brown, PhD Research Training and Career Development Branch National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research Telephone: (301) 594-4805 Email: [email protected]

Center for Scientific Review (CSR) Email: [email protected]

Vicky Tran Fogarty International Center (FIC) Phone: 240-726-0654 Email: [email protected]

Pamela G Fleming National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Phone: 301-480-1159 E-mail: [email protected]

Diana Rutberg, MBA National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR) Telephone: 301-594-4798 Email: [email protected]

Section VIII. Other Information

Recently issued trans-NIH policy notices may affect your application submission. A full list of policy notices published by NIH is provided in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts . All awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement .

Awards are made under the authorization of Sections 301 and 405 of the Public Health Service Act as amended (42 USC 241 and 284) and under Federal Regulations 42 CFR Part 52 and 45 CFR Part 75 and 2 CFR Part 200.

Note: For help accessing PDF, RTF, MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Audio or Video files, see Help Downloading Files .

• Consultations on the National Research Infrastructure Capability Issues Paper
• Funded research infrastructure projects
• National Research Infrastructure Scoping Studies
• 2021 National Research Infrastructure Roadmap
• Previous roadmaps
• Consultation on Draft National Digital Research Infrastructure Strategy
• Chair Updates
• Terms of Reference

Announcements

National research infrastructure.

Australia is an established global leader in world-class research. The Australian Government helps maintain this reputation by ensuring researchers have access to cutting edge research infrastructure.

National Research Infrastructure (NRI) refers to the:

• Facilities, equipment and resources that are needed to perform research
• Experts needed to run the infrastructure

Infrastructure can be physical, like a supercomputer or microscope, or intangible, like a data collection or software platform.

The Australian Government has invested $4 billion over 12 years (from 2018 to 2029) to support important pieces of national research infrastructure and make sure Australian researchers can access them.

NRI is a critical platform for the research sector. It supports Australians through:

• Countless more jobs, including in small business, across almost every sector of the economy
• Research that supports improved health and wellbeing of Australians
• The capacity to address critical national issues such as food security and support for a healthy environment
• Policies relating to research and science and development

Australian Government investments in NRI are:

• guided by Roadmaps,
• funded through investment rounds, and
• enacted through the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy (NCRIS) program

This has resulted in a mature and networked suite of projects supporting Australian research.

The Government develops roadmaps to guide investment in research infrastructure. They are prepared by an expert working group in consultation with the research community.

Roadmaps identify researcher needs and set priorities for Australia's national research infrastructure.

A new Roadmap is created every 5 years.

The 2021 NRI Roadmap is now available. To find the 2021 Roadmap and information on its development, visit the 2021 National Research Infrastructure Roadmap page.

The 2016 Roadmap and information on its development is also available on the departments website.

Investment Rounds

The department’s investments in NRI provide specific funding for a set of projects that will meet Australia’s research infrastructure needs.

Research infrastructure needs are identified in the most recent Roadmap. Sometimes, new needs arise in between Roadmaps, and these can also receive funding. Funding rounds are held every 1-2 years, and are specifically designed to meet the identified NRI needs at that time.

This approach helps support Australian researchers to remain internationally competitive, and maximise the potential for economic benefits from scientific discoveries.

Funding for the NCRIS program is based on a set of guidelines, most recently the:

• 2021 Guidelines
• 2022 Guidelines
• 2023 Guidelines

For the most recent funding round outcomes, see:

• NCRIS 2018 Funding Round
• NCRIS 2020 Funding Round
• NCRIS 2022 Funding
• NCRIS 2023 Funding Round

National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy (NCRIS)

The National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy (NCRIS) is the program that manages Australia’s national research infrastructure.

NCRIS currently supports 26 funded projects and an international membership – see the list of currently funded projects .

The projects are led by organisations including universities, publicly funded research organisations and private companies.

The projects form a network involving over 200 delivery partnerships, and employing over 1900 highly skilled technical experts, researchers and facility managers.

You can read NCRIS case studies on the real life outcomes of research conducted at NCRIS facilities. These demonstrate the social and economic return from the investment in national research infrastructure.

National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy Census

The Census  collects data to help evaluate how the projects in the NCRIS program are performing. The findings  of the 2018-19 Census identified:

• Key industries
• Research outcomes
• Use of facilities
• Employment benefits

The census also found that for every $1 of investment the government put into NCRIS, there was total of $1.29 of co-investment from other sources.

Previous NRI Funding Programs

Funding support and initiatives for NRI prior to NCRIS include:

• Collaborative Research Infrastructure Scheme (CRIS)
• Super Science Initiative
• Education Investment Fund (EIF)

For direct inquiries, email [email protected]

Developing groundbreaking research infrastructure

The UK Research Partnership Investment Fund (UKRPIF) enables universities and partners to tackle today’s biggest research challenges.

UKRPIF supports the development of state-of-the-art, large scale research infrastructures that enable world-leading research. It encourages strategic partnerships between universities and other organisations active in research and stimulates foreign and domestic investment in UK R&D, strengthening its contribution to economic growth.

UKRPIF plays a key role in delivering the UK Government’s R&D priorities, including its target to grow the UK's R&D intensity to 2.4% of GDP by 2027. UKRPIF-funded facilities enable the translation of university research by supporting businesses to innovate and thrive, and have supported the formation of a number of spin-out companies that have gone on to raise significant private investment. The success of the partnerships UKRPIF supports in turn attracts new partners, providing a focal point around which innovative clusters can grow, helping to level-up local regions and contribute to national prosperity.

Facts and figures

Case studies

Greening university chemistry, and the world chemical industry Read the case study

ESRI: University-industry collaboration creates new energy technology on a massive scale Read the case study

Greening university chemistry, and the world chemical industry, the university of nottingham’s centre for sustainable chemistry is pioneering new approaches to training, research and business engagement..

The chemicals industry contributes to over 95 per cent of all products made globally, including everyday items such as medicines, plastics, cosmetics and fertilisers. Indeed, the sector played a critical role in provision of hand sanitiser and raw materials for PPE during the COVID-19 pandemic.

As we move on from the pandemic and focus on productivity in a world system that is experiencing shocks in term of economic stability and supply chain resilience, the chemicals industry is driving innovation to help ensure delivery of UK’s Net-Zero by 2050 target. Currently to create the products we as society need, the chemicals industry uses a petrochemicals and other non-renewable inputs, consumes vast quantities of energy, and is historically branded as being responsible for releasing many types of pollutant into our environment. In a zero-carbon world, people will still need food, pharmaceuticals, and the other critical things that chemistry provides but these items must be made from renewable feedstocks via low carbon processes that generate little or no waste.

Pete Licence is at the forefront of research focussed on the delivery of novel sustainable chemistry that will underpin our transition to a resilient, lower-carbon, higher-value industry. At the University of Nottingham’s Centre for Sustainable Chemistry, he leads a multidisciplinary group that includes chemists, life scientists, engineers and social scientists, who share a commitment to reducing the environmental impact of their work. The centrepiece of this activity is the Carbon Neutral Laboratory (CNL), of which Licence is director. The CNL is a beautiful and unique building which houses approximately 120 researchers. Powered by renewable energy, it will generate enough “carbon-credits” over 25 years to offset the energy invested during its construction and operation.

Research England’s UK Research Partnership Investment Fund invested £10.6 million into the Centre and, as a requirement of the award for double-matched co-investment from non-public sources, this contribution was matched by GSK with contributions from the Wolfson Foundation and University of Nottingham, yielding an initial capital investment in excess of £24 million to date.

Licence explains that this investment has allowed the creation of a unique centre where topical research can be developed from concept right through to multi-kilo scale to demonstrate commercial potential. ‘Through close collaboration with industry partners (particularly through EPSRC funded Prosperity Partnerships with GSK & Lubrizol) our experiments define the state of the art in impactful science with a clear pathway to impact within the chemicals industry. Uniquely, we are able to conduct these experiments in the World’s lowest impact chemistry laboratories as a result of our energy and carbon management strategy.'

The chemical industry faces the challenge of working in a greener way (Photo credit: Getty Images).

Much of the truly creative work developed by our centre is underpinned by highly skilled PhD students, many of whom have benefited from our EPSRC/SFI Centre for Doctoral Training in Sustainable Chemistry which is based in the Centre for Sustainable Chemistry. Our CDT develops transdisciplinary vision and skill-sets, whilst maintaining excellence in molecular sciences, by partnering with over 40 industry partners we ensure that all of our graduates are industrially aware, understand the challenges of net-zero and critically are all active in the delivery of complex multi-stakeholder projects. Here, he says: “We produce scientists who can think about the bigger systems picture, including socioeconomic and environmental impacts.” The principles of Responsible Research and Innovation are built into the Centre’s way of working.

Despite his commitment to carbon neutrality, Licence comments: “Sustainability is not just about carbon, it’s also about protecting the many other resources we have. There are many other elements whose use we are now starting to rethink.” The Centre’s research reflects this mindset, examples include, evaluating the way we conduct experiments, can we move away from bulk reagents to release to potential of electrons or even photons? By developing efficient, continuous photo- or electrochemical methods to make new chemical bonds we could deliver huge savings in energy demand and material efficiency. Can there be cheaper and less polluting ways to get to the same end point?

He stresses that the Centre’s approach develops a positive attitude to innovation in its students. “The need for flexibility within the chemical industry has been demonstrated by the multiple challenges that we have confronted in the last 5 years,” says Licence. “It has shown that businesses, and universities must to be adaptable.”

A key aim of this activity is to feed into chemical industry strategy. While orthodox university-industry links are a vital part of this process, trained people are at least as important as avenues of influence for sustainable chemistry. While some observers of academic life are distressed by the “leaky pipeline” of PhDs quitting university careers, Licence regards it as positive. “I am not at all downhearted when our graduates go into industry,” he says. “indeed, they go into many sectors of industry and manufacturing including energy, chemicals, and food and drink.” Importantly our PhD graduates also move on into other sectors including the civil service, finance, patent law, the policy world and even the research councils…where they can all have a hugely positive impact!”

Sustainability is not just about carbon. There are many other elements whose use we are now starting to rethink. – Professor Peter Licence

Back up to case studies

ESRI: University-industry collaboration creates new energy technology on a massive scale

The energy safety research institute in swansea is looking at the technology needed to green or replace fossil fuels by mid-century.  .

Swansea University’s Energy Safety Research Institute, says director Andrew Barron, “is not about wearing a hard hat and safety goggles.”  Instead, its remit is to ensure that future energy supplies are secure and sustainable.

ESRI has been supported by the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (via the UK Research Partnership Investment Fund), Innovate UK and the Welsh government, as well as a wide spectrum of energy businesses including BP. The UK Research Partnership Investment Fund awarded £11.7m towards the construction of the building, which was matched by £23.7m from industry partners. 

“We don’t just write the paper.” For this money, says Barron, the UK has got a facility which can develop new energy technology, and demonstrate it in action, at a scale of interest to industry. This approach has brought in universities and energy companies in Saudi Arabia, Brunei and elsewhere as collaborators and funders, with five oil-nations academics as ERSI visiting faculty.

ESRI is working on solutions to several of the biggest problems facing future energy supply. One is the transmission of energy, especially electricity. The shift to renewable energy means that electricity will increasingly be generated in new places, some remote. This calls for more investment in the transmission system. At the same time, says Barron, today’s power cables are made from copper and aluminium, and lose five per cent of the power they carry for every 100 miles travelled. “We need to improve on that, so we are working on new materials with lower losses,” he says.

Another, is the need to reduce the impact of energy systems on the environment. There is a greater priority to reduce industrial rather than domestic carbon dioxide emissions. As Barron points out, a fifth of Welsh carbon dioxide emissions come from just one source, the Tata steelworks near Swansea. New Welsh businesses could be created if industrial emissions can be cut. ESRI is researching organometallic compounds to capture industrial emissions of carbon dioxide in bulk.

ESRI is working on solutions to several of the biggest problems facing future energy supply including transmission (Photo credit: Getty Images).

As a scientist, Barron sees a big future for carbon capture and storage, the technology of putting carbon dioxide into stable geological structures such as exhausted fossil fuel reservoirs for long-term sequestration. ESRI research in this area has a promising focus on old shale oil wells as carbon dioxide reservoirs. Shale, says Barron, is a good prospect because it can absorb three molecules of carbon dioxide for every molecule of gas extracted from it.

But as a chemist, he is more excited by the possible use of carbon dioxide as the raw material for new industries. ESRI research is behind a bioreactor that can turn carbon dioxide into high-value chemicals or lower-value animal feed. This technology could be scaled up to use millions of tonnes of the greenhouse gas. “We can make carbon dioxide into useful chemicals with the addition of water, using electricity from the wind. And Wales has plenty of wind and plenty of rain,” says Barron.

ESRI is now developing catalysts that can speed reactions to turn carbon dioxide into premium products such as ethylene and ethylene oxide, key inputs for the chemical industry. It may also become a feedstock for the production of octanol, a possible replacement for diesel fuel.

While Barron and his ESRI colleagues are keen on renewable energy, they stress that technologies such as these are needed to cope with the continuing demand for fossil fuels. “You can make electricity with a solar panel, but it won’t make food, clothes or pharmaceuticals,” he says.

"We can make carbon dioxide into useful chemicals with the use of water, and electricity from the wind. And Wales has plenty of wind and plenty of rain." – Professor Andrew Barron

Since UKRPIF was introduced 10 years ago, Research England has funded 53 projects across six rounds of competition across the UK in areas as diverse as Belfast, Glasgow, Leicester, Swansea and York. 

The total investment of over £900 million has leveraged over £2.2 billion in committed match funding from over 300 industry partners, charitable organisations and philanthropic donors. Thirty-nine of these projects have completed construction, many of which are now in operation. 

At the beginning of 2022, supporting UKRI’s environmental sustainability strategy, UKRPIF invested £18.9 million across nine of its existing facilities. This investment enables them to explore innovative approaches to achieving net zero carbon emissions targets and make the research they facilitate more environmentally sustainable. 

Image captions

Projects funded through UKRPIF: Net Zero

Taking iaaps to net zero, university of bath.

The Taking IAAPS to Net Zero project will establish an innovative green hydrogen (H2) manufacturing capability at the state-of-the-art, UKRPIF-funded IAAPS research and innovation centre located on the Bristol & Bath Science Park. The project aims to decarbonise the energy used on the site, and support vital research and development into sustainable propulsion technologies and the use of hydrogen as an alternative green energy.

Sustainable Campus Testbed, University of Bristol

The Sustainable Campus Testbed will accelerate progress towards ‘net zero’ at the new home of the Bristol Digital Futures Institute (BDFI), a renovated 200-year old former industrial building.

In line with BDFI’s mission, the project aims to reduce the high levels of energy consumed by the institute’s data centre and building.

The Taking IAAPS to Net Zero project aims to decarbonise the energy used on the site. 

Transport – Aviation & Aerospace, East of England and South East

The UKRPIF: Net Zero award will unlock further research and innovation potential from two existing UKRPIF projects focused on the aerospace and aviation sectors: Aerospace Integration Research Centre (AIRC) and Digital Aviation Research and Technology Centre (DARTeC).

The project focuses on advancing sustainable aviation research into developing low-carbon aircraft and decarbonising airport logistics.

New equipment will reduce or eliminate greenhouse gas emissions from research flying and airside operations at Cranfield University, amounting to 305 tonnes of CO2 per year and making a significant contribution to the ambition of net zero aviation by 2050.

CREWW ENZO: Embodying Net Zero in Operation, University of Exeter

The Centre for Resilience in Environment, Water and Waste (CREWW) is a new research centre which will inform how water systems are managed in the face of climate change and population growth. CREWW is part-funded by a £10.5 million UKRPIF grant from Research England and established in partnership with South West Water.

The UKRPIF Net Zero award will be used to reduce emissions from the CREWW building to achieve ‘net zero in operation’ status from day one of operation, and through the lifetime of the building.

Low Carbon Chemistry Lab of the Future, University of Liverpool

The UKRPIF-funded Materials Innovation Factory (MIF) draws together world-leading materials research and technologies, and the seamless integration of computational and experimental.

As part of the University of Liverpool’s commitment to reduce its carbon footprint, this project will reduce CO2 equivalent emissions from electrical energy use of the MIF by a minimum of 25% over 2 years, and a further 20% by Year 4. The project aims to reduce the annual carbon footprint of the building by over 415,000kg CO2 equivalent.

Future Energy Efficiency with DC Microgrid Technologies (FEED-MT), University of Nottingham

Electrification is critical to achieving net zero and advanced electrical systems are central to the transition. The purpose-built UKRPIF Power Electronics and Machines Centre (PEMC) works on technologies for future power converters and electrical machines to enhance performance, improve efficiency, understand reliability and reduce cost.

This work aims to make the transition to ‘net zero’ economically, socially and environmentally affordable.

Towards Net Zero Medicines Development and Manufacturing, CMAC, University of Strathclyde

The Centre for Continuous Manufacturing and Advanced Crystallisation (CMAC) at the University of Strathclyde leads a collaborative, world class research programme to advance the development and manufacture of medicines. This exciting net zero pilot will help transform the existing UKRPIF national facility into a sustainable, digitalised ‘lab of the future’ for medicines manufacturing research, training and translation.

The Sustainable Campus Testbed accelerates progress towards ‘net zero’ at the new home of the Bristol Digital Futures Institute. 

The Aerospace Integration Research Centre (AIRC) building at Cranfield University.

New equipment will reduce or eliminate greenhouse gas emissions from research flying and airside operations at Cranfield University. 

Semiconductor Innovation for Net Zero (SIN_0), Swansea University

Semiconductors enable many aspects of our modern high tech world including computers, smart phones, telecommunications, and the internet. They are also key to advancing the net zero agenda and societal decarbonisation.

Swansea University will soon complete the building of a new industry focused, UKRPIF-funded research facility, the Centre for Integrative Semiconductor Materials (CISM). The focus at CISM will be the creation of ‘over-the-horizon’ semiconductor technologies to support ‘net zero’ such as advanced solar cells and efficient power electronics for electrification of transport.

A Net-Zero Institute for Safe Autonomy, University of York

The University of York’s Institute for Safe Autonomy is a new £45-million initiative supported by UKRPIF funding due for completion in early 2022. The institute provides an interdisciplinary hub for academics from across the university to work with industry, government, and the public to find solutions to the real-world challenges in assuring the safe roll-out of robotic and connected autonomous systems.

The UKRPIF: Net Zero award will enable the deployment of a photovoltaic (PV) array near to the building that, together with an enhanced, sensor driven, building management system, will enable the institute to become energy self-sufficient.

The Centre for Integrative Semiconductor Materials (CISM) will focus on the creation of ‘over-the-horizon’ semiconductor technologies to support ‘net zero’. 

Further information

Read more about our funded projects.

The UKRPIF: round seven funding call is currently underway. For more information visit UKRI’s Funding Finder or contact The UKRPIF Team.

• Partner with Us
• Find Grant Opportunities
• Key dates for AEA

National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy (NCRIS)

• Key Dates for NISDRG
• Request Not to Assess
• Request for a Review of an Assessment
• Appeals process
• Grant Assessment
• NISDRG Grant Announcements & Outcomes
• Announcement under Embargo
• Grant Offer & Grant Agreement Acceptance
• Acknowledgement of Defence
• Acknowledgement of ONI
• Acknowledgement of Education
• Grants Management
• Grant Payments
• Reporting Requirements - NISDRG
• Variation to a Grant Agreement
• Resource Hub
• General Information about RMS
• Access to RMS Portals
• Grant Agreement functionality in RMS
• View Grant Outcomes in RMS

Popular Searches

Below are some popular search terms you may find useful.

GrantConnect

Access to rms arc, access to rms defence, access to rms education, access to rms oni.

Australia is an established global leader in world-class research. The Australian Government helps maintain this reputation by ensuring researchers have access to cutting edge national research infrastructure supported through the NCRIS program.

The ARC, through RGS, has been providing NCRIS with a Software/Platform as a Service for grants administration activities. The Department of Education retains all policy responsibility for the NCRIS program and undertakes all grants administration activities in RMS with business support provided by RGS.

More information about NCRIS can be found on the Department of Education website: National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy (NCRIS)

Contact NCRIS via email at  [email protected] .

An official website of the United States government Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Biden-Harris Administration Opens Applications for More than $5 Billion in Funding for Significant National Infrastructure Projects

Funding made available by President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg announced that the Department of Transportation is now accepting applications for approximately $5.1 billion in funding for projects of regional or national significance for three major discretionary grant programs. The application process has been streamlined into the single Multimodal Project Discretionary Grant Program (MPDG) opportunity.

In the first two years of the infrastructure law, the Biden-Harris Administration has provided nearly $8 billion in grants to communities through the MPDG program to help rebuild the nation’s infrastructure, create good-paying jobs while increasing manufacturing capacity and innovation, and create a clean-energy economy to combat climate change and ensure our communities are resilient—components of the President’s Investing in America agenda.

“Today’s announcement of over $5 billion will fund transformative infrastructure projects that unlock opportunities for communities across the country while creating good-paying jobs and boosting economic competitiveness,” said White House Deputy Chief of Staff Natalie Quillian . “This announcement is part of the President’s Investing in America agenda, which is building a safe, efficient, and reliable transportation system nationwide.”

“Through President Biden's Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, today we are making over $5 billion available for major infrastructure projects that benefit the economy and quality of life of entire regions of America, from our biggest cities to our most rural areas,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg . "This will support major infrastructure projects that so large, complex, and ambitious that they could not get funded under the infrastructure programs that existed prior to this administration."

Available funding includes:

• $1.7 billion for the National Infrastructure Project Assistance (Mega) program: The Mega program invests in large, complex projects that are difficult to fund by other means and are likely to generate national or regional economic, mobility, or safety benefits. Eligible projects include highway, bridge, freight, port, passenger rail, and public transportation projects of national or regional significance. Per the law, 50% of funds are available for projects above $500 million in total cost, and 50% are available for projects between $100 million and $500 million in total cost.   
•  $2.7 billion for the Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) program: The INFRA program awards competitive grants to multimodal freight and highway projects of national or regional significance to improve the safety, accessibility, efficiency, and reliability of the movement of freight and people in and across rural and urban areas.  Eligible projects will improve safety, generate economic benefits, reduce congestion, enhance resiliency, and hold the greatest promise to eliminate supply chain bottlenecks and improve critical freight movements.   
•  $780 million for the Rural Surface Transportation Grant ( Rural) program: While smaller communities receive grants from a wide number of grant programs, including Mega and INFRA, the Rural program is dedicated specifically to projects in rural areas.  Eligible projects for Rural grants include highway, bridge, and tunnel projects that help improve freight, safety, and provide or increase access to agricultural, commercial, energy, or transportation facilities that support the economy of a rural area.

Awards for the last round of grants were announced at the end of 2023 and earlier this year, providing long overdue funding to transformative projects across the country. Key projects announced include replacing the Blatnik Bridge from Duluth, Minnesota, to Superior, Washington; replacing the I-5 Bridge over the Columbia River between Vancouver, Washington, and Portland, Oregon; improving 10 miles of I-10 through the Gila River Indian Community and Pinal County in Arizona; making multimodal improvements in the I-376 corridor of Pittsburgh; and reconnecting communities divided by the Cross Bronx Expressway in New York. The full list of awards announced in the last round can be viewed here: Mega , Infra , Rural . 

As in that round, applications for this round of funding will be evaluated based on how well they advance outcomes including safety, economic impacts, job creation, equity, innovation, and climate goals..

The deadline for applications is 11:59 pm EDT on May 6, 2024. Applicants may find the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO), Frequently Asked Questions, and other helpful resources here .   

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics

• 2022 - 2023
• 2021 - 2022
• 2020 - 2021
• All previous cycle years

The Survey of Federal Funds for Research and Development is an annual census of federal agencies that conduct research and development (R&D) programs and the primary source of information about U.S. federal funding for R&D.

Survey Info

• tag for use when URL is provided --> Methodology
• tag for use when URL is provided --> Data
• tag for use when URL is provided --> Analysis

The Survey of Federal Funds for Research and Development (R&D) is the primary source of information about federal funding for R&D in the United States. The survey is an annual census completed by the federal agencies that conduct R&D programs. Actual data are collected for the fiscal year just completed; estimates are obtained for the current fiscal year.

Areas of Interest

• Government Funding for Science and Engineering
• Research and Development

Survey Administration

Synectics for Management Decisions, Inc. (Synectics) performed the data collection for volume 72 (FYs 2022–23) under contract to the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics.

Survey Details

• Survey Description (PDF 127 KB)
• Data Tables (PDF 4.8 MB)

Featured Survey Analysis

Federal R&D Obligations Increased 0.4% in FY 2022; Estimated to Decline in FY 2023

Survey of Federal Funds for R&D Overview

Methodology, survey description, survey overview (fys 2022–23 survey cycle; volume 72).

The annual Survey of Federal Funds for Research and Development (Federal Funds for R&D) is the primary source of information about federal funding for R&D in the United States. The results of the survey are also used in the federal government’s calculation of U.S. gross domestic product at the national and state level, used for policy analysis, and used for budget purposes for the Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer, the Small Business Innovation Research, and the Small Business Technology Transfer. The survey is sponsored by the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) within the National Science Foundation (NSF).

Data collection authority

The information is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended, and the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010.

Major changes to recent survey cycle

Key survey information, initial survey year, reference period.

FYs 2022–23.

Response unit

Federal agencies.

Sample or census

Population size.

The population consists of the 32 federal agencies that conduct R&D programs, excluding the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Sample size

Not applicable; the survey is a census of all federal agencies that conduct R&D programs, excluding the CIA.

Key variables

Key variables of interest are listed below.

The survey provides data on federal obligations by the following key variables:

• Federal agency
• Field of R&D (formerly field of science and engineering)
• Geographic location (within the United States and by foreign country or economy)
• Performer (type of organization doing the work)
• R&D plant (facilities and major equipment)
• Type of R&D (research, development, test, and evaluation [RDT&E] for Department of Defense [DOD] agencies)
• Basic research
• Applied research
• Development, also known as experimental development

The survey provides data on federal outlays by the following key variables:

• R&D (RDT&E for DOD agencies)

R&D plant

Note that the variables “R&D,” “type of R&D,” and “R&D plant” in this survey use definitions comparable to those used by the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-11 , Section 84 (Schedule C).

Survey Design

Target population.

The population consists of the federal agencies that conduct R&D programs, excluding the CIA. For the FYs 2022–23 cycle, a total of 32 federal agencies (14 federal departments and 18 independent agencies) reported R&D data.

Sampling frame

The survey is a census of all federal agencies that conduct R&D programs, excluding the CIA. The agencies are identified from information in the president’s budget submitted to Congress. The Analytical Perspectives volume and the “Detailed Budget Estimates by Agency” section of the appendix to the president’s budget identify agencies that receive funding for R&D.

Sample design

Not applicable.

Data Collection and Processing

Data collection.

Synectics for Management Decisions, Inc. (Synectics) performed the data collection for volume 72 (FYs 2022–23) under contract to NCSES. Agencies were initially contacted by e-mail to verify the contact information of each agency-level survey respondent. A Web-based data collection system is used for the survey. Multiple subdivisions of some federal departments were permitted to submit information to create a complete accounting of the departments’ R&D funding activities.

Data collection for Federal Funds for R&D began in May 2023 and continued into September 2023.

Data processing

A Web-based data collection system is used to collect and manage data for the survey. This Web-based system was designed to help improve survey reporting and reduce data collection and processing costs by offering respondents direct online reporting and editing.

All data collection efforts, data imports, and trend checking are accomplished using the Web-based data collection system. The Web-based data collection system has a component that allows survey respondents to enter their data online; it also has a component that allows the contractor to monitor support requests, data entry, and data issues.

Estimation techniques

Published totals are created by summing respondent data, there are no survey weights or other adjustments.

Survey Quality Measures

Sampling error, coverage error.

Given the existence of a complete list of all eligible agencies, there is no known coverage error. The CIA is purposely excluded.

Nonresponse error

There is no unit nonresponse. To increase item response, agencies are encouraged to estimate when actual data are unavailable. The survey instrument allows respondents to enter data or skip data fields. There are several possible sources of nonresponse error by respondents, including inadvertently skipping data fields or skipping data fields when data are unavailable.

Measurement error

Some measurement problems are known to exist in the Federal Funds of R&D data. Some agencies cannot report the full costs of R&D, the final performer of R&D, or R&D plant data.

For example, DOD does not include headquarters’ costs of planning and administering R&D programs, which are estimated at a fraction of 1% of its total cost. DOD has stated that identification of amounts at this level is impracticable.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the Department of Health and Human Services currently has many of its awards in its financial system without any field of R&D code. Therefore, NIH uses an alternate source to estimate its research dollars by field of R&D. NIH uses scientific class codes (based upon history of grant, content of the title, and the name of the awarding institute or center) as an approximation for field of R&D.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) does not include any field of R&D codes in its financial database. Consequently, NASA must estimate what percentage of the agency’s research dollars are allocated into the fields of R&D.

Also, agencies are required to report the ultimate performer of R&D. However, through past workshops, NCSES has learned that some agencies do not always track their R&D dollars to the ultimate performer of R&D. This leads to some degree of misclassification of performers of R&D, but NCSES has not determined the extent of the errors in performer misclassification by the reporting agencies.

R&D plant data are underreported to some extent because of the difficulty some agencies, particularly DOD and NASA, encounter in identifying and reporting these data. DOD’s respondents report obligations for R&D plant funded under the agency’s appropriation for construction, but they are able to identify only a small portion of the R&D plant support that is within R&D contracts funded from DOD’s appropriation for RDT&E. Similarly, NASA respondents cannot separately identify the portions of industrial R&D contracts that apply to R&D plant because these data are subsumed in the R&D data covering industrial performance. NASA R&D plant data for other performing sectors are reported separately.

Data Availability and Comparability

Data availability.

Annual data are available for FYs 1951–2023.

Data comparability

Until the release of volume 71 (FYs 2021–22) the information included in this survey had been unchanged since volume 23 (FYs 1973–75), when federal obligations for research to universities and colleges by agency and detailed field of science and engineering were added to the survey. Other variables (such as type of R&D and type of performer) are available from the early 1950s on. The volume 71 survey revisions maintained the four main R&D crosscuts (i.e., type of R&D, field of R&D [previously referred to as field of science and engineering], type of performer, and geographic area) collected previously. However, there were revisions within these crosscuts to ensure consistency with other NCSES surveys. These include revisions to the fields of R&D and the type of performer categories (see Technical Notes, table A-3 for a crosswalk of the fields of science and engineering to the fields of R&D). In addition, new variables were added, such as field of R&D for experimental development (whereas before, the survey participants had only reported fields of R&D [formerly fields of science] for basic research and applied research). Grants and contracts for extramural R&D performers and obligations to University Affiliated Research Centers were also added in volume 71.

Every time new data are released, there may be changes to past years’ data because agencies sometimes update older information or reclassify responses for prior years as additional budget data become available. For trend comparisons, use the historical data from only the most recent publication, which incorporates changes agencies have made in prior year data to reflect program reclassifications or other corrections. Do not use data published earlier.

Data Products

Publications.

NCSES publishes data from this survey annually in tables and analytic reports available at Federal Funds for R&D Survey page and in the Science and Engineering State Profiles .

Electronic access

Access to the data for major data elements are available in NCSES’s interactive data tool at https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/ .

Technical Notes

Survey overview, data collection and processing methods, data comparability (changes), definitions.

Purpose. The annual Survey of Federal Funds for Research and Development (Federal Funds for R&D) is the primary source of information about federal funding for R&D in the United States. The results of the survey are also used in the federal government’s calculation of U.S. gross domestic product at the national and state level, for policy analysis, and for budget purposes for the Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer, the Small Business Innovation Research, and the Small Business Technology Transfer. In addition, as of volume 71, the Survey of Federal Science and Engineering Support to Universities, Colleges, and Nonprofit Institutions (Federal S&E Support Survey) was integrated into this survey as a module, making Federal Funds for R&D the comprehensive data source on federal science and engineering (S&E) funding to individual academic and nonprofit institutions.

Data collection authority.  The information is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended, and the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010.

Survey contractor. Synectics for Management Decisions, Inc. (Synectics).

Survey sponsor. The National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) within the National Science Foundation (NSF).

Frequency . Annual.

Initial survey year . 1951.

Reference period . FYs 2022–23.

Response unit. Federal agencies.

Sample or census. Census.

Population size. For the FYs 2022–23 cycle, a total of 32 federal agencies reported R&D data. (See section “ Survey Design ” for details.)

Sample size. Not applicable; the survey is a census of all federal agencies that conduct R&D programs, excluding the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Target population. The population consists of the federal agencies that conduct R&D programs, excluding the CIA. For the FYs 2022–23 cycle, a total of 32 federal agencies (14 federal departments and 18 independent agencies) reported R&D data.

Sampling f rame. The survey is a census of all federal agencies that conduct R&D programs, excluding the CIA. The agencies are identified from information in the president’s budget submitted to Congress. The Analytical Perspectives volume and the “Detailed Budget Estimates by Agency” section of the appendix to the president’s budget identify agencies that receive funding for R&D.

Sample design. Not applicable.

Data collection. Data for FYs 2022–23 (volume 72) were collected by Synectics under contract to NCSES (for a full list of fiscal years canvassed by survey volume reference, see Table A-4 ). Data collection began with an e-mail to each agency to verify the name, phone number, and e-mail address of each agency-level survey respondent. A Web-based data collection system is used for the survey. Because multiple subdivisions of some federal departments completed the survey, there were 72 agency-level respondents: 6 federal departments that reported for themselves, 48 agencies within another 8 federal departments, and 18 independent agencies. However, lower offices could also be authorized to enter data: in Federal Funds for R&D nomenclature, agency-level offices could authorize program offices, program offices could authorize field offices, and field offices could authorize branch offices. When these suboffices are included, there were 725 total respondents: 72 agencies, 95 program offices, 178 field offices, and 380 branch offices.

Since volume 66, each survey cycle collects information for 2 federal government fiscal years: the fiscal year just completed (FY 2022—i.e., 1 October 2021 through 30 September 2022) and the current fiscal year during the start of the survey collection period (i.e., FY 2023). FY 2022 data are completed transactions. FY 2023 data are estimates of congressional appropriation actions and apportionment and reprogramming decisions.

Data collection began on 10 May 2023, and the requested due date for data submissions was 5 August 2023. Data collection was extended until all surveyed agencies provided complete and final survey data in September 2023.

Mode. Federal Funds for R&D uses a Web-based data collection system. The Web-based system consists of a data collection component that allows survey respondents to enter their data online and a monitoring component that allows the data collection contractor to monitor support requests, data entry, and data issues. The Web-based system’s two components are password protected so that only authorized respondents and staff can access them. However, some agencies submit their data in alternative formats such as Excel files, which are later imported into the Web-based system. All edit and trend checks are accomplished through the Web-based system. Final submission occurs through the Web-based system after all edit failures and trend checks have been resolved.

Response rate. The unit response rate is 100%.

Data checking . Data errors in Federal Funds for R&D are flagged automatically by the Web-based data collection system: respondents cannot submit their final data to NCSES until all required fields have been completed without errors. Once data are submitted, specially written SAS programs are run to check each agency’s submission to identify possible discrepancies, to ensure data from all suboffices are included correctly, and to check that there were no inadvertent shifts in reporting from one year to the next. As always, respondents are contacted to resolve potential reporting errors that cannot be reconciled by the narratives. Explanations of questionable data are noted by the survey respondents for NCSES review.

Imputation . None.

Weighting. None.

Variance estimation. Not applicable.

Sampling error. Not applicable.

Coverage error. Given the existence of a complete list of all eligible agencies, there is no known coverage error. The CIA is purposely excluded.

Nonresponse error. There is no unit nonresponse. To increase item response, agencies are encouraged to estimate when actual data are unavailable. The survey instrument allows respondents to enter data or skip data fields; however, blank fields are not accepted for survey submission, and respondents must either populate the fields with data or with $0 if the question is not applicable. There are several possible sources of nonresponse error by respondents, including inadvertently skipping data fields, skipping data fields when data are unavailable, or entering $0 when specific data are unavailable.

Measurement error . Some measurement problems are known to exist in the Federal Funds of R&D data. Some agencies cannot report the full costs of R&D, the final performer of R&D, or R&D plant data.

For example, the Department of Defense (DOD) does not include headquarters’ costs of planning and administering R&D programs, which are estimated at a fraction of 1% of its total cost. DOD has stated that identification of amounts at this level is impracticable.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) currently has many of its awards in its financial system without any field of R&D code. Therefore, NIH uses an alternate source to estimate its research dollars by field of R&D. NIH uses scientific class codes (based upon history of grant, content of the title, and the name of the awarding institute or center) as an approximation for field of R&D.

Agencies are asked to report the ultimate performer of R&D. However, through past workshops, NCSES has learned that some agencies do not always track their R&D dollars to the ultimate performer of R&D. In the case of transfers to other federal agencies, the originating agency often does not have information on the final disposition of funding made by the receiving agency. Therefore, intragovernmental transfers, which are classified as federal intramural funding, may have some degree of extramural performance. This leads to some degree of misclassification of performers of R&D, but NCSES has not determined the extent of the errors in performer misclassification by the reporting agencies.

Differences in agency and NCSES classification of some performers will also lead to some degree of measurement error. For example, although many university research foundations are legally organized as nonprofit organizations and may be classified as such within a reporting agency’s own system of record, NCSES classifies these as component units of higher education. These classification differences may contribute to differences in findings by the Federal Funds for R&D and the Federal S&E Support Survey in federal agency obligations to both higher education and nonprofit institutions.

R&D plant data are underreported to some extent because of the difficulty some agencies, particularly DOD and NASA, encounter in identifying and reporting these data. DOD’s respondents report obligations for R&D plant that are funded under the agency’s appropriation for construction, but they are able to identify only a small portion of the R&D plant support that is within R&D contracts funded from DOD’s appropriation for research, development, testing, and evaluation (RDT&E). Similarly, NASA respondents cannot separately identify the portions of industrial R&D contracts that apply to R&D plant because these data are subsumed in the R&D data covering industrial performance. NASA R&D plant data for other performing sectors are reported separately.

Data revisions. When completing the current year’s survey, agencies naturally revise their estimates for the last year of the previous report—in this case, FY 2022. Sometimes, survey submissions also reflect reappraisals and revisions in classification of various aspects of agencies’ R&D programs; in those instances, NCSES requests that agencies provide revised prior year data to maintain consistency and comparability with the most recent R&D concepts.

For trend comparisons, use the historical data from only the most recent publication, which incorporates changes agencies have made in prior year data to reflect program reclassifications or other corrections. Do not use data published earlier.

Changes in survey coverage and population. This cycle (volume 72, FYs 2022–23), one department, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), became the agency respondent instead of continuing to delegate that role to its bureaus; one agency was added as a respondent—the Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Natural Resources Conservation Service; one agency, the Department of Transportation’s Maritime Administration, resumed reporting; and two agencies, the Department of Treasury’s Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the independent agency the Federal Communications Commission, ceased to report.

Changes in questionnaire .

• No changes were made to the questionnaire for volume 72.
• The survey was redesigned for volume 71 (FYs 2021–22). The Federal S&E Support Survey was integrated as the final two questions in the Federal Funds for R&D questionnaire. (NCSES will continue to publish these data separately at https://ncses.nsf.gov/surveys/federal-support-survey/ .)
• Four other new questions were added to the standard and DOD versions of the questionnaire; the questions covered, for the fiscal year just completed (FY 2021), R&D deobligations (Standard and DOD Question 4), nonfederal R&D obligations by type of agreement (Standard Question 10 and DOD Question 11), R&D obligations provided to other federal agencies (Standard Question 11 and DOD Question 12), and R&D and R&D plant obligations to university affiliated research centers (Standard Question 17 and DOD Question 19). One new question added solely to the DOD questionnaire (DOD Question 6) was about obligations for Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer for the fiscal year just completed and the current fiscal year at the time of collection (i.e., FYs 2021 and 2022). Many of the other survey questions were reorganized and revised.
• For volume 71, some changes were made within the questions for consistency with other NCSES surveys. Among the performer categories, federally funded R&D centers (FFRDCs), which in previous volumes were included among the extramural performers, became one of the intramural performers. Other changes include retitling of certain performer categories, where “industry” was changed to “businesses” and “universities and colleges” was changed to “higher education.”
• For volume 71, “field of R&D” was used instead of the former “field of science and engineering.” The survey started collecting field of R&D information for experimental development obligations; previously, field of R&D information was collected only for research obligations.
• For volume 71, federal obligations for research performed at higher education institutions, by detailed field of R&D was asked of all agencies. Previously these data had only been collected from the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, HHS, and Homeland Security; NASA; and NSF. 
• For volume 71, geographic distribution of R&D obligations was asked of all agencies. Previously, these data had only been collected from the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, HHS, Homeland Security; NASA; and NSF. Agencies are asked to provide the principal location (state or outlying area) of the work performed by the primary contractor, grantee, or intramural organization; assign the obligations to the location of the headquarters of the U.S. primary contractor, grantee, or intramural organization; or, for DOD agencies, list the funds as undistributed for classified funds.
• For volume 71, collection of data on funding type (stimulus and non-stimulus) was limited to Question 5 on type of R&D.
• For volume 71, grants and contracts for extramural R&D performers and obligations to University Affiliated Research Centers were added.
• For volume 70 (FYs 2020–21), agencies were requested to report COVID-19 pandemic-related R&D from the agency’s initial appropriations, as well as from any stimulus funds received from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, plus any other pandemic-related supplemental appropriations. Two tables in the questionnaire were modified to collect the stimulus and non-stimulus amounts separately (tables 1 and 2), and seven tables in the questionnaire (tables 6.1, 6.2, 7.1, 11.1, 11.2, 12.1, and 13.1) were added for respondents to specify stimulus and non-stimulus funding by various categories. The data on stimulus funding is reported in volume 70’s data table 132. The Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority accounted for 66% of all COVID-19 R&D in FY 2020; these obligations primarily include transfers to the other agencies to help facilitate execution of contractual awards under Operation Warp Speed.
• For volume 70 (FYs 2020–21), the optional narrative tables that ask for comparisons of the R&D obligations reported in Federal Funds for R&D with corresponding amounts in the Federal S&E Support Survey (standard questionnaire only) were renumbered from tables 6B and 6C to tables 6A and 6B.
• In volumes 68 (FYs 2018–19) and 69 (FYs 2019–20), table 6A, which collected information on federal intramural R&D obligations, was deactivated, and agencies were instructed not to complete it.
• For volumes 66 (FYs 2016–17) and 67 (FYs 2017–18), table 6A (formerly table VI.A) was included, but it was modified so that it no longer collected laboratory names.
• Starting with volume 66 (FYs 2016–17), the survey collects 2 federal government fiscal years—actual data for the fiscal year just completed and estimates for the current fiscal year. Previously, the survey also collected projected obligations for the next fiscal year based on the president’s budget request to Congress. For volume 66, data were collected for only 2 fiscal years due to the delayed FY 2018 budget formulation process. However, after consultation with data users, NCSES determined that the projections were not as useful as the budget authority data presented in the budget request.
• In volume 66, the survey table numbering was changed from Roman numerals I–XI and, for selected agencies, the letters A–E, to Arabic numerals 1–16. The order of tables remained the same.
• In the volume 66 DOD-version of the questionnaire, the definition of major systems development was changed to represent DOD Budget Activities 4 through 6 instead of Budget Activities 4 through 7, and questions relating to funding for Operational Systems Development (Budget Activity 7) were added to the instrument. The survey’s narrative tables 6 and 11 were removed from the DOD-version of the questionnaire.
• For volume 65 (FYs 2015–17), the survey reintroduced table VI.A to collect information on federal intramural R&D obligations, including the names and addresses of all federal laboratories that received federal intramural R&D obligations. The table was included in both the standard and DOD questionnaires.
• For volume 62 (FYs 2012–14), the survey added table VI.A to the standard questionnaire for that volume only to collect information on FY 2012 federal intramural R&D obligations, including the names and addresses of all federal laboratories that received federal intramural R&D obligations.
• In volumes 59 (FYs 2009–11) and 60 (FYs 2010–12), questions relating to funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) were added to the data collection instruments. The survey collected separate outlays and obligations for ARRA and non-ARRA sources of funding, by performer and geography for FYs 2009 and 2010.
• Starting with volume 59 (FYs 2009–11), federal funding data were requested in actual dollars (instead of rounded in thousands, as was done through volume 58).

Changes in reporting procedures or classification.

• FY 2022. During the volume 72 cycle (FYs 2022–23), NASA revised its FY 2021 data by field of R&D and performer categories based on improved classification procedures developed during the volume 72 reporting period.
• FY 2021. During the volume 71 cycle (FYs 2021–22), NCSES decided to remove “U.S.” from names like “U.S. Space Force” to conform with other surveys. For Federal Funds for R&D, this change will first appear in the detailed statistical tables.
• FY 2020. For volume 70 (FYs 2020 and 2021), data include obligations from supplemental COVID-19 pandemic-related appropriations (e.g., CARES Act) plus any other pandemic-related supplemental appropriations.
• FY 2020. The Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Naval Reactor Program reclassified some of its R&D obligations from industry-administered FFRDCs to the industry sector.
• FY 2020. The Department of the Air Force (AF) and the DOE’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) partially revised their FY 2019 data. AF revised its operational system development classified program numbers for businesses excluding business or industry-administered FFRDCs, and EERE revised its outlay numbers.
• FY 2019. For volume 69 (FYs 2019–20), FY 2020 preliminary data do not include obligations from supplemental COVID-19 pandemic-related appropriations (e.g., CARES Act).
• FY 2019. The Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority began reporting. For volume 69 (FYs 2019–20), it could not submit any geographical data, so its data were reported as undistributed on the state tables.
• FY 2019. The U.S. Agency for Global Media (formerly the Broadcasting Board of Governors), which did not report data between FY 2008 and FY 2018, resumed reporting.
• FY 2018. The HHS Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) funding was reported by the CMS Office of Financial Management at an agency-wide level instead of by the CMS Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation and its R&D group, the Office of Research, Development, and Information, which used to report at a component level.
• FY 2018. The Department of State added the Global Health Programs R&D funding.
• FY 2018. The Department of Veterans Affairs added funds for the Medical Services support to the existing R&D funding to fully report the total cost of intramural R&D. Although the Medical Services do not directly fund specific R&D activities, they host intramural research programs that were not previously reported.
• FY 2018. DHS’s Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction (CWMD) Office was established on 7 December 2017. CWMD consolidated primarily the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) and a majority of the Office of Health Affairs, as well as other DHS elements. Prior to FY 2018, data reported for the CWMD would have been under the DNDO.
• FY 2018. DOE revised its FYs 2016 and 2017 data after discovering its Office of Fossil Energy reported “in thousands” instead of actual dollars for volumes 66 (FYs 2016–17) and 67 (FYs 2017–18).
• FY 2018. USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) partially revised its FYs 2009 and 2010 data during the volume 61 (FYs 2011–13) cycle. NCSES discovered a discrepancy that was corrected during the volume 68 cycle, completing the revision.
• FY 2018. DHS’s Transportation Security Administration, which did not report data between FY 2010 and FY 2017, resumed reporting for volume 68 (FYs 2018–19).
• FY 2018. DHS’s U.S. Secret Service, which did not report data between FY 2009 and FY 2017, resumed reporting for volume 68 (FYs 2018–19).
• FY 2018. NCSES discovered that in some past volumes, the obligations reported for basic research in certain foreign countries were greater than the corresponding obligations reported for R&D; the following data were corrected as a result: DOD and Chemical and Biological Defense FY 2003 data, defense agencies and activities FY 2003 and FY 2011 data, AF FY 2009 data, and Department of the Navy FY 2005, FY 2011, and FY 2013 data; DOE and Office of Science FY 2009 data; HHS and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) FY 2008 and FY 2017 data; and NSF FY 2001 data. NCSES also discovered that some obligations reported for academic performers were greater than the corresponding obligations reported for total performers, and DOD and AF FY 2009 data, DOE and Fossil Energy FY 1999 data, and NASA FY 2008 data were corrected. Finally, NCSES discovered a problem with FY 2017 HHS CDC personnel costs data, which were then also corrected.
• FY 2017. The Department of the Treasury’s IRS performed a detailed evaluation and assessment of its programs and determined that none of its functions can be defined as R&D activity as defined in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-11. The review included discussions with program owners and relevant contractors who perform work on behalf of the IRS. The IRS also provided a negative response to the OMB data call on R&D under Circular A-11 for the same reference period (FYs 2017–18). Despite no longer having any R&D obligations, the IRS still sponsors an FFRDC, the Center for Enterprise Modernization.
• FY 2017. NASA estimated that the revised OMB definition for "experimental development" reduced its reported R&D total by about $2.7 billion in FY 2017 and $2.9 billion in FY 2018 from what would have been reported under the previous definition prior to volume 66 (FYs 2016–17).
• FY 2017. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund (PCORTF) was established by Congress through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, signed by the president on 23 March 2010. PCORTF began reporting for volume 67 (FYs 2017–18), but it also submitted data for FYs 2011–16.
• FY 2017. The Tennessee Valley Authority, which did not report data between FY 1999 and FY 2016, resumed reporting for volume 67 (FYs 2017–18).
• FY 2017. The U.S. Postal Service, which did not report data between FY 1999 and FY 2016, resumed reporting for volume 67 (FYs 2017–18) and submitted data for FYs 2015–16.
• FY 2017. During the volume 67 (FYs 2017–18) data collection, DHS’s Science and Technology Directorate revised its FY 2016 data.
• FY 2016. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts began reporting as of volume 66 (FYs 2016–17).
• Beginning with FY 2016, the totals reported for development obligations and outlays represent a refinement to this category by more narrowly defining it to be “experimental development.” Most notably, totals for development do not include the DOD Budget Activity 7 (Operational System Development) obligations and outlays. Those funds, previously included in DOD’s development totals, support the development efforts to upgrade systems that have been fielded or have received approval for full rate production and anticipate production funding in the current or subsequent fiscal year. Therefore, the data are not directly comparable with totals reported in previous years.
• Prior to the volume 66 launch, the definitions of basic research, applied research, experimental development, R&D, and R&D plant were revised to match the definitions used by OMB in the July 2016 version of Circular A-11, Section 84 (Schedule C).
• FYs 2016–17. Before the volume 66 survey cycle, NSF updated the list of foreign performers in Federal Funds R&D to match the list of countries and territories in the Department of State’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research fact sheet of Independent States in the World and fact sheet of Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty. Country lists in volume 66 data tables and later may differ from those in previous reports.
• FY 2015. The HHS Administration for Community Living (ACL) began reporting in FY 2015, replacing the Administration on Aging, which was transferred to ACL when ACL was established on 18 April 2012. Several programs that serve older adults and people with disabilities were transferred from other agencies to ACL, including a number of programs from the Department of Education due to the 2014 Workforce Innovation and Opportunities Act.
• FY 2015. The Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which did not report data between FY 1999 and FY 2014, resumed reporting.
• In January 2014, all Research and Innovative Technology Administration programs were transferred into the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology in the Office of the Secretary of Transportation.
• FY 2014. DHS’s Domestic Nuclear Detection Office began reporting for FY 2014.
• FY 2014. The Department of State data for FY 2014 were excluded due to their poor quality.
• FY 2013. NASA revamped its reporting process so that the data for FY 2012 forward are not directly comparable with totals reported in previous years.
• FY 2012. NASA began reporting International Space Station (ISS) obligations as research rather than R&D plant.
• Starting with volume 62 (FYs 2012–14), an “undistributed” category was added to the geographic location tables for DOD obligations for which the location of performance is not reported. It includes DOD obligations for industry R&D that were included in individual state totals prior to FY 2012 and DOD obligations for other performers that were not reported prior to FY 2011. This change was applied retroactively to FY 2011 data.
• Starting with volume 61 (FYs 2011–13), DOD subagencies other than the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency were reported as an aggregate total under other defense agencies to enable complete reporting of DOD R&D (both unclassified and classified). Consequently, DOD began reporting additional classified R&D not previously reported by its subagencies.
• FY 2011. USDA’s ERS partially revised its data for FYs 2009 and 2010 during the volume 61 (FYs 2011–13) cycle.
• FY 2010. NASA resumed reporting ISS obligations as R&D plant.
• FYs 2000–09. Beginning in FY 2000, AF did not report Budget Activity 6.7 Operational Systems Development data because the agency misunderstood the reporting requirements. During the volume 57 data collection cycle, AF edited prior year data for FYs 2000–07 to include Budget Activity 6.7 Operational Systems Development data. These data revisions were derived from FY 2007 distribution percentages that were then applied backward to revise data for FYs 2000–06.
• FYs 2006–07. NASA’s R&D obligations decreased by $1 billion. Of this amount, $850 million was accounted for by obligations for operational projects that NASA excluded in FY 2007 but reported in FY 2006. The remainder was from an overall decrease in obligations between FYs 2006 and 2007.
• FY 2006. NASA reclassified funding for the following items as operational costs: Space Operations, the Hubble Space Telescope, the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy, and the James Webb Space Telescope. This funding was previously reported as R&D plant.
• FYs 2005–07. Before the volume 55 survey cycle, NSF updated the list of foreign performers in Federal Funds R&D to match the list of countries and territories in the Department of State’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research fact sheet of Independent States in the World and fact sheet of Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty. Area and country lists in volume 55 data tables and later may differ from those in previous reports.
• FYs 2004–06. NASA implemented a full-cost budget approach, which includes all of the direct and indirect costs for procurement, personnel, travel, and other infrastructure-related expenses relative to a particular program and project. NASA’s data for FY 2004 and later years may not be directly comparable with its data for FY 2003 and earlier years.
• FY 2004. NIH revised its financial database; beginning with FY 2004, NIH records no longer contain information on the field of S&E. Data for FY 2004 and later years are not directly comparable with data for FY 2003 and earlier years.
• Data for FYs 2003–06 from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) are estimates based on SAMHSA's obligations by program activity budget and previously reported funding for development.
• FY 2003. SAMHSA reclassified some of its funding categories as non-R&D that had been considered to be R&D in prior years.
• On 25 November 2002, the president signed the Homeland Security Act of 2002, establishing DHS. DHS includes the R&D activities previously reported by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Science and Technology Directorate, the Transportation Security Administration, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the U.S. Secret Service.
• FY 2000. NASA reclassified the ISS as a physical asset, reclassified ISS Research as equipment, and transferred funding for the program from R&D to R&D plant.
• FY 2000. NIH reclassified as research the activities that it had previously classified as development. NIH data for FY 2000 forward reflect this change. For more information on the classification changes at NASA and NIH, refer to Classification Revisions Reduce Reported Federal Development Obligations (InfoBrief NSF 02-309), February 2002, available at https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf02309 .
• FYs 1996–98. The lines on the survey instrument for the special foreign currency program and for detailed field of S&E were eliminated beginning with the volume 46 survey cycle. Two tables depicting data on foreign performers by region, country, and agency that were removed before publication of volume 43 were reinstated with volume 46.
• FYs 1994–96. During the volume 44 survey cycle, the Director for Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E) at DOD requested that NSF further clarify the true character of DOD’s R&D program, particularly as it compares with other federal agencies, by adding more detail to development obligations reported by DOD respondents. Specifically, DOD requested that NSF allow DOD agencies to report development obligations in two separate categories: advanced technology development and major systems development. An excerpt from a letter written by Robert V. Tuohy, Chief, Program Analysis and Integration at DDR&E, to John E. Jankowski, Program Director, Research and Development Statistics Program, Division of Science Resources Statistics, NSF, explains the reasoning behind the DDR&E request: “The DOD’s R&D program is divided into two major pieces, Science and Technology (S&T) and Major Systems Development. The other federal agencies’ entire R&D programs are equivalent in nature to DOD’s S&T program, with the exception of the Department of Energy and possibly NASA. Comparing those other agency programs to DOD’s program, including the development of weapons systems such as F-22 Fighter and the New Attack Submarine, is misleading.”
• FYs 1990–92. Since volume 40, DOD has reported research obligations and development obligations separately. Tables reporting obligations for research, by state and performer, and obligations for development, by state and performer, were specifically created for DOD. Circumstances specific to DOD are (1) DOD funds the preponderance of federal development and (2) DOD development funded at institutions of higher education is typically performed at university-affiliated nonacademic laboratories, which are separate from universities’ academic departments, where university research is typically performed.

Agency and subdivision. An agency is an organization of the federal government whose principal executive officer reports to the president. The Library of Congress and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts are also included in the survey, even though the chief officer of the Library of Congress reports to Congress and the U.S. Courts are part of the judicial branch. Subdivision refers to any organizational unit of a reporting agency, such as a bureau, division, office, or service.

Development . See R&D and R&D plant.

Fields of R&D (formerly fields of science and engineering ) . A list of the 41 fields of R&D reported on can be found on the survey questionnaire. In the data tables, the fields are grouped into 9 major areas: computer and information sciences; geosciences, atmospheric sciences, and ocean sciences; life sciences; mathematics and statistics; physical sciences; psychology; social sciences; engineering; and other fields. Table A-3 provides a crosswalk of the fields of science and engineering used in volume 70 and earlier surveys to the revised fields of R&D collected under volume 71.

Federal obligations for research performed at higher education institutions , by detailed field of R&D . As of volume 71, all respondents were required to report these obligations. Previously, this information was reported by seven agencies (the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security; NASA; and NSF).

Geographic distribution of R&D obligations. As of volume 71, all respondents were required to respond to this portion of the survey. Previously, the 11 largest R&D funding agencies responded to this portion (the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, the Interior, and Transportation; the Environmental Protection Agency; NASA; and NSF). Respondents are asked to provide the principal location (state or outlying area) of the work performed by the primary contractor, grantee, or intramural organization, assign the obligations to the location of the headquarters of the U.S. primary contractor, grantee, or intramural organization, or list the funds as undistributed.

Obligations and outlays. Obligations represent the amounts for orders placed, contracts awarded, services received, and similar transactions during a given period, regardless of when funds were appropriated and when future payment of money is required. Outlays represent the amounts for checks issued and cash payments made during a given period, regardless of when funds were appropriated.

Performer. A group or organization carrying out an operational function or an extramural organization or a person receiving support or providing services under a contract or grant.

• Intramural performers are agencies of the federal government, including federal employees who work on R&D both onsite and offsite and, as of volume 71, FFRDCs.
• Federal. The work of agencies of the federal government is carried out directly by agency personnel. Obligations reported under this category are for activities performed or to be performed by the reporting agency itself or are for funds that the agency transfers to another federal agency for performance of R&D (intragovernmental transfers). Although the receiving agency may obligate these funds to extramural performers (businesses, universities and colleges, other nonprofit institutions, FFRDCs, nonfederal government, and foreign) they are reported as part of the federal sector by the originating agency. Federal activities cover not only actual intramural R&D performance but also the costs associated with administration of intramural R&D programs and extramural R&D procurements by federal personnel. Intramural activities also include the costs of supplies and off-the-shelf equipment (equipment that has gone beyond the development or prototype stage) procured for use in intramural R&D. For example, an operational launch vehicle purchased from an extramural source by NASA and used for intramural performance of R&D is reported as a part of the cost of intramural R&D.
• Federally funded research and development centers (FFRDCs) —R&D-performing organizations that are exclusively or substantially financed by the federal government and are supported by the federal government either to meet a particular R&D objective or in some instances to provide major facilities at universities for research and associated training purposes. Each center is administered by an industrial firm, a university, or another nonprofit institution (see https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/ffrdclist/ for the Master Government List of FFRDCs maintained by NSF).
• Extramural performers are organizations outside the federal sector that perform R&D with federal funds under contract, grant, or cooperative agreement. Only costs associated with actual R&D performance are reported. Types of extramural performers:
• Businesses (previously “ Industry or i ndustr ial firms ”) —Organizations that may legally distribute net earnings to individuals or to other organizations.
• Higher education institutions (previously “ Universities and colleges ”) —Institutions of higher education in the United States that engage primarily in providing resident or accredited instruction for a not less than a 2-year program above the secondary school level that is acceptable for full credit toward a bachelor’s degree or that provide not less than a 1-year program of training above the secondary school level that prepares students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation. Included are colleges of liberal arts; schools of arts and sciences; professional schools, as in engineering and medicine, including affiliated hospitals and associated research institutes; and agricultural experiment stations. Other examples of universities and colleges include community colleges, 4-year colleges, universities, and freestanding professional schools (medical schools, law schools, etc.).
• Other nonprofit institutions —Private organizations other than educational institutions whose net earnings do not benefit either private stockholders or individuals and other private organizations organized for the exclusive purpose of turning over their entire net earnings to such nonprofit organizations. Examples of nonprofit institutions include foundations, trade associations, charities, and research organizations.
• State and local governments —State and local government agencies, excluding state or local universities and colleges, agricultural experiment stations, medical schools, and affiliated hospitals. (Federal R&D funds obligated directly to such state and local institutions are excluded in this category. However, they are included under the universities and colleges category in this report.) R&D activities under the state and local governments category are performed either by the state or local agencies themselves or by other organizations under grants or contracts from such agencies. Regardless of the ultimate performer, federal R&D funds directed to state and local governments are reported only under this sector.
• Non-U.S. performers (previously “Foreign performers”) —Other nations’ citizens, organizations, universities and colleges, governments, as well as international organizations located outside the United States, that perform R&D. In most cases, foreigners performing R&D in the United States are not reported here. Excluded from this category are U.S. agencies, U.S. organizations, or U.S. citizens performing R&D abroad for the federal government. Examples of foreign performers include the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, and the World Health Organization. An exception in the past was made in the case of U.S. citizens performing R&D abroad under special foreign-currency funds; these activities were included under the foreign performers category but have not been collected since the mid-1990s.
• Private individuals —When an R&D grant or contract is awarded directly to a private individual, obligations incurred are placed under the category businesses.

R &D and R&D plant. Amounts for R&D and R&D plant include all direct, incidental, or related costs resulting from, or necessary to, performance of R&D and costs of R&D plant as defined below, regardless of whether R&D is performed by a federal agency (intramurally) or by private individuals and organizations under grant or contract (extramurally). R&D excludes routine product testing, quality control, mapping and surveys, collection of general-purpose statistics, experimental production, and the training of scientific personnel.

• Research is defined as systematic study directed toward fuller scientific knowledge or understanding of the subject studied. Research is classified as either basic or applied, according to the objectives of the sponsoring agency.
• Basic research is defined as experimental or theoretical work undertaken primarily to acquire new knowledge of the underlying foundations of phenomena and observable facts. Basic research may include activities with broad or general applications in mind, such as the study of how plant genomes change, but should exclude research directed toward a specific application or requirement, such as the optimization of the genome of a specific crop species.
• Applied research is defined as original investigation undertaken in order to acquire new knowledge. Applied research is, however, directed primarily toward a specific practical aim or objective.
• Development , also known as experimental development, is defined as creative and systematic work, drawing on knowledge gained from research and practical experience, which is directed at producing new products or processes or improving existing products or processes. Like research, experimental development will result in gaining additional knowledge.

For reporting experimental development activities, the following are included:

The production of materials, devices, and systems or methods, including the design, construction, and testing of experimental prototypes.

Technology demonstrations, in cases where a system or component is being demonstrated at scale for the first time, and it is realistic to expect additional refinements to the design (feedback R&D) following the demonstration. However, not all activities that are identified as “technology demonstrations” are R&D.

However, experimental development excludes the following:

User demonstrations where the cost and benefits of a system are being validated for a specific use case. This includes low-rate initial production activities.

Pre-production development, which is defined as non-experimental work on a product or system before it goes into full production, including activities such as tooling and development of production facilities.

To better differentiate between the part of the federal R&D budget that supports science and key enabling technologies (including technologies for military and nondefense applications) and the part that primarily supports testing and evaluation (mostly of defense-related systems), NSF collects development dollars from DOD in two categories: advanced technology development and major systems development.

DOD uses RDT&E Budget Activities 1–7 to classify data into the survey categories. Within DOD’s research categories, basic research is classified as Budget Activity 1, and applied research is classified as Budget Activity 2. Within DOD’s development categories, advanced technology development is classified as Budget Activity 3. Starting in volume 66, major systems development is classified as Budget Activities 4–6 instead of Budget Activities 4–7 and includes advanced component development and prototypes, system development and demonstration, and RDT&E management support; data on Budget Activity 7, operational systems development, is collected separately. (Note: As a historical artifact from previous DOD budget authority terminology, funds for Budget Activity categories 1 through 7 are sometimes referred to as 6.1 through 6.7 monies.)

• Demonstration includes amounts for activities that are part of R&D (i.e., that are intended to prove or to test whether a technology or method does in fact work). Demonstrations intended primarily to make information available about new technologies or methods are excluded.
• R&D plant is defined as spending on both R&D facilities and major equipment as defined in OMB Circular A-11 Section 84 (Schedule C) and includes physical assets, such as land, structures, equipment, and intellectual property (e.g., software or applications) that have an estimated useful life of 2 years or more. Reporting for R&D plant includes the purchase, construction, manufacture, rehabilitation, or major improvement of physical assets regardless of whether the assets are owned or operated by the federal government, states, municipalities, or private individuals. The cost of the asset includes both its purchase price and all other costs incurred to bring it to a form and location suitable for use.
• For reporting construction of R&D facilities and major moveable R&D equipment, include the following:

Construction of facilities that are necessary for the execution of an R&D program. This may include land, major fixed equipment, and supporting infrastructure such as a sewer line, or housing at a remote location. Many laboratory buildings will include a mixture of R&D facilities and office space. The fraction of the building that is considered to be used for R&D may be calculated based on the percentage of square footage that is used for R&D.

Acquisition, design, or production of major movable equipment, such as mass spectrometers, research vessels, DNA sequencers, and other movable major instrumentation for use in R&D activities.

Programs of $1 million or more that are devoted to the purchase or construction of R&D major equipment.

Exclude the following:

Construction of other non-R&D facilities.

Minor equipment purchases, such as personal computers, standard microscopes, and simple spectrometers (report these costs under total R&D, not R&D Plant).

Obligations for foreign R&D plant are limited to federal funds for facilities that are located abroad and used in support of foreign R&D.

Technical Tables

Questionnaires, view archived questionnaires, key data tables.

Recommended data tables

Research, development, and R&D plant

Research and experimental development, research obligations, geographic distribution of obligations, data tables, research, development, test, and evaluation (rdt&e), intramural obligations for research and experimental development and r&d plant, basic research obligations, applied research obligations, experimental development obligations, obligations to university affiliated research centers: fy 2022, research obligations to higher education performers, basic research obligations to higher education performers, applied research obligations to higher education performers, experimental development obligations to higher education performers, foreign performer obligations, by region, country or economy, and agency, geographic distribution of department of defense rdt&e obligations, outlays, by agency, obligations, by agency, obligations, by performer: fys 1967–2023, obligations, by detailed field of science and engineering, obligations, by state or location, general notes.

These tables present the results of volume 72 (FYs 2022–23) of the Survey of Federal Funds for Research and Development. This annual census, completed by the federal agencies that conduct research and development (R&D) programs, is the primary source of information about federal funding for R&D in the United States. Actual data are collected for the fiscal year just completed; estimates are obtained for the current fiscal year.

Acknowledgments and Suggested Citation

Acknowledgments, suggested citation.

Christopher V. Pece of the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) developed and coordinated this report under the guidance of Amber Levanon Seligson, NCSES Program Director, and the leadership of Emilda B. Rivers, NCSES Director; Christina Freyman NCSES Deputy Director; and John Finamore, NCSES Chief Statistician. Gary Anderson and Jock Black (NCSES) reviewed the report.

Under contract to NCSES, Synectics for Management Decisions, Inc. conducted the survey and prepared the statistics for this report. Synectics staff members who made significant contributions include LaVonda Scott, Elizabeth Walter, Suresh Kaja, Peter Ahn, and John Millen.

NCSES thanks the federal agency staff that provided information for this report.

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES). 2024. Federal Funds for Research and Development: Fiscal Years 202 2 –2 3 . NSF 24-321. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation. Available at  https://ncses.nsf.gov/surveys/federal-funds-research-development/2022-2023#data

Featured Analysis

Definitions of research and development, related content, related collections, survey contact.

For additional information about this survey or the methodology, contact

Get e-mail updates from NCSES

NCSES is an official statistical agency. Subscribe below to receive our latest news and announcements.

President Biden’s Investing in America Agenda Provides the Single Largest Industrial Decarbonization Investment in the Nation’s History, Driving $20+ Billion in Total Investment to Revitalize Manufacturing Communities and Create and Maintain Good-Paying Jobs 

WASHINGTON, D.C. — As part of President Biden’s Investing in America agenda , the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today announced up to $6 billion for 33 projects across more than 20 states to decarbonize energy-intensive industries, reduce industrial greenhouse gas emissions, support good-paying union jobs, revitalize industrial communities, and strengthen the nation’s manufacturing competitiveness. Funded by the President’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act, the projects will create and maintain tens of thousands of high-quality jobs and help accelerate the commercial-scale demonstration of emerging industrial decarbonization technologies crucial to meeting the Biden-Harris administration's climate and domestic manufacturing goals.  

The projects will focus on the highest emitting industries where decarbonization technologies will have the greatest impact, including aluminum and other metals, cement and concrete, chemicals and refining, iron and steel, and more. Together, the projects are expected to reduce the equivalent of more than 14 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions each year—an amount equivalent to the annual emissions of 3 million gasoline-powered cars. Many of the projects will deploy first-in-the-nation emissions-reducing technologies that have the potential for sector-wide adoption and transformation, multiplying the magnitude of the emissions cuts and supporting the future of U.S. manufacturing. Today’s announcement is the largest investment in industrial decarbonization in American history, helping to position American manufacturers and workers to lead the global clean energy economy.  

“Spurring on the next generation of decarbonization technologies in key industries like steel, paper, concrete, and glass will keep America the most competitive nation on Earth,” said U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer M. Granholm. “Thanks to President Biden’s industrial strategy, DOE is making the largest investment in industrial decarbonization in the history of the United States. These investments will slash emissions from these difficult-to-decarbonize sectors and ensure American businesses and American workers remain at the forefront of the global economy.” 

This transformative federal investment will help strengthen local economies and create and maintain tens of thousands of good-paying, high-quality jobs—particularly those that support worker organizing and collective bargaining. As part of President Biden’s efforts to build an equitable and inclusive clean energy future, each project is also expected to develop and ultimately implement a comprehensive Community Benefits Plan that ensures meaningful community and labor engagement. Nearly 80% of the projects are located in a disadvantaged community, as defined by President Biden’s Justice40 Initiative , offering a significant opportunity to invest in good jobs and clean air in communities that have experienced years of divestment. 

The industrial sector contributes nearly one-third of the nation’s overall greenhouse gas emissions. This transformative federal investment is matched by the selected projects to leverage more than $20 billion in total to demonstrate commercial-scale decarbonization solutions needed to move the industrial sector toward net-zero emissions. Funded projects will cut carbon emissions by an average of 77%. The industrial sector’s unique and complex decarbonization challenges require equally unique and innovative decarbonization solutions that leverage multiple pathways including energy efficiency, electrification, and alternative fuels and feedstocks such as clean hydrogen. The projects announced today are part of the Industrial Demonstrations Program , managed by DOE’s Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED), and will help strengthen America’s manufacturing and industrial competitiveness. Funding for these projects includes $489 million from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and $5.47 billion from the Inflation Reduction Act. 

Decarbonizing Energy- and Emissions-Intensive Industries

The 33 projects selected for award negotiations represent difficult-to-decarbonize industries, including seven chemicals and refining projects, six cement and concrete projects, six iron and steel projects, five aluminum and metals projects, three food and beverage projects, three glass projects, two process heat-focused projects, and one pulp and paper project.  

An overview of selected projects broken down by industry include:  

• Chemicals and Refining : The seven selected chemicals and refining projects demonstrate how one of the world’s largest industries can turn its carbon intensity from a liability into an advantage, increase circularity, and onshore critical supply chains for clean fuels and key electric vehicle components. These projects plan to demonstrate opportunities to upcycle captured carbon to value-added products, create high-quality fuels and materials from recycled products, and replace fossil-fired, high-heat processes with decarbonized fuels. Together, the seven projects would create products like clean fuels for the marine sector, electrolytes for electric vehicle batteries, and high-quality plastics.  
• Cement and Concrete : The six selected cement and concrete projects plan to demonstrate a comprehensive set of technologies capable of eliminating all CO2 emissions from today’s plants while setting the stage for a future where cement—one of the single largest sources of CO2 emissions globally—can be net-negative. These game-changing projects will revolutionize a sector that has relied on emissions-intensive processes for millennia. From capturing and sequestering the emissions from one of the largest cement plants in the U.S. to pioneering chemistry changes to mitigate emissions at their source, DOE’s investments can fundamentally transform cement—the world’s most abundant man-made material and a building block of our world’s infrastructure. Together, the projects will develop new pathways for making traditional Portland cement with lower or zero emissions and to pioneer new materials and new mixtures that can drive the sector to zero emissions.  
• Iron and Steel : The six selected iron and steel projects plan to demonstrate emerging technologies, including some of the world’s first clean hydrogen-fueled direct reduced ironmaking facilities, which can eliminate the vast majority of steelmaking emissions. The projects will help decarbonize iron and steelmaking and enable the industry to phase out more traditional carbon-intensive production methods that rely on coal. This investment is expected to help create products like high grades of steel for the automotive industry, while solidifying the nation’s position as the global leader in low-carbon iron and steel products.  
• Aluminum and Metals : The five selected aluminum and metals projects include a major capital injection to decarbonize and revitalize the U.S. primary aluminum industry along with world-leading recycling approaches for both aluminum and copper. After decades of decline, these investments lay the groundwork for a potential rebound of this critical sector. These investments aim to improve U.S. industry’s competitiveness and efficiency while simultaneously decarbonizing and onshoring supply chains for materials critical for defense and energy sectors. In addition to the high-purity aluminum needed for the defense and energy sectors, the selections include projects that would create recycled aluminum for the food and beverage industry and copper for semiconductors and electric vehicles.  
• Food and Beverage : The three selected food and beverage projects will demonstrate highly replicable energy efficiency and electrification solutions for low- to medium-temperature process heat across 16 locations. These projects can increase consumer awareness around embodied emissions by decarbonizing products that Americans consume every day like ice cream, ketchup, and BBQ sauce.  
• Glass : The three selected glass projects plan to validate electric/fuel hybrid furnaces producing low-emission glass bottles, tableware, and food packaging. This suite of projects will help decarbonize high-temperature heat and set a roadmap for other heat-intensive industrial processes.  
• Process Heat : These two projects plan to validate the use of electric boilers and electric steam production to reduce emissions associated with process heating across a wide range of industries. By demonstrating applicability across sectors, these projects will chart a path for addressing one of the biggest challenges in the industrial sector—heat-related emissions. 
• Pulp and Paper : The one selected pulp and paper project aims to improve energy efficiency by using a novel membrane for an important separations process instead of heat. This technology is highly replicable for many applications, including chemicals and critical materials.  

Learn more about the 33 projects selected for award negotiations . 

Laying the Foundation of an Inclusive Clean Energy Future 

The Biden-Harris administration is dedicated to working in partnership with communities and industries to build an equitable clean energy economy that benefits every American. As part of the Administration’s commitments to invest in America’s workforce, support high-quality American jobs, advance environmental and energy justice, and strengthen tribal energy sovereignty, each project was required to develop and ultimately implement a comprehensive community benefits plan —which will be informed by early and meaningful community and labor engagements in each region. Applicants were required to describe how their proposals would provide the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people in a facility’s location, recognizing the opportunity this funding provides to address pollution for those disproportionately affected by industrial sector emissions and begin remediating existing social, economic, and health burdens.  

To kickstart ongoing engagement around these projects, OCED will hold a series of national and regional virtual briefings to provide information on the selected projects, introduce OCED’s approach to clean energy demonstrations, and provide opportunities for industry and communities to engage further on specific projects of interest. Learn about IDP engagement opportunities and register to attend .  

Selection for award negotiations is not a commitment by DOE to issue an award or provide funding. Before funding is issued, DOE and the selected applicants will undergo a negotiation process, and DOE may cancel negotiations and rescind the selection for any reason during that time. Lead applicants also may change during the award negotiations process. If awarded, OCED will evaluate these projects through a phased approach to project management that includes “go/no-go” decision points between each project phase where DOE reviews and evaluates implementation progress, including community benefits. 

Learn more about how OCED , the Department’s Pathway to Industrial Decarbonization Commercial Liftoff , the Department’s Industrial Decarbonization Roadmap , and the Industrial Technologies Joint Strategy support the research, development, demonstration, and deployment of technologies that will help the U.S. industrial sector reach President Biden’s ambitious goal of a net-zero emissions economy by 2050.