Skip to main content

Grants

Internal Opportunities

Internal Grant Program

Core Facilities Equipment Funding

Deadline: 10/15/19 at midnight
Note: ReLODE proposals must indicate fiscal year when spending will occur
***Appendix must include filled Equipment Budget Template or the ReLODE Repayment Template

The Office for Research (OR) accepts proposals twice a year (Spring and Fall) for the purchase of equipment or instrumentation to support core facilities that serve the overall research community at Northwestern University. OR accepts requests that are not likely to be eligible for external funding (e.g., because the instrument does not meet the minimum cost guidelines or in some other way does not qualify for external support). Each request will be evaluated and prioritized by the Core Facilities Review Panel. Funding decisions are usually made within 8 weeks of submission of a formal application.

To access the submission site, please follow this link https://grants.nubic.northwestern.edu/welcome and log-in with your NetID and password. You may need to scroll to find the current competition under NU Office for Research.

Cost-sharing requests to the Office for Research for external grant proposals are handled by the Office for Sponsored Research,  (check here for further information).

NOTE: In order to qualify for this program, you must be a Director or Manager of a university-sponsored core facility (conforming to the “Expectations for Core Facilities” ) and have submitted an Annual Report in the year of the request. Exceptions require approval by the Executive Director of Research Facilities.

Types of Funding Requests

  1. Grants for new equipment costing $100,000 or less will be considered if it includes cost sharing of at least 10% by key stakeholders (principle investigators, departments, centers and/or schools) to demonstrate the importance of the request to the Office for Research.
  2. Grants for new equipment costing $100,000 or more will be considered if key stakeholders cover the cost exceeding $100,000 (this assumes the total cost is more than $110,000 thereby exceeding the 10% cost share). Proposals for equipment that are currently under review at external agencies will not be considered.
  3. Loans for replacement of old equipment* costing less than $500,000 will be considered if the old equipment is heavily used, beyond its expected lifespan, and not a candidate for external funding. Documentation of usage data and service reports over the previous three years are required. Cost sharing is NOT required. The loan will be repaid by installments that reflect the depreciation schedule of the equipment.
  4. Loans for replacement of old equipment* costing $500,000 or more will be considered if key stakeholders cover the cost exceeding $500,000 and the old equipment is heavily used, beyond its expected lifespan, and not a candidate for external funding. Cost sharing is NOT required. The loan will be repaid by installments that reflect the depreciation schedule of the equipment.
  5. Loans for duplication of existing equipment* costing less than $500,000 will be considered if the existing equipment is oversubscribed and not a candidate for external funding. Cost sharing is NOT required. The loan will be repaid by installments that relect the depreciation schedule of the equipment.
  6. Loans for duplication of existing equipment* costing $500,000 or more will be considered if key stakeholders cover the cost exceeding $500,000 and the old equipment is oversubscribed and not a candidate for external funding. Cost sharing is NOT required. The loan will be repaid by installments that reflect the depreciation schedule of the equipment.

ReLODE Program

ReLODE Program Overview
ReLODE Program Account Procedure
ReLODE Program Flow Chart

NOTE:
  • Proposals that do not follow the Proposal Format and Preparation instructions below will be returned for prompt revision or declined without review if unresolved before the review date.
  • Multiple equipment requests per facility will be accepted. Each request must be submitted as a separate proposal and prioritized relative to the other requests.
  • Urgent requests that need an immediate response will be considered on an ad hoc basis and should be conveyed to the Associate Vice President or Executive Director of Research Facilities. Such requests should only be made for exceptional situations.
  • Requests for equipment to set up new facilities will be accepted, but these require a modified proposal (see Equipment Requests for New Core Facilities below).
  • Requests for operating costs, personnel, space renovation etc. are not managed through this mechanism. Such requests should be included in the facility’s Annual Report. Urgent requests should be addressed to the Associate Vice President or the Executive Director of Research Facilities.

Proposal Format and Preparation

  • The proposal will consist of four or five sections depending upon whether it is a new request or a resubmission, respectively: 1) a cover page; 2) a brief description of the equipment requested, where it will be located within the facility, and who will be responsible for it; 3) a proposed budget with a clear, concise justification; 4) if this proposal is a resubmission, address the concerns raised in the previous review; 5) an Appendix that includes documentation supporting the need for the new equipment (e.g., usage data for existing equipment, if applicable; letters of support from faculty needing the equipment) and equipment quote(s).
  • The following are additional details for each section:
    1. Cover page (available as a Word file – here) (1 page)
      • Date of application (submission date)
      • Name of the Core Facility
      • Name of Facility Director (or faculty member responsible for oversight)
      • Name of Facility Manager (responsible for day-to-day management)
      • Name of contact person (for this proposal)
      • Proposal Title (for the non-expert)
      • Total Cost of Equipment (in dollars)
      • Cost sharing (in dollars)
      • Amount Requested (total cost of equipment minus cost sharing)
      • Name of equipment requested (manufacturer, model)
      • Cost Share Partners
      • Is this proposal a resubmission?
      • Type of Application (new, old or duplicative equipment)
      • Signatures of the Facility Director and Chair of the Faculty Advisory Committee are required; these signatures will constitute acknowledgment that the request has been discussed and approved by the Faculty Advisory Committee
    2. Description of equipment (1 page)
      • Describe each requested item in sufficient detail so that a non-expert reviewer can understand what it is and how it will be used
      • Provide information as to whether similar equipment is available somewhere else at Northwestern and why this equipment cannot meet the needs of your users
      • If this request is to replace or duplicate an instrument in the facility, then you are encouraged to submit to the ReLODE Program; if you choose not to submit to that Program, then provide a compelling rationale for your decision
      • Describe the location where the requested equipment will be housed and operated; discuss any renovation required to make the space suitable; if renovation of existing space is necessary, indicate how the renovation costs will be funded or include these costs in the proposal
      • Describe how the facility will handle technical support for the new equipment; if expertise does not exist in the facility, then outline how this expertise will be achieved (e.g., through training of existing personnel or hiring of new personnel) and paid for; if technical support is provided by existing personnel, then please explain how these new responsibilities will effect existing responsibilities
    3. Budget and justification (1 page)
      • Provide a budget for the requested equipment; describe cost sharing support; explain why you are requesting internal support rather than looking for external support (details can be placed in Appendix)
      • Describe the expected impact of the requested equipment on research at Northwestern including research projects that require this equipment; provide letters of support from faculty documenting this need (in Appendix)    
      • ReLODE applications: Indicate explicitly sources of repayment revenue (i.e. increased usage, increase rates or both); the strongest applications will include letters of support from largest users indicating that they support a rate increase or intend to increase usage if the project is funded     
    4. Resubmission (1 page) or proposal submitted previously to a federal agency
      • If this proposal is a resubmission, then clearly address the concerns of the previous review
      • If this submission was submitted previously to a federal agency without success, then explain why you are requesting internal support and address any criticisms of the Study Section (include Summary Statement in the Appendix)
    5. Appendix (no page restriction) UPDATED, 9/2018
      • Provide competitive quotations from manufacturer or supplier for each instrument requested
      • Provide a list of potential users arranged and grouped alphabetically by PI
      • Provide usage data on existing equipment, if applicable
      • Provide letters of support from faculty members endorsing the request; a few good letters explaining how this equipment will benefit their research is preferable to a string of identical letters
      • UPDATED: Equipment grant applications: Include a budget describing the purchase and long term maintenance plan for the equipment; an example template is provided here;  contact Aaron Rosen,  for additional assistance if needed; if this template is inappropriate because the piece of equipment is not directly generating revenue (i.e. suporting service lines) and has minimal sustaining costs, indicate which lines will benefit from the piece of equipment and the revenue of those service lines
      • ReLODE applications: Include a repayment plan which includes impacted service lines, past rates, and usage along with predicted future rates and usage; templates can be tailored based on each projects; example templates are provided here;  contact Aaron Rosen,  for additional assistance if needed
    6. All of the application documents should be compiled into a single, contiguous PDF file. The margins should be one inch on all sides. Text should be no smaller than 11 point Times New Roman (or equivalent) and single line spacing. Save the file using a name that indicates the facility name and submission cycle (e.g., CAMI_Spring_18).
    7. All applications should contain a scanned version of the cover page (see below) with the relevant names and signatures. Letters of support should also be signed, scanned and included in the Appendix.
    8. All applications must be submitted online. A link to the website will be sent to all Directors and Managers of core facilities who submitted an Annual Report for the current year (recall: this is a requirement for submission – see “Note” at top of page).

Equipment Requests for New Core Facilities

The instructions above apply to new facilities with the following modifications:

  • There is a 5 page limit (instead of 2 pages) for the body of the application. The extra pages are allowed for an expanded description of the facility and a detailed plan for funding of operating costs, space and necessary infrastructure.
  • Letters of support from department heads and/or school research deans are required for all new core facilities indicating their commitment to the facility.

Cost Sharing Guidelines

  • Cost sharing of at least 10% of the total cost is mandatory. The purpose of cost sharing is to allow faculty, chairs, center directors and deans to be active participants in the decision-making process by contributing funds towards the purchase of equipment for core facilities.
  • Cost sharing can come from faculty, departments, schools, centers and/or other units within the university. Use of discretionary funds by a core facility is considered acceptable cost sharing provided it does not come from the core recharge account.
  • Cost sharing may be greater than 10%, and review panels generally place significant weight on cost sharing in their evaluation of the importance of the instrument for NU researchers.
  • Federal regulations (OMB A-21) prohibit the use of user fees for the purchase of equipment costing more than $5,000.
  • Letters of support from persons agreeing to provide cost sharing (explicitly stating the amount and date of availability of funds) must be included with the proposal.

Review Process

  • Proposals will be reviewed by a rotating committee (Review Panel) consisting of directors and managers of core facilities and research deans (or their delegates) from WCAS, McCormick and FSM
  • Proposals for new equipment will be reviewed at the same time but separately from requests for old or duplicative equipment
  • Each proposal will be reviewed and scored by two or three primary reviewers
  • Each proposals will be reviewed using the following criteria:
      • Overall Impact / Benefit
      • Scored Review Criteria
        1. Justification of Need
        2. Technical Expertise
        3. Research Projects
        4. Administration
        5. Institutional Commitment
      • Additional Review Criteria (re-submission, other considerations)
      • Budget
  • Each proposal will receive an Overall Score and Recommendation by each panelist, excluding those identified with a conflict of interest
  • Each proposal will receive an Average Overall Score calculated from the individual overall scores of each panelist; this score, together with university’s strategic priorities, will be used by the Office for Research to make final funding decisions.

FAQ

Q: How are reviewers chosen for my proposal?
A: Both programs (ReLODE and Grant applications) are reviewed by the Review Panel. Reviewers are chosen to provide different perspectives, and this typically involves one technique expert and one reviewer with a different area of expertise.  We try to balance representation across campuses, small and large cores, and Faculty and Operations Director wherever possible.  Assignment are prioritized based on the total cost of the project.

Q: I am requesting a piece of equipment that costs less than $100,000 that is similar to existing equipment in my core.  Do I have to apply through ReLODE?
A: If the driving force behind the project is to provide a new capability, the Grant program is the more appropriate mechanism for funding.  Even if there is some overlap with existing equipment, requiring existing users to bear the expense of the upgrade would not be appropriate.  In this case, the difference between the existing capabilities and proposed capabilities should be clearly articulated and referenced in letters of support.  If the driving force for the project is to replace an aging piece of equipment or add capacity, ReLODE would be the more appropriate mechanism for funding even if the newer piece of equipment adds functionality.  However, cores are still free to apply through the Grant program as long as clear rationale can be provided on why ReLODE is inappropriate.  An example would be that using ReLODE would require greater than 15% of annual budget to pay back the loan.  The review panel is encouraged to take this justification into account when ranking proposals.  Proposals that appear to be ReLODE eligible and that do not make this justification are unlikely to be recommended for funding.

Q: If I apply for a piece of equipment through the Grant program, how does OR determine if the proposal will be converted to ReLODE?
A: Grant proposals are initially ranked by score and prioritized based upon score and strategic goals of the University.  A proposal prioritized for funding through the Grant program will not be converted to ReLODE.  Proposals that were positively reviewed and recommended for funding, but that did not rank highly enough to fund with available resources are considered for ReLODE.  In these cases, OR will reach out directly to the PI to determine if the core would like to resubmit a budget for ReLODE repayment.  No additional review is required.

Q: If my core submits multiple proposals, how are they prioritized?
A: Multiple proposals from a single core can be funded.  However, the Faculty Director of the Core should email the Director of Cores ranking proposals by priority to the facility.  This information is used during the review if two proposals are closely ranked during discussions to allow reviewers to take the facility’s wishes into account.

Q: I feel that my proposal was not scored appropriately.  What are my options?
A: Reviewers consistently take this process very seriously and make a great effort to ensure proposals are reviewed accurately and fairly scored.  Because proposals can be resubmitted after only six months and additional space is provided to address concerns from previous reviews, OR will not rescore proposals after the review meeting.  Resubmitted proposals that fully address reviewer concerns have a higher than average funding rate.

Q: Why was my proposal was ranked poorly for the Institutional Commitment (cost share) even though I had the required 10% cost share?
A: Many reviewers prioritize sources of funding and interpret direct support from individual faculty as a higher level of commitment to utilize the new resource.  Funding from Centers, Departments and Schools should clearly articulate which members are benefiting from the contribution to ensure that reviewers can accurately gauge the faculty commitment based on source of the support.

Q: I have received additional letters of support after the submission, can I include in the proposal?
A: It is the responsibility of the PI to submit a complete application by the proposal deadline. Additional letters of support can be sent to the Director of Core Facilities after the submission deadline. This information will be relayed to reviewers, with the understanding that reviewers may not take the updated letter into consideration when scoring the proposal.

Past Internal Grant Awards

Letters of Support

Some instrumentation proposals require letters of support that describe institutional support of core facilities and sometimes cost-sharing on the proposal. If you have questions about the institutional Letter of Support, please contact Phil Hockberger, Assistant Vice President for Research (p-hockberger@northwestern.edu). If you have questions about the cost-sharing Letter of Support, please contact Aaron DeLee, Assistant Grants Officer in the Office for Sponsored Research (OSR) (a-delee@northwestern.edu). As of October 2018, please refer to the Office for Research Cost Sharing Guidance . More information can also be found here, https://osr.northwestern.edu/proposals/costsharing

Voucher Program

Core Facilities Administration (CFA) and Office for Research (OR) provide financial incentives (vouchers) for faculty who help support core facilities. Support of a core facility can take the form of writing a successful external grant for instrumentation that is placed into a core facility, donating a new instrument to a core facility that is purchased with retention or start-up funds, or assigning a portion of retention or start-up funds for general use of core facilities. Vouchers take the form of credits to pay for use of instruments and services in core facilities.

A. Voucher for New Instruments to Core Facilities – this program rewards faculty who donate a new, cutting-edge instrument that can benefit multiple research groups. The voucher is for use of that instrument only, and it is funded by CFA. New instruments can be purchased using either internal (recruitment/retention) or external (grant) funds. Placing an instrument into a core facility allows faculty to share the operating costs and technical support with other investigators while maintaining privileged access to the instrument of up to two weeks in advance of other users.  The core facility and contributing faculty member must agree to a long-term management plan before siting the instrument in the core which includes rates, maintenance strategy and cost accounting study.

B. Voucher for General Use of Core Facilities – this program allows faculty to use any instrument or service provided by a core facility. It is supported as part of recruitment and retention packages, and it is funded by the Provost, VPR and Schools using the standard cost sharing formula. By ear-marking funds for core facilities, the University encourages these faculty to take advantage of shared resources and services, expanding the user base and contributing to a steady income stream for that core facility.

CAMI Pilot Project Funding

The deadline for this opportunity has passed

Northwestern University’s Center for Advanced Molecular Imaging (CAMI) is offering pilot project funding for up to TEN projects/year during each of the next three years to researchers with nascent imaging projects that will benefit from CAMI expertise in imaging method development and refinement.

Selected projects will be funded for a period of one year and up to $5,000 (and in very special circumstances, up to $7,500) direct costs for imaging studies performed in CAMI.
CAMI offers researchers a wide range of imaging instrumentation, knowledgeable staff, and support facilities uniquely configured to make preclinical research efficient and productive. CAMI has its own vivarium and support space for cell culture and radiochemistry. The CAMI website provides a detailed description of instruments, services, and support facilities for in vitro and in vivo studies.

More information here

Core Facilities Development Pilot Grant Program (CFaD)

Deadline: Rolling
Note: Please use this cover page when submitting your proposal 

Program Overview

Concept: The Core Facilities Development (CFaD) Pilot Grant program is an internal, peer-reviewed grant opportunity that supports developing methods or techniques within cores that directly impacts multiple principal investigators and are likely to lead to increased usage of cores in the future. Funds can be used to purchase consumables, services, staff and instrument time in one or more core facilities. Maximum awards are $15,000 and should be completed within 6 months of award notification. Initially, $150,000 will be made available for the pilot and the program will be evaluated in the Fall 2018. Because the goal is to rapidly fund projects, proposals will be reviewed as they are submitted with a 2-week turnaround time goal.

Rationale: Preliminary data for grant proposals and entering new research areas sometimes requires development of techniques or methods that extend beyond the standard operating procedures of core facilities. Core facilities that charge for full recovery of costs (salaries, service contracts, etc.) face numerous challenges funding technique or method development. Few faculty can afford to pay the time and effort of such development, and early career faculty do not have discretionary funding available to support this type of work. PI’s also are frequently hesitant to fund development of techniques that may be available at other institutions or would benefit a broad user base. Therefore, internal investment is required to meet this need.

Project Eligibility: Project should result in a new or enhanced capability that assists in submission of a new grant or generates a new source on ongoing revenue. The new capability must be applicable to the research of at least two PI’s. Example would be development of an image processing algorithm that shows proof of concept for a proposal and could be applied to a general class of research. Results of project should result in a new service line, capability, method, or other offering that can be advertised on the core’s website.

Examples of Allowable Costs:

  • Equipment usage
  • Sample analysis
  • Staff time
  • Minor hardware upgrades for equipment
  • Consumables and reagents
  • Travel for core staff cross training

Examples of Unallowable Costs:

  • Faculty / student salary
  • Writing letters of support or documenting existing protocols
  • Food / meeting expenses
  • Capital equipment
  • Personal computers and software
  • Rate reduction

Core Eligibility

To be eligible for funding, the core facility must be an Office for Research Core in good standing.  Cores must have filed an annual report in the current year, have >$100K/year revenue and meet the requirements described here: https://facilities.research.northwestern.edu/operations#expectations
Cores that are currently receiving direct staff expansion support from OR, School or Department in excess of $30K/year must explain why this expanded staff availability cannot be used for the proposed activities. Support earmarked for fee reduction is okay and does not impact eligibility. Core must not be able to cover costs using other existing support mechanisms.

Proposal Format and Preparation

The proposal will consist of four sections: 1) cover page signed by the faculty director; 2) brief description of the project with emphasis on how the project will positively impact an individual faculty member’s research; 3) one page description of the budget, timeline and explanation of other funding sources considered; 4) three letters of support (one from core faculty director, one from submitting PI and one another PI indicating that the new capability is likely to assist them with their research).

Format

  • Single, contiguous PDF file
  • 1-inch margins on all sides; text no smaller than 11 pt. Times New Roman (or equivalent); single spaced
  • All applications should contain a scanned version of the cover page with the relevant names and signatures. Letters of support should also be signed, scanned and included in the Appendix
  • Save the file using a name of the format CORE_CFADPilot_ShortDescription.pdf (example would be IMSERC_CFADPilot_HT-NMR.pdf )
  • All applications must be submitted online through NUBIC. A link to the website will be sent to all Directors and Managers of core facilities who submitted an Annual Report for the current year (recall: this is a requirement for submission)

Preparation

The following are additional details for each section:

  1. Cover page (available as a Word file – here) (1 page)
    • Date of application (submission date)
    • Name of the Core Facility
    • Name of Facility Director (or faculty member responsible for oversight)
    • Name of Facility Manager (responsible for day-to-day management)
    • Name of contact person (for this proposal)
    • Proposal Title (for the non-expert)
    • Total Cost of project (in dollars)
    • Cost sharing (in dollars)- cost share only required for projects over $15,000
    • Amount Requested (total cost of equipment minus cost sharing)
    • Faculty member requesting project
    • Second faculty member likely to benefit from new capability
    • Signatures of the Facility Director and Chair of the Faculty Advisory Committee are required; these signatures will constitute acknowledgment that the request has been discussed and approved by the Faculty Advisory Committee
  2. Description of project (1 page)
    • Project should be written from the faculties point of view
    • Describe existing capabilities within core and the needed capability
    • Define deliverables for the project (be quantitative if possible)
    • Describe how the new capability will impact research
    • If project supports a grant submission, identify the RFP
    • If successful, estimate likely usage of new capability (this is an estimate, not a commitment to use the core)
  3. Budget and justification (1 page)
    • Provide a budget for the requested equipment; instrument time, software etc.; explain why you are requesting internal support rather than using other sources of support
    • Provide a timeline for the project
    • Explain how other faculty will benefit from new capability
    • Estimate who will benefit and possible revenue impact of the new capability
  4. Appendix (no page restriction)
    • Core Director letter of support stating core supports development of the new capability and intends to support for next 3-5 years
    • Requesting PI letter of support indicating that research is likely to utilize the new capability based on funding availability
    • Letter of support from one other PI who sees project as broadly applicable and is likely to utilize the capability in the future.
    • If cost share is needed to complete, include a letter documenting source of remaining funds needed to complete the project

Cost Sharing Guidelines

  • Cost sharing is not required for this proposal and will not be considered when evaluating proposals unless the budget requires greater than $15,000
  • Letters of support from persons agreeing to provide cost sharing (explicitly stating the amount and date of availability of funds) must be included with the proposal

Review Process

  • Proposals will be initially reviewed by the Director of Core Facilities to ensure projects meet eligibility criteria
  • Proposals are then reviewed by a standing committee of four that consist of Faculty Directors and Operations Directors of core facilities
  • Three out of four must recommend funding based on following criteria:
    • Scientific significance
    • Faculty are likely to write a strong proposal or increase utilization of the core
    • Appropriate budget
  • Awards will be granted until funds are exhausted

Post Award Requirements

This is a pilot program that will be evaluated for its long-term impact to core revenue and improving success of individual PI proposals. The core must:

  • Update the Director of Core Facilities status changes on grants (submitted / funded …)
  • Provide an update when new training materials, advertising or new service line is created with link to new material
  • Provide an estimate of scientific impact of project and return on investment for the project in the annual report within 18 months of completion of project

FAQ

Q: What is the expected review time?
A: The goal is to return feedback of eligibility within one week of submission and final notification within three weeks

Q: What is the typical duration of a project?
A: Projects should typically be completed in six months

Q: Will the core be expected to return funds if a proposal is not submitted after a proposal is funded?
A: Cores are not responsible for submission of grants and will not have to repay funds if the project is unsuccessful or a grant is not submitted.  However, projects should result in data which can be used to market capabilities for the core’s website

Q: Can my core submit multiple proposals?
A: Multiple proposals from a single core can be funded.  For the pilot program, a limit of two proposals ($30K) will be funded

Q: My core receives funding from OR, FSM or research centers. Can I apply for this program?
A: If funding is being provided to add staffing with the goal of increasing long term utilization, the core must explain why this funding cannot be used to support technique development. Funds can be requested for consumables, training and expenses unrelated to staffing. If funding is being provided with the goal of fee reduction or are earmarked for specific activities, cores are still eligible for funding under this program

Q: My annual report is due, but I don’t have updates on individual faculty grants and can’t estimate the future usage of this new technique.  What should I do?
A: It is okay to wait to estimate impact of projects until you have time to determine if the project assisted faculty in their grant and if there is a usage change based on the project. If insufficient time has passed at the time of the annual report, indicate that more time is needed and follow up with ad hoc updates during the year and a final update in the next year’s annual report

Pilot Grant Program for Single Cell Sequencing

The deadline for this opportunity has passed

The NUSeq Core Facility is offering a unique opportunity to support innovative pilot research projects using 10X Genomics Single Cell Chromium Controller.

Description:
We are pleased to announce a pilot grant program in collaboration with 10X Genomics to provide library preparation for Single Cell 3′ Gene Expression or 5′ Gene Expression and Immune Profiling.
 
The support covers library preparation for up to two samples, and data analysis at one hour bioinformatics time per sample. The program aims to support up to four pilot projects from Northwestern University. Illumina sequencing, staff hours spent in sample process, and additional bioinformatics time are separate and not covered by this program.
 
Objective:
The goal of this program is to support Northwestern University researchers as they seek to generate preliminary data in support of upcoming grant applications, and to promote the utilization of cutting-edge solutions from 10X Genomics for genomic and translational research.
 
Eligibility:
  1. Applicants must hold a faculty position (including Research) at Northwestern University and must be planning to submit a grant application to support a broader research aim for which they need preliminary data.
  2. Applicants may not hold current awards directly related to the proposed research.
  3. Early career investigators are strongly encouraged to apply.
Apply:
Please complete and submit the application found here by the end of December 21, 2018 to be considered for this program.
Please send any questions regarding this program to NUSeq@northwestern.edu.

Federal Opportunities

State and Foundation Programs

Chicago Biomedical Consortium (CBC)

W.M. Keck Foundation