Oklahoma Applied Research Support (OARS) Seond FY09 R&D Faculty and Student Intern Partnerships...

Oklahoma Applied Research Support

(OARS)

Seond FY09

R&D Faculty and Student Intern Partnerships

Proposal Preparation Workshops

Advancing Oklahoma’s Knowledge Economy for the Next 100 Years

• Highly Competitive

• Outside Peer Review– (for scientific merit and potential for

commercialization)

• Catalyst for Collaboration Between State Government, the Private Sector, and Higher Education

• Technical Advisory Committees

The OCAST Model




OCAST Internship Program

1987 – FY2008

$3.87M $89.63M

(State Funding) (Private and

Federal)

ROI = 23.2


Contact InformationMichelle McFarlandProgram Officer IV(405) [email protected]

Arnulf (Arni) P. Hagen, Ph.D.(Contractor) Intern Partnerships Coordinator(405) [email protected]

OCAST Websitewww.ocast.state.ok.us

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.ocast.state.ok.us/

OARS Partnerships Project Locations

Internships and Research

Internships

Planned

Research

Internship Economic Sectors

Computer Hardware and Software

Psychology and Training

Engineering and Manufacturing

Farming and Ranching

Advanced Materials, Energy, Oil, and Gas

Biotechnology, Medical, and Laboratory Services


OARS Strategy• Provides State matching funds for R&D

projects

• Reasonable probability to enhance employment opportunities within Oklahoma

• Must have a high probability of producing new or improved commercially successful

Products

Processes

Services


RDIP• From FY98 through FY09.1 there have been 20

Intern Partnerships competitions.• The reviewers recommended 66 % of the submitted

projects for funding.• OCAST provided funding for 54 % of the submitted

projects. • For the past five years 13 – 36 proposals were

received each year. • Approximately $500,000 is allocated for two award

competitions for FY09


Funding Level• Regular Proposal

–$30,000 maximum each year up to two years–$10,000 minimum/year

• Supplement Proposal–$2,500 minimum for up to 12 months–$20,000 maximum for up to 12 months


Review Process &

Evaluation Criteria


The Review Process

• Highly Competitive

• Outside Peer Review– for benefit to the interns and to the host company

• Catalyst for Collaboration Between State Government, the Private Sector, and Higher Education

• Technical Advisory Committees


Compliance Checked

OARS Committee assigns reviewers and builds panels

Proposals sent to reviewers

Proposals Received by OCAST

Panels meet in Oklahoma to evaluate and rank

proposals

Panels meet in Oklahoma to evaluate and rank

proposals

Panels meet for final ranking of proposals

Board acts on reviewer recommendations


Evaluation Criteria

In general peer reviewers evaluate all applications according to the following criteria:

•Technical and scientific merit

•Quality & probability of success of the R&D Intern Partnerships plan

•Commitment from participating organizations

•Competency of project personnel

•Adequacy of matching funds & other support


Evaluation Criteria (cont.)

• Degree of interest shown by the industry

• Potential for economic impact to the state

• Potential benefit for the undergraduate student interns

• Potential benefit to the faculty intern who teaches undergraduate students

• Resources for Interns

• The value added to the undergraduate instructional program


Standards &

Requirements


Applicant Elligibility

• Eligible lead applicants for RDIP funding include:– Oklahoma businesses– Oklahoma colleges– Oklahoma universities– Oklahoma research foundations


Project Ineligibility

• Projects that focus upon the following are ineligible for RDIP funding:

– Market surveys

– Training or technical assistance for business firms

– Fundamental or basic research and lacks potential for commercialization


Solicitation Forms

Statement of Intent

&

Application

Editable forms can be found online at:

www.ocast.state.ok.us


Submission Requirements

Statement of Intent Forms• Deadline for receipt at OCAST:

–5:00 P.M., January 14, 2009

• Delivery Method:–By mail or in person to OCAST –or fax to (405) 319-8426

Intent Forms will not be accepted by e-mail


Submission Requirements (cont.)

Application

• Deadline for receipt at OCAST: – 5:00 P.M., January 28, 2009

• Delivery Method:–by mail, commercial delivery service (e.g., Fed-Ex, UPS) or hand delivered only to OCAST

No e-mail or faxed applications


NO EXCEPTIONS

STATEMENT OF INTENTS

OR

APPLICATIONS

WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AFTER THE DEADLINES…


Required MaterialsEach Intern application must include the following materials:

Number of Sets Contents

1 Original

7 Copies

1 Copy of Application FormsPages 1– 7-4

(Items 1– 19b)


Required Materials (cont.) • 8 ½ x 11-inch white paper

• Not less than 0.5-inch margins

• Single to 1.5 spacing

• Font size not smaller than 10-pt

• Fonts must be Arial, Helvetica, Platino, Computer Modern, or Georgia

• Use the required presentation order and headings as shown (Items 20-28)


Required Materials (cont.)• Total section text page length includes

– Text

– Inserted graphs

– Charts

– Figures

• All Items are to be completed, if not applicable, acknowledge the item by number and title and then write:– “Not Applicable”


Required Materials (cont.)• Do not use

– Binders

– Notebooks

– Rubber bands

– Regular paper clips

• OCAST recommends colored sheets to set-off major sections of the proposal

– Do NOT type text on colored sheets.


Resubmissions• A resubmission is a new proposal, which

includes the information below:

– A current Statement of Intent is required

– Indicate it is a resubmission in Item 2

– Prepare item 28. Appendix III that includes:• a letter responding to the reviewers’ comments

from the previous review and noting all changes in the research plan,

• a copy of the previously submitted application and• all reviews of that application.


Release of InformationOCAST is subject to the Open Meetings Act and the Open Records Act.

Statement of Intent, application abstracts and executive summaries from progress reports are consider public information.

HOWEVER: marketing plans, financial statements, trade secrets, research concepts, methods or products, or any other proprietary information are exempt by statute.


ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS

• Refer to the solicitation for the following:

–Contract Information–Post Award Support


Budgets&

Matching Documentation


Matching RequirementsBusiness vs. Universities & Non-Profits

Equipment as Match (in-kind)

Business CANNOT use equipment & machinery as match

Universities & Non-Profits CAN use equipment as match to fulfill part or the entire required match. Equipment will be considered for match if it does not originate from State-appropriated funds (This match type does not normally fit the intern program since equipment is normally a part of the budget)

Salary as MatchNo state appropriated funds can be used as match

Business CAN use salary as match Non-profits CAN use salary as match as long as they do not receive monies from state appropriations

State Universities CANNOT use state appropriated funds as match


Matching Requirements (cont.)

• In order to qualify for funding for an RDIP project:– Applicant organization must provide 50% of

the total direct cost– Funding sources cannot be from State-

appropriated money– Matching monies must be specifically for the

OARS project

In-kind services and indirect costs are not allowed


Direct Costs• The RDIP program allows only project direct

costs as part of matching expenses.

– Examples of allowed direct costs:• Project related: travel, supplies to manage program,

personal safety equipment for interns, long-distance phone

– Examples of non-allowed direct costs:• Advertising, public relations, food, tuition and fees,

housing cost, automobiles, personal computers, lobbying costs, selling and marketing costs, first class air travel, patent and licensing fees


Indirect Costs

• RDIP DOES NOT allow Indirect Costs as part of the match expenses

– Examples of Indirect Costs• Building & equipment depreciation, interest,

operations and maintenance, overhead, administrative support, library, tuition and fees


FORMS

Solicitation Forms

http://www.ocast.state.ok.us/Programs/RDInternPartnerships/Solicitations/tabid/122/Default.aspx


Project Narrative

20. Budget Justification

• Not a spreadsheet – paragraphs that justify expenses

• Travel – cannot be increased beyond the reviewer approved amount (allow money for intern travel to annual OCAST sponsored research meeting)

• Supplies – to manage the internship program, poster preparation expense


Abstract:The purpose of this project is to validate a new Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) method to cut cost, time, space and materials used in the deer DNA amplification process. Using a new multiplex primer mix, pre-selected deer DNA samples will be analyzed on a preset program and validated according to the following standards; Rerunning 24 Deer DNA samples that have previously been profiled using the old multiplex primer mix and comparing the new results to the old ones, injecting PCR product from one deer sample 10 times in one run and 10 times in independent runs on the Genetic Analyzer. These results will be used to establish the precision within a run and between runs. Then, a titration was made to test the sensitivity of each multiplex primer mix to identify the range of optimum DNA concentration. Introduction:PCR is used in this laboratory to amplify DNA from North American White-tailed deer. 10 primer reactions are used for the main comparison of deer parentage and 5 additional primers are used for further power of discrimination. The primers are named as follows: The main ten are Cervid, BM6506, N, Inra, Q, O, BM6438, BL25, K, I and the additional are S, L, OAR, D, and P. Currently primers: Cervid, BM6506, N, & Inra are in a master mix (Mix 1), Q is in a master mix (Mix Q), O, BM6438, BL25, & K are in a master mix (Mix 2), and I is in a master mix (Mix I). The reactions are separated because the single primers (Q and I) interfere with the other combined primers during PCR and there is the need for different amplification conditions. This study will show how a new primer combination of Cervid, BM6506, N, Intra & L and O, BM6438, BL25, K and Q will work. Thus making only two primer reactions that can be amplified under the same conditions. This will benefit the company in many areas such as: finance, timeliness, materials, space and results. See table 1.

3

Deer PCR Multiplex Validation*Stacie Thompson, **Misty Lucas, and **Brandt Cassidy

*Oklahoma City Community College, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, **DNA Solutions840 Research Parkway, Suite 551, Oklahoma City, Ok 73104

BeforeTemperature Settings: PCR reactions: After PCR transferred

into one tube for the

Genetic Analyzer: Placed in same conditions in PCR machine 1 Mix 1 (M1) M1 and MQ = 1

Mix Q (MQ)

Placed in same conditions in PCR machine 2 Mix 2 (M2) M2 and MI = 2

Mix I (MI)

This process is completed for each sample of DNA!

AfterTemperature Settings: PCR reactions: After PCR transferred

into one tube

for the Genetic Analyzer:

Placed in same conditions in PCR machine 1 Mix R (MR) MR = 1

Mix B (MB) MB = 2

Conclusion:The validation is successful! The goal of having only 2 PCR multiplex reactions was accomplished. Table 3 illustrates the original 10 markers on a DNA profile. Table 4 illustrates where the new 10 marker data will show up on a DNA profile. All of the 24 samples matched previously determined genotypes. If there were any variances, it was due to being overloaded or was so low that the peak was not recognized. We will now be able to optimize the master mix based on what was overloaded and/or too weak. The multiple run validation passes the lab standards showing less than 0.1 nucleotide standard deviation on all calls (see table 2). Now we know the range of variance in peak numbers for a specific base pair so that when we get a peak while DNA typing a sample we can make accurate calls. The titration was very useful in providing the sensitivity of the new master mixes. Remarkably results appeared even at the lowest concentration of DNA. This is important because during the isolation of the DNA you do not always know the concentration and you want it to be detectable.

Analysis: The new primer Mix R and B was made

24 pre-selected DNA samples were analyzed with

the new Mix R and injected into the Genetic Analyzer

24 pre-selected DNA samples were analyzed with the new

Mix B and injected into the Genetic Analyzer

All results were recorded and compared to previous results from original primer mixes

One of the 24 DNA samples was chosen to inject in the Genetic Analyzer for further

validation

This samples PCR product was used to inject on the Genetic Analyzer 10 consecutive

times during the same run to insure precision regardless of constant injection.

Mix R was ran one day and Mix B was ran on a different day.

Using the same DNA, Mix R and Mix B were injected once each on 10 different days.

This is to insure that the same results will be produced with different environmental

conditions.

• Titration of a standard deer DNA sample was tested with the new Mix R and Mix B. The different concentrations of DNA were 10ng/µL, 5ng/µL, 2.5ng/µL, 1.5ng/µL, 1ng/µL, 0.5ng/µL, 0.25ng/µL, 0.1ng/µL, 0.05ng/µL. Each concentration

was amplified and analyzed. This will show sensitivity of each of the primers in the mix when considering different concentrations of DNA.

Equipment and Materials:ABI 2700, 2720 PCR Machine

ABI Prism 310 Genetic Analyzer

Primers: Cervid, BM6506, N, Inra, L and O, BM6438, BL25, K, Q for North American White-tailed Deer

Master Mix R which includes Primers: Cervid, BM6506, N, Inra, L

Master Mix B which includes Primers: O, BM6438, BL25, K, Q

24 Deer DNA samples

Standard Deer DNA sample

Table 1

Table 2

Cervid L BM 6506 N Inra1 171.12 194.03 276.73 288.68 185.6 312.6 314.67 195.412 171.24 194.08 276.79 288.77 185.6 312.67 314.73 195.453 171.01 193.96 276.56 288.65 185.37 312.62 314.67 195.334 171.16 194.1 276.83 288.85 185.54 312.92 314.96 195.355 171.21 194.06 276.74 288.74 185.59 312.74 314.76 195.416 171.12 193.92 276.63 288.68 185.54 312.58 314.74 195.277 171.3 194.19 276.85 288.85 185.75 312.84 314.86 195.428 170.91 193.94 276.57 288.6 185.4 312.53 314.61 195.229 171.17 194.03 276.76 288.82 185.6 312.69 314.75 195.41

10 171.13 194.08 276.83 288.78 185.65 312.82 314.84 195.42Average 171.137 194.039 276.729 288.742 185.564 312.701 314.759 195.369Median 171.145 194.045 276.75 288.755 185.595 312.68 314.745 195.41Standard Deviation 0.111759 0.082118 0.107233 0.086897 0.111674 0.126794 0.103543 0.075048

O BM 6438 BL25 K Q1 191.95 260.39 178.58 180.47 196.51 200.47 265.19 269.122 192.19 260.34 178.74 180.72 196.68 200.59 265.36 269.143 191.93 260.27 178.57 180.44 196.55 200.35 265.16 269.074 192.22 260.31 178.81 180.79 196.69 200.58 265.32 269.225 192.14 260.16 178.77 180.59 196.64 200.46 265.29 269.16 192.19 260.35 178.82 180.66 196.61 200.58 265.31 269.177 191.93 260.14 178.54 180.53 196.43 200.35 265.06 268.998 192.07 260.39 178.76 180.62 196.56 200.47 265.28 269.189 192.06 260.38 178.72 180.65 196.54 200.46 265.28 269.1

10 192.14 260.3 178.77 180.7 196.64 200.57 265.2 269.14Average 192.082 260.303 178.708 180.617 196.585 200.488 265.245 269.123Median 192.105 260.325 178.75 180.635 196.585 200.47 265.28 269.13Standard Deviation 0.11223 0.089944 0.104435 0.11136 0.08182 0.090897 0.090707 0.064127

Deer Mix R DNAs # 4699 06/23/05 - 07/02/05

10 Consecutive day validation

Deer Mix B DNAs # 4699 06/23/05 - 07/02/05

Cervid L BM 6506 N Inra1 171.15 193.94 276.72 288.61 185.54 312.63 314.55 195.312 171.13 193.96 276.75 288.75 185.48 312.62 314.67 195.333 171.13 194.08 276.71 288.66 185.6 312.62 314.67 195.334 171.09 193.94 276.66 288.64 185.44 312.67 314.59 195.315 171.15 193.94 276.67 288.71 185.54 312.15 314.04 195.316 170.96 194.01 276.68 288.72 185.44 312.55 314.61 195.397 170.96 194.01 276.73 288.68 185.44 312.6 314.67 195.288 170.96 194.01 276.67 288.65 185.32 312.6 314.67 195.289 170.86 193.87 276.63 288.76 185.27 312.56 314.63 195.26

10 170.84 193.89 276.72 288.68 185.32 312.51 314.57 195.2811 170.99 193.98 276.66 288.64 185.3 312.62 314.67 195.3512 171.01 193.96 276.7 288.79 185.48 312.71 314.75 195.3313 170.97 193.94 276.71 288.66 185.32 312.62 314.67 195.3114 171.02 194.01 276.76 288.75 185.37 312.64 314.67 195.3715 170.98 194.05 276.76 288.81 185.47 312.76 314.78 195.4

Average 171.0133 193.9727 276.702 288.7007 185.422 312.5907 314.614 195.3227Median 170.99 193.96 276.71 288.68 185.44 312.62 314.67 195.31

0.098609 0.056753 0.039497 0.060411 0.100513 0.136301 0.16995 0.041139

O BM 6438 BL25 K Q1 171.11 260.16 178.63 180.59 196.6 200.46 265.25 269.112 171.16 260.18 178.66 180.61 196.6 200.46 265.25 269.13 171.18 260.13 178.67 180.62 196.63 200.46 265.19 269.034 171.13 260.07 178.61 180.56 196.5 200.46 265.26 269.115 171.05 259.98 178.55 180.5 196.49 200.46 265.17 269.026 171.04 260.06 178.66 180.61 196.6 200.46 265.25 269.17 171.2 259.98 178.71 180.66 196.61 200.46 265.18 269.048 171.11 260.04 178.63 180.59 196.6 200.46 265.25 269.119 171.09 260.14 178.63 180.48 196.57 200.46 265.23 269.1

Average 171.1189 260.0822 178.6389 180.58 196.5778 200.46 265.2256 269.08Median 171.11 260.07 178.63 180.59 196.6 200.46 265.25 269.1

0.054874 0.074629 0.044566 0.057879 0.049441 0 0.035395 0.038079Standard Deviation

10 Consecutive run within same day validation

Standard Deviation

Deer Mix B DNAs # 4699 06/26/2005

Deer Mix R DNAs # 4699 06/26/2005

Table 2

References:Anderson, J. D., R. L. Honeycutt, R. A. Gonzales, K. L. Gee, L. C. Skow, R. L. Gallagher, D. A. Honeycutt, R. W. Deyoung. 2002. Development of Microsatellite DNA Markers for the Automated Genetic Characterization of White-Tailed Deer Populations. Journal of Wildlife Management 66(1):67-74.

Results: Results from the 24 runs were compared to their originals. There were three primers that were consistently overloaded which were Cervid, BM6506, and BM6438 and there were two primers which were consistently weak (L and O). The other markers were relatively the same in peak height. The ten consecutive runs in one day resulted in less than 0.1 nucleotide standard deviation and results are shown in table 2 (right column). The ten different day validation also resulted in less than 0.1 nucleotide standard deviation and results are shown in table 2 (left column). The titration showed peaks at all concentrations.

12

3

4

5

6

7

89 10

Example of New 10 marker dataTable 4

Original

Table 3

Mix R

Mix B

21. P. I. and co-P. I. Biographical Information

• D. Describe experience at managing programs similar to this intern program.


22. Mentor Biographical Information

• D. Describe experience mentoring new hires, interns, and junior colleagues.


23. Faculty Intern Biographical Information

• C. Statement of anticipated benefits from being a faculty intern.

• Recall evaluation criteria…

– Potential benefit to the faculty intern who teaches undergraduate students

– The value added to the undergraduate instructional program


24. Letters of Commitment and Benefit

• The letters must be specific to the application and not a generalization – follow instructions for section



25. Project Plan

Typically 8-10 pages for a simple partnership• A. General description of the applied R&D to

be performed. Include a list of research objectives (~ 1 page per project)

• B. Describe the facility(s) where the student and/or faculty interns will work. Show that adequate equipment and supplies are available (~1 page per venue)


25. Project Plan (cont.)

• C. Generally describe the work the student interns will perform, and how they contribute to meeting research objectives (~1-2 pages for each project/venue)

• D. IRB and hazardous substances (~1 page)



• E. Intern Activities (~ 1-2 pages)• Describe role and duties of the R&D

mentor(s) • Describe activities of the interns for the

first month• Describe each mentor’s experience in

performing R&D that has lead to a commercialized product, process or service


25. Project Plan (cont.)• F. Describe the role and duties of the PI and

co-PI

• G. If all or part of the intern experience is at a non-profit research organization, college or university, describe the relationship between each participating company and the non-profit or academic site. Fully explain why the internship is not at the participating company site.



• H. Carefully explain the plan for selecting and assigning interns– Describe the potential intern pool– Describe the process for contacting potential

interns– Describe the relationship between the applicant

organization and college (if college is not the formal partner)



• I. Describe the process used to monitor the intern work performance

– How will the interns be evaluated?– Include evaluation instruments in Appendix I



• J. Describe the process to be used for the intern to prepare reports– Intern should describe the work done– Skills acquired and benefits accrued– The intern should use a style guide provided by the

organization – A minimum of monthly progress reports should be

part of the experience


25. Project Plan (cont.)• K. Describe the process to track the academic

and professional progress of the intern for five years after the internship is completed

– Institutions of higher education attended– Degrees earned– Employer– Current address for the intern


• For new projects include:

– Samples of evaluation instruments

• For continuing projects or a new project by a previous awardee include:

– Samples of intern reports and evaluation instruments used in previous program

26. Appendix I


• Not to exceed five (5) pages

27. Appendix II (optional)


Tips for Successful Proposals


Tips

• Have a good detailed plan for recruiting, interviewing, and selecting the interns

• Show commitment from all participating organizations

• Describe how the intern will gain workplace skills outside of the college setting

• Project plan must include details and be well laid out


• Collaborations between colleges/universities are encouraged

• Always use details when describing tools and techniques.

• Proof read and eliminate grammatical and typographical errors

• Ensure all components of the application are addressed and included

• Be sure to describe in detail the experience of the PI/Mentor in working with students

Tips


Tips

• Ensure you have well qualified mentors and describe in detail their expertise

• Letter of Commitment and Benefit is very important; do not overlook

• 80-100% of the budget should focus on the students salary

• Make sure the economic benefit will remain in the state of Oklahoma


Tips

• Focus your research project to accomplish one goal well, do not dilute your project with too many goals

• Ensure labor cost are appropriate and comparable to the Oklahoma market

• The budget description and the research plan should provide sufficient information to justify the funding requested


Proof read & spell check

Details, Details, & Details

Did you remember??

Date post:	20-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	scot-clark
View:	216 times
Download:	1 times

Oklahoma Applied Research Support (OARS) Seond FY09 R&D Faculty and Student Intern Partnerships...

Documents