ERC Wide Workshop Report : simplebooklet.com

REPORT NSF WORKSHOP ON Demonstrating ERC Impact and Supporting Self-Sufficiency through NSF Use-Inspired, Translational Research Opportunities* February 9, 2024 Alexandria, VA Workshop Committee: Center for Advanced Self-Powered Systems of Integrated Sensors and Technologies (ASSIST) Dr. Veena Misra, Center Co-Director Dr. Alper Bozkurt, Center Co-Director Dr. Ravi Chilukuri, Innovation Ecosystem Director Dr. Elena Veety, Education Director Ren Shore, Communications & Industry Relations Manager National Science Foundation (NSF) Dr. Sandra Cruz-Pol, ERC Program Director, Division of Engineering, Education, and Centers (EEC) Dr. Prakash G. Balan, IUCRC Program Director, Division of Engineering, Education, and Centers (EEC) Dr. Crystal Leach, IUCRC Program Director, Division of Engineering, Education, and Centers (EEC) Dr. Jesús Soriano-Molla, Program Director, Division of Engineering, Education, and Centers (EEC) Report Contributors: Gabrielle Edgerton, Red Pen Scientific, Inc. Darcy Ross, Red Pen Scientific, Inc. *Sponsored by National Science Foundation, USA

Page 3

2 Table of Contents Workshop Mission and Overview ........................................................................ 3 Agenda ................................................................................................................... 4 NSF Programs that help bridge the gap ........................................................... 5 The Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships (TIP) Directorate .................................... 6 The Partnerships for Innovation (PFI) Program ................................................................... 9 The Accelerating Research Translation (ART) Program ................................................. 10 IUCRC: Industry–University Cooperative Research Centers .......................................... 11 Panel Discussion on experiences and lessons learned from participating and leading IUCRCs ........................................................................................... 15 Participating ERCs ............................................................................................... 18 Challenges and Lessons Learned .................................................................... 23 Summary of Breakout Sessions .......................................................................... 24 Acknowledgments .............................................................................................. 28 Appendix: Presentation Slides ........................................................................... 29

Page 4

3Workshop Mission and Overview The NSF Nanosystems Engineering Research Center for Advanced Self-Powered Systems of Integrated Sensors and Technologies (ASSIST) organized a one-day workshop to bring together leaders from both NSF and NSF-funded Engineering Research Centers (ERCs) to share their insights from working within the ERC ecosystem. Participants were invited to share information about how they plan to ensure the sustainability and self-sufficiency of their use-inspired translational research activities once they “graduate” from the NSF ERC program. ERCs receive ten years of initial funding from NSF. However, this is just the beginning of critical efforts to support and maintain an impactful translational research program. ERCs must work to build self-sufficiency beyond their initial tenure, which will likely entail a combination of strategies to raise funding and build long-term relationships. This workshop was proposed in response to the recent expansion of NSF initiatives aimed at supporting translational research in engineering. Specifically, NSF’s new Directorate on Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships (TIP), established in 2022, has as its mission to harness talent that will advance critical and emerging technologies, address pressing societal and economic challenges, and accelerate the translation of research results from lab to market to society. The programs within TIP, combined with other existing mechanisms designed to support translational research, such as the cross-cutting Industry-University Cooperative Research Center (IUCRC) program, are aligned with the goals of ERCs as they transition to self-sufficiency. Moreover, those at NSF leading this charge are interested in understanding the challenges faced by ERCs and others working within interdisciplinary and inter-sector research spaces. The workshop was broadly designed achieve three goals: (1) Communicate information about existing programs at NSF that are aligned with the needs and goals of ERCs seeking to build self-sufficiency; (2) Share information about the particular challenges faced by ERCs and what NSF may be able to do to help ensure the long-term health and success of translational research programs; and (3) Foster new relationships and collaborations through in-person networking opportunities.

Page 5

4 Agenda NSF Welcome José Zayas-Castro, Director, NSF Division of Engineering, Education, and Centers (EEC) Overview of Industry–University Cooperative Research Centers (IUCRCs) Prakash Balan, IUCRC Program Director Panel Discussion on Experiences Leading IUCRCs Moderator: Crystal Leach, IUCRC Program Director Overview of the Accelerating Research Translation (ART) Program Pradeep Fulay, Program Director, Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships (TIP) Overview of the TIP Directorate Barry W. Johnson, Division Dir., TIP & Translational Impacts (TI); NSF Liaison to the US CHIPS Program Overview of the Partnerships for Innovation (PFI) Program Jesús Soriano-Molla; Program Director, NSF Division of Engineering, Education, and Centers (EEC) ERC Participant Introductions Breakout Discussion Sessions on IUCRCs and TIP Programming

Page 6

5NSF Programs that help bridge the gap There are currently fifteen NSF-funded ERCs nationwide1. Seven are in the final five years of funding, during which many begin to explore and plan for self-sufficiency after “graduation”. The long-term goal of most ERCs is to oversee the transition of their technology to the commercial marketplace. However, there is a critical gap between early phase research and commercial-ready technology within which many projects languish due to a misalignment of stakeholder interest. Often, ERCs are facing this so-called “valley of death” (Figure 1) just as their tenure as NSF-funded centers is coming to an end. Information presented by NSF leadership at this workshop (and summarized below) is designed to introduce ERC leaders to additional opportunities for NSF funding to support ERCs and their research as they navigate this challenging phase. NSF offers several funding mechanisms that are aligned with the mission and goals of ERCs and the technologies their members are working together to develop. Several of these programs have been around for decades and have a proven track record of supporting novel technologies as they transition from research to industry, such as the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR), Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry (GOALI), and Industry University Cooperative Research Center (IUCRC) Programs. In addition, NSF recently established its first new Directorate in decades; the Directorate on Technology, Innovations, and Partnerships (established 2022) has as its focus to advance use-inspired and translational research in science and engineering. TIP programs are designed to support the rise of new industries and new, high-wage jobs in STEM fields. An overview of how these programs are organized with NSF is illustrated in Figure 2. 1 https://www.nsf.gov/eng/eec/erc.jsp Figure 1. The so-called “valley of death for novel technologies.

Page 7

6 Speakers from NSF, including Dr. Pradeep P. Fulay (Program Director, Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships), Dr. Barry W. Johnson (Division Director, Translational Impacts), and Dr. Prakash Balan (Program Director, Industry-University Cooperative Research Centers) gave overviews of the specific programs and projects they feel are best aligned with the needs and strengths of those involved in ERCs, both during and after their lifetime as NSF-supported centers. Their full presentations are available in the Appendix. We summarize key points below: The Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships (TIP) Directorate Speaker: Barry W. Johnson, Division Director, Division of Translational Impacts; NSF Liaison to the US CHIPS Program The TIP Directorate was established in 2022 with the broad goal of serving as a new “horizontal” support across NSF disciplines to strengthen and scale use-inspired and translational research. Its specific mission is to: (1) Advance critical emerging technologies; (2) address pressing societal and economic challenges; (3) accelerate the translation of research results from lab to market; and (4) train a diverse workforce for the future. Funding for the TIP Directorate is stipulated in the CHIPS and Science Act (H.R. 4346; CHIPS is an acronym of Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors), which initially defined the purpose and activities of the Directorate, as well as an initial list of the societal, national, and geostrategic challenges, key technology focus areas, and funding programs. It is important to note that, to-date, funding appropriation has only been approved for semiconductor workforce development. The initial list of key focus areas will be revisited and revised regularly; NSF is open to feedback, particularly from ERCs. Dr. Barry Johnson addressing workshop attendees. Figure 2. Organization of the NSF

Page 8

7 Currently, the key technology focus areas are: ● Artificial intelligence, machine learning, autonomy, and related advances; ● High-performance computing, semiconductors, and advanced computer hardware and software; ● Quantum information science and technology; ● Robotics, automation, and advanced manufacturing; ● Natural and anthropogenic disaster prevention or mitigation; ● Advanced communications technology and immersive technology; ● Biotechnology, medical technology, genomics, and synthetic biology; ● Data storage, data management, distributed ledger technologies, and cybersecurity, incl. biometrics; ● Advanced energy and industrial efficiency technologies, such as batteries and advanced nuclear; ● Advanced materials science, including composites 2D materials, other next-generation materials, and related manufacturing technologies. Progress during the first year of TIP Activity during the first year of TIP covered a broad range of outreach, partnership development, and programmatic development efforts. Highlights include the establishment of two key industry partners–Intel and Micron–with whom to work on semiconductor workforce development. NSF is matching the investment made by these industry partners ($100M and >$30M, respectively) to support curriculum development and training. In addition, TIP launched the Future of Semiconductors program2, which includes ~$50 million in funding for basic research; and recently named the first 10 awardees of the Noble Reach Emerge program3, focused on identifying projects from within NSF’s basic research portfolio that are ripe for transfer out of labs and into the market. NSF is also involved in the recently announced (February 2024) National Semiconductor Technology Center (NSTC)4, which is an interagency group focused on helping technologies bridge the valley of death between research (most often publicly funded) and commercialization (most often privately funded). NSF will join the steering committee to develop the Center’s strategic plan. Current TIP Programs TIP’s docket now includes 15 programs, which notably vary in both the types of funding mechanisms they offer and the types of lead organizations eligible to receive the support. In addition to academic researchers, these programs target businesses, industry, government groups, and nonprofits. NSF Convergence Accelerator https://new.nsf.gov/funding/initiatives/convergence-accelerator Funds transdisciplinary teams through convergence research and innovation processes to stimulate innovative idea sharing and the development of sustainable solutions to societal challenges. There are two funding phases: Phase I (9 months, up to $750K) is for planning; Phase II (24 months, up to $5 million) is for implementation. Projects are funded within “tracks” that are defined each year based on feedback from the research and industry communities (via Convergence Accelerator Workshops). 2 https://new.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/future-semiconductors-fuse2 3 See press release from January 2023: https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=306574&org=BIO 4 https://www.nist.gov/chips/research-development-programs/national-semiconductor-technology-center

Page 9

8 NSF Regional Innovation Engines https://new.nsf.gov/funding/initiatives/regional-innovation-engines Some of the largest awards in NSF history, these grants support the development of diverse, regional coalitions to engage in use-inspired research, drive technology innovations to market, promote workforce development, and stimulate job creation. NSF “Engines” receive up to $160 million over the course of up to 10 years. There have been 44 awards to date. There is also the option to apply for Engine Development Awards (up to $1 million for up to 2 years) for groups that have an idea they would like to explore for a future regional effort. NSF is particularly interested in funding projects in regions not currently covered by existing Engines. Innovation Corps (I-Corps) https://new.nsf.gov/funding/initiatives/i-corps The I-Corps program provides experiential entrepreneurial education to those with innovative research ideas. I-Corps “Hubs” (funded at $3 million per year for 5 years) create a network of universities that help researchers learn how to test the market through customer discovery. There are currently 10 Hubs involving nearly 100 universities. Individual teams apply for a 7-week program, for which they receive $50K. This program can be highly valuable to those developing an idea for an ERC, or those leading early-phase ERCs as they focus their research priorities to align with industry/consumer needs. Partnerships for Innovation (PFI) https://new.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/partnerships-innovation-pfi PFI awards are intended to support technology “testbeds” to gain market insight, launch commercial applications, or facilitate industry adoption. The goal is to help researchers translate basic research into technologies and inspire spinoff companies. Awards are made in two phases: Technology Translation (2 years, up to $550K) and Research Partnerships (3 years, up to $1 million). Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) / Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) https://new.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/nsf-small-business-innovation-research-small-0 America’s Seed Fund powers NSF’s SBIR/STTR funding program, which provides support for research and development for deep-tech startups. These projects are geared towards transforming scientific and engineering discoveries into products and services with potential commercial and/or societal impact. This program is unique in that it is intended to fund technology in its early stages. Companies can use these funds to mitigate the risk of exploring a novel solution to a pressing technical problem before it is ready for private investment. In addition, applicants do not need to be well-established companies; NSF is interested in supporting passionate, innovative teams with a good idea. Towards this end, NSF is piloting a program called Compass, which identifies teams in need of extra support to become competitive for seed grants. If successful, this program will be scaled in the future. There are three award Phases: I (6-12 months, up to $275K); II (2 years, up to $1 million); and IIB (up to 2 additional years after Phase II for up to $500K). Pathways to Enable Open-Source Ecosystems (POSE) https://new.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/pathways-enable-open-source-ecosystems-pose Currently in its second year, the POSE program supports sustainable, high-impact, open-source ecosystems to ensure more secure open-source products, increase coordination of developer contributions, and support a more focused route to impactful technologies. These are awarded in two phases: Phase I (1 year, up to $300K) and Phase II (2 years, up to $1.5 million).

Page 10

9 The Accelerating Research Technology (ART) program https://new.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/accelerating-research-translation-art The ART program is focused on supporting institutions of higher education as they build their capacity and infrastructure to strengthen and scale the translation of basic research outcomes into impactful solutions. Awards are for up to $6 million over 4 years. Future of Semiconductors (FuSe) Initiative https://new.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/future-semiconductors-fuse2 The FuSe initiative is a cross-sector partnership with Ericsson, IBM, Intel, and Samsung to support the design of the next generation of semiconductors. ERCs can support workforce development in collaboration with these big players through programs such as INTERN. The ERC ecosystem can also help catalyze networking that in turn helps bridge the gap between large corporations and ongoing efforts by universities and smaller scale corporations or start-ups. For example, integrating emerging data analytics and optimization techniques, heterogeneous integration methods, and large manufacturing of novel materials can have a huge impact on the future of semiconductors. ERC testbeds and engineered systems may play an essential role in bringing this type of IP from the research lab to industrial conveyor belts. Entrepreneurial fellowships https://www.activate.org/the-fellowship This program is run by the non-profit Activate.org to support individual researchers from diverse backgrounds and geographic regions who are working to bring technologies out of the lab and into the marketplace. Fellows receive 2 years of training, at least $350K in direct support, and access to specialized facilities and equipment. Activate.org was started in Berkeley, CA, but NSF is actively seeking to scale this model. Workforce development The TIP Directorate is also focused on generating a stronger workforce for the future. Thus, it encourages workforce development to be at the heart of ERC self-sufficiency efforts. While doing this, having a special emphasis on inclusion and diversity and following NSF INCLUDES guidelines ensures healthy and continuous growth. The Partnerships for Innovation (PFI) Program Speaker: Dr. Jesús Soriano-Molla, Program Director, NSF Division of Engineering, Education, and Centers (EEC) The PFI program assists the development of breakthrough technologies emerging from NSF-funded research by equipping researchers with strategies to iterate on use-inspired, translational research and customer discovery, leading to the development of future applications, products or services that address societal needs. In addition to participating in I-Corps, PFI teams engage their students and postdoctoral researchers in entrepreneurial education and leadership development curricula. PFI places great emphasis on mentoring a diverse body of future innovation leaders. Researchers can use this technology testbed and training to gain market insights, develop and accelerate the launch of future commercial applications, or facilitate industry adoption of NSF-funded research outputs through partnerships. Compared to other programs described in this workshop, PFI is uniquely product focused. PFI projects take on the risk of an early-stage project occupying the so-called “valley of death” and essentially perform startup-type work in an academic environment—prototyping, iterating, and investigating a techno-economic hypothesis (rather than a scientific one) that asks whether a research result funded by NSF can realize its broadening impacts potential through translation to practice or commercialization.

Page 11

10 Who is it for? The PFI program is well suited to ERC faculty who have a product idea that is not quite ready for licensing to the private sector or is too early to justify start-up creation or obtain SBIR/STTR funding. To present the most competitive proposal, those faculty will have completed I-Corps training before applying to PFI. If they have not completed I-Corps training, it will be a required component once they are in the PFI program. In 2008, PFI was positioned as a middle step between I-Corps and SBIR/STTR. PFI is designed to push researchers outside their comfort zone; by the end of the program, they are either ready to create a company around their product, or successfully transfer the technology to a licensing partner. (Note: If your ERC has spun out startups already, you are not disqualified from PFI.) Eligible organizations: ● Academic/research US institutions (universities and two- and four-year colleges, including community colleges) accredited in, and having a campus located within, the US, and acting on behalf of their faculty members; ● Public or non-profit, non-academic US organizations located in the US that are directly associated with technology transfer activities; ● Non-profit US organizations located within the US that partner with an institution of higher education; or ● A US consortium of two or more of the organizations described above. Application requirements and recommendations The core mission of the PFI program is to accelerate solutions to society-level problems by supporting the translation of research discoveries to practice or commercialization. The research upon which the proposal is based must have been funded previously by NSF. There are two tracks to PFI: (1) Technology Translation: Proof-of-concept, prototyping, or scale-up work. Funding is up to $550,000 for 1.5 to 2 years. Applicants must show potential market interest; an Industrial Partner is recommended but not required. A technology commercialization expert (e.g., industry mentor) is required. (2) Research Partnerships: Intended for more complex, larger-scale projects. Funding is up to $1,000,000 for 3 years. Requires multi-organizational, interdisciplinary collaborations as well as at least one industrial partner. The Accelerating Research Translation (ART) Program Speaker: Dr. Pradeep Fulay, Program Director, Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships (TIP) The ART program was established in 2023 with the goals of building capacity and infrastructure for translational research at institutes of higher education, training graduate students in translational research, and increasing the number of translational research projects across all disciplines supported by NSF. In addition to supporting technology transfer out of the lab and into the marketplace, the ART program is interested in funding research that is cross-disciplinary and/or that impacts policy, specific communities, or society-at-large. Thus, a project does not need to center on a commercial product or service, societal/community economic impact is also appropriate. Most importantly, projects should align with the ART vision of connecting traditionally isolated laboratories and faculty into communities of translational practitioners. Whereas translational research is currently most often driven by a few highly motivated individual faculty, the ART program seeks to shift this paradigm towards a model in which translation is the natural next step for foundational research discoveries. Moreover, NSF seeks to create a cohort of ART ambassadors within and across institutions that are committed to training translational

Page 12

11 researchers, advocating for further capacity building in teaching/learning translational research approaches, and supporting a communication network that helps researchers learn from failures and transfer knowledge. The long-term vision is that this approach will effectively scale the capacity for translational research at institutes of higher education across the country. Who is it for? The ART program cuts across all NSF directorates and is discipline-agnostic. The intent is for funding to lift institutions that have historically had high research activity overall but low translational research activities. Thus, all ART applicants are required to include a mentorship plan to engage an institution that has achieved a high level of translational research activities. There is no requirement that an applying institution be ranked as R1. Last year, NSF awarded 18 ART grants for a total of over $100 million. Nearly half of awarded PIs are female and several awarded institutions are part of NSF’s EPSCoR program. Potential value to ERCs Many of the institutions named as mentors of ART awardees (receiving 10% of award funding) also host ERCs. ERCs should also be aware of opportunities to engage with ART projects through other pathways, e.g., AUTM, PTIE, Engines, or Convergence Accelerators. Institutions that participate in ERCs while not leading the centers themselves, should consider applying for ART awards if they conduct a high volume of research but relatively little research translation. IUCRC: Industry–University Cooperative Research Centers Speaker: Dr. Prakash Balan, IUCRC Program Director Dr. Prakash Balan presented an overview of the IUCRC program, which funds long-term (5-10 years) consortia of academic institutions, industry innovators, and government entities engaging in use-inspired research. IUCRCs are a type of collaborative partnership model that brings together universities, government, and industry around the common goal of developing upstream knowledge through basic (publishable) research to help industry drive downstream technological innovation towards commercial and societal impact. NSF defines the model, and funds from the NSF grant itself power the administrative and management costs. Membership funds from stakeholders support research initiatives. Each IUCRC forms an Industry Advisory Board (IAB) made up of industry and government members, which operates democratically to shape the research projects undertaken by the center PIs. This creates value through new knowledge, publications, intellectual property, startups and workforce development in current and emerging industry sectors. Key differences between ERCs and IUCRCs Whereas ERCs are funded primarily through a large NSF award (up to $3,500,000 in the first year alone), the NSF investment in IUCRCs is smaller. However, it is scaled to the number of participating university sites (for Phase I: $150,000 per year x the number of sites). Generally, IUCRCs are expected to sustain their work through industry partner membership fees and other kinds of program income. Consequently, the focus of work in an IUCRC must be driven by clear and strong industrial technological challenges that require upstream (use-inspired) research through the IUCRC to catalyze technological innovation within industry partner organizations. The process of project selection also differs from ERCs: the PIs of an ERC drive the project focus, whereas IUCRC PIs must work with their membership in industry and government to collaboratively select projects of focus. Advisory boards may guide ERCs to align with industry interest, but the ERC is free to pursue their own ideas. In contrast, the IUCRC model requires a high degree of convergence and collaboration between the interests of the academic research team and industrial stakeholders in the IUCRC for the center to thrive and generate broader industrial and societal impact.

Page 13

12 Due to the tight nature of the partnership between academic researchers and industry innovators, IUCRCs bridge the gap between early-stage academic research and commercial readiness, allowing companies to de-risk their R&D, gaining the output of this pooled investment, and working with other companies and academic institutions in a pre-competitive space. What encourages organizations who are competitors in the marketplace to work collaboratively in an IUCRC is the fact that these centers pursue basic research of mutual interest. IUCRCs do not develop technologies, but rather generate the knowledge that catalyzes technological innovation within the membership organizations. Who can benefit from an IUCRC? The IUCRC program is well-suited to groups pursuing ideas that are strongly driven by industrial need (i.e., “use-inspired” research). IUCRC-generated research findings in turn help drive innovation. IUCRCs are inherently collaborative; achieving success requires extensive and continuous communication among consortia members. It is this characteristic that not only helps catalyze innovation, but also better prepares researchers and students to engage more effectively with industry and be well prepared to enter the professional workforce. Specific benefits to key stakeholders include: Industry members find value through IUCRCs by de-risking their own R&D—the early-stage research, often shaped by the needs of industry members, is completed by the researchers at a relatively low cost and risk to companies. Further, the close collaboration gives companies opportunities to work with and mentor students at the university, thus generating a pool of potential future recruits as the company develops their own science and engineering bench talent. Universities benefit from IUCRCs as they dramatically broaden the impacts of their research. As the needs of society and the economy shape the research focus of IUCRCs, the university gains access to relevant problem sets that may have been unknown or intractable without the industry partnership. Universities, too, benefit from the collaboration and networking—relationships can be built at a substantial scale as the university interfaces with a whole collection of federal agencies and industry partners. Students, both graduate and undergraduate, are the beating heart of an IUCRC. Experience with these centers can benefit student careers, as they become a trained workforce ready to hit the ground running when they obtain jobs. Application requirements and recommendations A cross-NSF team supports IUCRCs: ENG, MPS, CISE, SBE, GEO. Regardless of which subject area your research falls within, there are NSF staff with the necessary expertise to consult on your application. The NSF IUCRC team is in constant communication—they will help direct your questions to see where your work best fits. Beyond general subject area, the IUCRC program curates a list of topics of specific interest. This list changes over time to ensure it covers problem sets that are of broad societal need and industrial relevance to the current moment. The list of topics current at the time of this workshop is provided at right.

Page 14

13 There are several phases to planning and establishing an IUCRC (Figure 3): Ideation & Planning Grant Proposal Those interested in establishing and leading a new IUCRC must first hone their focus and submit a preliminary proposal for either the planning grant (typical process; see below) or a planning grant waiver if they hope to skip the planning grant phase (for those who have already established a project team and have completed significant planning and coordination). Planning Grant Phase & Full Center Proposal The planning grant funds 12 months of training, planning, and support. Teams will complete the NSF IUCRC Planning Grantee Bootcamp, which trains site PIs on strategies for member recruitment and hosting a successful Planning Grant Meeting. There is also time devoted to workshopping the value proposition of the proposed Center. Topics will include ensuring research priorities capture industrially-relevant questions, and articulating the center’s vision and objectives. Planning grant funding also supports marketing, customer discovery, and a planning workshop, which is attended by site PIs and personnel as well as an NSF Program Director, an IUCRC Evaluator, and bootcamp instructors/coaches. The workshop’s goal is to prepare the team to secure financial commitments to demonstrate the sustainability of the center. At the culmination of this planning phase, the project team prepares and submits a full center proposal to NSF. IUCRC Site/Center Establishment Each IUCRC is funded at $150,000 per site annually during its first five years (Phase I). If the center remains in good standing, funding continues for another five years as either Phase II ($100,000 per year per site) or Phase II+, which has a higher minimum membership level but receives additional support ($150,000 per year per site). Advice for building and launching a successful IUCRC: A successful IUCRC Center requires an entrepreneurial and collaborative mindset. Challenges are similar as those faced when launching a startup. Some key pieces of advice are collected below: For ERCs considering whether to apply to become an IUCRC: ● Test the waters by attending an existing Center’s IAB (Industry Advisory Board) meeting. A calendar of all IAB meetings is posted publicly5. It may be useful to attend the first day of one of these meetings to see how it works. Note: You may be asked to sign an NDA to protect the privileged 5 https://www.iucrcmeetings.org/ 2024 IUCRC Broad Areas and Research Themes: Advanced Electronics and Photonics Advanced Manufacturing Advanced Materials Biotechnology Civil Infrastructure Systems Energy and Environment Forensic science Geosciences Health and Safety IT, Communication, and Computing System Design and Simulation Figure 3. Steps and timeline from IUCRC ideation to establishment as a new site or Center. IUCRC – Establishing a Center11Path and Timeline to IUCRC CreationFast Track Planning Grant Waivers

Page 15

14 information being discussed by members. Serving on review panels can be another fruitful way to better understand the IUCRC program prior to applying. ● When considering the focus of your IUCRC, note that NSF avoids funding Centers in highly developed, well-researched spaces. The priority is to push the frontiers at a national scope to serve US interest and competitiveness. Thus, you are best served by focusing on emerging areas of research. Advice regarding Center staff: ● Leadership: An IUCRC typically involves several sites and over a dozen industry partners, along with government partners. This creates many moving parts that need to be tracked, managed, and guided towards the IUCRCs common goal. Inertia tends towards siloed research, which is antithetical to the IUCRC model. Thus, IUCRCs require a solid leadership structure that promotes collaborative brainstorming and problem solving. In the end, both the academic and industry perspectives are necessary to solve the most important research problems. ● Faculty: Find faculty who are not only leaders in their space but also willing to work collaboratively and who achieve productive chemistry with the team. You will face challenges; thus the team has to be robust enough to continue to work together through hard times. A group of engaged faculty may also themselves recruit other faculty and industry contacts to be involved in the Center in a variety of ways. External experts from beyond the site can be brought in as collaborators. The program allows external collaborators, but they will be considered sub-contractors. Thus, you may subaward program income to them. ● Develop strong cross-institutional support and get your administration engaged early. ● Bring on a key team member with strong and deep industrial experience to guide the academic team. The ILO is typically a key player in this role. Advice regarding recruiting and working with IUCRC members: ● Engage in extensive customer discovery—talk to potential Center members as well as faculty and administration within your university. ● Continuous communication between the stakeholders is key. Effective leaders treat their members as active, direction-giving stakeholders, not just funders. ● Network far and wide, beyond your core supporters. Engage earnestly with companies who may be resistant to join—what does that tell you about your focus or approach? Is this an opportunity for a realignment in focus? ● Companies often will start out highly secretive as they transition from the competitive space to a more collaborative space. Site PIs will have to work to gain their trust, and to understand the concerns of these members. Consider having small workshops involving a small handful of industry members with whom Center staff can present current research, pose questions about what the companies would like to see, etc. A more private environment may help assuage confidentiality concerns. ● If you focus work on a very emerging area, the size of the companies may also be small, which likely means they will be more willing to collaborate.

Page 16

15Panel Discussion on experiences and lessons learned from participating and leading IUCRCs Moderator Crystal Leach IUCRC Program Director Panelists Susan Trolier-McKinstry Professor of Ceramic Science and Engineering, Pennsylvania State University ● IUCRC Experience: Director of the Center for Dielectrics and Piezoelectrics (CDP) ● ERC Experience: Research Thrust Leader for Advanced Self-Powered Systems of Integrated Sensors and Technologies (ASSIST) Chaowei Yang Professor of Geographic Information Science, George Mason University ● IUCRC Experience: Site PI for the Center for Spatiotemporal Thinking, Computing, and Applications (STC) Massimiliano Albanese Associate Professor and Associate Chair for Research, Dept. of Information Science and Technology, George Mason University; Associate Director, Center for Secure Information Systems, George Mason University ● IUCRC Experience: Co-PI for the Center for Cybersecurity Analytics and Automation (CCAA) Scott Ransom Senior Director, Industry Engagement, Georgia Institute of Technology ● ERC Experience: Industrial Liaison Officer for the Center for Cell Manufacturing Technologies (CMaT) Discussion The ERC & IUCRC programs are aligned in their goal of supporting and accelerating translational research. The panelists have all had experience leading IUCRCs and in some cases ERCs as well. Dr. Leach led a discussion of prepared questions, after which workshop attendees were invited to ask additional questions. What is the major difference between an ERC and an IUCRC? The biggest difference between the two types of centers is their research timeframe. For an ERC, the vast majority of funding comes from the NSF, particularly in the early years, and that investment is intended to create value over the 10- to 20-year timeframe. Companies who work with ERCs know they are participating in a longer-term vision and so the expectations are (usually) adjusted to longer-term deliverables. For an IUCRC, the research projects are more focused, and the timeframe of expected deliverables is much shorter. Industry members' fees are key to funding the work performed at an IUCRC, as the award itself is only $750,000 ($150,000 per year for the first five years) compared to an ERC’s award Discussion panelists addressing workshop attendees.

Page 17

16 (funding maximum up to $6,000,000 at year 5). Industry members investing heavily into the IUCRC to fund its work often expect research deliverables in 3-5 years. What does success look like for ERCs/IUCRCs? The NSF tends to request specific metrics from ERCs in their progress reports, including the number of spin-off companies started, licenses, etc. However, there are other metrics that are less obvious, and perhaps harder to track, that may better reflect the health and success of an ERC. For instance, the majority of licenses result from startups that spin out of the ERC, which is often driven by students licensing their own technology. Thus, it is not necessarily the licenses that are the key indicator of translation, but rather student outcomes. Students hired into industry take with them not only their skills and expertise, but also their specific perspectives and worldview. The transfer of that knowledge can be highly valuable to an ERC or IUCRC. It can be challenging to track and/or measure student outcomes, especially over the 5- to 10-year timeframe. Panelists suggest working with alumni offices and development officers to track metrics such as hires, job success, or ongoing relationships with the university. What does success look like for industry members of IUCRCs? Most industry members want to be able to learn about key research breakthroughs or innovations and immediately be able to put that knowledge into practice to advance their missions. It may be hard to see or measure any immediate impact of this collaboration. Translation to industry can also happen outside of formal partnerships: As we disseminate information about our work, others leverage that information in their own projects. These types of impacts are also difficult to track, but it is a big part of IUCRC success. Do you have any insights into how to sustain the work of the IUCRC or ERC? Companies that work with IUCRCs are interested in reliability and efficiency, which is generally less important to the NSF. However, the core knowledge developed through IUCRC projects helps the centers attract funding from private sources, which can become key to sustaining center work. Further, as an IUCRC becomes more established, it may serve as a source of expert knowledge in the field. Once the center has established its core capabilities and others in the field recognize it as the go-to for a particular knowledge set, the opportunities for future funding will grow. When is the best time to consider an IUCRC? Generally, NSF does not fund the same project through more than one mechanism. Thus, IUCRCs are best pursued as a follow-up to an ERC. However, it’s a great idea to begin laying the groundwork for an IUCRC during the last three years of your ERC. Consider which projects within your ERC may be of particular interest to industry and begin involving some of those industry partners early in the planning process. Are there any potential conflicts of interest for those contributing to an IUCRC? Even if a company is a member of an IUCRC, it can be challenging for them to feel safe enough to share their needs with the broader IUCRC community. They may be wary of trade secrets being shared with other member companies or of potential future competition that might arise from academics who spin out start-ups. IUCRC leaders must work to build trust with their member companies. In some cases, IUCRC PIs have committed to not starting their own company to allay industry partner fears. Another strategy is to be judicious about which companies are brought in as members; some companies have particularly complex relationships with each other that would make collaboration within an IUCRC difficult.

Page 18

17 The value of building trust with member companies goes beyond the work at the IUCRC itself: Once companies work with academics and realize that they can trust you with their investment, they are more likely to be open to other collaborations beyond the IUCRC. These types of long-standing relationships can lead to individually funded projects, visiting research scientists, and other opportunities. How do you identify technology that aligns well with an IUCRC? As ERC leaders, you have a particular opportunity to assess specific industry interests. As you assemble your ERC membership portfolio, you will likely encounter companies who may not be interested in your ERC. In such cases, ask them: What are you interested in? Their answers are likely to highlight areas ripe for IUCRC-building. What are the downsides, if any, to seeking IUCRC funding? Compared to other grants, including those supporting ERCs, the funding amount is relatively small. However, as a vehicle for fostering long-term collaboration with industry, universities, and international sites, its value exceeds NSF’s monetary award. How can international sites be involved in IUCRCs? One of the features of the IUCRC program is that there are mechanisms through which PIs may add sites to the center as it grows. For new sites located within the US, teams must apply to NSF through the standard process. However, NSF does not have the ability to grant funds to foreign universities. Thus, additional sites located outside the US may join an existing IUCRC and be funded through program income (income from industry membership fees, for example). Partnering with international sites is encouraged, especially where there is potential for unique contributions to the partnership. What is the value of the IUCRC planning grant? The purpose of the planning grant is to formalize the IUCRC planning process. The award is relatively small ($20,000 per site) and is intended mostly to fund the planning workshop, including support for university participants (industry partners are expected to pay their own way). In addition, the training offered during this period is highly valuable and tailored to helping IUCRCs establish their value proposition. The training takes place over eight weeks and often significantly reshapes the mission and goals of the proposed center. Participants also use this period to solicit feedback from potential industry partners and answer their questions. If you have done your own planning and topic exploration (for example, through the NSF I-Corps program6) and have converged on a research roadmap that you believe has a high likelihood of success, you may apply for the waiver. If granted, the waiver allows you to skip the training phase and begin preparing a full application. 6 https://new.nsf.gov/funding/initiatives/i-corps

Page 19

18 Participating ERCs Representatives of 17 ERCs attended and participated in the workshop. Fourteen were currently funded by the NSF and three others had already completed their NSF funding and “graduated” out of the program. Each ERC was invited to give a three-minute overview of their center. A brief description of each is included below. ASPIRE Center for Advancing Sustainability through Powered Infrastructure for Roadway Electrification Bio: ASPIRE seeks to create sustainable, equitable, and widespread electrification of vehicles by creating low-cost, ubiquitous, and worry-free charging. Established: 2020 Website: https://aspire.usu.edu/ Sites: Utah State University in partnership with Purdue University, University of Colorado, and University of Texas at El Paso. ASSIST Center for Advanced Self-Powered Systems of Integrated Sensors and Technologies Bio: ASSIST focuses on creating self-powered sensing, computing, and communication systems to enable data-driven insights for a smart and healthy world. Established: 2012 Website: https://assistcenter.org/ Sites: North Carolina State University in partnership with Penn State University, University of Virginia, Florida International University, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Tokyo Institute of Technology, and University of Adelaide. ATP-Bio Center for Advanced Technologies for Preservation of Biological Systems Bio: ATP-Bio aims to stop biological time by designing methods to cryogenically cool, hold, and re-warm living materials without harm, extending our ability to bank and transport them. Established: 2020 Website: https://www.atp-bio.org/ Sites: University of Minnesota in partnership with Massachusetts General Hospital; University of California, Berkeley; and University of California, Riverside. CASFER Center for Advancing Sustainable and Distributed Fertilizer Production Bio: The CASFER ERC will enable resilient and sustainable food production by developing next-generation, modular, distributed, and efficient technology for capturing, recycling, and producing decarbonized nitrogen-based fertilizers.

Page 20

19 Established: 2022 Website: https://www.casfer.us/ Sites: Texas Tech University in partnership with Case Western Reserve University, Florida A&M University, the Georgia Institute of Technology, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. CBBG Center for Bio-mediated and Bio-inspired Geotechnics Bio: CBBG employs or mimics natural biological processes and materials to engineer the ground in ways that reduce infrastructure development lifecycle costs and impacts while mitigating natural hazards and environmental degradation. Established: 2015 Website: https://cbbg.engineering.asu.edu/ Sites: Arizona State University in partnership with the Georgia Institute of Technology, New Mexico State University, and the University of California, Davis. CELL-MET Center for Cellular Metamaterials Bio: CELL-MET aims to transform cardiovascular care by combining breakthroughs in nanotechnology and manufacturing with tissue engineering and regenerative medicine, while also developing areas of expertise in education, diversity, administration, and outreach. Established: 2017 Website: https://www.bu.edu/cell-met/ Sites: Boston University in partnership with Florida International University and the University of Michigan. CMaT Center for Cell Manufacturing Technologies Bio: CMaT's vision is to enable robust, scalable, low-cost biomanufacturing of high-quality therapeutic cells to bring affordable, curative therapies against incurable chronic diseases to everyone. Established: 2017 Website: https://cellmanufacturingusa.org/ Sites: Georgia Institute of Technology in partnership with the University of Georgia, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and the University of Puerto Rico. CQN Center for Quantum Networks Bio: CQN aims to create the first quantum network with fully error-corrected quantum connectivity over local and global scales by developing key quantum technologies and new functional building blocks that connect quantum processors. Established: 2020 Website: https://cqn-erc.org/ Sites: University of Arizona in partnership with Harvard University, MIT, and Yale University.

Page 21

20 CS3 Center for Smart Streetscapes Bio: The CS3 will forge livable, safe, and inclusive communities through real-time, hyperlocal technologies for streets and their surroundings. Established: 2022 Website: https://cs3-erc.org/ Sites: Columbia University in partnership with Florida Atlantic University, Lehman College, Rutgers University, and the University of Central Florida. FREEDM Center for Future Renewable Electric Energy Delivery and Management (FREEDM) Systems Bio: Our vision for FREEDM Systems is an efficient electric power grid integrating highly distributed and scalable alternative generating sources and storage with existing power systems to facilitate a green energy-based society, mitigate the growing energy crisis, and reduce the impact of carbon emissions on the environment. Established: 2008 (Graduated) Website: https://www.freedm.ncsu.edu/ Sites: North Carolina State University (NCSU), in partnership with Arizona State University, Florida A&M University, Florida State University, and Missouri University of Science and Technology. HAMMER Center for Hybrid Autonomous Manufacturing Moving from Evolution to Revolution Bio: The HAMMER ERC will accelerate the development and deployment of intelligent, autonomous manufacturing systems, enabling mass customization in local production facilities. Established: 2022 Website: https://hammer.osu.edu/ Sites: The Ohio State University in partnership with Case Western Reserve University, North Carolina A&T State University, Northwestern University, and the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. IoT4Ag Center for the Internet of Things for Precision Agriculture Bio: IoT4Ag seeks to ensure food, energy, and water security with new systems to increase crop production while minimizing energy and water use and environmental impacts of agricultural practices. Established: 2020 Website: https://iot4ag.us/ Sites: University of Pennsylvania in partnership with Purdue University; University of California, Merced; and the University of Florida.

Page 22

21 NEWT Center for Nanotechnology Enabled Water Treatment Systems Bio: NEWT develops high-performance and easy-to-deploy water treatment systems that will broaden access to clean drinking water from a variety of unconventional sources and enable industrial wastewater reuse at off-grid locations. Established: 2015 Website: http://www.newtcenter.org/ Sites: Rice University in partnership with Arizona State University, the University of Texas at El Paso, and Yale University. PATHS-UP Center for Precise Advanced Technologies and Health Systems for Underserved Populations Bio: PATHS-UP is changing the paradigm for the health of underserved populations by developing revolutionary, cost-effective technologies and systems at the point-of-care. Established: 2017 Website: https://pathsup.org/ Sites: Texas A&M University in partnership with Florida International University, Rice University, and the University of California, Los Angeles. POETS Center for Power Optimization for Electro-Thermal Systems Bio: POETS is improving the electric power density available in tightly constrained mobile environments by integrating novel 3-D cooling circuitry, power converters, and algorithms for smart power management. Established: 2015 Website: https://poets-erc.org/ Sites: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in partnership with Howard University, Stanford University, and the University of Arkansas. PreMiEr Center for Precision Microbiome Engineering Bio: The PreMiEr ERC will create microbiome technologies that address challenges at the interface of human health and the built environment by preventing colonization by infectious agents and promoting the proliferation of beneficial microorganisms. Established: 2022 Website: https://premier-microbiome.org/ Sites: Duke University in partnership with North Carolina A&T State University; North Carolina State University; the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. TANMS Center for Translational Applications of Nanoscale Multiferroic Systems

Page 23

Page 24

23 Challenges and Lessons Learned Participating ERCs were asked to discuss challenges they are facing or have faced in the past as well as key lessons they have learned in establishing and running their ERC. General challenges faced by ERCs at all stages ○ Maintaining communication among project managers, across participating institutions, and among industry partners is essential, though challenging. There are also particular challenges in navigating relationships between industry members who may be in direct competition. ○ Running an ERC requires business management skills. Thus, academic faculty may be ill-equipped to lead the diverse, cross-cutting members through the tight coordination necessary for successful ERC collaboration. More business experience and/or training would be helpful. Challenges at the early stage ○ Funding for technology at the very earliest stages can be lacking. Industry partners, particularly smaller companies, and/or end-users are inherently risk averse. Thus, it is critical to fund high-quality research focused on de-risking. ○ Developing industry partnerships during this early phase can be challenging because the ERC is new and has not had time to establish a reputation for rigor and success. ○ Often, ERC success stems from one or a few key institutional champions. Without such champions (i.e., early stages), progress may be slower and partnership outreach less effective. Challenges at the late stage ○ Once an ERC has secured a critical mass of members, it can be challenging to figure out how to leverage those memberships to best support their technologies through the “valley of death”. ○ Depending on the field, regulatory challenges become a factor as technology advances toward the marketplace. ○ In some cases, macroeconomic trends impact industry’s appetite and ability to partner with ERCs. Recommendations and lessons learned by ERCs ● Start slow: It is important to start slow when establishing your ERC’s structure and early research agenda. Similarly, it is important to be patient and opportunistic during this early phase. ● Seek to fill in expertise gaps: Bring in the expertise you need (business skills, end-user alignment) through your advisory boards. ● Celebrate talent development: Talent is a major draw for industry partners; the development of talented students entering the industry pipeline is an outcome to celebrate as part of your work. ● Use NSF: Reach out to NSF staff to help identify the right opportunities for your team. ● Recommendation to NSF: It can be challenging to understand what funding opportunities exist for ERCs during their tenure and after graduation - a consolidated list of resources would be helpful.

Page 25

24Summary of Breakout Sessions On potential alignment between ERCs and NSF’s IUCRC program Dr. Prakash Balan (IUCRC Program Director) led a breakout session for questions and discussion related to the IUCRC program. Key information is summarized below. How do the IUCRC universities manage the funds? The funding structure of the IUCRC is a centralized model: the lead site manages both the grant funds and program income (such as industry membership fees) and distributes those funds to the sites according to their agreements. Almost all submissions to IUCRCs propose an unequal budget model to reflect this additional administrative work that falls to the lead site. All universities must sign a Memorandum of Understanding that details how to administer the center, how to move money around, performance standards, who does the recruiting in each site, and how to tell if a site is underperforming and what to do about that. In the case that a site gets added later, that site generally uses a portion of its award to issue a subaward to the lead site to pitch in for those administrative efforts. How should a putative IUCRC team prepare for a successful submission? First, spend a good deal of time working with your university and other university partners on the submission, and soliciting letters of interest from non-academic partners. At the preliminary proposal stage, you will need to indicate the level of interest among other organizations. While you do not need letters of support at this early stage, you will need to show far greater interest than the number of members necessary to be financially secure, as it is expected that interest will diminish over the period of the submission and review process. A good general rule is to expect ~30% of the companies interested will actually commit to the center in the end. In addition, keep in mind that potential company partners will get excited in part from seeing others in their sphere getting involved; they may commit in part to ensure they are not missing out on what the others are getting. For the planning grant, each site submits its own proposal, wherein they discuss what they specifically are contributing. Reviewers will get a sense of the flavor of projects this center may pursue, but they realize that the mix will shift once the IUCRC is established and research begins in earnest. If your planning grant does not get funded, this is not a dead end. Some successful teams start anyway, engaging an alternative plan to keep industry partners engaged for a later submission. Ideally, the partnership will gain momentum, which will help any future submission. Breakout session on the ICURC program, led by Dr. Prakash Balan.

Page 26

25 What is the optimum makeup of sites, researchers, and industry partners for an IUCRC? IUCRCs typically have between 2-4 University partners. Participating faculty should be about 7x the number of sites—the guidance is generally “more than a handful” supporting the site. There also should be a minimum of two industry partners per site. However, at the planning grant stage you need to assume that only 30% of partners expressing interest will become fully committed partners. Thus, it is wise for a 3-site proposal (6 committed partners), to secure at least 18 letters of interest; more is always better. There tends to be a sweet spot of companies feeling invested in part due to a fear of missing out—if they see a critical mass of their colleagues and competitors in the room for this IUCRC, they may be enticed to commit or stay. If it feels empty in the room, they may perceive lesser value. As IUCRCs enter Phase II, there are two flavors: Phase II and Phase II+. Phase II+ centers have 50% more members, and we see these generating enormous enthusiasm. How do IUCRCs get started defining their research projects? Once you are awarded the planning award, IUCRC evaluators assist you with best practices. If awarded, that same evaluator assists for another year, giving you feedback and advice, attending your meetings as observers, and assisting with questions on NSF policy. Once an IUCRC center is established, there are twice yearly IAB (Industry Advisory Board) meetings. These are day-long affairs that include pitches for projects, poster sessions, and more with their industry partners. Generally, there is a request for proposals from IUCRC partners; a subset of the collected ideas is presented to the IAB for a vote. This shortlist is recommended to PIs, who need to agree to it as well. Close collaboration is key to ensure these research projects are of broad interest to your membership. The big rule for NSF on research topics is that no project can be a 1-on-1 in service with a company, i.e., no “pet projects”. Thus, centers put in place some internal checks and balances, including a threshold for the minimum number of interested companies for a topic to move forward. Center bylaws govern how projects are selected and voted on and what happens if there are conflicting obligations or delays. Importantly, these bylaws don’t have to be signed by the lawyers, just the reps of the company—the goal is to avoid major bureaucratic complications though this partnership. We recommend looking at bylaws published on center websites for good examples to review. What do you see as the real barrier to people applying to IUCRCs? The transition from ERC to IUCRC can be challenging due to the massive difference in scale: you’re essentially going from a large corporation (ERC) to spinning out a startup (IUCRC). The IUCRC funding that comes from NSF is an order of magnitude lower than the ERC award ($150,000 in the first year versus up to $3,500,000 in the first year of an IUCRC). The difference is that IUCRC funding is really meant to establish the framework for the center, while the driving force of the research itself comes from the members and their fees. However, the smaller scale is as much a benefit as it is a constraint. In many ways, you essentially have a nonprofit startup operating within an academic setting whose structure is specifically intended to build a vibrant partnership with industry. Your research projects are essentially guaranteed to be of strong industry interest, as your members help shape your research program. In addition, students, both undergraduate and graduate, will leave with a powerful understanding of industry needs and ample skills learned from both academic research and from interfacing with the business world. As most engineering students now go into industry, experience with an IUCRC can set them up well for success.

Page 27

26Request from ERCs to NSF: How can we easily find funding opportunities available to us? One request from ERCs to NSF was to establish a list or search engine that outlines available programs and supplements available to ERCs to build their sustainable off-ramp as they approach graduation. While such a specific resource does not currently exist, Dr. Balan identified a few resources to assist ERCs with identifying funding sources available to them: ● Lean on your Industry Liaison Officers to develop a roadmap for funding opportunities relevant to your ERC. They should work with program officers to assemble that information. Consider also working with the ILO Mentorship Training Program to share tools and strategies to develop that roadmap. ● Search for opportunities using the NSF search engine aggregator7. ● Discuss this need and how other ERCs are addressing it at the ERC Biennial Meeting8. On potential alignment between ERCs and NSF’s TIP programming Dr. Jesús Soriano-Molla [former TIP & PFI Program Director, current Program Director, NSF Division of Engineering, Education, and Centers (EEC)] answered questions related to TIP programs and how they may integrate with the structure and work of ERCs. Highlights are summarized below: Which, if any, TIP programs are appropriate for those of us involved in early-stage ERCs? Would it be possible for TIP to write a pitch geared specifically towards ERCs that summarizes these programs? First, be careful not to let categories like “early stage” or “technology readiness level” (TRL) define the readiness of your research for NSF funding. Just because an ERC identifies its technologies as low TRL does not mean the research is early-stage and/or inappropriate for NSF funding. Thus, many NSF programs can be useful for ERCs at any stage. A few programs to consider: ● I-Corps: Many ERCs use the I-Corps program to help define their overarching goals early on. While useful for focusing a developing research program, it runs the risk of constraining the idea phase. Also consider I-Corps during a slightly later phase to filter through a set of early ideas. There is never a shortage of fundamental research ideas, but the ERC’s job is to assess these ideas and choose the likely “winners”. The I-Corps program can help with that. ● PFI grants: Whereas ERCs must balance many programs at once, the PFI program is designed to support a single PI for a single project. Thus, PFI grants may integrate with the work of ERCs by supporting particularly promising or well-defined research ideas that stem from ERC collaborations. PFI grants require that the proposed project demonstrate a “lineage” of NSF 7 https://www.nsf.gov/search/ 8 https://ercbiennial.asee.org/ Breakout session on NSF’s TIP programming, led by Dr. Jesús Soriano-Molla

Page 28

27 funding. However, having stemmed from an ERC-funded counts towards such lineage. In fact, this is exactly the vision of the ERC program: to seed novel research ideas and directions in engineering technology that can then be pursued outside of the ERC. Moreover, because the PFI mechanism is less well-known than other technology innovation-focused granting mechanisms, the applicant pool is likely to be smaller. Finally, the PFI program does not require that the proposing PI already retain intellectual property (IP) of their technological innovation. In this case, NSF is more interested in the fact that the project team has a well thought through IP strategy that aligns with the intended market. In fact, projects funded by PFI are eligible for supplemental funding (APEX; $50K) to support future efforts to secure IP. ● Engineering Research Initiation (ERI) awards and the Faculty Early Career Development program (CAREER): Because of the funding lineage requirement, PFI awards may not be a good fit for projects led by early-stage faculty. For these faculty, consider ERI or CAREER awards. ● Convergence Accelerator program: NSF’s Convergence Accelerator program is designed to align areas of robust research with pressing societal problems. In this way, ERCs may be able to leverage the Converge Accelerator program to gain exposure and recognition of their areas of research. Each year, the NSF funds groups to convene workshops at which stakeholders discuss potential areas of research-problem alignment and then report on their findings to the NSF. These reports may form the basis of funding priorities in future years. In addition, these workshops have the potential to foster cross-pollination among stakeholders, which can lead to new collaborations and partnerships. ● Regional Innovation Engines: Depending on your geographic location and the density of your industry partners, Regional Innovation Engine grants may align with a piece of your ERC’s portfolio. In their first few years, ERCs may not have enough partners in any given region to secure these types of grants. However, if you feel you may be contributing to an important regional innovation ecosystem, you are encouraged to apply. Do not assume that your region does not qualify, let NSF decide! This is a relatively new program, and the funding approach is still being refined. At what stage are ERCs most ripe for TIP programs? The short answer is: It depends on the program. SBIR Phase I grants are for technology that is still in the prototype phase. The PFI program requires that the project be based on results from previously funded research activities and that the technology not yet be market ready. How do you determine whether a project developed within an ERC has appropriate funding lineage to qualify for a PFI grant? To claim a project’s funding lineage within the context of a PFI grant application, you must demonstrate that the ERC award led to the data upon which the project is based. It is also important that the PI/university controls the IP (not a company). The NSF is not interested in subsidizing corporate research through this mechanism. Which of the TIP programs come with potential conflicts of interest for the ERC? What about students who want to continue pursuing projects they started within the ERC? The NSF cannot fund the same project twice. Thus, it is often the case that IUCRC funding must come after ERCs have graduated from the NSF-funded program. For students, the effort requirements of various grant mechanisms usually mean they will have to disengage from ERC funding, but that does not preclude them from sharing data with the ERC as they continue to pursue their research.

Page 29

28Does the PFI application require letters of support and/or letters of commitment?Yes. PFI applicants are asked to submit 1-3 letters of support plus additional letters of commitment. Theletters of support are used to assess whether the PI/project team has been successful in reaching outsideof their lab for input and feedback on their ideas. Thus, these letters are most effective if they come frompeople with whom you do not already have an existing relationship. Letters of commitment areimportant to demonstrate that you have access the resources and support you need to be successful.Thus, these letters should be accompanied by supplemental information in the text of the proposaldetailing how the relationship is going to work and what these partners will be contributing.Is there a limit to re-applying to TIP programs?No. NSF encourages re-submission of applications that have been revised and improved in response toreviewer feedback. Please do avoid re-submitting an application that does not incorporate previousfeedback. Note that while the status of an application (i.e., new versus resubmission) is tracked by NSF,both types are reviewed together.Which of the numerous NSF programs geared towards innovative translational technology arelikely to become permanent?The number of new NSF programs and solicitations geared towards funding innovative technologiesand partnerships is exploding. Not all of these will last. However, a new funding mechanism is a goodopportunity to help define what successful research in your area looks like. There is also a cyclical natureto some NSF funding mechanisms, e.g., Convergence Accelerators, which means that areas of highinterest and robust progress are likely to be prioritized in future years.

AcknowledgmentsASSIST Workshop Committee thanks the following NSF personnel for their continuous support withplanning sessions, recruiting speakers, and providing the venue for the workshop: Dr. Sandra Cruz-Pol,Dr. Erwin Gianchandani, Dr. Jesús Soriano-Molla, Dr. Crystal Leach, Dr. Prakash G. Balan, and KevinNguyen.

Appendix: Link to Presentation Slides