Frequently Asked Questions
Following the original vision of the founder, the Institute intends to concentrate on fulfilling its research mission with the lowest possible overhead. Therefore, minimizing the number of submissions to be reviewed becomes essential.
Candidates must be members of the Association of American Universities (AAU) and are ranked by peer review in physics and chemistry.
No.
The Applicant must be a member of either the physics or chemistry department.
If the Applicant is a member of the chemistry department, the primary interest must be in fundamental chemistry. If in the physics department, the interest must be in either condensed matter or atomic physics.
The Brown Investigator Awards program is interested in supporting high quality curiosity-driven basic research. The early days after tenure are often a critical opportunity for scientists to frame a new bold problem. However, their accomplishments before tenure can lock them into a less risky research path, for which they are more likely to secure continued funding from government agencies. The Brown Investigator Awards are designed to enable them to pursue the roads less traveled and hopefully result in new scientific understanding.
Tenure refers to the date of first receipt by the Applicant of a commitment to tenure at a major research university (it need not be at the Invitee). July 1st of the first Award year can not be greater than 10 years after that commitment date.
If the Applicant is a theorist, the maximum grant is up to $1,250,000 and, if an experimentalist, up to $2,000,000. The maximum time span is 5 years. It can be shorter.
No. The Applicant is free to distribute planned annual funding as required over the period of the Award. Rationale for non-even distribution should be provided in the Proposal.
Anything directly related to the research except faculty compensation and any indirect costs not in excess of 10% of the non-equipment disbursements.
Yes, although the Foundation is anxious to avoid the appearance of bias, the hurdle will be a little higher for universities currently executing an Award. Having three current awards or two back-to-back awards will result in a holiday from the invitation list.
No.
The subject matter of the proposed research will unlikely be totally new or novel. TheApplicant will likely have been thinking about the question for some time and never had the time or resources to pursue it. Nevertheless, the Institute will be careful in funding an extension of major efforts on behalf of the Applicant if it reflects an extension of prior pursuits.
While the written Proposals will be used for initial screening, the final round will involve interviews. The SAB and the Institute will probably also rely on additional resources in its evaluation.
Currently, the SAB is made up of six members, three with primary interest in chemistry and three with interest in physics. They all have senior academic backgrounds, either active or emeritus, at major US research universities. The Institute does not expect to make the membership of the SAB public.
To attract universities to propose the best candidates, the Institute is anxious to avoid any appearance of bias and has therefore created a conflicts of interest protocol to guide SAB member's recusals. This is available to any prospective Invitee.
The Institute strongly discourages such contact.
The program targets curiosity driven basic science, so a discussion of application prospects is not expected. However, it is always interesting to speculate on where the results might lead.
The SAB will be concerned about the amount of time an Applicant is able to devote to the program over the life of the Grant. Programs already funded or likely to be funded with significant resources will face significant selection hurdles. Similarly, Applicants with significant administrative duties (such as a department chair) or teaching demands will face similar hurdles.
Sufficient background diligence needs to be demonstrated to guard against a re-invention of the wheel. This is particularly true when reaching across inter- disciplinary lines. Applications should address these concerns directly.
The SAB recognizes that the Invitee has already done the hard work in selecting the Applicant. The SAB will make a judgment on how well the Applicant's proposal(a) matches the Institute's desire to pursue curiosity driven basic science,(b) demonstrates a full understanding of the existing science and state of knowledge,(c)has proposed a thought-out plan that is capable of being executed within the period of performance, and (d) has addressed any likely problems that might be encountered.
Yes.
Not normally. There probably will be rare cases where some aspect of the work needs to extend beyond the end date. Cases where there are residual accounting accruals (bills not yet paid) can routinely be handled up to 90 days past the end date. These will need to be discussed with the Institute in advance. A one-year extension can be requested in writing to the Institute, but any extension beyond that would be discouraged.
No. The Applicant is free to direct the funds to where needed to complete the proposed research as long as the annual agreed funding is not changed.
It will probably be a rare occurrence that the funding is evenly spread. Equipment required up front or ramp-up/ramp-down requirements augur for a funding profile that matches need. This should be outlined and explained in the initial Proposal.
Yes, but it requires advance Institute approval.
No.
Yes, if desired by the Applicant, provided that they do not exceed fees charged to any other user.
Attendance at the annual meeting is strongly encouraged. The Institute thinks there are benefits to all from attending.
The Institute conforms to the standard policies of the Invitee.
No.
The list of invited universities is reviewed annually.
The SAB makes recommendations to the Program Oversight Committee, which makes the final decisions.
Yes. Delays in publication, to protect IP rights, for example, must obey the rules established by the Invitee for U.S. government grants.
The SAB will be interested in:
- How and when did the nominee become interested in the proposed research?
- How does it relate to the nominee's current work?
- What is the current status of work in this and related fields?
- How does the nominee propose to tackle the proposed research?
- Is the proposed research likely to produce actionable knowledge within the time frame and budget?
- Why is funding for the proposed research difficult to obtain from normal sources?
- What challenges does the nominee expect to encounter during the program?
Yes, with advance Brown Institute consent.