Please see below for responses to Frequently Asked Questions regarding the VESRI program and proposals. For additional questions, please contact email@example.com.
We specified eight (8) pages of scientific text and figures, excluding budgets, CVs, citations, etc. There is no standard proposal template, but the general VESRI guidelines of ambition, collaboration, interdisciplinarity, and “methodological advances in climate modeling.” Still, apply. “Milestones” and “deliverables” can be appropriately vague in keeping with the risky and ambitious nature: but a set of delineated tasks or work packages, with expected outcomes at the end of each year of funding, will be useful. Feel free to change the list o
We do not specify rubrics such as the US NSF’s “Broader Impacts,” but you may include them if you wish, as they are generally well-received by reviewers. Similarly, with demographics (gender, age, national, underrepresented minorities) diversity on proposing teams. Collaboration with other Schmidt-funded projects is neither encouraged nor discouraged and will not count in the evaluation. CVs should be relatively short (typically no more than two (2) pages) and can follow the format most commonly used by your country’s funding agencies.
We expect open science, so we would welcome plans and timelines for offering software through open-source, for making key data available through publicly accessible archives, preprints available through archives, etc.
There is no standard budget template, such as the US grants.gov. Indirect costs imposed by institutions are capped at 10%, but you may be able to include some expenses (both capital and operating) as direct costs. Please submit a single budget for the whole project. A breakdown by each institution would be helpful but not essential. We prefer to manage projects through a lead PI and a lead institution for scientific and financial reporting with sub-granting as needed, but that is not essential. The evaluation will first and foremost be on scientific merit, and it will be possible to iron out budget details after a proposal has been selected for an award.
We wish to underline (as several people have asked) that reviews will be undertaken by your peers in the scientific community, not people from the IT industry. The evaluation will be on scientific merit. Review teams will include members of the VESRI-AB (see VESRI website) as well as other members of your community. Some of you on the proposing teams may receive requests to review. Please be assured that this is not a zero (or fixed) sum game, so your review of another proposal has no bearing, positive or negative, on the chances of your own.
To clarify, the core team does not exist yet. It will be created in view of what sorts of technical or computational expertise the teams think will augment their science, but maybe common across projects. Please suggest the size and makeup of the core team, but do not include that in your budget.