GSA’s Starter Culture Microgrant Program provides up to $2,000 in funding to GSA members to support  new, impactful initiatives that will benefit the genetics community. This volunteer-driven program includes a quarterly proposal review process by the Microgrant Review Committee. 

What is the committee looking for? 

We fund small projects that can make a big difference to the genetics community. We get particularly excited by applications that come up with new ideas for community outreach. 

A variety of projects can be funded, including summer camps, virtual presentations, and scientific workshops. However, a key aspect to consider is their impact: We look for evidence that the initiative will be transformative at some level, be it by engaging with broad and diverse audiences or underrepresented groups in science, or by fulfilling an unmet need in the community. 

We also like to ensure that, regardless of the applicant’s career stage, there is a solid connection between their background and the initiative they propose, such as a bioinformatics professor proposing a bioinformatics bootcamp. It is also important that we are convinced that the microgrant budget is both adequate and needed to deliver the initiative.

What type of projects are we looking for?

We do not want to limit your creativity, so we encourage you to apply with any amazing ideas you have! Just remember: Your project should clearly respond to a community need, have a broad and far-reaching impact, and benefit as many scientists and communities as possible. 

One of the main criteria we evaluate is the impact your initiative will have on your community and assurance the audience covers a breadth of research areas, geographic regions, institution types, and other elements that foster a wide range of knowledge and expertise.  . We want to see projects that fulfill a need in your community or benefit the community at large, such as genetics-focused STEM fairs or similar events that help expand access to genetics knowledge, or seminar series open to all early career scientists at your institution and across several institutions. 

We are also eager to fund projects in areas with limited access to science resources and communication. Seminar series, lecture workshops, hands-on training workshops in developing fields such as bioinformatics, and science communication initiatives are great ideas for your project, especially if these activities would not occur without  funding from this program.

What details are needed?

When preparing your Starter Culture Microgrant proposal it is essential that you include detailed, precise, and relevant information to effectively communicate the merits and feasibility of your project. Here’s a breakdown of what to include to make your proposal stand out:

1. Clear and specific objectives:

Begin with a well-defined statement of your project’s goals. Clarify what the project aims to achieve, the expected impact, and ensure these objectives are measurable, achievable, and relevant – this helps the committee understand your vision and the structured planning behind it.

2. Detailed project plan:

Provide an in-depth description of the activities and methodologies your project will employ and include a timeline with key milestones and phases. For example, if you’re proposing a symposium, list the topics to be covered, types of sessions (e.g., workshops, keynote speeches), and the format of each session. Describe the selection criteria for speakers and how the event will offer novel insights compared to existing symposia. For another example, if your project is about providing education or training to your community, explain the curriculum or content and teaching methods to be used.

3. Rationale and need:

Explain the significance of your project by highlighting the specific issues or gaps your project addresses and why it is timely. Your rationale should connect with the broader goals of the Starter Culture Microgrant Program, demonstrating alignment with program objectives.

4. Target audience and beneficiaries: 

Identify the direct beneficiaries of your project, provide detailed demographic information, and describe how the project meets their needs. Discuss the expected changes or benefits for this group, emphasizing the direct impact of your initiative.

5. Outcomes, impact measurement, and evaluation plan:

Detail expected outcomes and how you will measure the project’s impact. Include specific metrics or indicators, such as participant feedback, post-event surveys, or measurable changes in participant knowledge. This section demonstrates your commitment and the anticipated impact of your project.

6. Support and collaboration:

Mention any additional support, such as co-sponsorships, partnerships, or endorsements from relevant organizations. If you have received or are seeking other grants, specify how these support your current proposal and demonstrate broader validation of your project, and why this particular grant is also needed for your initiative.

7. Detailed budget justification:

Provide a line-item budget where every expense is justified in relation to project activities. If you’re requesting funds for materials, specify quantities, costs per unit, and total cost. For example, if updating educational materials, provide a breakdown of costs involved in updating each set of slides or resources. If the budget includes stipends or honoraria, explain the rationale behind the amount and the responsibilities covered by these payments. This transparency enhances your proposal’s credibility.

Sample budget:

Let’s say your project is a hybrid genome engineering symposia. Your budget should include a breakdown of supplies needed, speaker travel reimbursements, printed marketing materials, and other costs you might incur: 

• $500 – Snacks and refreshments for 100 in-person participants 
• $280 – Invited speaker’s travel reimbursement  
• $200 – Print cost of posters, banners, and fliers  
• $980 – Total requested funding

8. Sustainability or future directions:

If your project is part of a larger initiative, describe how it will have an impact beyond the funding period. Discuss plans for scaling, potential future funding, or integration into broader practices, showing the long-term vision beyond the grant period.

Once you’re ready, use the Starter Culture Microgrant Application checklist to develop your application for submission. We’re excited to see the innovative ideas you’ll bring to the genetics community. Submit your proposal today! 

The following transcript is from my candid conversation with Daman Saluja, Senior Professor and Joint Director of the Delhi School of Public Health (DSPH) in the Institute of Eminence (IoE) at the University of Delhi. She is also the former Chairperson of the Research Council and two-time Director of the Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Center for Biomedical Research (ACBR).

Please tell us a little bit about your career path and your current work.

I began my career as a botanist, completing my bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral studies in botany. My journey then took an exciting turn when I pursued molecular biology at NYU Medical Center in the U.S., transitioning from studying plant to animal cells. Since then, my focus has centered on gene regulation.

In 1997, I joined the University of Delhi as a faculty member, concentrating on diagnostics and developing molecular biology-based assays for prevalent diseases in India. I have taken on additional roles including the charge of Director of ACBR and Joint Director of the Delhi School of Public Health. Over the past year and a half, I’ve served as the Chairperson of the Research Council, focusing on policy development and enhancing research outcomes within the university. This role involves strategizing improvements to promote technology-driven projects and improve overall research output. 

In the last few years, how has funding for science changed in India?

From the start of my career, securing funding for my projects was remarkably seamless. I have been able to obtain substantial research funds. This success, I believe, stems from the clear definition of project objectives and the presentation of a robust project proposal. But now more than ever, there are multiple grants for STEM research in India. Funding agencies have started encouraging new and diverse frontline areas, creating more opportunities for researchers. Task-specific calls and team-based research initiatives have recently emerged, reflecting a trend toward increased specificity in thrust areas. Additionally, there is a notable preference for interdisciplinary projects that span various departments and universities.

Another noteworthy development is the emphasis on consortiums for larger projects, fostering collaboration beyond individual labs. This approach aligns with a broader goal of contributing to the nation rather than focusing solely on individual endeavors. Funding is readily available at varying levels depending on the nature of the project. Individual projects typically range from $30,000 to $60,000, while multi-institutional efforts or international collaborations can reach several crores or hundreds of thousands of dollars.  The introduction of consortiums for national initiatives opens the door to substantial funding. This funding landscape is instrumental in supporting projects aimed at nationwide development and societal benefit.

How do you think your research influences your policy work? Is there a mutual benefit of working in both sectors?

Indeed, when I first assumed administrative roles, my initial understanding of how I could contribute was unclear. However, I found that my experiences in research, particularly in areas like intellectual property rights filing and technology transfer, significantly helped me develop new, effective policies. These policies included the introduction of incentive-driven awards for publishing in reputable journals and university-support for article processing charges, which are often beyond our project budgets. The university, especially with the support of the new vice chancellor, proved to be receptive. I can now say that having a scientific background allowed me to communicate convincingly with the university authorities. I could share solutions based on our laboratory’s experiences, facilitating smoother discussions and implementation.

What aspects of the research ecosystem in India set it apart from the rest of the world?

The research ecosystem in India is fascinating–there are notable aspects that set it apart globally. Certain areas, such as ayurvedic and yogic research, are being pursued only in India, distinguishing it from many other countries. Moreover, each country’s uniqueness is evident across various disciplines, including political science, policy-making, and economics, but the Indian research landscape is exceptionally diverse.

India needs more resources in STEM research, especially in acquiring high-end equipment. However, our approach involves the shared use of centralized facilities in universities and research institutions, allowing researchers to gain access with a nominal fee while ensuring efficient equipment utilization. This collaborative structure sets us apart, providing a more organized framework compared to some countries with professional fee-based facilities and separate departmental and central facilities.

What are some of the challenges of scientific research and policy-making in institutions supported by public funding in India?

Over 90 percent of research in India is publicly funded, with only a limited number of private research institutes. Unlike their counterparts in the United States, most of those institutes primarily focus on teaching rather than pure research. The funding distribution is diverse, encompassing different tiers like central and state universities with allocations based on faculty and projects. Navigating this stratified system poses a significant challenge, requiring meticulously crafted and well-thought-out project proposals to secure funding from the government’s limited pool.

Despite the stress on domestic funding, there has been a noteworthy shift in recent years with many institutes now actively engaging in international projects. This development, which has gained momentum in the last decade, marks a departure from the earlier trend of population-based research. The involvement in international collaborations diversifies funding sources and influences policy adjustments, benefitting the research community by aligning policies with global standards and practices.

I have to say, though, that there is minimal government interference during policymaking; scientists and policymakers take center stage in this process. However, the government substantially influences policy implementation due to its role in research funding. Committees are formed with representativesfrom relevant ministries such as the Ministry of Electronics for artificial intelligence–related policies. As policies are crafted for various sectors like agriculture, health, and sustainable resources, guidelines are in place to identify expert committee members who are granted autonomy in policymaking. Government intervention occurs mainly during the implementation phase when feasibility and funding availability is assessed. At this point, the government plays a more active role in ensuring effective policy execution but refrains from extensive interference in guideline formulation, trusting the expertise of the involved professionals.

What is your advice for early career researchers, such as PhDs and postdocs, who are interested in science policy?

Science policy, I believe, is gaining prominence, fostering a deeper understanding among researchers. Previously, scientists were primarily recipients of policies but not actively engaged. However, the landscape is evolving. While I wonder whether a career in research policy is universally fitting, it may resonate with a select few who possess a passion for both research and policymaking.

Some researchers who were initially focused on their scientific pursuits later recognized the potential to contribute to policy formation. The trend is shifting, with more scientists being invited to collaborate on policy initiatives, marking a balance between government officials and scientific experts. While it may not be a predominant career path for all researchers, individuals are increasingly inclined to explore the intersection of research and policy for a more holistic impact.