Keck Foundation Proposal

This document is a set of ideas and talking points under consideration as the basis of a proposal to the W.M. Keck Foundation. The plan is to refine this and then give it to Doug so that he can have a preliminary conversation with Keck's program director (is it still Maria Pellegrini?)

Our current thinking is to build a tightly integrated set of projects which both span the natural science disciplines and are held together by a strong common thread.

• Important attributes of our proposal:
  • Student/faculty research and curriculum development. The problem areas we select will fully integrate student-faculty research with our existing curriculum through the development of learning modules. This allows us to "re-use" both our human and equipment investments and further strengthen the ties between scientific discovery and teaching.
  • Wet lab work and computationally based aspects. The problems we consider will be amenable to both laboratory and computational research methods. It's widely acknowledged that computational research is an important new direction for basic scientific understanding in a wide range of disciplines. By working the same problem from both perspectives, students will gain a deeper understanding of the issues at hand and learn about the relationship between the different research methodologies.
  • Interdisciplinary. Within the sciences at Earlham this is a given, we want to learn how we got here and figure-out how to spread the word. All of the threads and projects we are considering would offer the ability for most, if not all, of the science division departments to participate in meaningful ways.
  • Locally rooted. The expression "think globally, act locally" is as true for scientists as it is anyone. One aspect of this is to choose a thread and projects that build on our local expertise. Another important aspect is working in our local environment--be it back campus, a reservoir, or a farmer's fields. Local research projects are much easier to integrate into the curriculum and to maintain year-round. Working locally would also make it much easier to do long-term data collection and monitoring.

• Ideas we have considered as problem areas, or threads, that would run through the science curriculum and our research in a variety of departments and classes:
  • Pesticides: Building on local expertise developed in studying the concentration and effects of atrazine in groundwater, we would propose studying pesticides in the Richmond area. Possible areas of investigation might include determination of concentrations, computational modeling of distribution, effects on area plant and animal life, and evaluation of pesticide degradation products.
  • Metals: The environmental impact of local industry and geology on ground water sources would be studied using such methods computational modeling, analytical techniques, and effects/evidence of metal uptake by plants or aquatic life.
  • Proteins, DNA, or another biomolecule: The relationship of structure to function is particularly important in many biomolecules. We would propose investigating both the computed and experimentally determined 3-dimensional structure of a particular biomolecule, comparing and evaluating them for consistency with the function of the protein.
  • Question for Keck: Are they more or less attracted to any of these in particular? There are others we could develop, this list was put together relatively quickly.

• Outcomes:
  • Research projects and curriculum modules for a variety of introductory and upper-level classes.
  • For science and non-science majors, a better understanding of both computational and experimental research methods, model development and verification, and interdisciplinary science research. For example, students in both majors and non-majors versions of general chemistry should come away with some understanding of how computational methods, and chemistry, and biology, and geology, work together to deepen our understanding of the problem.
  • Science outreach activities for local K-12 students and teachers. Earlham's Joseph Moore Museum has developed a significant outreach program for local school districts. We propose to develop an analog to that program, based on the same thread, for science more generally.
  • Introduce students to scientific problems which incorporate local and regional issues and resources.

• Selling points:
  • Computational methods are now an important part of basic research in all of

the natural sciences, yet few undergraduate programs have such components. Earlham is very well positioned to develop a template for incorporating computational methods into science curricula, e.g. our interdisciplinary approach and the high percentage of our graduates that go on to earn Ph.D.s in a science.

• • It is difficult to obtain funding from government agencies, e.g. the NFS, for cross disciplinary work such as we describe here. This puts Keck in a somewhat unique position as a sponsor for this project.

• Keck's programmatic criteria from their program guidelines:
  • Significant programs and projects that:
    • focus on emerging areas of research at the forefront of science, engineering and medicine, or have the potential to lead to breakthrough technologies in these areas; or
    • establish new directions and utilize creative approaches in education and research for the liberal arts and sciences at predominantly undergraduate institutions
    • Programs that respond to a compelling need and have the potential to create a significant and long-lasting impact
    • Programs and projects that are consistent with the Foundation's stated fields of interest
    • Programs and projects that demonstrate that the chances of success would be seriously impaired but for the assistance of private philanthropy generally, and the W.M. Keck Foundation in particular
    • Programs and projects that encourage self-sufficiency rather than continuing dependence on W.M. Keck Foundation support

• Questions:
  • Are pesticides the best choice of a common thread?
    • Lori - Seems to me--but then again, that is the one I feel clearest on what it would involve. It seems like it incorporates many disciplines (not everyone, but I think it will be hard to have a project that truly includes every single person/discipline).
    • Mike and Corinne - We think that metal might be a stronger project for the initial phase for several reasons:
      • We have both faculty (Corinne, Mike and Ron) with extensive metal analysis background/publication record
      • We have the equipment currently in place to analyze metals in a variety of matrices (to perform state of the art pesticide analysis, particularly metabolites, would require an LC-MS - $200,000)
      • Sample storage/processing is very easy and stable over time, which allows better integration into our curriculum (this is not true for pesticides which require very time sensitive processing/storage).
  • Barbara is going to check to see if facilities, new or renovations, or equipment, are appropriate for Keck.
    • Keck does not fund endowment. 
    • There's nothing that I can find that says that they do not fund construction or renovation, but if we look at their funded projects over the past couple of years for undergraduate research and liberal arts colleges, the construction was limited to a planetarium and to a greenhouse.  So, it doesn't seem to me that a large capital request for facilities would be in order. 
    • As to renovation, it doesn't appear to me to be high on their hit list either.
    • Equipment, on the other hand, is listed multiple times as fundable.  So, equipment related to your project would be very appropriate.

• Things to do:
  • Check that we have addressed all of the feedback (negative and positive) we received from Keck on our last proposal.
  • Tighten-up and possibly expand the list of threads.
  • Complete "Selling points" section, match-up items with Keck's criteria.
  • Complete this document and get it to Len before Tuesday morning.