 Good afternoon. Morning. Great start. I'm Katherine Klosek, Director of Information Policy and Federal Relations at the Association of Research Libraries, ARL. In this session, you're going to hear about opportunities and resources from federal funding agencies. And the idea is to get your gears turning, to borrow a phrase from Ashley, to really think about projects that these agencies might fund. And also to help you be prepared to put together the best possible submission that you can. So we're going to hear from each panelist. And then the plan is to leave time for questions at the end. And the panelists are all very accessible. So if we run out of time, I'm sure they'd be willing to chat with you in the hallway as well. Great. So the room is filling up to hear from these folks and not me. So first, we're going to hear from Brett Bobly, Chief Information Officer at the National Endowment for the Humanities, NEH. Brett? All right. Thanks, everybody. So don't tell the people outside the room, but we're going to be giving out money in a little bit. Just to you all, though, because we don't have that much. So as if we were asked to kind of give an update on what we're doing at our agencies right now. And I was thinking to myself, what am I working on right now? I think the last 10 or 15 years, I spent a lot of time building the Office of Digital Humanities at the NEH. I thought it was really important that we had a federal presence that was specifically funding digital humanities work. And that was really consumed a lot of my time at the NEH. But that is very well-established now. And I think that the last few years, I've been focusing on something different, which is research. And I think we're trying to raise the profile and the importance of humanities research. I think that, I mean, if I were to ask all of you right now to think to yourself, what are the biggest problems in the world? What are the things you're really worried about? And I know for me, I mean, I would be things like the decline of democracy and the potential rise of fascism. It would be things like privacy and security. It would be things like the inability of society to address climate change. These are things that keep me up at night. But if you think about all those things I just mentioned, at the heart of it, these are all social issues. These are all humanities issues, really. A lot of the major world problems that we need to deal with today are not necessarily ones that are fully going to be solved by the sciences, but rather, need the perspective of the humanities. Humanists can tell us about the history of the Middle East. They can tell us about the history of climate change. They can discuss governance and democracies and why democracies fail. These are really important issues. And I feel that, as I've been at the NEH a long time, and it really concerns me that people don't seem to care about humanities research and don't seem to understand why it is so important and is one of the missing factors that we have today. So I've really been working at the NEH to try to raise our research profile, to try to emphasize more why humanities research is important and that it is not just about discovering what happened in ancient Rome or discovering why Abe Lincoln was a good president. It is very relevant and germane to today and to tackling the problems we have today. So a lot of the work that I've been doing lately has been very much that, making sure that the NEH is willing and able to fund projects that are very much relevant to looking at today's issues. And I think it's also just important from a, you know, more and more you're hearing in the news, you know, that, oh, the humanities is not important. Why would you major in the humanities? But I would say it's the opposite. I think it's never been more important. And I'm hoping that the NEH can help drive that message home. So to that end, I'm going to talk about a new initiative at the NEH that I helped to spearhead, which is trying to, again, drive home the importance of humanities research. This one is called Humanities Perspectives on Artificial Intelligence. We just announced it a little while ago. And I think, crucially, this new initiative is about understanding the ethical, legal, and societal implications of AI, right? It's not about developing new AI. Now, I'll note, you know, if you want to develop new AI for the humanities, we have a digital humanities program that can absolutely do that. And we have done that for a long time. But this is more specifically about looking at AI from the perspective of its impact on truth and trust and democracy, safety, security, privacy, civil rights, civil liberties, that kind of a thing. Because, you know, we're seeing billions of dollars being sunk into developing new AI, and I'm not seeing a whole lot of money being sunk into specifically the humanities perspectives on AI, which I think is really an important one. Now, let me note that AI is just one of the many global problems that the humanities research is important for. And I'm hoping to have other, we really want to emphasize many other areas. I mean, climate change, for example, is a big one. We're really trying to get more humanities research on climate change right now. But for the purposes of today's session, I thought I'd talk a little bit about this new AI initiative. So this AI initiative encompasses several different NEH grant programs fall under the umbrella of this initiative. And I'm going to talk about two of them today. First one is a brand new program called Humanities Research Centers on Artificial Intelligence. And we did model this a little bit on the NSF. They also have a program which funds research centers on AI. Although the NSF ones are a little bit more driven toward developing and new applications for AI, new types of AI, this one, as I mentioned earlier, is 100% on the ethical, legal, societal implications of AI. These are very big grants for the NEH. They're not big in the science world, but these are up to 750K. So the idea here is to establish research centers whose focus is on societal implications of AI. Another program I want to talk about is our DOT program, DOT, Dangerous and Opportunities of Technology. This is a program that we just launched last year. And, you know, as the name suggests, funny, I had to fight hard for this name, Dangerous of Technology, because I wanted it to be provocative, I wanted it to be deliberately provocative. Because I think that coming from the digital humanities world, I've been funding for the last 15, 20 years a lot of projects about how cool technology is and how we can leverage it for the humanities and leverage it for all kinds of interesting research. But this program is much more explicitly about what are the downsides there? How can we use the lens of the humanities to investigate technology and look at how does it impact society and people? So, for example, topics could be things like looking at disinformation in social media and how it impacts democracy, medicine and pandemic response, wealth inequality, cryptocurrency, NFTs, supply chains, streaming economy and how that is impacted by technology. So really, so as you can probably see just by this list, there's pretty much every humanities discipline could be involved here. We've been getting a lot of proposals from philosophy, from media studies, from history, from sociology, very broad amount of stuff. And I will note we've been getting a ton of applications. There's a lot of broad interest here. And I do think, let me just get back to my earlier statement, the fact that we put this program out with a provocative title, I think, is helping draw in researchers who previously would not have thought of the NEH as a funding source. Because I do think we've had a reputation for being shy about funding research that is very contemporary. But I think we're trying to get rid of that reputation and say, because I alluded to earlier, that is absolutely critical that we are willing to find research on these very important topics, very timely topics. So this is, like I said, new program. We've just had our second deadline. Oops, sorry, not too far. The next deadline for this program is September 12th, so a year from now. And there are two different ways you can apply. You can either apply as a single researcher or as a research team. Anyway, that's our new initiative. Thank you very much. Feel free to get in touch. I should note my colleague, Josh Sternfeld, is in the audience somewhere. Feel free. There he is, way in the back. So feel free to grab Josh or me during the break if you have any questions at all. Happy to chat with you. Thank you very much. Thanks, Brett. And I saw folks snapping photos of your contact info. So I'm sure you'll hear from folks afterward. Now we'll hear from Martin Halbert, Senior Advisor for Public Access at the National Science Foundation, NSF. Hi, folks. I'm going to keep my comments fairly short so that we can get to Q&A. I wanted to give you a little bit of context about NSF, although the agency is so large that there aren't, you know, I can't cover all the new opportunities that we've got. But let me just give you a little perspective about NSF and suggestions on how to interact with the agency. NSF is unique in the U.S. Federal research space because it funds all areas of science and engineering. It typically funds more than 11,000 proposals per year at over 1,800 institutions nationally. It's hovered around those rates for a few years. I checked this morning. So it's a lot of different research. We typically are measured as funding about 20% to 25% of the research in the country. And the funding for NSF did go up just recently in the last couple of years because of the Chips and Science Act, which interjected another roughly billion dollars into the budget. So it's now almost $10 billion annually. 9.8 was the latest figure I found. And we pride ourselves on giving out the vast majority of that money, not a lot of it goes to the maintenance of the organization. My main advice is first, check the NSF website frequently. We are always developing new solicitations of various kinds. Unfortunately, we can't announce them before they are officially released. So and because everybody is busily working on developing these things and getting them ready, there is a lot of paperwork actually that or forms that have to be filed in advance of these programs to get them out the door. And this jumped way ahead. But just be sure to understand, you know, or spot the new solicitations as they come out. I know that's annoying thing to have to continually check the website. Be sure to understand the structure of the agency's directorates and divisions which make it up. Because that determines a lot of the focus and just emphasis of the different programs. These are the programmatic areas that develop these solicitations. And there may be programs in parts of the agency that you're unfamiliar with but which may be interested in funding research in your area. Or because I know there's a lot of library and IT professionals here in areas of your institution with which you regularly collaborate. So there's just a tremendous amount of opportunities at NSF and especially in our new tip directorate that I highlighted because that one is all about new partnerships. Many of which are in the public and private sort of space. And just one representative example that I'll go through briefly is open science. That's my main area. And while I'm going to where there is another presentation this afternoon at one o'clock specifically on the public access program of NSF. This is a broad area within the agency now that many areas of NSF are actively supporting with new solicitations. And what I'm going to show you here are dear colleague letters a sort of a lighter you know more flexible mechanism that we get announcements out so that we can fund areas and emerging areas of research. Many of these programs are typically aimed at some intersection of a particular disciplinary community and open science and they very well again may represent opportunities for collaboration with your institution's library or IT centers. These the following are just a couple of representative examples from the GEO directorate which is one of the more active directorates within NSF around supporting open science practices and principles. And I'm just giving these just as exemplars to give you a sense of the kinds of things that come out. A dear colleague letter is literally a letter that goes out to the community that expresses a interest in the relevant program in funding particular kinds of proposals. This is one that is in the polar research area specifically around software. So a pretty narrow focus of software that involves as they say here open source software tools, libraries and frameworks that are critical for polar scientific objectives but that embody open science. They do reference in this DCL the federal year of open science that we gave a presentation about yesterday and the sort of the new focus within the government across federal research funding agencies on open science. So it's an example of a flexible mechanism. You can talk to the program officers that fund these different programs and get a sense of the kinds of things that they're looking for to get a better sense of what you might be interested in applying. Just one more example around a very common category of research of awards that NSF funds workshops. It's one of the most common funding mechanisms at NSF and this is particularly again an area that interlaps or interacts with open science. Again in the geo arena. And it references the Nelson memorandum that many of you are certainly familiar with from last year and the growing emphasis on workshops that advance the understanding, the adoption of practices and open science and specifically in ways that foster public access. So this is just a brief overview of some of the ways to interact with NSF to be aware of solicitations that come out and don't hesitate to contact the listed program officials that are associated with each programmatic listing. That's exactly what they're there for. There's always going to be some contact at the agency that is specifically there to answer questions. That's your NSF program officer and they can explain what the focus of the new solicitations are and how to apply. Thank you and give us a call. Thanks Martin. And finally, we'll hear from Ashley Sands, senior library program officer with the Institute of Museum and Library Services, IMLS, who will close us out before we get to Q&A. All right, so I'm curious, would you raise your hand if you have ever applied for and or received an IMLS grant? Anybody here in this room? Yes, I love it. That is, I don't know, let's say 80%. Okay, so especially the 20% who did not raise your hand, I'm especially talking to you. As was just said, we are available to talk about your ideas. And so the main thing that I want to get across today is that, hi, I'm Ashley and I have other human colleagues that I work with and we're not federal robots or anything like that. We love this stuff too and we enjoy talking about it and we want to make sure that the applications that come in and therefore the awards that are made are as best as they can be as possible. I did print out some copies of a handout, I passed them around a little bit and left some in the back. Again, just that friendly reminder to follow up with me when you have your ideas that you want to talk about. I don't have any specific new initiatives to bring up the way you may have heard here, but in general, you all are telling us what the new initiatives are, what the new priorities need to be when you submit your applications. So if you see on our flyer that we have expertise in certain areas, that's us reflecting back to you what we've seen. Never consider that to be a limiting factor. We want you to tell us what's new and important in the field and we need to consider. So based on the hands, folks are really familiar with IMLS. We do indeed give grants out to libraries across the country. Our biggies, the National Leadership Grants for Libraries and the Laura Bush 21st Century Librarian Program, they're annual. They will likely continue to have a September deadline. And note that we have two phases in this. So it's only two pages that you submit for a narrative for those two programs. We hope that kind of lowers the bar and allows folks to, even if you're not ready to commit the time to develop a 10-page narrative and the whole proposal package, we get you peer review comments on that kind of smaller amount of work that you need to put in. Also, I'm not sure if anybody here in this room is from a Native American tribe or a Native Alaskan village, but we have specific programs that support you too. So definitely get in touch with us or tell your friends, your colleagues, if that's applicable to them. Obviously, Institute of Museum and Library Services, there's also a whole museum side of the house. I'm not the expert on that, but just, again, a friendly reminder that you can collaborate with your museum colleagues and come to us also. So NLG, this is your generic program. We're looking for projects that are gonna be able to advance the field. Laura Bush, this is kind of a more targeted approach where we're looking to support the workforce, the current, the potential future, and retaining existing into the future workforce of librarians, archivists, information professionals, and especially important is ensuring the diversity of the profession in that regard. Here's a sense of what you can apply for. Sadly, IMLS does not have $10 billion. So we're talking at the $50,000 to a million dollar mark, but is what we're kind of able to fund in that regard. But it could all the way be from an exploratory planning, really trying to figure something out at the $50,000. It could be a forum, hey, we need to bring people in a day early to CNI to talk about X, Y, and Z, or it could go up to $750 for an applied research or an implementation project. I do wanna point out the applied research. That's something that we refined that language in the last couple of years to really hit home that at IMLS our directors are not interested in research for the sake of research. I'd also venture to say they're not interested in research for the sake of, well, I have to do research to get tenure. We're really interested in what is going to impact the field, impact patrons who are working with our information communities, and really especially with our current director, is there a way that the work you wanna do could impact the average American person, the average person in America? That doesn't mean you have to collaborate with a public library, it could mean that. But how are you gonna impact the average person in your community, for example, not just your top three researchers at your institution, but what about undergraduates who are first in their family to go to college? Again, making sure that the average person, not just your good old fashioned ivory tower researcher can benefit from these federal funds. So again, there's lots of ways you could turn these into it. If you ask for over 250,000 and it's not research, we're gonna ask for some cost share. It's always a good thing. Also a reminder that you don't have to necessarily be the one to come up with the new idea. There are already existing awards that you may be able to tap into and to receive benefits. So here's some examples of Laura Bush 21st Century Librarian Awards that are currently in existence and offer ways to get training and education that can benefit you all, but especially could benefit your staff. So this is CNI. I know you all are not necessarily thinking, oh, I should learn how to do research today. That kind of a thing, but there may be a number of people on your staff who are really close to being able to take on a new study, really close to being able to do some more technical things and what they need is library carpentry to come in or what they need is to be nominated to be able to be on the idea institute on artificial intelligence or maybe they just need a little free time in the day to go to Lib Parlor and be able to connect with other folks. So just a reminder that the awards that we give out that are currently existing, you and especially your staff may be able to benefit right away. These are just some examples. So obviously, you don't keep your eyes open. Another great professional development opportunity for you all and for your staff is to become a peer reviewer. I feel like it is a great way to kind of get the genre that is the application and to kind of be able to then in the future when you're applying, being able to have that kind of critical eye. So I think it's a great professional development opportunity also. I have a few little additional tips. When you're applying, first of all, you're gonna call me first, call her or email's good, we'll set up a time to chat, but talk to a program officer for an advance of the deadline, whether it's me or one of my colleagues, that's what we're here for. We're here to help. We're here to ensure that the funds are best spent and therefore we don't let anyone floundering and accidentally going to the wrong programmer or anything like that. So again, contact us. Really pay attention to the details in an application. This is really important. We call it the NOFO, the Notice of Funding Opportunity. You may call it the call for proposals. Read it, read it again, print it out. Pay really close attention to these words. Must, should, may. These are federal speak words that have real implications. For example, if you see the word must and you fail to put that into your narrative or your package, it may get completely rejected without review. So that's a fun keyword search. Let's highlight all the musts. Should and may generally are gonna more point to quality. They're gonna say if you have these in them, we've noticed that it's a higher quality proposal that gets reviewed higher. So there's something to take away. Must, should, and may. Also for these two programs, we have the narratives, both the preliminary proposal and the full proposals of the recently awarded grants on our website. So IMLS has awarded grant search. You can kind of be like, all right, show me the National Leadership Grants for the last couple of years and you'll be able to see those awards. And again, I think that can help you get a sense of the genre. How much time did they spend on this or that? How specific did they get? So you can kind of have, again, have a sense of how to write and how to see what has been successful recently. Also, if at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Caveat, as long as you're trying again in consideration of the reviewer comments. And also again, we're available so we can have a counseling call where we talk about those reviewer comments. So, you know, we set up a half hour on Zoom or whatever tool you'd like to use and we kind of chat through those reviewer comments and I can kind of give a sense of, you know, what that means, what the implications could be. Again, doing my best to help ensure every proposal submitted is as strong as possible. Then I just wanted to hit on a couple of recent awards really quickly. So, here's one from Indiana in 2022. And what I want to point out here is that again, this is the room of CNI-ARL. In a lot of ways, the people in this room have some of the highest funded, highest supported institutions in the country, which is awesome and there's really cool brand new innovative things happening. But again, let's not forget the common person, the common academic, the common person across the country. One great way to do that is through really fruitful partnerships. So, here's an example of Indiana that's collaborating with Grand Valley State and Belmont Universities. So, they're doing this to use educational resources to teach negotiation theory and strategy within the academic library for negotiating third-party content provider agreements. So, you may have expertise that you can share and or you can learn from other institutions. There's a lot to learn for us for looking at fill-in-the-blank agreements that need to be made and how each institution is doing it differently. Here's another example of University of Texas at Austin that is providing opportunities for your staff to be able to learn more and also be able or this, sorry, this one is specifically for doctoral students but similarly to some of these pieces where perhaps your continuing staff can have education. Again, they have great partnerships. Austin Public Library, Navarro High School and University of Texas Libraries. So, they were doing the school thing library rotation model where they took it from the ways that nurses do or doctors do rotations through different parts of the hospital. They're specifically taking them to a public school and a university library to give them those expertise, give them a sense of that. Carol Palmer is leading an effort at the University of Washington if you haven't heard about it recently. Coalition of seven additional iSchools and they're really looking at as library and information science evolves within the context of the iSchool, how do we best position our programs to lead the field and the future of libraries. This is something that, I think a lot of us are thinking about and something to also consider if you're curious about that. Again, Carol Palmer at UW is leading that initiative but that's something about where is LAS going, where is what we're teaching in the master's degree helping to support the needs that you all have as you're hiring. Another quick good one, got another minute. The University of Kentucky. In a lot of the things, discussions that I've been recently, there's always the that would be great, that would be great but promotion and tenure. The real carrot is how to make it work with promotion and tenure and here is one way, you can see it's Kentucky Virginia Tech and this international network of research management societies are doing something that's working internationally in Europe and bring to the US this formal training and making strategic research management decisions with responsible evaluation methods. So what if the promotion and tenure criteria were changed, were different and considered in this responsible way. A final point I'd like to make with an example of a Yale award, we have added some language to make archives be more easily eligible to the National Leadership Grants and the Laura Bush program. So that's something else to consider whether on your campus or your community, archives are more closely relevant and certainly interested and here's an example of again, my colleagues and I and some of our expertise but again hopefully y'all are also thinking of ideas that we're not listed here. We wanna hear from you, we wanna take this forward, take the field forward and excited to hear from the 20% and more in the next year, we got plenty of time before September. So thank you. Thank you and we successfully left some time for questions. So if folks wanna queue up at the mics, we can hear more from our panelists. I think folks are making their way. It is hard to see up here. Yeah, I didn't think I'd be the first one here. Well, thank you very much for this useful and inspiring panel. I have one question for the IMLS and the NEH and you two are sitting next to each other which is really helpful. How do you see any potential applications involving climate change being welcomed by your individual programs? I'm not asking the NSF because obviously there's actually a science fiction novel about climate change grants written to the NSF. Hello, okay. I'll start. Climate change is something we are explicitly trying to get more proposals in. On our website, I can't remember the exact webpage, but we have it all over the place. Climate change is one of our priority areas right now so we're very keen to get more proposals in that area. If it's important to you, in theory, it's important to us. There's always the consideration that we are a federal funder. But again, if it's important to you as the field, it's something that we wanna consider. And so again, emailing and we can have a chat about how best to frame it to fit our programs. Very good. Thank you. Thanks, Brian. This is Drew Wichita from University of California Riverside. I have one comment and one question. The comment is, I would really want to thank IMLS over the years for making their awarded project proposals open out there for other peoples to learn. I wish if it's ever possible, NSF and NIH also follow that trend. Question. So one of the, I see major opportunities for the library is to develop much deeper partnerships with our effecting members in different areas of research. When we start to write proposals together, sometimes we hit the wall. If the proposal has too much of a library flavor, it does not smell very well to orthodox NSF or NIH reviewers. If it has some signs or stem flavor or NIH, when the proposal goes to IMLS, we often got to review saying, why don't you seek money from NSF and NIH? So the question is, you guys have got a very great history of interagency collaboration, for example, digging into data. I wonder if it's ever possible for you guys to also start thinking about more interagency collaborations to allow this type of cross-disciplinary research to flourish. Thank you. Is this, yeah, it is on. Great idea, absolutely. We often do joint programs. It just depends, you know, I've had conversations this year about possibilities with Ashley. So it takes, creating new programs though takes a lot of work, to say the least. It just, it has to be really well articulated. It has to be a clear need in the field. But I think it's great synergy. And, you know, Brett and I were remarking, we were admiring that IMLS releases the narratives. We don't do that, and that is a great idea that something to, I think, would really help and assist in people learning how to write good, you know, successful grant proposals. So points well taken, I don't know. Yeah, you know, thank you, Jiu-Jitsu, because I can go back to my office now and say, hey, at CNI, there was a call for us to do more working together, so I'm very into it. There is one example of some interagency work that we do, the DAG program at any age, Digital Humanities Advancement Grants. So IMLS provides a relatively small amount of funds to that program to enhance it and allow more awards to be made, which hopefully also encourages you all to work with the humanities and libraries together so that that looks more appealing for the IMLS funds that are going into there. But we are excited to do more of that. The overhead's big, but you know what? We're happy to do that if that's what's gonna help the field, right? We have started doing more programs aimed at libraries. That's some of what I'm gonna talk about, a number of programs at a program, where I'm gonna have some of those awardees present at one o'clock if you're interested in that. And I very much appreciate the points that you made about finding that right sort of Goldilocks zone of how scientific a thing has to be to sort of pass muster with NSF, or how librarian-y it has to be to pass muster with IMLS or scholarly to, you know, that is a real balancing act. That's a recurring issue, yeah. Recurring issue, and I personally, I think interdisciplinary things that combine all of those areas are very well called for and there should be more of those. Absolutely, and then just another example of one, you call us and we chat through a draft. I can say, ah, this framing here, this framing here, maybe to help you situate it for each specific place where you apply. Thanks for the idea. You heard it here first, and ready to take the club. Coming. Hi, Rob Tennison, Yale University. So following on from Jeebu's question to some degree, the NSF this year awarded 26.7 million dollars for the creation of a prototype open knowledge network, which is amazing. Thank you, Martin and colleagues for those awards. I think it was 18 different institutions that part of that program. So here we are. Initiative out of our tip director. Yep. So here we are at CNI, the Coalition for Networked Information. Imagine that people in this room put together a coalition of, say, 18 organizations wanting to build a non-science-based, but more humanities-oriented knowledge, open knowledge network. What are the options, apart from interagency, that you've already spoken to? But for example, could we all, you know, say 18 organizations put in a $1 million implementation grant together, each individually, to get to $18 million? Or would that be frowned upon that you are sort of roughing around the process to get $18 million out of the IMLS rather than a $1 million project, which is, of course, the current limit? And similarly, I believe that it is one to three years. So if you can spend $1 million in one year, and then the following year, you can spend another million dollars, the following year, you can spend another million dollars. Are there some tricks that we can play on the federal government? So. To address the disproportionate amount of funding for the humanities, computer, and sciences? I think that's a great question, and I'll just jump in to begin with, but obviously the grants that we give out, again, they're one to five is the maximum, maximum, that you can end up at, and they need to be project-based. So one way to kind of get around that is come to me first with a planning grant, get something going, then maybe you talk to Fred about a $250,000 implementation. By the time you have such a great layer, you go over here, you see Play-Doh in the back, and you try to get a million dollars to keep it going. It's kind of fragmented, you don't know if it's gonna get funded each piece, but I think that's the best place to start. So at IMLS, we only have about 10 million in NLG, and 10 million in Laura Bush each year. So that's kind of where I'd say, that makes sense for us. Yeah, I mean, you're getting to the fact that the difference in scale between IMLS and NEH, and then jumping up to NSF, and then jumping up to NIH, forget about it. I mean, to put things in perspective, could I make an $18 million grant? No, my entire annual budget is like six million, so that can't happen, which is unfortunate, but the reality is, and I think getting to what Ashley was saying, that if you're looking for grants in the humanities or in the library space, talk to us and we'll let you know what options are out there, and we're happy to help you, and knowledge networks and things like that are certainly something that we can fund, but probably not at the kind of scale that you've seen from NSF or other funders. Now that OKN set of awards, I was on the planning advisory group for that thing, so it would be worthwhile sharing a bit about how that came about. That was an enormous amount of preparatory work. That didn't just, somebody didn't just wave a wand and make $26 million in awards. There were a six to eight month series of very intense and closely facilitated by external groups, series of conversations nationally about the nature of knowledge networks, knowledge graphs, and what would go into that, refining the idea of the whole concept. There was a preparatory document that we spent months generating the OKN roadmap. I would encourage you to take a look at that thing, because we were trying to distill, why was it worth spending $26 million on this nationally? We don't just throw a dart and try to come up with something randomly. We do a lot of preparation, especially when it's a brand new program like that to demonstrate that there's a need, that there's a clear articulated roadmap way forward on that stuff, and that's the kind of preparation that leads to the significant new programs, like $26 million isn't the biggest NSF award. It's not an insignificant one for sure, but the larger the awards and the larger the amounts of money allocated to it, the more preparation goes into, and the more justification goes into that. So if there was a desire to do a similar kind of scale of library networks or repositories or something, there would have to be a lot of conversations to demonstrate the need, the clear return for the country in that level of investment, that kind of thing is all I wanted to share on that. But it's certainly possible, that absolutely, if there were a large number of libraries that wanted to get in that, I see we're running out of time. Thanks for that insight though, I appreciate you sharing. Can we have one more Karim, please? Yeah, Karim Bugida, Stony Brook University. First, thanks to all of you because you for funding us for all these years. It's a comment, not a question, because of the library flavor thing. So for NSF, so I used to work here George Washington University in DC, and it's a privilege to be close to NSF. So we contacted a program director and we met with him. And when he knew I was from the library, he said, that's a big plus. Why? Because you know how to manage things and you know how to sustain things. So the library flavor was a plus. You're here. One more. Thank you. This is a little bit of a, I guess, under the hood question that I have. So over the years we've applied for many, many grants. We've been successful so long with everybody else. Thank you. But what I'm curious is actually campus-wide grants, things that come from outside of the library. And one of the things that has happened over and over and over is kind of to Karim's point, the library is a valued contributor to the grant. However, it often occurs that the library is not properly recognized in the grant. Whether it's for the service component or whether it's actually the cost contribution of what we are providing. So I'm wondering about a level of, I guess I'm curious how do you scrutinize budgets on your side and what can we collectively do in concert perhaps with you to ensure that libraries are properly recognized, properly valued, time properly accounted, et cetera. So we don't just find out that we're expected to all this stuff. So that's my question, thank you. I think that's a great question and there's multiple things that play there. First of all, I think it's a great example of the power dimensions that can come into when you're applying for grants in any case. I've heard of in the past, the big fancy university library practically uses and abuses the local community archive in order to have the cool materials that get them in the grant. That's the kind of thing that we are definitely on the lookout for. So abuse is a power in that way, whether it's the larger institution or more money or whatever it is that that power interplay could happen. I think every university is also different in how their indirect costs are necessarily negotiated and if and how much goes to the library. So in some ways that can be packaged in that. But again, everybody's indirects are pretty opaque also. But I think us and the reviewers are indeed on the lookout for again, that kind of evening the playing field and power dimensions that could be there with that. Especially at IMLS since we, you know, not prioritize, but the community we're meant to serve are the library staff and their patrons, right? I don't know if my colleagues have. Yeah, I mean, I can say that like in our digital humanities programs at the NEH, we always make a point of having librarians among the peer reviewers. And I think they do a really good job, I think scrutinizing proposals to ensure that there's the right amount of library participation and that the library is getting appropriate credit. So I feel like our peer reviewers do a very good job of helping us identify when those sorts of issues come up. I'll just emphasize a build on that comment. We heavily focus on the peer review process. And the question is, you know, has the proposal made a strong case for the role and a justification for, you know, but any category of budget expenditure? Certainly including, you know, a library component, just like everything else though. Peer review panels, that's one of the main things they scrutinize is, and you know, they look at is this a reasonable expenditure? Have they made a strong case? Or is it nebulous? Is it unclear? You know, those are the kinds of things that make an award succeed or not is exactly that kind of consideration. And just a final thought that I think and especially in recent years, peer reviewers and a staffer really on the lookout for is everyone being compensated in this, hey, you actually are getting an award. All that work that people do for free and they're normally, we're gonna make sure people are actually compensated that for their time, for their expertise because we really value the expertise that you all are bringing to this process. And early career researchers, you know, to make sure they're not taking advantage of in the process. Thanks everyone for hanging out for a few extra minutes. Please join me in thanking our panelists.