SENSORS: Intelligent Micro-Sensor Array and Signal Processing for In Vivo Real-Time Study of Biological System Dynamics

背景声明（传感器和传感器网络小组，2003年6月12日和13日）在2003财政年度，大约有930份提案被提交，以回应传感器和传感器网络招标（NSF 03-512）。小组竞赛共考虑了469个提案。所有提案都根据其与征求书中确定的三个一般主题领域之一的相关性进行分组。该提案是2003年6月12-13日关于新型生物传感器和传感系统的设计、材料和概念的小组审议的30个提案之一。该小组由CISE实验与综合活动部和ENG生物工程与环境系统部的项目主任共同主持。该小组包括16名小组成员，所有技术专家，他们被邀请到NSF，他们反映了正在审议的提案所需的专业知识范围。小组成员在他们的专业领域审查了提案，并在参加小组会议之前通过FastLane发送了他们的个人评论。根据国家科学委员会制定的价值审查标准对提案进行审查和评估，即“拟议活动的智力价值是什么？”和“拟议活动的更广泛影响是什么？”此外，对提案进行了与项目征求（NSF 03-512）的相关性评估。至少有三名小组成员为每个提案提供书面评估。书面评价被提交给小组成员，小组成员就提案的优缺点进行辩论，然后对提案进行初步评级。一名小组记录员记录了小组关于提案的讨论，并将讨论摘要提交小组，供小组一致批准。在对所有提案进行审查和评级后，小组将提案分为两类：(1)建议和(2)不建议资助。专家组提供了足够的信息供项目主任提出建议。

Context Statement (Sensor and Sensor Networks Panel, June 12 and 13, 2003)Approximately 930 proposals were submitted in response to the Sensors and Sensor Networks Solicitation (NSF 03-512) during fiscal year 2003. A total of 469 of these proposals were considered in the Small-Team competition. All proposals were grouped according to their relevance to one of the three general topical areas identified in the solicitation. This proposal is one of 30 considered in a panel on June 12-13, 2003 on the subject of Designs, Materials and Concepts for New Biological Sensors and Sensing Systems. This panel was jointly run by program directors from the Experimental and Integrated Activities Division of CISE and the Bioengineering and Environmental Systems Division of ENG. The panel included sixteen panelists, all technical experts, who were invited to NSF and who reflect the range of expertise needed for the proposals under consideration. The panelists had reviewed the proposals in their areas of expertise, and sent their individual reviews via FastLane, prior to coming to the panel meeting. Proposals were reviewed and evaluated against both merit review criteria established by the National Science Board, namely, "What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity?" and "What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?" In addition, the proposals were assessed for relevance to the Program Solicitation (NSF 03-512). At least three panelists provided written evaluations for each proposal. The written evaluations were presented to the panelists who debated the strengths and weaknesses of the proposals, which were then assigned preliminary ratings. The panel discussions concerning the proposals were documented by a panel Recorder, who submitted the summary of the discussion to the panel for unanimous approval. After all the proposals had been reviewed and rated, the panel placed the proposals into two categories: (1) Recommended and (2) Not Recommended for funding. The panel provided sufficient information for the Program Director to make a recommendation.