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

背景说明(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份提案是针对传感器和传感器网络征集(NSF 03-512)提交的。在小团体比赛中，共有469项建议被考虑。所有提案都根据它们与邀请书中确定的三个一般专题领域之一的相关性进行了归类。这项建议是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项建议之一。该小组由CEISE的实验和综合活动部和ENG的生物工程和环境系统部的项目主管共同主持。该小组包括16名小组成员，他们都是技术专家，他们被邀请参加国家科学基金会，他们反映了正在审议的提案所需的各种专业知识。在来参加小组会议之前，小组成员已经审查了他们专业领域的提案，并通过FastLane发送了他们的个人审查。根据国家科学委员会建立的两个功绩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？”以及“拟议中的活动有哪些更广泛的影响？”此外，还评估了这些建议与计划征集(NSF 03-512)的相关性。至少有三名小组成员为每项提案提供了书面评估。书面评估被提交给小组成员，他们就提案的优点和缺点进行了辩论，然后对提案进行了初步评级。关于提案的小组讨论由一名小组记录员记录下来，他将讨论摘要提交小组，供小组一致核准。在对所有提案进行审查和评级后，专家小组将提案分为两类：(1)推荐的和(2)不推荐的。专家小组为方案主任提出建议提供了足够的信息。

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.