Team Science Accelerator

Each team member (PI and co-PIs) must:

• Hold a full-time, independent position such as an academic appointment or equivalent scientist track at a national laboratory or nonacademic research institute. Individuals do not need to be in a tenure-track position; however, they may not be in hierarchical relationships with other team members (e.g., a research professor on the same team as a faculty member who oversees their laboratory). 
• Work at a U.S. or Canadian institution of higher education, national laboratory, or appropriate research institute, where they have access to the resources and facilities necessary to conduct their component of the proposed project.
• Have started their first full-time, independent position within 10 years of the Letter of Intent (LOI) submission. If a team member experienced a career delay (e.g., medical leave, family care responsibilities, etc.), they may describe those circumstances and request an extension of their eligibility as part of the LOI documents. Note: generic COVID-19 shutdowns will not be considered for a clock extension, as everyone experienced them.
• Demonstrate through their CV a track record of excellence, the ability to represent their field of expertise relevant to the proposed scientific project, and a clear contribution to the diverse skills essential for team success.
• Show a strong orientation toward the cohort, including a willingness to share openly, learn from peers, and contribute to a national network of team-science leaders.

Teams as a whole must:

• Represent an interdisciplinary collection of three to five scientists, where each team member contributes a specific and essential expertise required for project success.
• Propose work toward a high-risk, high-reward project in the basic physical sciences and their adjacent fields or subdisciplines, including but not limited to: chemistry (including biochemistry and chemical biology); physics (including biophysics and astrophysics); materials science (including quantum materials, magnetic materials and materials required for advanced energy solutions); Earth and planetary science; and astronomy.
• Explain and contextualize the importance of the core problem they seek to explore as a team. 
• Set bold but achievable scientific milestones. RCSA has no illusions that the wicked problems on which successful teams will work can be solved by three to five individuals over two years with $1 million. If the problems were that easy, they would have already been solved. The team should set the stage to compete successfully for follow-on funding by identifying milestones that can be achieved and describing how these milestones will lead to substantive progress toward solving the core challenge you will tackle.
• Communicate a plan for team governance that can be adopted and adhered to by all team members. The plan should effectively support the proposed science, including the need to be agile in team thinking, responsive to early results, and capable of circumventing roadblocks encountered along the way.
• Show a strong orientation toward the cohort, including a willingness to share openly, learn from peers, and contribute to a national network of team-science leaders.

• Letter of Intent (LOI): An open call to identify teams with breakthrough potential.
• Two-day, In-person Workshop: Finalist teams undergo intensive facilitation to build their charters. The workshop is part of the selection process. All team members must attend in person.
• Final Proposal: Submitted post-workshop, reflecting the refined goals and structures developed at the in-person workshop.

• Ability to communicate the critical nature of the core challenge selected, why this team is the right group to do the project, and the immediacy of the problem.
• A sharply defined scientific goal tied to a specific, testable breakthrough with a clear impact statement. The team’s purpose should not be to advance a broad research area. It must be far more specific.
• A focus on basic science. Projects that fall too far toward implementation science or product development will not be selected.
• A clear-eyed plan for the methods the science requires, including if and how artificial intelligence or other computational tools might meaningfully advance hypothesis generation, simulation, or data analysis associated with the project. The use of AI or agentic tools to relieve the burden of project management should also be considered.
• A team composition that is complementary, interdisciplinary, and fully integrated, with investigators bringing to the project diverse knowledge bases, viewpoints and skillsets. Team members must share accountability across the entire project, so scientific excellence of all team members is expected.
• Team member career stage. The intent of the program, in part, is to advance cohorts of early- and mid-career scientists toward success in the leadership of scientific teams. We have provided a 10-year window for eligibility to provide flexibility in assembling the most effective and qualified teams possible, but groups skewed toward or representing only the senior end of the eligibility criteria may not fully suit this program. 
• A leadership statement that articulates how the team is approaching overall project management and leadership. At the LOI stage, teams may propose structures that are very flat or more vertically oriented. Regardless of the proposed structure, it must be evident how decisions will be made, how conflicts will be resolved, and how the team structure will enhance and support the execution of great science. 

• Impressive science with a vision for how the project, if successful, will transform their field or solve a critical challenge.
• A sharply defined scientific goal tied to a specific, testable breakthrough with a clear impact statement. The team’s purpose should not be to advance a broad research area. It must be far more specific.
• A demonstrated ability by each team member to collaborate within their teams and engage effectively with facilitators and other finalists while working constructively toward shared goals and outcomes at the in-person workshop.
• A full team charter that will be developed with the guidance of team coaches during the workshop for finalists. The final charter will be submitted as one component of the final proposal.
• A clear and concise written proposal that takes advantage of the full expertise and integration of the team members.
• An oral team presentation that conveys the importance of the project to a broadly interdisciplinary audience, including other finalist teams, at the in-person workshop.
• A credible trajectory toward follow-on funding if the science is successful. This plausible path should describe how the team will compete effectively for a federal team science award (or equivalent) within 12 months of completing the pilot award.
• A budget and justification respecting the pace at which projects are expected to progress and the distribution to team members who require subawards.

Why is RCSA focusing on team science rather than traditional collaboration? 
We believe team science structures have the potential to amplify research impact, accelerate science, and solve big challenges. RCSA’s Team Science Accelerator strives to help faculty become adept at functioning as an effective team.

What documents are required as part of the Letter of Intent (LOI)? 
When you log in to complete the LOI, you will need the following items:

• Two-page LOI in PDF format. The LOI must identify the major scientific problem the group will work on and the general approach that will be taken toward solving it. You will need to explain why the problem is important, why it is imperative to tackle now, and why this team is the right collection of interdisciplinary scientists to meet the challenge.
• Science Impact Statement. A short, 200-word summary should be submitted in addition to the LOI. The summary should focus on the importance of the grand scientific challenge your team seeks to solve. Do not include any identifying information regarding the team (names or institutions) as this statement will be used anonymously in the first step of the review process.
• Team Governance Statement. If selected as a finalist, you will develop more extensive team governance documents. At this stage, though, as you launch the project, how do you envision the team working together? What will be the norms for your communication and decision-making as a team? If you are working across disciplines, how will you reach shared understanding? If you are working across institutions, how will you seamlessly share data or materials to be a truly integrated team?
• AI use statement. If the team will be employing artificial intelligence, machine learning, reinforcement learning, or agentic systems, a short statement on how they will be deployed is required. Usage can be to advance the science, to facilitate collaboration, or to overcome administrative burdens involved in team science. If the team does not plan to use AI/ML, briefly explain why.
• NSF or NIH style biosketches. All PIs and co-PIs must submit a bio sketch. Canadian scientists may choose to use the CCV format, submitted in English, in lieu of the U.S. format.
• Current and pending support. All PIs and co-PIs must submit documentation of current and pending support in NSF format. You may use the SciENcv system to generate these documents. 
• Clock Extension Statement. If any PI or co-PI is requesting a clock extension beyond the 10-year eligibility window, an opportunity to describe the circumstances and the extension request is available.

Do I need to submit a budget with the LOI? 
No. RCSA does not require a budget at the LOI stage for the Team Science Accelerator. If your university’s pre-award process requires a budget to approve LOI submission, use these guidelines:

• RCSA allows a 10% indirect cost rate on a modified total direct costs base for team science awards.

• For teams with subawards to investigators at other institutions, indirect costs will be modeled on 2 CFR 200.

Does a team have to be made up of scientists from the same institution? 
No. Team members can be employed at any university, public or private, in the U.S. or Canada. Nonacademic scientists employed at national labs or nonacademic research institutions may serve as senior personnel (PIs and co-PIs) but must be independent scientists (e.g., in unmentored positions, not postdoctoral appointments) and be eligible to receive, manage, and oversee a research award based on their position and employer.  

How many researchers can be on a team? 
Teams must consist of three to five investigators. One person will be the administrative scientist of record for the team and will be responsible for submitting the LOI on behalf of the team.

Can an individual be on more than one team?  
No. A person may only submit an LOI as part of one team.

Can multiple PIs or co-PIs from the same institution submit proposals?  
Yes. There is no limit to the number of proposals that may come from the same institution.

Can teams change personnel?  
No. Once an LOI has been submitted, the team cannot change senior personnel (PIs and co-PIs) prior to submission of the final proposal documents, so please select your team judiciously. Team members should best represent the technical skills necessary to successfully complete the scientific objectives of the project and be prepared to work together closely and effectively.

How much funding will teams receive? 
Each team is eligible to receive up to $1 million (total cost) during the two-year program.

Will every team receive funding for a second year? 
No. The Team Science Accelerator is a high-stakes test of a specific funding model. We demand rigorous evidence of both scientific progress and behavioral adherence to validate the program’s core hypothesis. At the end of Year 1, teams face a rigorous review with the expectation that teams will show scientific progress toward their goals and significant indications that the team is working together effectively. RCSA distinguishes between failing due to the inherent difficulty of the science and failing due to team dysfunction. RCSA rewards high-risk scientific failure but not failure due to a team not functioning effectively. If a team cannot adhere to its charter, second-year funding will be withheld.

Is participation in the workshop mandatory? 
Yes. All PIs and co-PIs must attend a working conference in Tucson, Arizona, on June 21-23, 2027. This will not be a hybrid event; in-person attendance is mandatory.

What will happen at the workshop?
All finalist teams will engage with professional team coaches, finalize their proposal documents, and present short pitches describing the science challenge they will tackle and the team structure required to achieve success on this project.

What nonfinancial support do awardees receive? 

• Facilitators: Experts who guide the initial chartering process.
• Team Science Mentors: Disciplinary experts with experience in leading high-functioning teams who support the entire team.
• Professional Coaching: Specialized leadership support provided specifically for teams and team leaders.

How will you know if the program is successful?
RCSA will track several measures of success, including: 

• A target return on investment of five times the RCSA award (approximately $14 million for the cohort) in federal or external funding (DOE, NSF, NIH, etc.) realized within five years.
• Submission of competitive federal team science proposals within 24 months of the RCSA award.
• At least one collaborative publication by the end of Year 2 and demonstrated progress toward scientific milestones.
• Evidence of psychological safety, shared decision-making, and the ability to surmount organizational roadblocks in each team. 

What are the properties of an effective team? 
Drawing from J.R. Hackman’s book, “Collaborative Intelligence: Using Teams to Solve Hard Problems,” we require teams to demonstrate and document: 

• Well-defined common purpose: A sharp, non-generalized scientific mission. 
• Established norms: Clear, written rules for engagement and conduct within the team. 
• Shared accountability: Collective responsibility for every milestone. 
• Intertwined decision-making: Disciplined, team-wide processes for technical and strategic choices. 
• Peer support: Explicit structures for mutual professional reinforcement. 
• Measurable milestones: A roadmap of goal-setting that allows for objective tracking. 

What is a team charter and why is it mandatory? 
The team charter is an operational blueprint that includes the scientific goals, measurable milestones, and decision rights. It specifies how power is distributed and how choices are made. The charter is a living document used for accountability checkpoints; it ensures the team functions as a single unit rather than a collection of independent labs. The charter is not required at the LOI stage. Finalist teams will be required to develop and submit a team charter as part of the final application.