NSF 26-500: Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers (MRSEC)

NSF 26-500: Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers (MRSEC)

This page is a historical reference for NSF 26-500, the Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers (MRSEC) solicitation. The official National Science Foundation solicitation identifies this as the current version of the MRSEC call, but its required preliminary proposal deadline was June 23, 2025 and its invited full proposal deadline was January 27, 2026. The NSF program page does not announce a later MRSEC cycle. This is therefore not an open application listing: the deadline retained in the metadata is the real closing date for the completed competition, and historicalReference = true distinguishes the archive entry from a live opportunity.

Verified details

The date in the award-effective-date row is not a submission deadline. NSF states that new MRSEC awards are anticipated to begin on September 1, 2026. It is retained here because it describes the completed solicitation’s planned award timing; it should not be read as evidence that applications are still being accepted.

What the MRSEC program supports

NSF describes MRSECs as campus-based centers for materials research and education whose scope and complexity require coordinated infrastructure, multiple investigators, and sustained institutional management. A center may be at one institution or involve multiple institutions in partnership. Each center must be organized around two to three Interdisciplinary Research Groups (IRGs), with each IRG addressing a fundamental materials-science topic aligned with the NSF Division of Materials Research (DMR).

The center model is broader than a conventional single-project grant. The solicitation expects research groups to work within a coordinated program that can support shared experimental and computational facilities, education and workforce development, collaboration with industry and international organizations, and participation in a national network of university-based materials centers. Shared facilities are expected to be staffed, maintained, and accessible not only to center participants but also to the broader university community and other organizations.

The call invites research across the DMR portfolio. The solicitation names areas including semiconductors and microelectronics, biotechnology and biomanufacturing, architected materials across scales, far-from-equilibrium materials, structural materials under extreme conditions, and domestic materials development. It also encourages theoretical, computational, and autonomous-experimentation approaches when they retain disciplinary breadth and show strong intellectual merit. Catalysis-focused work must be framed as fundamental materials research that fits DMR rather than as work better suited to another agency.

Education and outreach are required parts of the center, not optional additions. NSF asks for impactful activities with clear, measurable, evidence-based goals. Examples in the solicitation include STEM pathways involving community colleges and four-year institutions, K–12 STEM improvement, and meaningful partnerships with non-R1 institutions. The proposal must connect its education and human-resources plan to the six-year award period and to longer-term outcomes.

Eligibility and proposal limits

The eligible lead applicant is a two- or four-year U.S. institution of higher education, including a community college, that is accredited in the United States and has a campus located in the United States. If a proposal includes funding for an international branch campus of a U.S. institution, the institution must explain the benefit of doing the work there and why it cannot be done at the U.S. campus.

NSF states that there are no restrictions or limits on who may serve as PI. That does not remove the proposal-count rules. Only one MRSEC preliminary proposal may be submitted by any one organization as the lead institution. An institution proposing several research groups must combine them into one MRSEC proposal with a minimum of two and a maximum of three IRGs. An individual may serve as PI or co-PI on only one preliminary proposal and may not appear on more than one proposal Cover Sheet.

There is an additional institutional exclusion: an institution that was awarded an MRSEC in the FY 2023 competition as the lead institution is not eligible to submit as the lead institution in this competition. More than one organization may participate in a single proposal, but one organization must accept overall management responsibility. Separately submitted collaborative proposals are not allowed.

Full proposals are not an independent route into the competition. NSF accepts them by invitation only, based on the evaluation of the preliminary proposal. The preliminary review may invite a full proposal containing only some of the proposed IRGs, but at least two meritorious IRGs are needed for a full-proposal invitation. This makes the preliminary submission the decisive entry point for the closed cycle.

Application route used for NSF 26-500

The following steps describe the verified process in the solicitation. They are retained for institutional planning and for comparison with a future announcement; they are not instructions to submit after the dates have passed.

1. Form the center structure

Start with the lead U.S. institution, a prospective center director, and two or three IRGs that each address a substantial materials-science topic. The proposal should explain why the groups belong in one center and what they gain from shared facilities, common management, and coordinated education. A long list of investigators is not a substitute for a coherent center structure. Define responsibilities, integration points, facility users, and decision-making authority before drafting the narrative.

If other organizations are involved, settle the management relationship early. One lead organization must carry overall responsibility, while participating institutions should have clear scientific and operational roles. Check the one-proposal limits before an investigator or institution commits to another MRSEC preliminary proposal.

2. Prepare the required preliminary proposal in Research.gov

Preliminary proposals were required and had to be submitted through Research.gov, even if an invited full proposal would later use Grants.gov. The Project Summary was limited to one page and had to include the rationale for establishing the center and its anticipated synergies, a concise description of the proposed IRGs under Intellectual Merit, and expected outcomes under Broader Impacts for research, education and outreach, facilities, and collaborations.

The Project Description limit was 14 pages for a proposal with two IRGs and 17 pages for a proposal with three IRGs. In addition to the PAPPG requirements and the required Broader Impacts section, the preliminary proposal had to include clearly marked sections for Seed Funding and Education and Human Resources Development. The seed-funding section needed to describe how seed projects would be selected and evaluated, including tentative call and review timelines over the award period, without identifying specific projects.

The education section needed a focused roadmap rather than a catalogue of activities. It had to identify a limited number of measurable goals, describe how the center would evaluate progress, and connect the work to sustained impact beyond the center. A Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) program was required, with at least 50% off-campus participation. The MRSEC award would fund that REU program, and proposers had to follow NSF REU budget guidance rather than submit a separate REU proposal.

3. Build the shared-facility and partnership plans

The proposal needed to show how experimental and computational facilities would be developed, staffed, equipped, maintained, and made accessible. Explain who will operate each facility, how users will request access, how utilization and safety will be managed, and how the center will contribute to the national materials-research facility network. A facility list without a staffing and access model would not demonstrate the center capability NSF is seeking.

Partnerships may involve industry, international organizations, national laboratories, nonprofit organizations, and state or local governments. Describe the specific contribution of each partner and how the relationship supports knowledge transfer or strengthens the research and education plan. Keep the scientific and administrative responsibilities distinguishable, especially where facilities, data, intellectual property, or external users are involved.

4. Develop the invited full proposal only after the preliminary review

An invited team would expand the preliminary concept into a full MRSEC proposal using the applicable PAPPG and solicitation instructions. The full proposal should preserve the center-level logic while adding the evidence needed for a competitive award: detailed IRG research plans, facility operations, education and outreach milestones, governance, evaluation, budgets, and results from prior NSF support where applicable. Re-competing centers had to describe prior accomplishments in the Results from Prior NSF Support sections, and NSF would evaluate existing and new centers in open competition.

The requested budget had to match the center’s actual operating model. NSF states that individual awards are expected to range from approximately $3,000,000 per year for a 2-IRG MRSEC to a maximum of $4,500,000 per year for a 3-IRG MRSEC. The anticipated total funding for the solicitation was $15,000,000, subject to available funds, and the estimated number of awards was 2 to 5. Voluntary committed cost sharing was prohibited. These figures describe the solicitation, not an entitlement or a guaranteed award amount.

5. Complete compliance review and submission

Before submission, an institution should verify the organization and PI limits, the number of IRGs, the page limits, the required preliminary sections, the off-campus REU participation requirement, and the PAPPG version in effect on the applicable due date. Review the budget for prohibited voluntary committed cost sharing and check that the proposal channel is Research.gov for the preliminary stage. For a future solicitation, do not assume that these instructions or dates remain unchanged; use the new NSF text as the controlling document.

What reviewers assess

NSF applies the National Science Board’s Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts criteria and adds MRSEC-specific review criteria. The preliminary process uses topical panel review, supplemented by ad hoc review as needed. IRGs may be reviewed by panels organized around their research areas, so the proposal must be understandable both within each specialty and as a unified center. Only preliminary proposals with excellent IRGs are expected to be invited to develop full proposals.

A credible center case should answer four practical questions. First, why does the research require the scale, synergy, and multidisciplinarity of a center rather than separate individual projects? Second, how will the IRGs interact through shared science, facilities, methods, data, or training? Third, can the institution operate the facilities and governance structure over the full award period? Fourth, will education, partnerships, and national-network participation produce measurable results rather than remain promises in a supporting section?

The solicitation lists measures of success that may include published papers, patents developed, jobs created or sustained, start-ups created, PhDs and postdoctoral researchers supported, and undergraduate student research supported. A strong evaluation plan should define which measures matter for the proposed center, establish a way to collect evidence, and identify how leadership will respond when progress falls short. The center’s research theme should be ambitious, but the operating plan must make its results auditable.

Common planning mistakes

• Treating the MRSEC as a single-PI research grant. The solicitation requires a center with two to three IRGs, shared facilities, education, and coordinated management.
• Treating the full proposal as the first application. The preliminary proposal was required, and full proposals were accepted only by invitation.
• Naming facilities without explaining access, staffing, maintenance, safety, or users outside the center.
• Adding education and outreach after the research plan is complete instead of setting measurable goals and a six-year roadmap from the beginning.
• Ignoring the one-proposal rules or the exclusion for FY 2023 lead institutions.
• Including voluntary committed cost sharing in the budget or narrative.
• Treating the award range as a guaranteed amount. NSF made funding subject to availability of funds and tied continued support to center progress and external review.

Historical status and future monitoring

The NSF solicitation page says that NSF 26-500 replaces NSF 25-532 and identifies NSF 26-500 as the current version. The official MRSEC program page likewise points readers to this solicitation. Neither official page reviewed for this update announces a subsequent solicitation or a new application deadline. The page should therefore remain an archive entry until NSF publishes a new cycle.

For future monitoring, check the NSF MRSEC program page and the solicitation history first. A replacement call may change the award size, research emphasis, page limits, organization restrictions, submission route, or education requirements. Do not copy the January 27, 2026 deadline into a future listing, and do not convert this closed entry to a rolling opportunity unless the official NSF text expressly says that applications are accepted continuously.

Official references

• NSF 26-500 solicitation
• NSF MRSEC program page
• NSF Division of Materials Research

The solicitation is the controlling source for the closed cycle’s amount, eligibility, proposal limits, required materials, review path, and deadlines. Use a later NSF solicitation—not this archive entry—when a new MRSEC competition is announced.