PRIOR_AWARDS_GALAXY

Prior Galaxy-related awards (CZI EOSS)

OS4LS is the inaugural OS4Science call, so no OS4Science prior awards exist. OS4LS is built by the EOSS team and inherits its structure, so EOSS is the relevant precedent corpus. The Galaxy project itself has been funded twice through EOSS. CZI’s public proposal pages are short (essentially the abstract); deeper detail would require asking the PIs directly.


1. Extending Galaxy for Large-Scale and Integrative Biomedical Analyses — EOSS Cycle 3

Abstract (verbatim from CZI page, fragmentary):

“Extend Galaxy, a web-based computational workbench used by thousands of scientists across the world, so that it can analyze large datasets and connect with other analysis tools.”

Framing on CZI page:

“Galaxy is a web-based, open source computational workbench used by thousands of scientists across the world for a variety of biomedical data analyses, including genomics, proteomics, image processing, and systems biology.” Hundreds of deployed servers, 150+ public servers, three national servers, 250,000+ registered users, 500,000+ monthly analysis jobs.

Notes / unknowns: CZI’s published page does not list funding amount, aims, or deliverables. Goecks’ lab and the 2020 Nucleic Acids Research Galaxy update paper (PMC7319590) and the “Federated Galaxy: Biomedical Computing at the Frontier” paper (PubMed 34386295) are the publicly visible technical outputs that likely cite this award.


2. Automated Generation of Galaxy Tools — EOSS Cycle 6 (Wellcome co-funded)

Abstract (verbatim from CZI page, fragmentary):

“Develop software that is able to automatically integrate existing open source software into the Galaxy platform.”

Notes / unknowns: CZI’s published page does not list funding amount, aims, or deliverables. The Wellcome co-funding signals that EOSS6 expanded beyond the CZI-only pattern — a relevant precedent given OS4Science is itself multi-donor (Biohub, Wellcome, Kavli, ReSA). The natural-language framing (“automatically integrate existing open source software”) overlaps strongly with the User-Defined Tools / YAML tools work and with the workflow-state proposal’s direction.


Adjacent workflow-ecosystem awards worth reading


Higher-signal writeups (read these to calibrate proposals)

What to ask Blankenberg / Goecks directly

The CZI pages are too thin to use as templates. Ask for: the actual proposal narrative, the aims list, budget framing (FTE allocation, fiscal-sponsor structure if any), how they handled the “demonstrated adoption” section, and what the annual-report indicators looked like in practice. Both PIs are reachable inside the Galaxy community.