Any full-time WashU faculty member in any discipline (tenure track or TRaP), including WashU School of Medicine faculty/physicians, may nominate a student for SURGE. Importantly, SURGE faculty mentors are expected to regularly and meaningfully engage with both the student and the project throughout the summer research period, even when a bench mentor takes responsibility for day-to-day training. Thus, a faculty member’s eligibility to nominate a student for SURGE depends most on their availability and bandwidth during the student’s desired research period (exact dates set by the student and mentor). 

Faculty may nominate as many students as they and their research group, if applicable, have the capacity to mentor. 

Each application is reviewed individually based on the clarity and feasibility of the proposed project and the potential impact on the student. As a result, there is no fixed cap on the number of awards per faculty mentor, but funding decisions are made on a competitive basis. 

Students request their faculty mentor’s SURGE nomination through the submission portal. You should receive an email with a unique link to upload your nomination; no account set-up or log-in is required. If you do not receive the link, please check with your mentee to make sure they sent the request, check your junk mail, and then contact Undergraduate Research (undergradresearch@wustl.edu), if necessary. 

The mentor nomination consists of an informatino form and five short-answer questions (see the SURGE website). Undergraduate Research uses these questions instead of traditional letters of recommendation to gather consistent information about each candidate. FAculty mentors should respond to the questions directly; however, if they have already written a document that addresses some of the prompts, they may upload it in place of some or all responses. Faculty nominations are due March 1 by 11:59pm, which is also the student submission deadline for SURGE.

Undergraduate Research has limited funding for summer researchers; we consistently receive more applications than can be funded. As a result, we rely upon faculty contributions to maximize the number of students that we can support. If you have funding that covers your mentee’s project and allows undergraduate support, we ask that you cover 50% of the award (max award amount: $5,400). We recognize funding may be unavailable, restricted, or allocated for other priorities.  

SURGE award selection is based on the strength of the faculty nomination and the student’s project proposal and timeline. Strong submissions are those that clearly address all required components of the requested materials. A mentor’s ability to cost share is not a factor in award selection; however, cost-sharing helps Undergraduate Research fund more students, which may increase the overall chances of receiving an award.   

Yes, provided that the student is ready to develop and submit their own project proposal and timeline with your support. SURGE participants commonly investigate research questions and implement methodological approaches established by their faculty mentors, but are still expected to have some degree of ownership over their project activities and demonstrate an understanding of key concepts and the project's rationale. Thus, new mentees seeking a SURGE award will be challenged to get abreast of their faculty mentor’s research and effectively describe their research responsibilities in the proposal. 

Faculty have discretion in deciding whether they have the capacity and interest to mentor such student-driven projects. One consideration is whether it feels feasible for you to advise the student on the development of their project proposal, given the divergence in your respective research areas and/or methodologies. Another issue is whether you feel well-positioned to write a meaningful nomination for the student, given the mentor nomination questions. Finally, you might consider whether you have sufficient bandwidth to regularly and meaningfully engage with the student during their summer research period (exact dates set by the student and mentor). 

Students are expected to write their own submission materials in collaboration with their faculty mentors. The details of this collaboration process will naturally vary depending on a student’s research experience, the preferred mentor-mentee communication style, etc., but it is crucial that your student drafts their own proposal. Mentors should provide feedback for students to implement, perhaps iteratively.

While faculty grant applications and research papers can provide helpful context and references, students must avoid copying these resources. Faculty mentors should review and approve the final version of the project proposal, ensuring the student has effectively described the project in their own words using accessible language.  

SURGE acceptance rates will depend on the number and quality of student submissions, Undergraduate Research’s budget, and the availability of faculty mentor cost-sharing. Undergraduate Research cannot provide a precise estimate, but we anticipate funding about half of submissions. 

Students will receive SURGE award decisions on April 1. A small number of competitive students may be waitlisted, pending the availability of funds. Initial awardees are expected to accept or decline their SURGE awards by April 11, at which point Undergraduate Research will provide final decisions to any waitlisted students. 

As per the SURGE webpage, SURGE participants are expected to: 

• Actively engage inUndergraduate Research's summer programming, including
  • attending a required ethics workshop (June),
  • giving a 3-minute lightning talk (July or August), and
  • submitting mid- (July) and end-of-award (August 24) reports via Canvas
• Present their summer inquiry at the Fall Undergraduate Research Symposium on November 6, 2026
• Refrain from taking more than 3 academic credits or pursuing other full-time commitments (e.g., full-time employment, fellowships) that, alone or in combination, constitute a full-time load during their SURGE research period
• Disclose any other WashU summer 2026 research funding, whether for the SURGE project or other research activities
• Treat their SURGE award payment as taxable income

Upon SURGE acceptance, the student will confirm their final project timeline and total hours, which determine the stipend amount ($5,400 for 360-hour projects, prorated for fewer hours). You are expected to approve the timeline and total hours.

SURGE mentors are expected to: 

• Provide guidance and supervision to the student throughout the research period, including regular meetings, feedback, and help navigating emergent challenges
  • In cases where the student or faculty mentor are remote during the research period, the project timeline should include explicit plans for how mentor-mentee communication will be maintained and what other contacts, e.g., grad students or post docs, are available if the student needs support
• Ensure the student adheres to safety protocols and procedures, follows ethical guidelines for research conduct, and completes applicable compliance trainings
• Review and approve the student’s Undergraduate Research award progress and end of award reports and communicate with Undergraduate Research if any concerns about the student arise
• Support the student’s presentation at the Fall Undergraduate Research Symposium, including review and approval of their presentation materials
• In subsequent years, previous SURGE mentors will be asked to serve as SURGE proposal reviewers (a 1.5 - 2 hour commitment).

After the award is offered, mentors are expected to review and approve their student’s final project timeline and hours. Students who accept SURGE will receive an award agreement via DocuSign outlining both student and mentor expectations. Mentors must electronically sign this document to confirm their support of the project and agreement to the outlined expectations.

Funds will be paid directly to the student as one or two award payments, depending on whether the award is cost shared. If the award is not cost shared, Undergraduate Research will disburse the full award amount as a single payment. If the award is cost shared, Undergraduate Research will disburse 50% of the total award amount and the faculty mentor’s academic department or program will disburse the remaining 50%. Funds are typically paid via direct deposit in late May to early June, and mentors are asked to coordinate with their payroll contact to ensure cost share payment.

If you committed to cost sharing, Undergraduate Research will contact the departmental liaison you listed in early May with next steps.

General questions can be sent to Undergraduate Research’s shared inbox (undergradresearch@wustl.edu). If you have urgent or confidential questions or concerns, you can reach out directly to Undergraduate Research Assistant Director, Dr. Diana José-Edwards (diana.jose-edwards@wustl.edu), or the Program Manager, Dr. Angela Fink (amfink@wustl.edu). We appreciate your partnership.

A single-slide overview of the Undergraduate Research SU25 programming calendar is available on Box. A similar timeline will be developed for SU26.

First-time awardees

 Students who have not previously received a SURGE award (formerly SURA or BioSURF) must complete:

1.  Online responsible conduct of research (RCR) modules via Learn @ Work (upload proof of completion to Canvas by June 11)
   1. Module 1: Introduction
   2. Module 3: Mentorship
   3. Module 6: Authorship and Publication
2. Two sets of short answer questions around ethical standards and putting them into practice (due in Canvas June 11). A complete list of questions is provided below.
3. One in-person small group discussion

Returning awardees

If a student previously received a SURGE award (formerly SURA or BioSURF), they must answer questions about mentorship and authorship that facilitate goal-setting for their second summer experience.

Ethics questions for first-time awardees

1. Ethical standards:
   1. Which ethical standards did you consult for this assignment? Students are provided with non-exhaustive lists of academic professional organization ethical guidelines.
   2. Have you been exposed to these guidelines before? If so, where?
   3. Describe how these standards are consistent with the practices you and/or your research team use.
   4. Name one specific standard of conduct that feels most relevant to your summer research and explain why it matters for your project.
   5. What strategies will you use this summer to ensure this standard is upheld (e.g., communication, documentation, etc.)?
2. Mentorship and Authorship: Students are provided with resources on mentoring relationships and networks.
   1. Identify one research or career goal you want to work toward this summer. What specific support or guidance will you need from your mentor to make progress toward this goal?
   2. What two steps will you take to be a proactive mentee and communicate your needs clearly? (Consider how you'll prepare for meetings, ask for feedback, follow-up, etc.)
   3. What support might you seek from additional mentors? How will you take initiative to connect with someone to provide that support?
   4. What is your understanding of how authorship or credit for contributions are determined in your discipline or research group?
   5. How would you approach a conversation with your research mentor about what type of work merits authorship or formal recognition and how might that conversation support your development as a researcher?

Research progress 

Answers should not exceed five sentences.

1. What is your major research question, hypothesis, or creative objective?
2. Provide brief background to contextualize your project. What are the previous studies, concepts, or historical, theoretical, or critical frameworks relevant to your research? (While not required, you are encouraged to include citations as appropriate.)
3. How will your work address a disciplinary gap or community need? What new knowledge or understanding will it contribute? In other words, why is this area of inquiry important?
4. Discuss your methodological approach. In your description, please include:
   1. the rationale behind your chosen methods (why you chose these methods and not others),
   2. how these methods are typically employed (i.e., steps to collect or examine data, texts, or artifacts; steps to develop or prove theories or models; steps to move from prototype to design, etc.)
   3. how you will analyze and interpret the evidence you gather or results of your proofs/simulations (overall logic, not details).
5. Describe your project progress thus far (e.g., literature review, initial experiments, analyzing texts or artifacts, survey design, preliminary calculations or proofs, model development, initial interviews, etc.) Include:
   1. any preliminary results, patterns, or themes that have emerged.
   2. how your progress has informed your understanding or direction of the project.
6. Discuss any obstacles you have encountered (e.g., failed experiments, data quality, need for additional tools or knowledge, insufficient sources or participants, etc.).
   1. What approach did you utilize (or will you utilize) to address these obstacles?
   2. How have these setbacks affected your goals or timeline for the project?
7. Considering your research goals and current progress, what milestone(s) do you aim to achieve by the end of the summer? Outline a plan, including:
   1. the key tasks (e.g., additional data gathering, textual analysis, theorem proving, writing, revision) you will prioritize,
   2. the rationale for these priorities, and
   3. the timeline for completing each task.

Research experience

8. What is working well in the execution of your project? How might you change your behaviors or research practices for the second half of the project?
9. Describe your contact with your faculty research mentor this summer. (If you haven’t recently touched base with your mentor, consider reaching out to set up a meeting.) If you have additional research mentors (e.g., graduate student, post doctoral fellow, etc.), describe your contact with them.
10. What goals and expectations that you set with your research mentor(s) need to be maintained? What goals and expectations that you set with your research mentor(s) need to be adjusted?
11. How has discussion with your mentor(s) improved your project or research progress? What additional feedback or advice might help you reach your project milestones and goals?

Basic instructions for the lightning talks are below. These sessions provide an informal venue for Undergraduate Research summer researchers to share their work, receive formative feedback and build community. As a result, faculty mentors and lab mates generally do not attend. Instead, they will be invited to view students' formal research presentations at the Fall Undergraduate Research Symposium on November 6, 2026.

Introduction

All Undergraduate Research summer researchers are required to participate in ONE session of Lightning Talks, which are sometimes referred to as a "data blitz." Your challenge is to design a single slide for a non-expert audience, which you will have up to three minutes to present (plus two minutes for questions).

Objectives

1. Practice succinct and clear research communication with a varied audience in a low-pressure environment
2. Take stock of your research progress and receive feedback
3. Learn about your peers' diverse research methodologies and experiences and engage in discussion about one another’s work

Content

Given the single-slide constraint, you should include minimal content on your slide. Consider where you are in the progression of your project (e.g., literature review stage, troubleshooting experiments, data collection) and choose a single aspect of your project to highlight. Select ONE of the following foci:

1. The development of your research question, its significance, and potential impact
2. Methodological approach, rationale and expected results
3. Unexpected obstacle and proposed solution
4. Result/finding and analysis

Research Progress

1. FINDINGS: Discuss the progress of your work this summer, addressing the following (500 words):
   1. Describe the evidence, data, or materials you gathered or analyzed thus far. When necessary, include brief descriptions of the methodology or approaches used to provide context.
   2. Summarize any findings or insights of your project to date. Highlight any patterns, trends, themes or preliminary observations that have emerged from your analysis.
   3. Discuss any limitations of your study (potential sources of error, constraints, or challenges that might have impacted your findings).
2. CONCLUSIONS: What do your results or outputs tell you, and what’s next? Address the following (500 words):
   1. Discuss how your observations align with or differ from your expectations (e.g., surprises, deviations, or confirmations of your initial predictions or assumptions).
   2. Explain how your observations address your initial hypothesis, research question, or objective or how they contribute to the formation of your argument.
   3. Outline how the project could evolve from here (e.g. unanswered questions for future inquiry, next experiments to expand or clarify your work, etc.)
3. Based on your project proposal, mid-summer progress report, and responses to the above questions, synthesize your progress into an abstract for an informed, interdisciplinary audience (250 words).
   1. Please note that your faculty research mentor must endorse your abstract for this report to be complete. You will receive an abstract form via DocuSign for you to reenter your abstract text and for you and your mentor to sign.

Research Experience

4. UNANTICIPATED DEVELOPMENTS: Describe any unexpected factors that have benefitted or impeded the success of the project to date and explain how they have influenced your approach, progress or outlook.
5. LESSONS LEARNED: If you were speaking with an incoming WashU first-year, what would you tell them were your greatest lessons learned during this summer research experience (e.g. skills, lessons about yourself, knowledge of your subject, future plans after WashU)?
6. FUTURE PLANS: Describe your plans for this research (i.e., future research, publication, or presentation goals). Will you continue the work during the academic year?

All Undergraduate Research summer researchers must present at the Fall Undergraduate Research Symposium, which will be held on Friday, November 6, 2026 from 10 am - 2 pm in Frick Forum (1st floor) and other locations in Bauer/Knight Halls.