Ms. Langguth,

 

I have some ideas for you.  I have not submitted them directly to Michael J. Holland, but will rely on you to evaluate their merit.

 

A. Accountability. What constitutes accountability for the Federally-supported research enterprise? How can performers best demonstrate results or return on Federal research investments? Please suggest mechanisms whereby research managers can more transparently demonstrate responsible use of public resources.

 

For all the talk of outcomes versus impacts, accountability depends first on awardees accomplishing what they intended to accomplish in their application.  If an awardee points to an accomplishment not predicted in the application, the grantor must first evaluate the accomplishment's pertinence to the application and the program and then may appraise its greater value.  But in rare instances may this appraisal occur quantitatively.

 

To facilitate this appraisal, the electronic application's project description section should depend on fields for discrete, ordered action step titles, descriptions, and accomplishment indicator(s).  Optionally, applicants can indicate precedence.  Then the report template would begin with the first two fields and allow the awardee to report what they have actually done.

 

Impacts flow from an accomplishment or a group of accomplishments.  Only a finite number of ways exist to measure impacts.  These include, in order of decreasing persuasiveness, money, time, and quality of life improvements.  Even basic research can point to potential impacts.

 

I sincerely believe verbose narratives in applications and reports are at diametric odds with superior accountability.  Tell us what you are going to do and then tell us what you did.  Then in a sentence or two, tells us the impact, if there is one.  We are duty-bound to provide user-friendly aids to help applicants or awardees communicate this to us.

 

 

B. Inconsistency of policies and practices among Federal agencies. Can you identify specific Federal policies and practices that if simplified would improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the research enterprise? Can the impact of inconsistent policies and

practices among Federal agencies on the research environment be quantified? Among the variations in policies and practices, which practices appear to be the best? Why?

 

Our applicants and awardees will answer these questions best.  But I am aware of a few practices that may cost applicants time or money.

 

1. Many similar funding opportunities announced separately -  Most similar funding opportunities appear separately, possibly with different lexicons, but still of interest to a discernable, general audience.  We need flow charts or other graphics to help applicants find funding opportunities.  Maybe a fairly vague questionnaire would help.

 

2. Disparate internal requirements for review, approval - Different funding lines have different internal processes for review or approval.  It seems that the level of quality control exacted is independent of funding level or perceived impact on the public welfare.

 

 

C. Inconsistency of policies and practices among universities. Can you identify specific university policies and practices that if simplified would improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the research enterprise?

 

Our applicants and awardees will answer this question best.  But I am aware of that despite single sets of rules for institutional review, different university IRB's have different policies.  Many funding delays occur due to disparate internal review procedures.

 

 

E. Regulatory requirements. Is there a more efficient approach to meeting the intent of the current suite of administrative requirements and regulations? Please provide examples.

 

Federal grantors should provide more comprehensive and comprehensible procedures to help applicants and awardees decide how to plan their applicants and projects.

 

 

F. Research support. How can public funding mechanisms and policies encourage or discourage innovative approaches to research? Does the current process for research funding encourage or discourage innovative research? How do support mechanisms influence the mix of investigators supported (e.g., principal investigators, research scientists, postdoctoral scholars, graduate students, or technicians)? How can changes in the conduct of science and engineering necessitate modified funding models? Are data available to help decide these questions?

 

Funding opportunities tend to have a small circle of perennial applicants.  Maybe they serve or have served as reviewers.  Maybe they think they know the magic formula to secure funding.  But it seems that  programs themselves can depend on a core audience to apply every year.

 

To break this kind of cronyism, agency's can take concrete steps:

 

1. Regularly revise program priorities (within the scope of the authorizing legislation)

2. Program managers should advertise all open agency opportunities to public audiences they meet.  Our opportunities should only become more relevant to all audiences as we attempt to focus more on issues than on disciplines.

3. Grants.gov will increase funding opportunity expose.  But spreading announcements through professional distribution lists should help too.  Our communication's unit should track professional distribution lists and help with this kind of promotion.

 

 

 G. Multidisciplinary/collaborative research. Are any funding organizations, either inside or outside of government, employing funding mechanisms or strategies that are particularly effective in encouraging multidisciplinary work, collaborative activities, and other innovative approaches? Are there any data available relevant to these questions?

 

One way to encourage collaborations is by requiring it.  Project work elements will gravitate to the partner nominally best suited to the work.  This is also a very efficient way to force technology transfer.

 

 

H. Research Infrastructure. What information is available to examine policies at the Federal, State, local or institutional level that affect research infrastructure and the costs of building, maintaining and/or operating the research infrastructure' What factors influence performers' investments in research infrastructure? What data are available to demonstrate that? What information is available on the mix of sources used to finance research infrastructure?

 

I think it is fair for OSTP to mandate a certain percentage of every agency's "funds to grantees" go to infrastructure, with certain sub-percentages for new facilities, facilities O&M, and general supplies, equipment, and training. 

 

J. Technology transfer optimization. Are data available to examine whether intellectual property and patent agreements have changed relationships among universities, industry, and the government?

 

What does  the government  do to track technology transfer?   What does the government do with this?

 

IVAN GRAFF

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Langguth, Carol
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 10:32 AM
To: Everyone - CSREES Everyone Distribution List
Subject: FW: Request for information regarding NSTC Research Business Models

 

Carol A. Langguth

Branch Chief

Awards Management Branch/OEP

USDA/CSREES

Telephone:       202-401-5204

FAX:                202-401-1804

 

AMB Mission Statement:  To support our customers with expertise and resources and to facilitate the Federal assistance process to promote agricultural programs in Research, Education, and Extension.

 

 

 

OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY

National Science and Technology Council Subcommittee on Research 

Business Models

ACTION: Request for information regarding National Science and 

Technology Council/Committee on Science/Subcommittee on Research 

Business Models.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Subcommittee on Research Business Models is undertaking a 

review of policies, procedures, and plans relating to the business 

relationship between federal agencies and research performers with the 

goal of improving the performance and management of federally sponsored 

basic and applied scientific and engineering research. As part of that 

effort, the Subcommittee will hold a series of regional workshops in 

the Fall of 2003 to solicit input and feedback from the research 

performer community. This notice is intended to collect data that will 

assist the Subcommittee in setting agendas for those regional 

workshops.

DATES: Submit comments on or before September 22, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Due to potential delays in OSTP's receipt and processing of 

mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, we encourage respondents to 

submit comments electronically to ensure timely receipt. We cannot 

guarantee that comments sent via surface mail will be received before 

the comment closing date.

    Electronic comments may be submitted to: nstc_rbm@ostp.eop.gov. 

Please include in the subject line the words ``NSTC Research Business 

Models Comments'' and a reference to the relevant items, enumerated 

below as A-J. Please put the full body of your comments in the text of 

the electronic message and as an attachment. Be certain to include your 

name, title, organization, postal address, telephone number, and E-mail 

address in the text of the message.

    Comments may be mailed to Michael J. Holland; Office of Science & 

Technology Policy; 1650 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20502. 

But again, we strongly encourage respondents to submit comments 

electronically.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding this Notice, 

please call Michael Holland, Office of Science & Technology Policy, 

(202) 456-6069 (direct) and e-mail: mholland@ostp.eop.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    This notice requests data and specific examples from the general 

public and all interested parties regarding the activities of the 

Subcommittee on Research Business Models chartered under the Committee 

on Science of the National Science and Technology Council. The 

Committee on Science realizes that much has changed about the practice 

of scientific research over the last several years. The purpose of the 

Subcommittee on Research Business Models is to advise and assist the 

Committee on Science and the NSTC on policies, procedures, and plans 

relating to business models to improve the efficiency, effectiveness 

and accountability of the Federal research and development enterprise 

in a manner cognizant of currently available resources. The 

Subcommittee will

    [sbull] Facilitate a strong, coordinated effort across federal 

agencies to identify and address important policy implications arising 

from the changing nature of basic and applied research.

    [sbull] Examine the concomitant influence these changes have had or 

should have on business models and business practices for the conduct 

of basic and applied research sponsored by the Federal government and 

carried out by academic, industrial, and government entities.

    [sbull] Review the challenges to improved performance and 

mechanisms for more transparent accountability of the research 

enterprise.

    The membership of the Subcommittee includes representatives from 

fifteen Federal departments and agencies that support or are engaged in 

research activities. The Subcommittee on Research Business Models will 

consult and coordinate with other ongoing, relevant efforts including, 

but not limited to, those of the Interagency Electronic Grants 

Committee (IAEGC) and the CFO Grants Management Council (GMC) Public 

Law 106-107 Workgroups.

Request for Information

    In order to assist the public in its response, the Subcommittee has 

identified the following areas in which they would like to receive 

comments, including how changes in these areas have impacted research 

costs. However, the Subcommittee welcomes comments and suggestions in 

other areas that may not be included in the following questions.

    A. Accountability. What constitutes accountability for the 

Federally-supported research enterprise? How can performers best 

demonstrate results or return on Federal research investments? Please 

suggest mechanisms whereby research managers can more transparently 

demonstrate responsible use of public resources.

    B. Inconsistency of policies and practices among Federal agencies. 

Can you identify specific Federal policies and practices that if 

simplified would improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the 

research enterprise? Can the impact of inconsistent policies and 

practices among Federal agencies on the research environment be 

quantified? Among the variations in policies and practices, which 

practices appear to be the best? Why?

    C. Inconsistency of policies and practices among universities. Can 

you identify specific university policies and practices that if 

simplified would improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the 

research enterprise?

    D. State and Institutional requirements. What is the prevalence and 

impact of state and institutional requirements that are added to 

Federal requirements for research funding?

    E. Regulatory requirements. Is there a more efficient approach to 

meeting the intent of the current suite of administrative requirements 

and regulations? Please provide examples.

    F. Research support. How can public funding mechanisms and policies 

encourage or discourage innovative approaches to research? Does the 

current process for research funding

[[Page 46632]]

encourage or discourage innovative research? How do support mechanisms 

influence the mix of investigators supported (e.g., principal 

investigators, research scientists, postdoctoral scholars, graduate 

students, or technicians)? How can changes in the conduct of science 

and engineering necessitate modified funding models? Are data available 

to help decide these questions?

    G. Multidisciplinary/collaborative research. Are any funding 

organizations, either inside or outside of government, employing 

funding mechanisms or strategies that are particularly effective in 

encouraging multidisciplinary work, collaborative activities, and other 

innovative approaches? Are there any data available relevant to these 

questions?

    H. Research Infrastructure. What information is available to 

examine policies at the Federal, State, local or institutional level 

that affect research infrastructure and the costs of building, 

maintaining and/or operating the research infrastructure' What factors 

influence performers' investments in research infrastructure? What data 

are available to demonstrate that? What information is available on the 

mix of sources used to finance research infrastructure?

    I. Information Technology. How has information technology impacted 

the efficiency, performance, or costs of research management? Are there 

data to demonstrate any effect?

    J. Technology transfer optimization. Are data available to examine 

whether intellectual property and patent agreements have changed 

relationships among universities, industry, and the government?

Authority

    The National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) was established 

under Executive Order 12881 on November 23, 1993, and subsequently 

reestablished by President Bush. The Committee on Science is chartered 

under the NSTC. The purpose of the Committee on Science is to advise 

and assist the NSTC, with emphasis on those federally supported efforts 

that develop new knowledge in the sciences mathematics, and 

engineering.

Kathie L. Olsen,

Associated Director.

[FR Doc. 03-19935 Filed 8-5-03; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3170-01-P