**From:** Graff, Ivan\
**Sent:** Monday, August 11, 2003 4:07 PM\
**To:** Langguth, Carol\
**Subject:** RE: Request for information regarding NSTC Research
Business Models

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]{.underline} :  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]{.underline} :
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

Program Specialist

 

Processing, Engineering, and Technology - USDA / REE / CSREES / PAS

Phone 202-401-6825 - Fax 202-401-5179 - <igraff@csrees.usda.gov>

 

U.S. Mail: Room 3414, STOP 2220, 1400 Independence Ave SW, Washington,
DC 20250-2220

Hand Delivery: 3414 Waterfront Centre, 800 9th St. SW, Washington, DC
20024

 

*CSREES\' mission is to advance knowledge for agriculture, the
environment, human health and well being, and communities.*