# Presentation: 183531

## Alignment of Funding Mechanisms with Scientific Opportunities 

**Research Business Models Workshop**
**October 27, 2003**
**Arthur Bienenstock**

## Some Important Research Trends

- Industrial R&D labs performing less basic & precompetitive applied research
- Interagency funding of research projects and facilities
- Exciting research at borders of disciplines
- Shared facilities & instruments
- Many disciplines
- Research involving toxic materials, human subjects
- Shifting of research costs from federal government to universities
- Declining participation by U.S. youth in science and technology
- Need for U.S. citizens in defense-related research

## Less Industrial Fundamental Research

- Economic growth has arisen from research
- National security dependent on research
- Industry and government looking to universities to perform a major fraction of fundamental research
- Important to keep research universities healthy

## Many Funding Agencies

- Multi-agency research funding serves nation well
- Many perspectives
- Fundamental research
- Agency mission-related research
- Increases administrative burden of federal government, universities and faculty
- Nevertheless, big payoff
- Must decrease administrative costs through more common policies and practices
- Electronic research administration
- Research misconduct policies, etc.
- Federal Demonstration Partnership recommendations
- Decrease faculty administrative burden through direct funding of direct administrative support

## Interagency Funding of Research Projects and Facilities

- Example – Gamma Ray Large Area Space Telescope - GLAST

## Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope

- An experiment to study high-energy cosmic gamma-rays in the energy range 20 MeV to greater than 300 GeV

**DOE and NASA co-sponsors (in US) of the LAT**
**Participation from France, Italy, Japan, and Sweden**

## Interagency Funding of Research Projects and Facilities

- Example – GLAST
- DOE's high energy physics detector expertise
- NASA's space expertise
- Different "business" modes
- OMB & OSTP must "administer" interagency projects to ensure:
- Joint planning and RFP's for future projects when appropriate
- Smooth, efficient business practices
- Government's and participants' administrative costs increased
- Enormous scientific/technological efficiency and effectiveness

## Exciting Research at Borders of Disciplines

- Particle astrophysics
- High energy physics
- Astronomy and astrophysics
- Bioengineering
- Biology
- Engineering
- Physics
- Nanotechnology
- Physics
- Engineering
- Biology
- "Teams" within disciplines also
- Sample maker
- Sample measurers, etc.

## Exciting Research at Borders of Disciplines - 2

- Best participants in interdisciplinary research are strong in their own disciplines
- Universities must keep disciplines strong
- Universities must establish administration and facilities to encourage research at borders of disciplines
- F&A costs will rise, but potential pay-off enormous
- Vulnerability to research misconduct increased
- Common research misconduct policies

## Shared Facilities & Instruments

- Very expensive - HEP accelerators, synchrotron & neutron facilities
- Government funds construction, operation and improvements
- Continuous up-grades to keep at state-of-art
- Access by proposal
- Expensive – Electron beam writers, high-field NMR, FIBs, NanoSIMS, etc.
- Shared by many scientists, often from many disciplines
- Important for research & training
- Sizable investments
- Usually service center model – fund & forget – university subsidies
- Not model designed to keep them at state-of-art and fully effective
- Too expensive to treat this way
- Need model that anticipates continued development & up-grading – partial continued funding after purchase
- Regional facilities?

## Research Involving Toxic Materials & Human Subjects

- Toxic materials
- Nanofabrication
- Biotoxins (health & war on terrorism)
- Human subject research
- Institutional review boards
- Demanding ES&H challenges funded via administrative part of F&A reimbursement
- Cost has increased markedly, but administration reimbursement rate capped

## Shifting of Research Costs from Federal Government to Universities

## Declining Participation by U.S. Youth in Science and Technology

## Need for U.S. Citizens inDefense-Related Research

- War on terrorism will be protracted
- Classified research, performed at special laboratories, will require more U.S. citizens in science & technology at every level
- But - must also continue to remain attractive to foreign graduate students
- Must keep universities strong

## Losing Ground: A National Status Report on the Affordability of American Higher Education

***Losing Ground: A National Status Report on the Affordability of American Higher Education***

## Access to Public Research Universities

- These institutions play major role in educating young Americans
- Average tuition has increased to ~$4K
- Limits access
- Average amount of unreimbursed indirect costs and cost-sharing at research universities is ~$1K per student
- Federal F&A/cost-sharing policies tend to make college less accessible

## Summary

- Nation has great stake in keeping universities strong in research and accessible to all economic classes
- Increased administrative costs associated with multiagency funding and interdisciplinary research more than balanced by scientific and technological efficiencies and effectiveness
- Government & universities must continue to cooperate to reduce administrative costs - Federal Demonstration Partnership
- Ensure common policies and practices
- Eliminate unnecessary regulations
- Government must explicitly recognize increased research ES&H costs and fund them
- Government must reverse trend of shifting research costs to universities
- Appropriate F&A reimbursement

## The End

## GLAST Project History:  DOE and NASA Sponsorship

- Collaboration plans for GLAST presented to HEPAP, Jan 1997;  submitted proposal for LAT to DOE, Feb 1998; reviewed by SAGENAP, _April 1998_
- NASA issued call for proposals for GLAST Instrument Technology Development, January 1998; U.S. part of collaboration submitted proposal; awarded _June 1998_ (1 of 2 proposals selected)
- NASA (with DOE input) formed GLAST Council for advice on GLAST Mission; met _January 1999_
- NASA issued Announcement of Opportunity (AO) for Flight Investigations for the GLAST Mission, _March 1999_
- Proposal opportunities for science investigation + LAT Inst. and/or Gamma-ray Burst Monitor Inst.; Interdisciplinary Scientist (IDS) proposals
- Collaboration Proposal for Flight Investigation and LAT Instrument accepted by NASA, _Feb 2000_
- Foreign endorsement of proposal by CNES, CEA, IN2P3, ASI, INFN, JGC, SGC:  _more on this later_
- Proposal endorsed by SLAC Director, committing $35M to fabrication of LAT (with concurrence of DOE)

## DOE and NASA Sponsorship:  Current Status

- NASA and DOE began negotiation of “Implementing Arrangement” concerning the GLAST Large Area Telescope Project, April 2000; currently in “final” approval process at both agencies (after ~24 earlier drafts!):
- will establish the roles and responsibilities of NASA and DOE; [an example is responsibility for necessary International Agreements]
- GLAST Project to be conducted pursuant to broad MOU between agencies regarding Energy-related Civil Space Activities (dated July 9, 1992)
- Establishes top level responsibilities of each agency
- Separate MOU to establish DOE/NASA Joint Oversight Group (JOG); co-chaired by NASA SEU Director and DOE Director of High-Energy Physics. The JOG:
- has responsibility to see that the GLAST LAT Project is effectively managed and executed;
- provides programmatic guidance and direction
- joint concurrence on Level-1 GLAST Requirements
- coordinates DOE and NASA policy and procedures for the LAT Project

## DOE and NASA Sponsorship:  Current Status

- In the absence of a signed MOU and Implementing Arrangement, the “JOG” has met several times to deal with substantive issues:
- endorsed joint agency reviews of GLAST LAT Project; first joint DOE-NASA “Lehman” pre-baseline review held February 2001;
- Agencies have, in effect, agreed to hold a joint Baseline Review (DOE) and PDR (NASA). Scheduled for October 2001;
- Agencies conferred at the JOG level on 6-month launch delay in schedule due to NASA funding problems in FY02 and 03.
- In addition to agency interactions at the Headquarters Level, there are daily interactions at the working level:
- NASA GSFC has overall management responsibility for the GLAST _Mission_; day-to-day technical oversight, etc.
- GSFC Project Manager, DOE LAT Project Manager (on site at SLAC), and LAT Project Manager have weekly conference calls

**important**