)./ A 5 A- / ;[ 1-1 "jD I' 

7#-81 

/J I') 

zl-f> 

NASA SCIENCE INSTITUTES PLAN 

REPORT OF THE NASA SCIENCE 

INSTITUTES TEAM 

Final Publication (Incorporating 

Public Comments and Revisions) 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

FEBRUARY 1996 
PREFACE 

"The most important role of NASA scientists is to bind 

NASA's immense engineering and technical capabilities to 

the still larger and more diverse industrial and research 

communities across the country and around the world." 

- Space Studies Board 

letter to the NASA Chief Scientist 

March 29, 1995 

We live in a time of change, when all agencies of government are introducing more effective and efficient ways of accomplishing their missions. NASA has led 

in finding better, faster, and cheaper ways of developing 

space hardware and accomplishing the exploration of 

space in partnership with the aerospace industry. We 

now have an opportunity to implement similar efficiencies in some areas of NASA science through innovative ventures with the scientific community. In creating a 

new class of science institutes, NASA will identify those 

elements of its in-house research programs that can be 

handled effectively through cooperative endeavors that 

bring together unique NASA facilities and capabilities 

with more effective, private-sector management and closer ties to the nation's academic and educational communities. These new institutes will enable the agency to 

accomplish its mission more effectively and enhance its 

support for the broad national capability in research. 

For almost 40 years NASA has provided the scientific 

community with technical capabilities only dreamed of at 

the time of the establishment of the Agency. The unending stream of discovery flowing from the magnificent 

spacecraft and space experimental systems developed by 

the NASA and industry team stands as a tribute to 

American genius. But throughout the last four decades, 

these developments have required more than engineering 

competence and access to space. They have required a 

commitment on the part of NASA scientists and engineers 

to realizing the dreams of the scientific community. The 

role of NASA scientists in planning missions and enabling 

and facilitating the access of the broader community to 

the facilities developed by NASA has been crucial. This 

contribution by NASA scientists would not have been 

possible unless these individuals were competent scientists in their own right, viewed as peers of the scientists 

in the broader community that they serve. 

The development and maintenance of this in-house 

competence has required a commitment by NASA to nurturing a scientific capability that is both broad and deep. 

As is the case in the external scientific community, this 

has reqUired constant attention to the revitalization 

process which begins with the mentoring of students, the 

NASA Science Institute Plan 

involvement of graduate students and post-doctoral scientists, the employment of entry level junior scientists, 

and the development of those scientists to the leaders 

who organize the efforts of the community at large and 

bind together the engineers and scientists who produce 

the results that the world has come to expect from 

NASA. But today there is a problem. NASA's ability to 

replenish and revitalize these capabilities has been 

adversely affected by declining budgets and workforce 

constraints, which threaten to stifle the in-house technical 

capability that NASA has depended upon in the past to 

assure scientific success. The threat is espeCially severe in 

the newer disciplines of microgravity and space life science, which must be nurtured and developed for most 

effective use of the international Space Station. NASA's 

in-house space scientists are still among the best in the 

world , but preservation of that capability requires innovative new ways of doing business. 

The Agency now has an opportunity to use these current tensions constructively to forge a new a nd more 

effective alliance with the nation's scientific community. 

We can partner in ventures that preserve and develop the 

crucial information and skills needed for NASA space 

missions while at the same time enhancing the binding 

role between the external scientific community and 

unique NASA facilities and flight opportunities. We can 

accomplish more with less by tapping the space science 

capabilities that have grown in the nation's academic 

research organizations. The current scene is replete with 

examples of the ability of the scientific community to 

organize and manage very complex ventures in the 

national interest. NASA itself has some experience with 

these capabilities, most notably in the contributions of 

the Space Telescope Science Institute to the scientific 

success of the Hubble Space Telescope, while other 

Federal science agencies have even longer histories of 

accomplishing their missions through partnerships with 

academia and the broader research community. While 

the success of the Space Telescope Science Institute 

encourages the belief that NASA can successfully meet 

the current challenge through partnerships with the private sector, an even further evolution of the concept will 

be required . The innovation that is required must result 

in the emergence of organizations that, although they are 

not Federal entities and operate independently of any 

agency, will serve the nation by performing functions 

heretofore performed by NASA scientists. These organizations must also be closely tied to the scientific community to assure quality and prOVide more effective and cost 

efficient operations. If successful, the NASA science 

Institutes will preserve and improve the quality of NASA's 

contributions to national science in the face of reductions 

in the size of the Federal workforce, positioning the 

nation to continue it's pursuit of science and exploration 

in the development of space. 

Alphonso V. Diaz 

Chair, NASA Institute Plaruting 

Integration Team 
Page intentionally left blank 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

NASA Institute Planning Team 

Principal Team Members 

Mr. AI Diaz, Office of Space Science (Chair) 

Dr. Guenter Riegler, Office of Space Science 

Dr. Miriam Baltuck, Office of Mission to Planet Earth 

Dr. Joan Vernikos, Office of Life Sciences 

Mr. Kurt Lindstrom, NASA Management Office at JPL 

Mr. Robert Luddy, Office of Aeronautics 

Ms. Gretchen McClain, Office of Space Flight 

Ms. Candace Livingston, Office of Space Access and 

Technology 

Ms. Donna Fortunat, Office of Procurement 

Ms. Candy Irwin, Office of Human Resources 

and Education 

Ms. Pamela Werner, Office of General Counsel 

Dr. David Morrison, Ames Research Center 

Dr. Lou Walter, Goddard Space Flight Center 

Dr. John Rummell, Johnson Space Center 

Dr. Jack Fishman, Langley Research Center 

Dr. Marvin Goldstein, Lewis Research Center 

Dr. Greg Wilson, Marshall Space Flight Center 

Ms. Helen Rothman, Legislative Affairs 

Ms. Beth Masters, International Affairs 

Mr. Don Savage, Public Affairs 

Executive Secretary 

Ms. Cynthia Buck , Office of Space Science 

Administrative Support 

Ms. Sue Pierpoint, Office of Space Science 

NASA Science Institute Plan 

Alternate Team Members 

Mr. Robert Rhome , Office of Life and Microgravity 

Sciences and Applications 

Dr. W. Vernon Jones, Office of Space Science 

Mr. Pat McCracken, Office of Space Flight 

Dr. John Emond , Office of Space Access 

and Technology 

Ms. Elaine Schwartz, Office of Human Resources 

and Education 

Mr. Vincent Salgado, Office of General Counsel 

Mr. Scott Hubbard, Ames Research Center 

Dr. Mike Duke, Johnson Space Center 

Dr. Frank Allario, Langley Research Center 

Dr. Bill Masica, Lewis Research Center 

Dr. Ann Whitaker, Marshall Space Flight Center 

Quality Advisor for Benchmarking Report 

Dr. David Gilman, Office of Space Science 

Dr. Sylvia Kraemer (Editor), Office of Policy and Plans 

NASA Institutes Board of Advisors 

Dr. France Anne Cordova, NASA Chief Scientist 

Mr. Ed FrankIe, General Counsel 

Gen. Spence Armstrong, Associate Administrator 

Human Resources and Education 

Dr. Yvonne Freeman, Associate Administrator for Equal 

Opportunity Programs 

Mr. Jeff Lawrence, Associate Administrator for 

Legislative Affairs 

III 
Page intentionally left blank 
NASA Science Institute Plan 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

Preface ..... ........... .......... .............. ... .............. .................. ............ ...... ............. ...... ....... ... ... .... ... .i 

Acknow ledgrnents ... ... ................................ ......... ... ... .. .. .... ......... ............... ... .. ...... .... ......... .... iii 

Table of Contents ...... ...... ..... .. ......... ....... .................... .......... .. ......... .... ....................... .... .. .. .... v 

Index of Figures .... ....... .... ..... ........................................ .. .......... .... ..... ......... ....... .. ... .. ............. v 

Executive Summary .... .... ....... .... ... ......................... ...... ............ ................ ......... ............ .......... l 

I. Background and Introduction ... ........... ........................... ....... ... ... ........ ..... .......... ... ... ..... 3 

II. Definition and Implementation ............... .................... ....... .. ...... .. .... ................ ... .... ... .. .. 5 

III. Issues and Strategies ....... ............... .................. .. ................. ....................... ....... ........ ... ... 9 

A. Human Resources Issues/Strategy Options ......... ...... ... ...... ... ...... .............. .... ... ....... . 9 

B. Funding Strategy .. .......... ...... ..... .. ........ .. ............... ... ... ...................... .... ........ ............. .. 9 

C. Accounting/Fund Source Issues .................................. ........... ......... ............... ... ...... 10 

D . Procurement Strategy ...... .... .................................. .. ............... ........... ......... ............. . 11 

E. Other Considerations ..... ..................... .. ............... .... ........................... .... ... ............... 12 

1. Liability ...... .. ....... ... ...... ...... ............... ... .... .. ... ..... ...... ... .... ..................... ...... .... ... ... 12 

2. Intellectual Property .. ............. .... .. .......... ....... ........................ ... ........ .. .. .. ... ...... ... 12 

3. International Considerations .... ..................... ..... ... .. ........... ..... ..... .. ... .......... ..... .. 13 

INDEX OF FIGURES AND TABLES 

Table/Figure Page 

Table 1 

Figure A 

Table 2 

Figure B 

Eleven Institutes proposed for study by the Zero Base Review ................ .. 3 

Overview of Planning Team Activities .... ..... ..... ..... ... ...... ...... ............ .. ...... ..... 4 

Functional Roles and Responsibilities for Institutes ... .. ....... .. ........ ..... ...... ... .. 6 

Institute Relationship to Science Community, Other Entities, ........... ....... .. .. 7 

NASA Enterprises, NASA Centers 

v 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Science Institute concept has merit 

and should be pursued. 

Institutes provide a mechanism to preserve andlor 

improve the quality of NASA contributions to national 

science in the face of reductions in the size of the 

Federal workforce. 

• Significant issues remain to be resolved. 

• Several Institutes have interrelated missions. Initial efforts 

to establish Institutes should incorporate provisions for 

future integration. 

The eleven science Institutes proposed by 

the Zero Base Review are in various stages 

of readiness and should be pursued in a 

phased manner. Only three are ready for 

near term initiation: 

• Biomedical Research Institute aSC): 

• Astrobiology Institute (ARC): 

• Microgravity Institute [Fluid and Combustion] 

(LERC): 

NASA should proceed immediately to: 

• Complete detailed definition of all three institutes 

including review with appropriate external scientific 

groups; 

• Release draft Cooperative Agreement Notice for 

Biomedical Institute; 

• Pursue legislative authorities required and recommended prior to proceeding with Astrobiology and 

Microgravity Institutes. 

After assurance of recommended legiskltion, NASA 

should continue sequentially with the Astrobiology and 

Microgravity Institutes allowing sufficient time between 

initiations to assure focused Enterprise and Headquarters 

senior management attention and an adequate interval for 

learning. 

The remaining Institutes proposed by the Zero Base 

Review may require modifications to existing arrangements or further study. 

NASA Science Institute Plan 

Definition and Management Approach 

A NASA Science Institute is defined as: 

"A non-Federal entity established to accomplish 

an ongoing researcb program; An organization 

devoted to researcb, tbe development and transfer 

Of tecbnology, and the provision Of services to the 

Scientific community, and tbe public; and, An 

organization responsible for facilitating Scientific 

and industrial community access to NASA's space 

and ground-based assets." 

• Institutes wiU be chartered and directly funded at 

the direction of the NASA Enterprises. 

• NASA Centers wiU proVide services and support to 

the Institutes. Any core function (including reklted 

science) remaining at a host Center which falls 

within the mission area of an Institute wiU be funded through the Institute. 

• The NASA Chief Scientist wiU be responsible for coordinating science community involvement in the formuUltion of Institute pklns and continually assessing 

the quality of the science at each Institute, including 

any associated NASA component 

General Issues and Proposed Strategies 

Significant issues for the successful implementation of 

Institutes exist in several key areas. Findings and recommendations are outlined for issues relating to human 

resources, funding, accounting, and procurement. 

• Any migration of civil servants to Institutes should be 

accomplished on a voluntary case-by-case basis, where 

there is a shared interest between the civil servant and 

the Institute. 

• Institutes will require stable funding from NASA .to 

support core service and research functions. 

• Institutes and the Agency must both use full cost 

accounting. 

• The process for establishing Institutes should be open 

in nature and encourage participation across a broad 

range of potential partners. 

Request for Legislative ACJthorities 

NASA should request legislative authority and pursue limited exceptions to: post-employment and procurement 

integrity restrictions; portability of benefits and restrictions 

on participation in the civil service retirement system; and, 

limitations on the transfer and use of appropriated funds 

for establishing Institutes. 

1 
Page intentionally left blank 
NASA Science Institute Plan 

I. BACKGROUND 

AND INTRODUCTION 

"Science is and should remain a driver for our 

Nation's space program, but in order to assure a 

future for science we must come to terms with some 

very real challenges." 

Background 

- Zero Base Review 

May 10, 1995 

I

n May 1995, NASA concluded a comprehensive internal 

review, known as the Zero Base Review, to respond to 

the Administration's challenges in the budget through FY 

2000. The primary purpose of the review was to identify 

ways in which NASA could achieve the savings committed 

to in the President's FY 1996 budget through reductions in 

infrastructure instead of programs. This review concluded 

that the Agency could achieve these reductions, but that it 

would require cuts in Agency employment levels which 

would result in a total civil service workforce of no more 

than 17,500, as well as the elimination of 25,000 contractor 

personnel by the year 2000. In addition, the review recommended a more focused set of roles and responsibilities for 

each NASA center. 

It was during the course of this Zero Base Review 

that the concept of Institutes was identified as a potentially beneficial approach to maintain or improve the 

quality of national science in the face of organizational 

streamlining.' The recommendation was made to 

Eleven Institutes Proposed 

by the Zero Base Review 

• Ames Research Center 

- Astrobiology Institute 

• Goddard Space Flight Center 

- Goddard Institute for Space Studies 

- National Space Science Data Center 

• Johnson Space Center 

- Biomedical Research Institute 

- Astromaterials Institute 

• Langley Research Center 

- Atmospheric Science Institute 

• Lewis Research Center 

- Microgravity Institute (Fluid and Combustion) 

- Space Power Institute 

• Marshall Space Flight Center 

- Global Hydrology and Climate Center 

- Microgravity Institute (Materials and Biotechnology) 

- Space Science Institute (Astrophysics and 

Space Physics) 

Table 1 Eleven Institutes Proposed by the Zero Base 

Review. 

reshape NASA's science program under a reinvention 

strategy to bind NASA's science program more closely 

to the larger science community that it serves. The 

strategy involved "privatization" of a portion of NASA's 

science program into a number of science "Institutes" . 

Motivation 

The purpose for establishing science Institutes is to preserve and improve the quality of NASA's contributions to 

national science in the face of reductions in the size of 

the Federal workforce. 

It is essential that NASA remain at the forefront of 

space science, while at the same time coupling its efforts 

more closely with other researchers and educators. NASA 

scientists should be enablers both for NASA and the 

broad community that is served by NASA facilities and 

access to space. 

In the current environment, NASA's ability to conduct a 

viable research program is at risk. The motivation for 

considering Institutes was born out of the desire to preserve key science capabilities and to look beyond 

Agency downsizing or cost savings and to take positive 

steps towards establishing a new model for managing 

NASA's research program. 

Introduction 

This NASA Science Institute Plan has been produced in 

response to direction from the NASA Administrator 

for the benefit of NASA Senior Management, science 

enterprise leaders, and Center Directors. It is intended 

to provide a conceptual framework for organizing and 

planning the conduct of science in support of NASA's 

mission through the creation of a limited number of 

science Institutes. 

This plan is the product of the NASA Science Institute 

Planning Integration Team (see Figure A). The team 

worked intensively over a three-month period to review 

proposed Institutes and produce findings for NASA 

senior management. The team's activities included visits 

to current NASA Institutes and associated Centers, as well 

as approximately a dozen non-NASA research Institutes. 

In addition to prodUCing this plan, the team published a 

"Benchmarks" report. The Benchmarks report provides a 

basis for comparing NASA's proposed activities with 

those sponsored by other national science agencies, and 

identifies best practices to be considered in the establishment of NASA Science Institutes. 

Throughout the team's activities, a Board of Advisors 

comprised of senior NASA officials (augmented as necessary with other government employees) provided overall 

advice and counsel. 

Interaction with potential offerors to manage or operate Institutes was suspended throughout this activity in 

1 In this context, the term "Institute" refers to the independent entity with which NASA collaborates, rather than to a broader framework or mode of 

operation where NASA works collaboratiue/y with other organizations. 3 
NASA S c ience Institute Plan 

4 

order to avoid providing potential offerors with premature and/or inconsistent information. 

The plan is organized in three chapters. Chapter 

One provides an introduction , including guiding principles, a brief overview, history , and background . 

Chapter Two provides a definition and description of 

the Institute concept, b oth in terms of functional roles 

and responsibilities and in terms of relationships and 

interactions with other organization units. Chapter 

Two also outlines a management and implementation 

approach. Chapter Three presents functional management issues and strategies. 

Process Definition 

Phase 

Guiding Principles 

Institute planning was shaped by several important 

guiding principles: 

• Institutes should preserve and/ or improve the quality 

of NASA's contributions to national science. 

• Institutes are expected to be cost efficient, thus optimizing the budget available for science. 

• Initial funding must be identified from NASA's existing 

budget plan. 

o Institutes are means for reducing infrastructure and 

optimizing the use of existing facilities. 

• Institutes will adhere to the same principles and policies 

governing conduct of NASA science program- broad 

participation by full range of potential partners, cultural 

diversity in the workforce, open competition, rigorous 

review, etc. 

Process begins 

with assignment 

of leader for 

study 

Factfinding 

Phase 

Daily reports on 

beSt practices & 

potential pitfalls 

Synthesis 

Phase 

Decision 

Phase 

Figur e A Overview afTeam Activities. 
II. DEFINITION AND 

IMPLEMENTATION 

Definition 

The definition for an Institute as proposed in the Zero 

Base Review has been modified as follows: 

A NASA science Institute is: 

• A non-Federal entity established to accomplish an 

ongoing research program; 

• An organization devoted to research, the development 

and/or transfer of technology, and the provision of services to the scientific community and the public; and, 

• An organization responsible for facilitating sCientific 

and industrial community access to NASA's space and 

ground-based assets. 

An Institute is an independent entity with the ability to 

enter into collaboration with NASA. The form of this collaboration and mode of operation may vary for each of 

the different Institutes proposed. While Institutes may 

engage in significant collaborations with NASA Centers, 

central to each of these arrangements is the existence of 

a legal entity separable from NASA. 

Common Characteristics and Elements 

I

t is expected that institutes will be operated by universities or other non-profit organizations in partnership 

with for-profit industry as appropriate. It is not expected 

that a single model for an Institute can deal with the 

wide range of missions and scopes identified for the 

Institutes under consideration. However, Institutes will 

have a number of common characteristics. 

External Leadership. Each Institute will have identifiable intellectual leadership outside of NASA. Institute 

Directors will not be NASA employees. Similarly, Institute 

Boards of Directors will not include NASA employees. 

Institutes will be established to allow for shared ownership and the more substantive involvement of communities external to NASA. Institutes will foster cooperation, 

not competition, among the government, academic, and 

industry sectors. 

Corporate Identity and Afiiliation with NASA. A 

clear identity with NASA and a part of its mission is an 

essential common characteristic for each Institute proposed. This corporate identity is likely to be established 

through the Agency's long-term funding commitments 

to the Institute. It is reasonable to expect that Institutes 

may wish to acknowledge NASA's sponsorship and 

support in their institutional advertising, annual reports, 

press release credits, and other documents for public 

dissemination. 

Competitive Selection and Peer Review. All work 

assigned to Institutes should be the result of a competitive selection process. This competitive process may be 

part of the initial selection process or subsequent selections for scientific research grants or individual projects. 

NASA Science Institute Plan 

In the case of scientific research, all selections should 

result from a process that conforms to standard policies 

including peer review as appropriate. 

Inclusion of Research, Technology, and Service 

Components. Each Institute will be responsible for: conducting and enabling peer reviewed research for the 

developmeot of new scientific knowledge and understanding of nature; creating, developing, and/ or transferring new technology; and providing value-added services 

to its external customers. 

Degree of Independence. As mission organizations, 

Institutes will be expected to behave proactively, exercising the necessary degree of entrepreneurship, autonomy 

and judgment required to achieve their stated goals and 

objectives while contributing to NASA's mission. As independent entities, Institutes may also obtain support from 

other funding sources, open new lines of business, and 

perform work for others subject to a determination by 

their Board of Directors that such work is not inconsistent with the Institute's overall mission. 

Off-Site Business Office. Science Institutes will have 

a physical presence and will not be merely "virtual" organizations. Consistent with an Institute's identity as an 

independent entity, separate and easy access should be 

provided for the external science community to make 

use of Institute services and facilities. In order to facilitate 

this non-government business, at a minimum, each 

Institute established should maintain a business offioe 

and "front-door" organization off-site from any affiliated 

NASA Center. 

IPA Eligible. It will be desirable for an Institute to 

have as its operator or sponsor an organization which is 

able to exercise the flexible employment arrangements 

provided under the terms of Intergovernmental Personnel 

Agreements or IPAs. The IPA program prOVides a proven 

means for exchanging critical ideas, knowledge , skills, 

and human resources between the Federal government 

and other sectors. (Examples of IPA eligible organizations 

include state and local governments, institutions of higher education, and some non-profit organizations.) 

Functional Roles and Responsibilities 

of Institutes 

I

nstitutes may also be described in terms of their functional roles and responsibilities. The broadest possible 

set of roles and responsibilities for Institutes are 

described in Table 2. Each Institute will need to be 

examined to determine appropriate roles and responsibilities for that Institute. In the end state, Institute functional responsibilities may include: managing science 

programs; conceiving, designing and developing 

Institute instruments; facilitating, fostering, and conducting scientific research; facilitating access to unique NASA 

and non-NASA facilities and expertise; proViding the 

"project scientist" function; operating missions; acquiring, processing, archiving and distributing data products; 

developing and or transferring technology; supervising 

and training researchers and students; and, shaping and 

conducting outreach and education programs. 

5 
NASA Science Institute Plan 

6 

NASA Enterprise Science Institute NASA Center 

• Strategic planning, policy 

development 

• Manage science programs • Facility operations 

• Budget planning and resource 

allocation 

• Conceive, design, and develop 

instruments and selected 

science missions 

• NASA unique engineering services 

• Research Support 

• Program direction, advocacy, 

and oversight 

• Facilitate, foster, and conduct 

scientific research 

• Facilitate access to unique 

facilities and expertise 

• Provide the project science 

functions 

• Operate missions 

• Acquire, process, archive and 

distribute data p roducts 

• Develop and transfer new 

technology 

• Supervise and train researchers 

and students 

• Shape and conduct education 

and outreach programs 

Table 2 NASA Science Institutes: Broadest Possible Institute Roles and Responsibilities. 

The potential types of activities to be supported by the 

different Institute candidates is expected to vary. Fund 

sources will vary accordingly. In some cases, Institutes 

may focus almost exclusively on managing and facilitating peer reviewed research , and would draw the majority 

of their funding from Research and Analysis (R&A) 

accounts. In other instances, Institutes might be funded 

out of instrument and project development or flight program accounts. In addition, Institutes may perform 

archiving and data analysis support functions, and therefore, receive a significant fraction of their support from 

Mission Operations and Data Analysis (MO & DA) funding. In many instances, it is expected that "Mission 

Support" funds, e .g. , research and program management, 

will need to be "converted" through the appropriations 

process to provide support for activities previously 

accomplished by the application of in-house resources. 

Institute Relationship to Science Community, 

Other Entities, NASA Enterprises, and 

NASA Centers. 

I\. nother way of characterizing Institutes is through 

~view of their interactions with other organizational 

units. The relationship between NASA, the Institute and the 

science community is graphically depicted in Figure B. 

Given NASA's policy to assure that participation in 

NASA research programs is as broad as possible, an 

Institute model is proposed which allows for direct interaction with and full participation by the science community, academia, industry, and the general public. In brief, 

Institutes will work for the community. 

Science Community: In the strictest sense of the 

word , an Institute is an "extension" of the community 

into the day to day operations of NASA. The role of the 

science community in conjunction with the Institute is to 

bring new ideas, capabilities, and requirements, to bear 

in planning and implementing research programs and 

missions. In many cases, the science community will 

receive funding from NASA via the Institute based on a 

competitive peer review process. The Institute will provide access to NASA's unique facilities, capabilities, and 

expertise. 

Institute: Institutes will enable the transfer of knowledge in the form of basic research or technology transfer 

to the larger academic, industrial, and scientific communities. Institutes will be independent entities with an 

identity separate from NASA's Centers. Institutes will also 

act as a representative of the community to NASA, identifying science requirements for the Agency as a result of 

its interactions with the science community. Institutes will 

facilitate peer reviewed extramural research , and may 

also engage in peer reviewed intramural research. 

Enterprises may also delegate authority to Institutes to 

manage scientific research programs. Institutes may facilitate and integrate research done under existing peer 

reviewed extramural research . Enterprises may also delegate management of scientific programs to Institutes in 

line with Enterprise program policy. 

NASA Enterprise: The NASA Enterprise charters, 

funds, provides requirements, and conducts periodic 

reviews of the science Institute. In cases where responsibility for managing and implementing some part of the 

extramural research program is delegated to the Institute, 

the Enterprise will provide oversight and review. 

NASA Center: The nature of the relationship between 

the Center and the Institute should be one in which the 

Center is viewed as responsive to the requirements of the 
NASA Science Institute Plan 

Institute. NASA Centers will provide Institutes with access 

to facilities, science, and engineering expertise on a full 

cost recovery basis. An individual center, when in close 

proximity to an Institute, may also be delegated the contractual and administrative management functions of the 

NASA/Institute arrangement. 

Institutes will be independent entities with 

an identity separate from NASA's Centers. 

M ission a nd C ustomers 

Ali Institutes will be chartered to: 

• Facilitate science program development; 

• Conduct fundamental research; 

• Provide Services to the external community; 

• Facilitate technology transfer; 

• Facilitate access to NASA facilities and expertise; and 

• Provide for outreach and education. 

In some instances, the Institutes are intended to 

become the p rimary vehicles for managing scientific 

research. In addition, NASA will retain limited science 

management and research capabilities in-house to provide for executing government fiducia ry responsibilities, 

mission critical activities, and select research tasks. 

Preliminary descriptions of the mission and scope of 

each Institute were developed to assure consistency with 

this p lan, but are not included here . In every instance, 

these p reliminary descriptions would benefit from formal 

discussion, review and confirmation by the broader science 

community. As a rule, mission statements include reference 

to either conducting or enabling peer reviewed research. 

Many of these statements describe a science leadership role 

to be perfa-med by the Institutes, and several identify a 

unique niche to be filled by the Institute with regard to 

specific science disciplines. In general, these mission statements explicitly state as a focus serving the broader science 

community. 

Each Enterprise Office, in concert with their respective scien tific and technical advisory committee(s), will 

provide for a review of proposed Institute mission 

statements, intended scope, customers and products by 

the science community. 

Generic Science Institute Model 

$'s 

. NASA 

Enterprise ...,.....-........ ~I 

Rqmt's 

$'s 

New Research 

Requirements 

and Ideas 

Products 

and Services 

$'s .. 

.. .. Science Institute Rqmt's 

.. . 

Products 

University, Industry or Consortium Team and Services 

Rqmt's Products 

and Services 

Key Assumptions 

• Full cost accounting implemented 

• All NASA $'s flow thru Enterprise 

• Single fund source to Institute 

• Enterprise charters, provides $'s, 

requirements & reviews institute 

• Enterprise will contract with Center 

for administrative support 

Figure B Generic Science Institute Model. 

7 
NASA Science Institute Plan 

8 

Implementation and 

Management Approach 

Planning and Initiation of Institutes should be phased. 

The eleven science Institutes proposed by the Zero 

Base Review are in various stages of readiness and 

should be pursued in a phased manner. 

• Modify, as necessary, existing Institutes and 

cooperative research centers . 

- Global Hydrology and Climate Center (MSFC) 

- Astromaterials Institute (jSC) 

- Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) 

• Complete planning and begin implementation of 

the Biomedical Research Institute OSC): 

The proposed Biomedical Research Institute should 

be reviewed with appropriate external scientific 

groups, and JSC should complete detailed definition, 

review, and approval of an announcement soliciting 

proposals in 1996. 

• Complete definition, pursue legislation, and 

proceed with planning for proposed science 

Institutes: 

- Astrobiology Institute (ARC) 

- Microgravity Institute [Fluid and Combustion] (LERC) 

• Further def'1ne proposed Institutes: 

- Microgravity Institute [Materials Sciences and 

Biotechnology] (MSFC) 

- Space Science Institute (MSFC) 

- Atmospheric Sciences Institute (LARC) 

• Reconsider approach for proposed Institutes: 

While an Institute may be appropriate, the model 

developed for other Institutes proposed is not directly 

applicable in these cases. 

- Space Power and On-Board Propulsion Institute (LERC) 

- National Space Science Data Center (GSFC) 

Implementation should be structured in a way that 

allows for consultation with science community and 

orderly definition by NASA. This phasing should result 

in a schedule that facilitates focused management 

attention and permits learning from each successive 

Institute experience. 

Headquarters/Enterprise 

Responsibilities 

I

n general, NASA's Enterprises will retain responsibility for 

the sponsorship and oversight of each Institute. Program 

direction and guidance will be a Headquarters function residing with the Enterprise or other Headquarters sponsoring 

organization. Responsibility for Cooperative Agreement or 

Contract Administration will be delegated to either a NASA 

Center, the NASA Management Office at JPL or equivalent 

organization. NASA's Enterprise Leader(s) will retain authority 

to review and approve any major changes in Institute sponsoring agreements, including any major changes in key 

personnel, most notably, the Institute Director. 

The participation and support of the external science 

community will be sought as NASA proceeds to further 

define and validate proposed Institute missions. 

Specifically, NASA Science Offices will provide for the 

review of proposed Institutes by their respective advisory 

committees. 

NASA Enterprise leaders should also include a discussion of Institutes within their Enterprise Strategic Plans 

and Strategic Management Implementation Plans, incorporating each Institute's mission and addressing the 

Institute's role in support of NASA's overall science plan . 

Chief Scientist Responsibilities 

Institute Coordination 

While implementation of Institutes will be phased, and 

planning efforts will proceed along different time scales, 

NASA's overall efforts with regard to Institutes would 

benefit from some degree of coordination, review, and 

visibility provided at senior levels within the Agency. 

The NASA Chief Scientist will coordinate all agencywide 

activities associated with the establishment of science 

Institutes. 

The Agency's initial efforts to establish independent 

Institutes should incorporate provisions for potential 

future integration. While individual Institutes will first be 

established and allowed to mature before applying any 

formal or overarching management structure, there 

appear to be opportunities where the individual contributions of particular Institutes to NASA's mission could be 

enhanced and amplified through more formal coordination . (e.g., collaboration and integration of Astromaterials, 

Biomedical and Astrobioiogy Institute efforts in support 

of NASA's human exploration efforts). 

Quality Assessment 

NASA's Chief Scientist will assure continual assessments 

of Institute effectiveness in accomplishing key objectives 

outlined in NASA's science strategic plans. 

For each Institute, the NASA Chief Scientist will provide for overall performance reviews on a regular basis, 

as well as providing for a comparative review and assessment of the work performed by both NASA Institutes and 

NASA Centers. As a general practice, Institutes will be 

encouraged to commission visiting committees to provide 

technical reviews. Copies of these reviews should be 

reported to the appropriate Associate Administrator and 

shared with the Chief Scientist. 
III. FUNCTIONAL MANAGEMENT 

ISSUES AND STRATEGIES 

Human Resources Issues and Civil Service 

Transition Strategies 

I

t is expected that there will be some migration of the 

civil servant workforce to the Institutes. Where movement is expected, the most effective strategy for the 

migration of civil service employees into Institutes is to 

provide for the voluntary transition of employees to 

Institutes on case-by-case basis, where there is a shared 

interest between the civil servant and the Institute. 

Equitable Treatment of NASA Employees 

Given that Institutes have been proposed in part to perform functions which are currently performed by civil service employees, the potential opportunities for NASA 

employees must be considered. These employees have 

been instrumental in elevating NASA to an enviable position of scientific excellence and should be encouraged to 

remain an integral part of the larger scientific community 

through their continued contributions in a science 

"Institute" environment. As these Institutes may be private 

organizations, without a civil servant presence, it is important that NASA consider the potential impact on affected 

employees, and provide a mechanism for these employees 

to make an equitable transition to their next assignment. 

Legislation to Accommodate Transition 

Currently, civil service employees who leave the 

Federal government retain only temporary coverage 

under the Federal Health and Life Insurance programs, 

are ineligible to continue contributing to the Federal 

Retirement System, Civil Service Retirement System 

(CSRS), or Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) 

and have post-employment limitations with respect to 

functions they performed as a civil servant. In order to 

facilitate the movement of civil servants who may be 

interested in positions within a science Institute, should 

the opportunity present itself, the following legislative 

relief is recommended: 

Retirement System- The loss of vested interest in a 

secure retirement program may discourage some civil 

servants from pursuing a position with a science Institute. 

NASA should seek legislation to facilitate civil servant 

transition to a science Institute. One option would be 

legislation that would provide for continuing participation in their current retirement system (either CSRS or 

FERS) or converting to the retirement system provided by 

the science Institute offeror. 

Another approach would be to permit those employees covered by CSRS to convert to FERS and continue to 

participate in FERS upon transition to an Institute. An 

open season to allow for the conversion would also 

require Congressional approval, as would the authority to 

transition with FERS into the private sector. 

NASA Science Institute Plan 

Health Benefits-In addition to concerns with the 

transfer of retirement benefits, the portability of health 

benefits and the potential costs to civil service employees 

associated with a change in status could Significantly 

impact an employee'S decision to voluntarily transition. 

NASA should seek legislation to provide civil service 

employees who are transitioning to an Institute with the 

option of continuing participation in the Health Benefits 

Program or converting to the health benefits program 

provided by the science Institute offeror. 

Post Employment Restrictions/Procurement 

Integrity-Current post-employment and procurement 

integrity prOVisions restrict the degree to which prior civil 

servants can work in the private sector performing the 

same kind of functions as they were performing in the 

public sector. NASA should seek legislative authority to 

provide limited exceptions to these restrictions to maximize employment opportunities for NASA employees. 

Employee Assistance Plan 

Once an Institute has been established, its Director will 

be responsible for staffing the Institute. There will 

undoubtedly be some impacts on current NASA employees which will require NASA management involvement. 

Every successful personnel plan needs a consistent 

foundation which creates employee trust and support. 

This foundation includes an environment of fair and consistent treatment; open and honest communication; and 

provision of reasonable assistance. NASA should seek to 

provide assistance through potential legislative relief as 

well as through training and counseling to enable 

employees to make a successful transition to another 

assignment, if necessary. 

NASA Management at all levels of the organization 

should redouble its efforts to communicate with employees, clearly outlining current workforce reduction targets, 

and identifying potential impacts and future courses of 

action to be taken if targets are not met. Every NASA 

Center should prOVide for a briefing on Institutes to all 

eligible and potentially impacted employees in parallel 

with advance planning for the establishment of Institutes. 

Funding Issues and Strategies 

Each Institute should have stable funding from NASA to 

support core service and research functions. 

Project support should be prOVided separately through 

amendments to the basic sponsoring agreement or 

through separate instruments as reqUired. 

Institutes will be encouraged to compete for additional 

NASA funding (e.g., through grants and funding proposals submitted in response to research announcements). 

Institutes are expected to become partially self-suffiCient. 

They should, therefore, be encouraged to seek funding from 

a variety of sources and to market their capability in ways 

that are appropriate to their primary NASA mission. 

9 
NASA Sc ience Institute Plan 

10 

Although the science Institutes being considered come in 

many characters and sizes, all of them require stability of 

funding in order to attract both a responsible management 

organization and an excellent staff. A clearly-defined mission 

and a stable source of funding are prerequisites for success. 

While the Institutes being contemplated have been characterized as non-profit ventures, the experience and participation of for-profit industry may be necessary and/or desirable 

in some cases. 

In many cases, NASA will continue to be the main 

source of funds, but individual Institutes should be 

encouraged to seek funding from a variety of sources 

and to market their capability in ways that are appropriate to their primary NASA mission . As with other 

successful Institutes, NASA may wish to establish 

some guidelines for the amount of funding which can 

be received from other sources. 

C ore Funding 

Each NASA science Institute should have stable 

funding from NASA to support its core functions. Core 

functions are those that form the basis for the partnership. These funds are awarded from the appropriate 

Enterprise Office as part of the cooperative agreement 

or contract that establishes the Institute . They support 

the senior management, the basic infrastructure , and 

some of the salaries of the senior or most critical personnel required to carry out the Institute's mission . 

For the support of scientists and their research , we 

expect that different Institutes will adopt mission-specific approaches. For example , it may be appropriate 

to create scientist ranks each with its own level of 

core support. These should be established to ensure 

equity with academic scientists. Where there are major 

service roles to be performed , it may be more appropriate to formulate the support for scientist salaries in 

terms of a basic level to support individual research 

with additional support to be derived from combinations o f service or project funds in addition to 

research grants. Senior engineering and technical staff 

will require 100% salary support. 

In most cases the core funding a lso includes basic 

facility support, programmatic travel , support for a 

visitor program, and a small director's discretionary 

research fund to encourage new ideas and assist 

young investigators. A major source of the funding 

will be current non-R&D support (salary and indirect 

funds), which will be transitioned into the new organization . Core funding levels should be reviewed and 

adjusted annually as part of the on-going NASA oversight of the Institute . 

Project Funding 

Tasks assigned to an Institute as a result of a competitive selection process beyond its core mission should be 

supported separately. If services or supplies (hardware) 

for NASA's use are anticipated , a separate contract may 

be necessary. Examples of projects an Institute might 

undertake include scientific investigations or flight instrumentation development associated with specific flight 

opportunities, or other projects of finite duration. The 

funding profile will be established and agreed upon by 

the sponsor and Institute via an equivalent to a currently 

employed "project plan," updated semi-annually in the 

Program Operating Plan (POP). 

Gra nt Funding 

Additional funding will be acquired by the Institute 

through individual peer reviewed research proposals submitted in response to NASA NRAs or other opportunities 

from other funding sources. NASA's grants are made 

directly to the PIs or their parent institutions and will be 

used as they are today, to support co-investigator 

salaries, postdocs, students, equipment and supplies, 

travel, and publication costs. It is assumed that the 

Institute scientific staff will be active participants in the 

peer-reviewed R&A program, although care must be 

taken to maintain a level playing field . The continuous 

evaluations derived from the review of these grant proposals will ensure quality and provide incentives for continuous improvement. 

Accounting and Fund Source 

Issues and Strategies 

Resources currently budgeted in Mission Support (e.g., 

salaries and administrative support) may be critical to the 

future successful operation of Institutes. 

In order to prOVide all of the resources necessary for 

operation of the Institutes, NASA should obtain legislative 

authority to use all funds associated with the particular 

effort (R&D, salaries, fringes, travel, overhead) for 

science Institutes. 

Science Institutes will operate under full cost accounting. NASA must also complete its transition to full cost 

accounting procedures. 

Mission Support funds must be converted and provided to the Institute for indirect and infrastructure functions 

no longer provided by the Center. In keeping with the 

intent to retain current funding for science in the initial 

Institutes, funding necessary for administrative and support functions should be identified for the Institute budget. These functions would include activities like finance , 

procurement, facilities, etc. In cases where the programs 

transition to the new Institutes, and thereby provide relief 

from the demand for such functions in the Center, the 

funds to support these functions would be expected to 

move to the new organization. 

Transition from a science program, based upon Civil 

Service staffing, to a privately-based Institute management 

structure requires application of full cost accounting principles. NASA must identify all costs related to current science 

programs performed by NASA Centers/Headquarters to 

fully account for all resource requirements and assure that 

the total budgeted dollars are provided to the Institute. As 

blocks of work are moved to the Institutes, NASA must 
provide funding for the current research and development 

activities, as well as salaries and fringes, travel, and 

Research Operations Support. NASA will provide all funding to the Institutes from the appropriate R&D accounts. 

After the Institutes are established, NASA will provide 

services to the Institutes on a full cost recovery basis or 

as a partner in a cooperative agreement where NASA and 

the Institute must identify total dollars expended under 

the agreement. In this environment, NASA must have a 

full cost accounting system to provide on-going NASA 

unique services to the Institutes. Institutes must also comply with applicable accounting standards and full cost 

accounting principles. 

Procurement Issues and Strategies 

Cooperative Agreements appear to be an attractive and 

viable means for establishing Institutes in most cases, having been successfully used by other government organizations to accomplish the same kind of work that NASA 

envisions to be performed by Science Institutes. 

Sponsoring agreements and solicitation processes 

should be structured to encourage broad participation by 

the full range of potential partners wherever pOSsible. Use 

of a fair and open process should be considered for the 

establishment of Institutes. 

Cooperative agreements for Institutes should be structured to prOVide for periodic review and renewal. 

Sponsoring agreements should be structured to permit 

and encourage Institutes to secure outside funding for 

work which complements NASA's SCientific objectives. 

Sponsoring Agreements 

Institutes should be established under a single umbrella agreement, normally a cooperative agreement. 

However, in some cases, a contract may be required. The 

agreement should define the Institute's mission and bind 

the Institute to NASA for a period of decades. The sponsoring agreements should be structured to encourage the 

Institutes to seek outside funding for work which complements the Institute's stated scientific objectives. The 

Institute should be responsible for determining when to 

accept outside funding and for determining if the outside 

effort complements the Institute's core work. Rather than 

establishing a limit on the amount of external effort 

accepted by the Institute, the Institute's success in attracting and retaining outside fund sources consistent with 

the strategic plan should be regarded as a measure of 

Institute success and scientific excellence. 

Use of Cooperative Agreements 

The implementation vehicle employed should allow 

for an appropriate balance between the independent 

operation of the Institute and NASA's ability to maintain 

insight and direction to a degree sufficient to ensure the 

accomplishment of the Agency's science mission. 

NASA Science Institute Plan 

The Chiles Act, Public Law 97-258, defines the parameters for selection of the appropriate vehicle--contract, 

cooperative agreement, or grant. NASA's interest and 

expectations concerning Institute performance will meet 

the Chiles Act definition of "substantial involvement." 

Accordingly, the use of a grant is, by definition, inappropriate. The choices remaining for establishing the 

Institutes as currently planned are either a cooperative 

agreement or a contract. 

The Chiles Act prescribes the use of a contract when 

the principal purpose of the agreement is to acquire 

property or services for the direct benefit or use of the 

government. A contract is the appropriate implementation vehicle for Institutes whose primary mission is providing property or a service where NASA will be the user 

of the Institute products. A cooperative agreement is prescribed when NASA wishes to transfer a thing of value to 

the Institute to carry out a public purpose of support or 

stimulation and substantial involvement is expected 

between the Institute and NASA. 

The Chiles Act definitions prOVide sufficient latitude to 

select the cooperative agreement as the implementation 

vehicle in a wide variety of circumstances. Practical application of the cooperative agreement definition permits its 

use in lieu of a contract for establishing service oriented 

Institutes when the service to be provided by the Institute 

is not for NASA, but for the broader public and science 

community. The determination that NASA will not "benefit" from the service provided by the Institute should not 

be interpreted narrowly. Other non-NASA affiliated science 

Institutes operate under cooperative agreements which 

successfully employ the latitude described above. These 

Institutes are generally research and service oriented and 

in using a cooperative agreement, the parameters of what 

constitutes the transfer of service to the public or "user" 

communities is broadly defined. 

The words "principal purpose" appear in the definition 

of both the cooperative agreement and the contract. This 

provision could conceivably be read to permit the use of 

a cooperative agreement even though some portion of 

the effort will involve providing property or a service as 

long as those efforts do not constitute the principal purpose of the Institute. 

Encouraging Participation 

The acquisition approach for establishing Institutes 

should be fair and open in nature. The process should 

provide the community with the opportunity to review 

and comment on the proposed scope or mission of an 

Institute during the presclicitation phase. This participation can occur in many ways. A suggested method for 

accomplishing this involvement is through the use of 

NASA Enterprise sponsored workshops. These workshops 

would provide a forum to bring interested members of 

the community together with appropriate NASA officials 

to: present the community with the range of potential 

NASA functions which could be assumed by a particular 

Institute; present an opportunity for interested parties to 

tour the NASA unique facilities available to the Institute; 

and provide an open forum for collegial discussions 

between all members of the community, both NASA and 

11 
NASA Science Institute Plan 

1 2 

non-NASA, regarding the scope of science functions 

available for privatization through an Institute. Proposed 

workshops would also be used to ascertain the general 

level of community interest in assuming responsibility for 

the performance of those functions. 

When competition is considered appropriate, a twestep competitive Cooperative Agreement Notice (CAN) 

which includes a solicitation for community comment 

and review during the draft phase is the recommended 

acquisition approach. After the consideration of initial 

comments, a single CAN may be issued . Multiple offerors 

may be selected for award of fixed price study efforts 

under cooperative agreements. The result of these studies 

should be the submission of a proposal for implementing 

and operating the Institute. The managing entity for the 

Institute would be selected from the offerors on the basis 

of the proposals submitted. This approach would foster 

competition by providing bid and proposal (B&P) 

resources to a community of interested offerors where 

B&P funds are traditionally constrained, that is, to academic institutions and university consortia. 

Institutes should be established using a competitive 

process whenever it appears appropriate to do so. There 

has been some discussion over whether Institute competition should be limited to universities or to not-for-profit 

organizations (e.g., university-based consortia). NASA 

believes that an Institute must have strong ties to the 

academidresearch community to be successful. Therefore, 

it is expected that proposal teams will be led by universities, non-profit organizations or consortia in partnership 

with for-profit organizations as appropriate. Such a partnering of university and industry organizations could benefit 

NASA by providing the opportunity for non-Federal or private entities to bring other assets to the arena. 

Cooperative agreements and contracts for Institutes 

should be structured to provide for periodic review and 

renewal. The term of the agreement or contract should 

authorize a long-term period of performance. The period 

of performance should be structured to contain a base 

period of five years plus the appropriate number of 5-year 

options to reach the full term of the vehicle. For example, 

a 20 year cooperative agreement would contain a base 

period of performance of five years plus three, 5-year 

options. 

Acqui sitio n Respo ns ib ility 

The Institute implementation represents a significant 

departure from NASA's traditional approach to accomplishing its science mission and represents both a major shift in 

agency policy and a transfer of existing in-house agency 

missions to the Institutes. For those reasons, science 

Institute acquisitions should be subject to NASA's Master 

Buy Plan procedures, and acquisition strategy, solicitation 

review and selection should be retained by Headquarters in 

all cases. The Associate Administrator for the predominant 

enterprise sponsoring the Institute should serve as the 

selecting official. 

Customizing Acquis itio n Vehicles 

There are significant differences between contracts and 

oooperative agreements as acquisition vehicles. However, 

once the vehicle of choice is tailored to fit individual circumstances, the differences should become matters of degree. 

Contracts used to establish Institutes should be streamlined. If 

a oooperative agreement is used as the implementing vehicle, 

the agreement may need to be enhanced to expand the 

extent of government oversight and approval authority normally expected under a oooperative agreement arrangement. 

The oooperative agreements used to sponsor science 

Institutes should incorporate selected federal acquisition provisions. This allows the government to exercise some of the 

more desirable insight afforded by federal contracts. For 

example, cost reporting, property aocountability and technical 

reporting requirements should be incorporated into oooperative agreements. These hybrid, custom acquisition vehicles 

will enable the government to exercise required oversight, 

while dispensing with the most burdensome of federal acquisition requirements normally found in government contracts. 

Other Considerations 

Allocation of Risk, Liabi lity 

Each agreement with a science Institute operator should 

anticipate and allocate foreseeable risks. An agreement 

must specifY, in advance of any activities, each party's 

degree of liability under various conditions. 

It is not possible to prescribe uniform liability clauses. 

The activities in which the science Institutes will engage 

under agreements with NASA vary significantly. Some 

Institutes will have responsibility for Government research 

equipment and facilities, while others will have limited or 

no Government property responsibilities. The risk of injury 

to Institute or NASA employees or others engaging in different research activities vary significantly. Accordingly, the 

determination of the amount of risk NASA and the other 

party should assume will vary according to the specific circumstances surrounding the activity. 

The Office of General Counsel should work with the 

NASA Procurement Office and the Office of the 

Comptroller to consider risk allocation and liability early 

on , in the development of any proposal solicitation, and 

throughout the negotiation of an agreement with a science Institute operator. 

Intellectual Property R ights 

With the exception of the Government's retention of a 

Government purpose license, an Institute operator should 

either retain or negotiate with its collaborators and affiliates for rights in intellectual property arising out of the 

Institute's research activities consistent with current laws 

and regulations. 
Basic and/or applied scientific research will result in 

new discoveries and innovations that may be protected 

under various intellectual property regimes. NASA's 

enabling legislation, the Space Act, obligates the Agency 

to "provide for the widest practicable and appropriate 

dissemination of information concerning its activities and 

the results thereof. .. ." On the other hand, any policy to 

widely disseminate information must be weighed against 

the desire to protect data in order to privatize and/or 

commercialize the activities and data generated by the 

Institute. With the exception of the Government's retention of a Government purpose license, an Institute operator, and/or collaborators and/or affiliates should retain all 

rights in intellectual property arising out of the Institute's 

research activities. 

It is conceivable that the Agency may receive a proposal from a non-U.S. organization . In anticipation of this 

possibility , NASA should include provisions in any 

Institute proposal solicitation which address whether the 

right to title to inventions should be restricted to United 

States-owned companies and organizations. 

It is reasonable to assume that Institutes will enter into 

more than one agreement with NASA, and may enter 

into agreements with other Government and private 

organizations. These agreements may well provide the 

Institute with differing intellectual property rights in data 

and/or inventions produced. Therefore, it is critical that 

the Institute carefully account for and document its work 

and under which agreement such work is produced, in 

order that the Institute and NASA may agree on their 

respective intellectual rights. 

NASA's Office of General Counsel (Intellectual 

Property) should work with Agency procurement officials 

to include provisions in any proposal solicitation and 

NASA Science Institute Plan 

resulting agreement which (with the exception of the 

government's retention of a government purpose license) 

permit the Institute to retain rights in intellectual property 

ariSing out of the Institute's research activities. 

International Activities 

While NASA must remain respOnsible for shaping the 

essential purpose and content of international agreements 

that establish development, flight or study projects to be carried out by the Institute, NASA may obtain support from science Institutes in meeting NASA's international obligations. 

As is the case for NASA Centers, Institutes do not 

have independent authority to enter into international 

commitments or agreements on behalf of NASA. Either 

a sponsoring organization within the U.S. government 

must sign international agreements in order to legally 

commit the government, or NASA must negotiate specific government-to-government level agreements for 

international collaborations. 

Institutes may support NASA in planning and implementing international initiatives and projects. An Institute 

may also provide technical and management interfaces 

with an international partner's project organization. 

When directed by the Enterprise and described in the 

terms of the Institute sponsoring agreement, the role of 

the science Institute in performing international activities 

should be clearly defined. In cases where an international role is envisioned, the specific roles and authorities of 

Institute employees should also be clearly defined, since 

others may perceive them as representatives of NASA 

and its programs. 

13