that was rated very good or excellent under the 
Foundation’s competitive merit review process. 
(d) SELECTION PROCESS.—The Director shall make 
awards under this section based on the advice of the pro-
gram officers of the Foundation. 
(e) PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION.—The Director may 
carry out this section through the Small Grants for Ex-
ploratory Research program. 
(f) NATIONAL
SCIENCE
BOARD
REVIEW.—The 
Board shall conduct a review and assessment of the pilot 
program under this section, including the number of new 
investigators funded, the distribution of awards by type 
of institution of higher education, and the success rate 
upon resubmittal of proposals by new investigators funded 
through this pilot program. Not later than 3 years after 
the date of enactment of this Act, the Board shall summa-
rize its findings and any recommendations regarding 
changes to or the continuation of the pilot program in a 
report to the Committee on Science and Technology of the 
House of Representatives and the Committee on Com-
merce, Science, and Transportation and the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate. 
SEC. 307. BROADER IMPACTS MERIT REVIEW CRITERION. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—In evaluating research proposals 
under the Foundation’s broader impacts criterion, the Di-
rector shall give special consideration to proposals that in-
volve partnerships between academic researchers and in-
dustrial scientists and engineers that address research 
areas that have been identified as having high importance 
for future national economic competitiveness, such as 
nanotechnology. 
(b) PARTNERSHIPS WITH INDUSTRY.—The Director 
shall encourage research proposals from institutions of 
higher education that involve partnerships with businesses 
and organizations representing businesses in fields that 
have been identified as having high importance for future 
national economic competitiveness and that include input 
on the research agenda from and cost-sharing by the in-
dustry partners. 
(c) REPORT ON BROADER IMPACTS CRITERION.— 
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
Act, the Director shall transmit to Congress a report on 
the impact of the broader impacts grant criterion used by 
the Foundation. The report shall— 
(1) identify the criteria that each division and 
directorate of the Foundation uses to evaluate the 
broader impacts aspects of research proposals; 
(2) provide a breakdown of the types of activi-
ties by division that awardees have proposed to carry 
out to meet the broader impacts criterion;
(3) provide any evaluations performed by the 
Foundation to assess the degree to which the broad-
er impacts aspects of research proposals were car-
ried out and how effective they have been at meeting 
the goals described in the research proposals; 
(4) describe what national goals, such as im-
proving undergraduate science, mathematics, and 
engineering education, improving K–12 science and 
mathematics education, promoting university-indus-
try collaboration and technology transfer, and broad-
ening participation of underrepresented groups, the 
broader impacts criterion is best suited to promote; 
and 
(5) describe what steps the Foundation is tak-
ing and should take to use the broader impacts cri-
terion to improve undergraduate science, mathe-
matics, and engineering education. 
SEC. 308. POSTDOCTORAL RESEARCH FELLOWS. 
(a) MENTORING.—The Director shall require that all 
grant applications that include funding to support 
postdoctoral researchers include a description of the men-
toring activities that will be provided for such individuals, 
and shall ensure that this part of the application is evalu-
ated under the Foundation’s broader impacts merit review 
criterion. Mentoring activities may include career coun-
seling, training in preparing grant applications, guidance 
on ways to improve teaching skills, and training in re-
search ethics. 
(b) REPORTS.—The Director shall require that an-
nual reports and the final report for research grants that 
include funding to support postdoctoral researchers in-
clude a description of the mentoring activities provided to 
such researchers. 
SEC. 309. RESPONSIBLE CONDUCT OF RESEARCH. 
The Director shall require that each institution that 
applies for financial assistance from the Foundation for 
science and engineering research or education describe in 
its grant proposal a plan to provide appropriate training 
and oversight in the responsible and ethical conduct of re-
search to undergraduate students, graduate students, and 
postdoctoral researchers participating in the proposed re-
search project. 
SEC. 310. REPORTING OF RESEARCH RESULTS. 
The Director shall ensure that all final project re-
ports and citations of published research documents re-
sulting from research funded, in whole or in part, by the 
Foundation, are made available to the public in a timely 
manner and in electronic form through the Foundation’s 
Web site.
SEC. 311. SHARING RESEARCH RESULTS. 
An investigator supported under a Foundation 
award, whom the Director determines has failed to comply 
with the provisions of section 734 of the Foundation Grant 
Policy Manual, shall be ineligible for a future award under 
any Foundation supported program or activity. The Direc-
tor may restore the eligibility of such an investigator on 
the basis of the investigator’s subsequent compliance with 
the provisions of section 734 of the Foundation Grant Pol-
icy Manual and with such other terms and conditions as 
the Director may impose. 
SEC. 312. FUNDING FOR SUCCESSFUL STEM EDUCATION 
PROGRAMS. 
(a) EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS.—The Director shall, 
on an annual basis, evaluate all of the Foundation’s grants 
that are scheduled to expire within one year and— 
(1) that have the primary purpose of meeting 
the objectives of the Science and Engineering Equal 
Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C. 1885 et seq.); or 
(2) that have the primary purpose of providing 
teacher professional development. 
(b) CONTINUATION OF FUNDING.—For grants that 
are identified under subsection (a) and that are deemed 
by the Director to be successful in meeting the objectives 
of the initial grant solicitation, the Director may extend 
the duration of those grants for up to 3 additional years
beyond their scheduled expiration without the requirement 
for a recompetition. The Director may extend such grants 
for an additional 3 years following a second review within 
1 year before the extended completion date, in accordance 
with subsection (a), and the determination by the Director 
that the objectives of the grant are being achieved. 
(c) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 2 years 
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director shall 
submit a report to the Committee on Science and Tech-
nology of the House of Representatives and to the Com-
mittee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of 
the Senate that— 
(1) lists the grants which have been extended in 
duration by the authority provided under this sec-
tion; and 
(2) provides any recommendations the Director 
may have regarding the extension of the authority 
provided under this section to programs other than 
those specified in subsection (a). 
SEC. 313. COST SHARING. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Board shall evaluate the im-
pact of its policy to eliminate cost sharing for research 
grants and cooperative agreements for existing programs 
that were developed around industry partnerships and his-