. "Appendix B: Previous Reviews of the STAR Program." The Measure of STAR: Review of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Research Grants Program. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2003.
The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
“That support and expectations of Project Officers be addressed as a priority issue in NCERQA management planning. More prioritization, and in some cases streamlining of grant and fellowship management, appear necessary.
That NCERQA continue to expand its cooperation and connections with other federal, private, and international environmental research organizations through joint solicitations, Web site links, and the exchange of ideas and research results.
That RFA workshop proceedings be expanded to include a record of discussions, exchange of ideas, integration across research projects and their relevancy for environmental decision making.
That NCERQA continue to support and expand its Web site as a central location for information on the Center, ORD, and other organizations performing related research.
That NCERQA require investigators to discuss the relevance of their research to EPA as a part of their project summaries.”
NCERQA, in a written response (Noonan 1999), addressed all the recommendations and described the actions taken up to that point. The response was judged to be satisfactory.
2000 REVIEW BY A SPECIAL JOINT COMMITTEE ESTABLISHED BY EPA’S SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD AND ORD’S BOARD OF SCIENTIFIC COUNSELORS
In the latter part of 1999, EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) and ORD’s BOSC established a joint committee to review the STAR program (EPA/SAB/BOSC 2000). That committee concluded that the STAR program is of vital importance to EPA’s mission and to the national objective of improving the knowledge base for environmental assessment and management. The committee concluded further that the STAR program was structured and managed to generate high-quality science by well-qualified scientists on relevant topics as identified in the EPA strategic plan.
The committee’s recommendations fell along two general lines: staff resources and information transfer. The committee felt that greater staff resources were required for maximizing the public’s return on investment in the STAR program. Coincidentally, that staffing need was identified in BOSC’s 1998 review of NCERQA (EPA/BOSC 1998).
Concerning information transfer, the committee felt that greater emphasis and attention needed to be placed on developing and implementing the