Free PDF AccessFree Resources |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 1
Space Studies Board
Search:
Jump to
Top
NewsJump
to Science
in the
Subscribe to our FREE e-
Headlines
newsletter!
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
June 18, 2004 Current Operating Status
On the Planned National Space Biomedical Research
Institute
On October 10, 1996, Dr. Claude R. Canizares, chair of the Space Studies Board,
and Dr. Mary Jane Osborn, chair of the Committee on Space Biology and
Medicine, sent the following letter to Dr. Arnauld Nicogossian, acting associate
administrator for NASA's Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications.
During the past year and a half, NASA has been actively exploring the possibility of
establishing independent science institutes that would operate cooperatively with
the agency's field centers. The objectives of these institutes have included
strengthening the quality of NASA science and the relationship between NASA's
science programs and the university community.
The Space Studies Board has maintained an active dialogue with agency officials
as planning for these institutes has evolved and matured. In response to NASA
requests, the Board issued short reports on the role of center science and
scientists (Center Science Letter—March 29, 1995) and on the role and character
of the proposed institutes themselves (Institutes Letter—August 11, 1995). In a
comprehensive analysis of NASA science management, Managing the Space
Sciences (National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1995), the Board
addressed a broad range of topics, many of which were related to the formation of
the institutes. The Board notes that institute planning has been responsive to its
guidance on the essential role of Headquarters in peer review and selection. It is
our understanding now, however, that failure to obtain relief from certain federal
employment regulations precludes the establishment of any of the proposed
institutes save a biomedical institute associated with Johnson Space Center (JSC).
In reviewing the Cooperative Agreement Notice (CAN) for the planned National
Space Biomedical Research Institute (NSBRI) at JSC, the Board has identified a
major concern. An essential requirement for the success of this proposed institute
in strengthening programs to be hosted there is a scrupulous attention to the
integrity of all aspects of program management. The Board is concerned about the
following provision in the CAN:
Management of the NASA Biomedical Research Program—NASA's
q
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ssb/nsbri.html (1 of 3) [6/18/2004 9:23:20 AM]
OCR for page 2
Space Studies Board
intent is for the Institute to manage (e.g., identify, prioritize, and
recommend biomedical research thrusts and associated priorities,
recommend research questions to be included in solicitations, and
administer successful grants) the overall NASA biomedical Research
and Analysis (R&A) effort. This approach would facilitate the execution of
a comprehensive, and integrated research plan to support human space
exploration. (p. 15)
This provision is in direct conflict with the general principles guiding current
planning for downsizing at NASA, namely that Headquarters will determine the
"what" and "why" of the research program, with field centers determining the "how"
(as stated, for example, in "FY 1996 Administrator's Guidance," February 2, 1996).
The provision is at variance with CAN Table 2, which includes among "HQ/NASA
HEDS Enterprise" responsibilities the following:
Provide strategic planning, policy development ...
q
Provide program direction, advocacy, and oversight ...
q
Appendix A of the CAN is consistent with this allocation of responsibilities from
Table 2.
The CAN provision also conflicts with major recommendations of the Board. In its
Institutes Letter, the Board reserved certain management functions for discharge
by Headquarters instead of by institutes or field centers, stating:
Certain internal and external functions described in the Center Science Letter, such
as participation in policy formulation and selection of external investigators, are
properly the province of government employees, but should not be vested in field
centers in order to avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest vis-à-vis outside
scientific competitors. It is therefore the recommendation of the Board that these
functions be retained by Headquarters, where they should be discharged by
government employees. (Space Studies Board Annual Report—1995, National
Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1996, p. 88)
A recommendation in Managing the Space Sciences (p. 61) states further:
Recommendation 5-12: Within NASA Headquarters, there must be a
q
capable scientific staff to support management priority setting in order to
help ensure compatibility of program content and science priorities.
These scientists must also interface with field center managers and
external investigators to ensure science program integrity.
In numerous conversations with NASA officials, the Board has received
assurances that the agency is fully in accord with these recommendations on
research policy formulation and science selection. In a formal response to the
second recommendation, Administrator Daniel Goldin (February 28, 1996) stated:
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ssb/nsbri.html (2 of 3) [6/18/2004 9:23:20 AM]
OCR for page 3
Space Studies Board
Response to Recommendation 5-12: NASA believes that it has, at
q
least in the past, been able to maintain a capable scientific staff. In the
face of downsizing, NASA will need to rely increasingly on the external
science community for its advice and participation in priority setting,
scientific review of current programs, and strategic planning for future
programs.
This is understood to include both contributions by IPA (Intergovernmental
Personnel Agreement) scientists within the Headquarters staff as well as by
community members serving on volunteer panels advisory to this staff. In addition,
Administrator Goldin gave very positive assurances on the primacy of
Headquarters in setting research policy during an executive meeting with National
Academy of Sciences President Bruce Alberts and the undersigned on April 30,
1996.
Inasmuch as the NSBRI must be free to compete for research funds against other
qualified institutions, and this competition must be perceived as equitable and
wholly merit-based, the Board recommends revision of the cited language in the
CAN to clearly reaffirm NASA's intention to perform vital science policy and
program definition functions itself, at Headquarters. The Board believes that
continuing the practice of setting research directions and selecting science
investigators and investigations at Headquarters, as well as maintaining the
necessary qualified staff at Headquarters to carry out these functions, is vital if the
agency is to achieve its goal of a first-rate life sciences research program.
We look forward to working with you to strengthen the contributions of NSBRI
planning and research to NASA's science and exploration programs.
CSBM Membership
Last update 2/10/00 at 3:42 pm
Site managed by the SSB Web Group.
To comment on this Web page or report an error, please send feedback to the Space Studies Board.
Subscribe to e-newsletters | Feedback | Back to Top
Copyright © 2004. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 500 Fifth St. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ssb/nsbri.html (3 of 3) [6/18/2004 9:23:20 AM]
OCR for page 4
Space Studies Board
Search:
Jump to
Top
NewsJump
to Science
in the
Subscribe to our FREE e-
Headlines
newsletter!
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
June 18, 2004 Current Operating Status
On the Planned National Space Biomedical Research
Institute Membership
COMMITTEE ON SPACE BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE
Mary Jane Osborn, University of Connecticut Health Center, Chair
Norma M. Allewell, University of Minnesota
Robert E. Cleland, University of Washington
Mary F. Dallman, University of California at San Diego
Francis (Drew) Gaffney, Vanderbilt University Medical Center
James R. Lackner, Brandeis University
Anthony P. Mahowald, University of Chicago
Elliot Meyerowitz, California Institute of Technology
Kenna D. Peusner, George Washington University Medical Center
Gideon A. Rodan, Merck Research Laboratories
Richard Setlow, Brookhaven National Laboratory
Sandra J. Graham, Study Director
Catherine A. Gruber, Senior Program Assistant
Letter Report
Last update 2/10/00 at 3:48 pm
Site managed by the SSB Web Group.
To comment on this Web page or report an error, please send feedback to the Space Studies Board.
Subscribe to e-newsletters | Feedback | Back to Top
Copyright © 2004. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. 500 Fifth St. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ssb/nsbrimem.html [6/18/2004 9:23:28 AM]
