|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| ||||||||||||
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
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 87
6
Institutional and
Administrative Issues
Effective management of the expanded competi-
tive grants program will require careful attention to
and management of a number of institutional and
administrative issues. First, the program office must
be properly located within the structure of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA). Second, several
program transitions must be arranged: program plan-
ning and advisory committees must be set up, the peer
review process must be managed and its quality en-
sured, and the program ' s administrative capacity must
be expanded to match the increase in program scope
and number of grants. Third, success of the multidis-
ciplinary grants must be ensured. Finally, program
evaluation and accountability are essential to the
program.
PROGRAM'S LOCATION IN USDA
In fiscal year (FY) 1988, the USDA competitive
grants program (funded at $45.4 million) represented
less than 5 percent of USDA's Agricultural Research
Service (ARS) and Cooperative State Research Ser-
vice (CSRS) research expenditures. The program is
administered within the CSRS, which is one of three
major science and education agencies within USDA's
Office of Science and Education; the other two are the
ARS and the Extension Service (ES). Within CSRS,
the Competitive Research Grants Office (CRGO) is
one of five offices reporting to an associate adminis-
trator. (CSRS has two programmatic associateadmin-
istrators and three deputy administrators responsible
for scientific direction and management.)
As the competitive grants program reaches $550
million in annual expenditures, its size and scope will
clearly warrant its elevation within USDA's Office of
87
Science and Education. Various institutional options
are likely to be considered; all of them should be
evaluated in terms of the following criteria:
· Ensuring the program 's openness to high-quality
science and providing it with broad appeal, visibility,
and stature within the scientific community.
Providing the CRGO program director and chief
scientists with direct access to key policymakers within
USDA, particularly the assistant secretary for science
and education.
· Developing strong relations between the com-
petitive grants program and the research programs of
other federal agencies.
· Attracting nationally prominent scientists and
managers to positions of program leadership in CRGO
and to service on program advisory committees and
peer review panels.
Three of the more likely options are discussed here.
Option I: Major Unit within the Office of
Science and Education
Under this option, the expanded CRGO would be a
fourth major science and education agency within
USDA's Office of Science and Education; thus, it
would be taken out of CSRS and elevated within the
Office of Science and Education. Its administrator
would be on an equal footing with the administrators
of ARS, CSRS, and ES as the critical policymakers
and line managers of USDA's science, education, and
. . . . .
tralmng actlvltles.
This option responds well to the criteria set forth
above and has the following advantages:
OCR for page 88
88
A clear signal would be sent to the scientific and
engineering communities that USDA is committed to
the competitive grants program.
· The leader of the competitive grants program
would report directly to the assistant secretary for
science and education and would have policy status
within the department comparable to the status ac-
corded to the heads of comparable research agen-
cies for example, the director of the National Insti-
tutes of Health ~H) within the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services and the assistant directors
of the National Science Foundation (NSF), whoarere-
sponsible for each of the major units.
The leader of the competitive grants program
would, as noted, also have policymaking status com-
parable to that of the heads of the other units within
USDA's Office of Science and Education (ARS, ES,
and CSRS), whose budgets are generally comparable
. .
In size.
· Other USDA agencies, other federal science
agencies, and private and public universities would
have fair and equitable access to the program.
Under this option, probably only straightforward
institutional changes would be necessary and proce-
dural continuity would be ensured.
Option II: Retention within the Cooperative
State Research Service
The increased expenditures for competitive grants
could continue to be administered by CRGO within
CSRS. New professional and support staff positions
could be established as needed.
This approach would
· Avoid any need for institutional or legislative
changes and ensure procedural continuity.
· Minimize the need to consider other organiza-
tional and institutional issues.
Yet this approach has several disadvantages. It
would
· Fail to give the competitive "rants program greater
visibility and stature and foreclose options in strength-
ening it administratively.
· Lodge decisionmaking authority and budget
advocacy for the competitive grants program at an
inappropriately low level within USDA's Office of
Science and Education.
INVESTING IN RESE - CH
Complicate the interactions between CRGO pro-
gram scientists and the scientists of other agencies,
both within USDA and across the government.
· Be less likely to attract top scientists and admin-
istrators to positions of program leadership and ser-
v~ce.
Option III: Creation of a Separate Institute
A separate institute within ARS could be similar to
those of NIH. Some science policy analysts andpoliti-
cal leaders have suggested that NIH could be a model
for expanding the scope and improving the quality and
responsiveness of USDA's scientific programs. Most
NIH research institutes have both intra- and extramu-
ral programs. The crux of this option, as it has been
suggested, involves the transformation of ARS into
the intramural unit of such an institute and removal of
the competitive grants program from CSRS. This
would lodge it in the institute as the institute's extra-
mural arm. In addition, both the intra- and extramural
components of ARS's ongoing research programs
would be changed in other ways to strengthen the
quality and importance of scientific input in setting
priorities and adjusting budgets. The agency's pro-
gram planning and peer review procedures would also
be changed to more closely match those used by NIH.
The advantages of this option are that it would
· Send a strong signal to the scientific community
that a major change is under way in the organization
and funding of major USDA-supported federal re-
search and development programs, particularly the
competitive grants program and ARS.
· Provide a mandate to USDA administrators to
follow the proven NIH model.
Strengthen ARS as an agency by bringing its
administrators and scientists into more direct and fre-
quent contact with colleagues in the academic com-
munity and the private sector.
This option has disadvantages, however
· It would require substantial legislative change
that, in tom, would require a political consensus that
would probably prove elusive.
· The traditional balance and relationships among
ARS, CSRS, and ES would most likely change signifi-
cantly, since ARS would be markedly strengthened at
the expense of CSRS and at some cost, too, to ES.
OCR for page 89
INSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES
· New responsibility would be placed on the ad-
ministrators of ARS.
After considering these three options, the Board on
Agriculture believes the expanded competitive grants
program should be a new, fourth unit in USDA's
Office of Science and Education, coequal with ARS,
ES, and CSRS.
PROGRAM TRANSITIONS
No matter which organizational option is selected,
the staff of the competitive grants program will need
to secure advice and guidance in defining the needs of
the program areas and the scientific and technological
opportunities and areas to be emphasized. An addi-
tional challenge-one that is important in all competi-
tive grants programs is to determine the appropriate
composition of peer review panels. Administrative
questions will also arise as the program's funding
increases by $500 million annually.
Program Planning and Advisory Committees
Advice and guidance will be needed at inception
and throughout the program-on a number of key
issues, including (1) defining the mission, objectives,
and short- and longer-term priorities for each program
area; (2) identifying priorities across and among the
program areas; (3) ensuring that the areas and quality
of science and technology are appropriate; (4) evalu-
ating the results of the research in relation to the
mission of the program areas; (5) giving special atten-
tion to the results from and value of the multidiscipli-
nary team and research-strengthening grants in each
program area; and (6) evaluating the overall effective-
ness of the program.
An important mechanism for providing the staff
with guidance in defining opportunities is an advisory
committee for each of the six program areas. Each
advisory committee would be composed of scientists
drawn from the range of disciplines critical to advanc-
ing science and technology within that particular
program area. In addition, individuals from outside
the scientific community who have special expertises
and perspectives relevant to the program area should
also be committee members. Examples of such indi-
viduals are producers; processors; leaders from the
social, consumer, and environmental sectors; govern-
ment leaders and policy experts; and leaders from
business and industry. The help of people from
89
outside the scientific community is particularly im-
portant in evaluating the relation between the program
conducted and the mission of the program area.
Ideally, the advisory committees would include
both public end private sector scientists. Participation
by private sector scientists on such advisory commit-
tees is highly desirable and can lead to valuable
exchanges of views on the evolving character of
practical problems, on the promise of new science and
technology, and on ensuring linkages between public
and private sector scientists; between science and
technology and their further development, innova-
tion, and application; and between science opportuni-
ties and the needs of the program area.
Committee members would also include some
scientists with basic research experience, some with
applied research experience, and some with multidis-
ciplinary research experience. And some members
would be experienced in dealing with the market,
policy, and institutional forces that shape the relation-
ship between science and society.
The disciplinary composition of the program plan-
ning advisory committees could evolve over time,
corresponding to changes in science as well as to
changes in economic, social, or regulatory concerns.
The six advisory committees would provide the six
major program areas with the same kind of overall
guidance that the Joint Council for Food and Agricul-
tural Sciences and the Users Advisory Board provide
to the USDA Of lice of Science and Education. In form
and function, the advisory committees could be mod-
eled on similar program planning committees used by
NIH and NSF (see the box "Program Planning at NIH
and NSF').
The Peer Review Process
Ensunng the proper composition and functioning
of peer review panels is another important ongoing
administrative challenge. This issue is especially
critical because people with different backgrounds
have different useful views on alternative research
strategies. Panels must include people who, collec-
tively, have the capacity to judge the quality of propos-
als and to recognize the most promising opportunities
to advance science and technology and solve prob-
lems. Drawing panel members from throughout the
scientific community is important to ensure thatprob-
lems are approached with the most promising and
creative strategies, even if they are less proven, and not
just with traditional strategies.
OCR for page 90
go
INVESTING IN RESEARCH
Program Planning at NIH and NSF
Competitive grants programs administered by the NIH, NSF, and USDA all USE program planning advi-
sory councils or committees to help in the identification of scientific priorities. (Within all three agencies it is
the peer review panels in each scientific area that provide the scientific evaluation for awarding grants.)
In each agency, the process of determining the research emphasis has formal and informal components,
both of which involve a series of interactions among "bench" scientists, senior program staff, and appointed
advisory groups. The informal, or consensus-building, component centers on the peer review process used
in evaluating grant proposals. That process provides an ongoing, effective way of monitoring new advances
and opportunities in science, because ideas on programs and policy issues often surface from discussions
among program staff and scientists during the peer review meetings. For example, the concept of initiating
a special effort to map the human genome was raised several times in informal discussions by peer review
panels before advisory groups were convened to debate the scientific and policy aspects of instituting such
a program.
The formal component of determining the research emphasis is special to each institution.
At NIH, each institute has an advisory council to review and take action on program and policy. The
advisory councils are composed not only of outstanding scientists but also of members of the public with
demonstrated interests in the health program areas of the particular institute. (Each institute has a specific
mission within the field of human health, with the exception of the National Institute of General Medical
Sciences, whose mission is to conduct and support research in the basic medical sciences of significance to
two or more institutes, or in research areas that fall outside the general area of responsibility of any other
institute.)
The knowledge base the advisory councils draw upon when making major decisions about program
direction and policy is based on the two levels of review that competitive grants proposals at NIH proceed
through. The first level is strictly scientific- a review of the scientific merit of the proposa~and is carried out
for all institutes by the Division of Research Grants. The second level of review combines the scientific
evaluation from the first-level review with an assessment of the relevance of the proposed research to the
mission of the institute. This review is performed by advisory councils and their grant review committees.
NSF has a broad and general charge to promote the progress of science, in contrast to other government
agencies that support research targeted at more specific missions. Within NSF, changes in programs and
funding initiatives are directed more by scientific opportunities and the general need for skilled human
resources than by needs arising from any specific public mission. The National Science Board (NSB), whose
members represent all areas of science and are from research institutes, universities, and industry, advises
the director of NSF on the structuring of programs, budget priorities, and other key initiatives. The NSB is also
required to take action on all grant awards that exceed $6 million.
In developing annual program announcements, each NSF directorate takes NSB guidance about priori-
ties into account. These announcements encourage investigators to submit proposals in certain areas.
USDA has also established a competitive grants program advisory comm ttee. Its purpose and activities
are still evolving, and USDA is continuing to try to put into place more effective ways of using the insights and
skills of the committee's members in identifying and acting upon program priorities.
.
Efforts must be made to broaden the expertise
represented on review panels so that the panels can
fully evaluate the quality and relevance of proposed
research. In addition to a broad representation of
experts from different disciplines, panels should in-
clude people from different levels of the research
process to help judge the relevance of the proposed
research. For example, reviewers of fundamental
research proposals should include representatives with
backgrounds in applied research, and reviewers of
applied research proposals should include individuals
with backgrounds in fundamental research.
A reliable way of ensuring that peer review panels
are not limited in their vision of science and technol-
ogy opportunity is to have a varied group of scientists
serve on panels on arotatingbasis. When themember-
ship of a panel rotates regularly and is made up by
individuals from a range of disciplines, from a variety
of institutional affiliations, and with a breadth of re-
search experiences, there will be greater recognition
and support of creative approaches.
Each major program area likely will need several
peer review panels to review proposals, and more than
one panel may need to review some proposals. As a
OCR for page 91
INSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES
/
general rule, to justify the cost of convening a panel
and yet to avoid imposing excessive work loads on
panel members, each panel should review at least $5
million but generally not more than $15 million in
requests. Accordingly, if $50 million is appropriated
to a given major program area, at least 4 and up to 10
panels mightbeconvened in each major program area.
From year to year, the number and composition of
panels might warrant adjustment in light of the amount
of funding appropriated to each major program area,
the types of grants sought by investigators, and the
diversity of scientific approaches proposed.
Evaluation of multidisciplinary team grant propos-
als requires special attention and is discussed in a later
section of this chapter.
Administrative Changes
ii
i]
The four features of this proposal that require an
ncrease in funding from about $50 million to $550
million are the following:
· Expanding the number of major program areas
from three to six and allotting a minimum of $50
million to each.
Offering four types of grants, including two
types of multidisciplinary team grants.
· Increasing the average annual "rant per principal
nvestigator to $100,000.
· Extending the duration of grants from 2 years to
3, 4, or 5 years.
Although the proposed increase in funds is large,
the administrative burdens associated with awarding
$550 million would not differ greatly from those
associated with the current program. Only the first
two features will need to be accompanied by signif~-
cant administrative changes. A program advisory
committee (or council) will have to be appointed,
staffed, organized, and started for each program area
(concurrently, a decision will have to be made on the
fate of the current CRGO advisory committee). To
administer the three new major program areas, the
competitive grants office will have to secure addi-
tional staff assistance and appoint peer review panels.
Procedures and program announcements will have to
be expanded to provide grant applicants with guidance
on the program areas, the four types of grants and how
they will be evaluated, and the special requirements of
multidisciplinary team grants.
Otherwise, the administrative changes will be minor.
In recent years the program has reviewed 2,000 or
91
more proposals in an annual program cycle, awarding
'~~ ~~~ ' ' Wholly
some mu tO DW grants Averaging about $1~,~0
per grant-$50,000 per year for 2 years). Under a
fully funded program consistent with that proposed
here, if the success rate for awards were to increase
from 22 to 32 percent (approximating the current rate
at NIH), the competitive grants office would award
just over 1,000 grants each year (see Table 3.7 for the
average expected amounts awarded through each type
of grant) and would have to review 3,000 proposals, or
1,000 more than it does at present.
NEED TO MANAGE FOR
MULTIDISCIPLINARY SUCCESS
The need for multidisciplinary research-both
fundamental and mission-linked is widely recog-
nized in the agricultural, food, and environmental
community, particularly among producers, proces-
sors, and farm organizations and those within other
parts of the private sector. Likewise, the difficulty of
funding truly multidisciplinary research is widely
acknowledged. Accordingly, this initiative has em-
phasized the need to provide a significant new source
of support for multidisciplinary research (see Chapter
3~.
The management of multidisciplinary grants,
however, raises both scientific and administrative
issues. They include
· selecting peer review panels whose membership
is suitable for evaluating the proposals, because most
members are likely to be experts in the relevant disci-
pline, some are likely to be experts in cognate disci-
plines that can advance understanding of the proposed
research, and a few are likely to be experienced in mul-
tidisciplinary research;
· avoiding undue disciplinary biases, yet ensuring
major scientific strength;
· ensuring that the mission-linked proposals relate
to major problems, yet also focus on scientific ad-
vances and do not have only a practical orientation;
· ensuring that the plan of study is appropriate for
the proposal's objectives;
· evaluating the results and the processes used so
that they become a basis for increasing the effective-
ness of subsequent multidisciplinary research;
· creating and sustaining effective linkages be-
tween mission-linked research and the development
and applications sectors; and
· managing the grant, the research, and the rela-
tionships so that the grant's objectives are achieved.
OCR for page 92
92
Managing the proposed multidisciplinary aspects
of the competitive grants program can proceed from,
and build on, an already strong base of experience and
results: the McKnight grants (a forerunner of the
proposed grants), NSF's centers of excellence pro-
grams, and NIH's program and training grants. Fur-
thermore, the state agricultural experiment stations
(SAESs) are, to a large extent, built on the multidisci-
plinary model, particularly with respect to strong
mission linkages to the development and applications
sector (e.g., the Cooperative Extension Service).
Multidisciplinary grants programs offer signifi-
cant roles for scientists from federal agencies such as
ARS and NIH, from universities both within and
outside the SAESs, and from the private sector. Fed-
eral agency and SAKS scientists, with their long
experience in multidisciplinary research, can help
identify priorities, evaluate proposals and results, and
evaluate the management systems proposed for the
research. Cooperative extension staff, Moth SAKS
scientists with extension responsibilities and exten-
sionspecialistsandadvisers can bedirectlyinvolved
in mission-linked multidisciplinary team research.
They could serve as research staff, adapt results to site-
or region-specific conditions, develop new technolo-
gies, adapt existing technologies to new conditions,
and disseminateresearch results and information about
the applicability of technologies.
Nevertheless, USDA should not expect to resolve
in 1 or 2 years, in a normal manner, all the scientific
and administrative issues that will arise in the context
of awarding the two types of multidisciplinary grants.
Special efforts will probably also be needed. Extra
time and attention may well have to be given to
determining how best to advance science through
multidisciplinary interactions. In the first few years of
grant making, special attempts should be made to
assess both the successful and the less successful
projects in an effort to determine the evaluation crite-
ria and features of proposals that warrant attention in
future years. These insights can then become the basis
for improving the criteria and the selection and admin-
istrative procedures.
In addition, institutions and scientists must find a
mutually acceptable basis for collaboration, over-
come career advancement barriers, and secure suit-
able longer-term funding. Partnerships must fonn
across disciplines and sometimes between public and
private sector scientist~and if money is available for
team research, they will. Since real-world problems
INVESTING IN RESEARCH
am evolving constantly, ongoing research will benefit
if several scientists with varied experiences attempt to
provide a solution to a problem. Partnerships also will
help facilitate the processes of developing and trans-
femng information and technology-a key objective
if the nation is to capitalize more quickly on science
and technology breakthroughs.
PROGRAM EVALUATION AND
ACCOUNTABILITY
A program with an increased investment of the
magnitude now being proposed should be systemati-
cally assessed to see how well its goals are being met.
Another reason to conduct ongoing evaluations is the
proposal's several unusual features: a strong empha-
sis on multidisciplinary grants, the new type of mis-
sion-linked team grant, the research-strengthening
grants, and the breadth of the program areas covered
by the grants. All of these features make ongoing
program evaluation particularly important.
Five questions will be central in the evaluations:
1. Are science and technology priorities within the
major program areas defined insightfully and do they
relate to national needs?
2. Are scientists from across the entire science and
technology community seeking grants and submitting
high-quality proposals?
3. Are the four types of grants achieving their
intended purposes?
4. Is the program effectively linked to, and does it
routinely communicate with, other USDA programs,
programs of other federal science agencies, state pro-
grams and needs, and the private sector?
5. Are grantees achieving important science and
t e c h n o 1 o g y b r e ~ h r o u g h s , a n d a r e t h e s e b r e a k t h r o u g h s
receiving important and timely application?
Some of these questions can and should be raised
annually. Others, particularly the last one, should be
assessed at longer intervals, after a realistic amount of
time has passed and sufficient experience with the
program has been gained. At that time it will also be
important to assess whether adequate funding is being
awarded through the two Apes of multidisciplinary
grants and whether adjustments are needed in admin-
istrative criteria or procedures to more effectively
encourage top-quality multidisciplinary research ac-
tivities.
..
.,
Representative terms from entire chapter:
grants program
