Click for next page ( 96


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © 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 95
5 Research Frameworks in Domestic Nontransportation Sectors Part of the committee’s mandate was to identify and assess examples of U.S. national strategic research planning in sectors other than transpor- tation. The committee assembled information on the research frame- works of organizations within six other sectors: agriculture, astrophysics and astronomy, construction, energy, health, and science research (see Table 5-1). The research frameworks considered were not all directly comparable, as they represented disparate programs, organizations, and scales and scopes of activity. For example, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) annual budget is on the order of $30 billion, whereas the decadal survey in astrophysics and astronomy is conducted largely by volunteers.1 In addition, because the U.S. framework for surface trans- portation research extends beyond the federal agencies, the committee’s intent was not simply to select organizations directly comparable to the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT), but rather to explore a wider range of organizations. By focusing on the research functions described in Chapter 2, the committee was able to explore a diversity of approaches across the domestic research spectrum. This chapter first summarizes the committee’s information-gathering strategy and provides background information on the research organiza- tions listed in Table 5-1. It then discusses some of their salient features, par- ticularly those that could potentially benefit surface transportation research in the United States. The chapter concludes with a categorization and brief discussions of the lessons learned from these nontransportation sectors. 1 The budget data provided in this chapter are intended to provide order of magnitude indications of research investment rather than to permit detailed analyses of federal (and other) research budgets. 95

OCR for page 95
96 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future TABLE 5-1 Nontransportation Organizations That Provided Information on Their Research Frameworks Sector Organization or Program Agriculture Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Astrophysics and astronomy Decadal Survey Construction FIATECH Energy National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Health National Institutes of Health (NIH) Science research National Science Foundation (NSF) COMMITTEE’S STRATEGY FOR GATHERING INFORMATION The committee’s information-gathering activities focused on sectors and organizations whose research frameworks were judged to be of par- ticular value to the study charge. In some cases, there were similarities with transportation; for example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is a mission-oriented federal agency not unlike the U.S. DOT. In other cases, it was the dissimilarities that appealed to the committee; for example, the National Science Foundation (NSF) supports basic and advanced research, whereas U.S. surface transportation research is cur- rently lacking in these areas. The choice of organizations also reflected the committee’s desire to gather information from the public, private, and academic sectors, each of which plays a key role in the nation’s trans- portation research enterprise. The information presented in this chapter was obtained through the committee’s workshops (see Appendices A and B) and supplemented by web-based searches and follow-up phone conversations with workshop guests and other sources, as needed. Some of the research-related activi- ties described in this chapter have been the subject of extensive studies by expert groups; see, for example, NRC (2007), Fuglie and Heisey (2007), and reports from NSF’s Committee of Visitors.2 However, because of resource constraints and especially the committee’s mandate, its reviews of these studies were limited to areas most pertinent to surface transpor- tation research. 2 http://www.nsf.gov/od/iia/activities/cov/.

OCR for page 95
Research Frameworks in Domestic Nontransportation Sectors 97 RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONS Agriculture: Agricultural Research Service The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is the intramural science research arm of USDA, and one of four agencies in the department’s research, education, and economics mission area.3 The ARS budget for FY 2012 was approximately $1.1 billion.4 The agency currently supports over 1,000 projects involving some 2,500 scientists and postdoctoral researchers in more than 100 laboratories. Research may be conducted in partnership with other agencies, universities, and industries, as well as through international collaborations. ARS’s research covers a wide variety of areas, ranging in scope from the farm to the table (St. John 2011). To address issues of national impor- tance, such as food safety, plant diseases, and aquaculture, this research is organized into national programs, of which there are currently 18. Developed around a five-year cycle, each of these programs is made up of projects contributing to five-year objectives. ARS engages federal administrators and other key stakeholders in setting its research priori- ties, and the agency uses peer review to help ensure the scientific merit of the research that it funds. Considerable emphasis is placed on the implementation of research results, and the findings of retrospective peer assessments of program outcomes and impacts are used to inform the ongoing program cycle, as well as future projects. Astronomy and Astrophysics: Decadal Survey National Research Council (NRC) decadal science-strategy surveys, which are conducted by committees of experts, have been used for more than 50 years (a) to provide prospective and retrospective assessments of the status and outlook of research fields and (b) to recommend highest- priority research activities (NRC 2007). Priorities are established through a process that involves a significant cross section of the research commu- nity and leads to a broad consensus. 3 The other agencies are the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, the Economic Research Service, and the National Agricultural Statistics Service. 4 http://www.ars.usda.gov/AboutUs/AboutUs.htm.

OCR for page 95
98 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future The decadal survey of astronomy and astrophysics is a multiyear effort that engages the fields’ investigators in setting a research agenda for the next 10 years. The astronomy and astrophysics community conducted its first such survey in 1964, and it has since done five more at approxi- mately 10-year intervals (Haynes 2011). The surveys are widely seen as a way of maintaining coherence on priorities among astronomers and astrophysicists, who engage in the survey process through preparation of white papers, town hall meetings, and membership on committees and working groups. This relatively small research community, funded by several federal agencies5 and by limited state and private support, focuses on science rather than on payoff to industry or society. Construction: FIATECH FIATECH is an industry-led, collaborative, not-for-profit, research con- sortium of approximately 50 owners, contractors, suppliers, and research organizations. Its mission is to accelerate the deployment of integration and automation technology. Membership is open to all interested parties, and activities are funded through annual membership dues. Formed in 2000 by the Construction Industry Institute and the U.S. National Insti- tute for Standards and Technology, the consortium seeks breakthrough opportunities by focusing on collaborative research and by emphasizing the implementation of research results. FIATECH has developed, and continues to maintain, a Capital Proj- ects Technology Roadmap6 that is intended to provide an industrywide research agenda and to guide investments in that research. The roadmap facilitates gap analyses and the identification of research projects with potentially high payoff, some of which may receive FIATECH funding. The consortium has completed 30 projects to date (Jackson 2011). Energy: National Renewable Energy Laboratory The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), contained within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy of the U.S. 5 NSF, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 6 http://www.fiatech.org/tech-roadmap.

OCR for page 95
Research Frameworks in Domestic Nontransportation Sectors 99 Department of Energy (DOE), is operated by the Alliance for Sustain- able Energy, LLC, a partnership between Battelle and MRIGlobal. NREL’s mission is to develop “renewable-energy and energy-efficiency technolo- gies and practices, [to advance] related science and engineering, and [to transfer] knowledge and innovations to address the nation’s energy and environmental goals.”7 The laboratory’s annual budget for FY 2011 was approximately $387 million. A staff of approximately 1,700, together with 800 visiting researchers, interns, and contractors, conducts research on fuel production, trans- portation, the built environment, electricity generation and delivery, and the relationships between these systems. Research ranges from basic science to the validation of new products for commercial markets, and it may be conducted in partnership with private industry, academia, or other parts of government. NREL’s research agenda, which responds primarily to the needs of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, supports national goals for reduced oil imports and greenhouse gas emissions through efforts to improve vehicle fuel economy. NREL considers a range of research topics, including vehicle systems analysis and testing, advanced propulsion and vehicle efficiency improvements, energy-storage tech- nologies, advanced power electronics, advanced combustion engines, and alternative fuels (Christensen 2011). The laboratory also conducts research for DOE’s Office of Science and Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. Health: National Institutes of Health NIH, part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, is the primary federal agency for supporting and conducting medical research.8 It comprises 27 disease- or program-focused institutes and centers. The NIH budget for FY 2011 was $30.9 billion. About 10 percent of the budget supports intramural research involv- ing some 6,000 scientists, and almost 45,000 extramural research grants engage more than 325,000 researchers at 3,000 universities, medical 7 http://www.nrel.gov/about/overview.html. 8 http://www.nih.gov/about/.

OCR for page 95
100 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future schools, and other research institutions both at home and abroad. Most of the research that NIH supports is either basic or applied: these categories receive approximately 52 percent and 45 percent of the bud- get, respectively. NIH uses more than 200 mechanisms to fund research (Anderson 2011). NIH’s mission is to seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and to apply that knowledge to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce the burdens of illness and disability. Its goals are to • Foster fundamental discoveries, innovative research strategies, and their applications as a basis for ultimately protecting and improving health; • Develop, maintain, and renew scientific human and physical resources so as to ensure the nation’s capability to prevent disease; • Expand the knowledge base in medical and associated sciences in order to enhance the nation’s economic well-being and enjoy a con- tinued high return on the public investment in research; and • Exemplify and promote the highest levels of scientific integrity, pub- lic accountability, and social responsibility in the conduct of science (Anderson 2011). NIH identifies a broad range of constituents, including the American people, scientists, health care providers (who apply researchers’ results), advocacy groups (for specific diseases, conditions, or populations), Con- gress, the media, and in general the research enterprise in virtually all its manifestations. Hence NIH’s programs tend to address a wide range of, and a great many, individuals. Science Research: National Science Foundation NSF is an independent federal agency created by Congress in 1950 “to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, pros- perity, and welfare; [and] to secure the national defense.”9 NSF fulfills this mission largely by issuing limited-term grants to support specific research proposals that are selected on the basis of a rigorous and objec- tive merit review. Grants are typically for three years, and about 11,000 new grants are awarded each year. NSF’s annual budget, which was some 9 http://nsf.gov/about/.

OCR for page 95
Research Frameworks in Domestic Nontransportation Sectors 101 $7.0 billion in FY 2012, supports approximately one-fifth of all federally funded basic research conducted by U.S. colleges and universities. The organization’s director oversees a staff of about 1,400 career employees, 200 scientists from research institutions on temporary duty at NSF, and 450 contract workers responsible for research management. NSF supports basic science through a variety of models, including • Unsolicited research funded through existing research programs (e.g., Infrastructure Management and Extreme Events Program); • People-focused award programs (e.g., graduate research fellowships and postdoctoral awards); • Specialized centers (e.g., Engineering Research Centers, Centers of Research Excellence in Science and Technology); • Partnerships with industry (e.g., Industry and University Cooperative Research Program, Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry); and • Workshops and special initiatives.10 The focus throughout is on risky but potentially transformative proj- ects, which over the past two decades have become larger, more complex, and of longer duration. NSF has explicitly decided to limit its investment in transportation research, but funding transportation research projects is not excluded. Each year a modest investment is made in such proj- ects, and from 2001 to 2003 a partnership with the U.S. DOT conducted exploratory research on information and communications systems for surface transportation (Nelson 2011). APPROACHES TO RESEARCH FUNCTIONS This section highlights practices in domestic nontransportation sec- tors that could potentially benefit the country’s surface transportation research. The discussion is organized according to the research functions identified in Chapter 2. 10 Examples of recent special initiatives are the Integrated NSF Support Promoting Interdisciplin- ary Research and Education (http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13518/nsf13518.htm); Emerging Frontiers in Research and Innovation (http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2012/nsf12583/nsf12583.htm); and Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability (http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_ summ.jsp?pims_id=504707).

OCR for page 95
102 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future Identification of the Role of Research in Achieving Societal Goals Nontransportation sectors’ connection of research to societal goals often occurs as part of a program’s agenda-setting or budget-allocation pro- cess, but a research program can be built, right from the start, around societal goals. For example, ARS conducts research to address “agricul- tural and food problems and opportunities of high national priority” (St. John 2011). The program development cycle begins by questioning its relevance and consistency with societal goals; in that way ARS addresses not only, say, improvements in agricultural productivity, but also the need for access to healthful food. NREL’s projects address national energy goals defined in policy docu- ments (Christensen 2011). Examples of these goals are as follows: • By 2025, reduce oil imports by one-third from current levels (Koonin 2011); • By 2022, 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels per year are available in the transportation fuel infrastructure (Renewable Fuel Standard, Energy Independence, and Security Act of 2007); and • By 2015, the nation supports battery-manufacturing capacity for 500,000 plug-in hybrid electric vehicles a year (DOE Strategic Goal 2011). NIH inherently links research to health-related societal goals, but it also explicitly makes connections between research and health in a vari- ety of ways. For example, NIH universally employs the tag line “Turning Discovery into Health”; it broadly defines its constituencies to include the American people and advocacy groups; and it funds a full spectrum of research activities, from basic research through clinical research. Research Agenda Setting ARS produces and updates National Program Action Plans on a five- year cycle.11 These plans are informed by prior program assessments, ARS’s mission, the USDA’s strategic plan, presidential and USDA pri- orities, customers’ and other stakeholders’ inputs, advisory boards, the 11 http://www.ars.usda.gov/aboutus/docs.htm?docid=2&page=2.

OCR for page 95
Research Frameworks in Domestic Nontransportation Sectors 103 ARS leaders’ goals, and, of course, scientists’ inputs. This planning pro- cess is collaborative and inclusive, and it reflects current work, research (including basic research) needs, and implementation strategies. The decadal survey of astronomy and astrophysics, managed by the NRC through a committee, is a well-established, well-defined, and inclusive research agenda setting process. The committee responsible for the (most recent) 2010 decadal survey was tasked with surveying “the field of space- and ground-based astronomy and astrophysics and recommending priorities for the most important scientific and techni- cal activities of the decade 2010–2020. The principal goals of the study are to carry out an assessment of activities in astronomy and astrophys- ics, including both new and previously identified concepts . . .” (Haynes 2011). The decadal survey committee fulfilled its assignment while covering not only activities but also infrastructure, such as telescopes (NRC 2010). The decadal survey committee’s process reflected the desirable attri- butes of research agenda setting identified in Chapter 2; it was • Inclusive and collaborative, engaging stakeholders through several mechanisms; • Both bottom up and top down because of stakeholder engagement and the roles of the committee and funding agencies; • Comprehensive and balanced; and • Based on an assessment of the current state of the field. Given the nature of the field, however, the agenda-setting process did not address implementation. The FIATECH collaborative develops a Capital Projects Technology Roadmap that sets an industrywide agenda based on major challenges facing the construction industry. The roadmap, which is developed and maintained to guide investments in research, includes an assessment of needs, a database on what is being done, a gap analysis, and a process for forming initiatives (based on a national consensus) to prioritize and address the gaps. The FIATECH roadmap focuses on getting products to industry, with intellectual property and other implementation issues explicitly addressed. Ownership of specific intellectual property is deter- mined by the project participants, but all FIATECH members have some access to the products.

OCR for page 95
104 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future NIH’s research agenda setting is informed by criteria (both general and specific), constituencies, and process (Anderson 2011), which can briefly be characterized as • Engaging a very broad range of stakeholders, including advisory groups and program staff; • Providing opportunities for bottom-up input; and • Developed around systematic and transparent processes that include strategic planning, workshops, and requests for information. Specific criteria for project funding include • Public health needs based on the incidence, severity, and cost of specific disorders; • Scientific quality of the research; • Potential for scientific progress; • Portfolio diversification along the broad and expanding frontiers of research; and • Support of infrastructure, including human capital, equipment, instrumentation, and facilities. Given that collaboration is an important attribute of effective agenda setting, many of NSF’s initiatives involve partnerships with other agen- cies, as shown in Table 5-2. The only recent NSF partnership with the U.S. DOT, however, was the Partnership for Exploratory Research on Information Communication Systems for Surface Transportation, which ran from 2001 to 2003 and was supported by $500,000 from each of the two agencies (Nelson 2011). Divisions and programs within NSF often facilitate input from the academic research community, whether in a specific discipline or cross- cutting area, by convening events to engage members of that community. Such efforts may also include other agencies and industry. Workshops, principal-investigator meetings, reports, and white papers are used to describe new areas of research; potential sources of funding; and the expected size, scope, duration, and outcomes of awards. Partnerships with NSF have the advantages that they build on its cred- ibility with the academic community, connect to other relevant areas, include rigorous peer review of projects, and may avoid some of the challenges imposed by the political process.

OCR for page 95
Research Frameworks in Domestic Nontransportation Sectors 105 TABLE 5-2 Examples of NSF Partnerships with Other Federal Agencies Agency NSF Program National Institutes of Health (NIH) Computational Neural Science Ecology of Infectious Diseases Joint Initiative to Support Research at the Interface of the Biological and Mathematical Sciences National Oceanic and Atmospheric Comparative Analysis of Marine Ecosystems Administration U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Partnerships in Basic Plasma Science and Engineering Pan-American Advanced Studies Institute U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Water Sustainability and Climate USDA and DOE Decadal and Regional Climate Prediction Using Earth System Models National Endowment for the Humanities Documenting Endangered Languages Department of Homeland Security Academic Research Initiative National Air and Space Administration Global Learning and Observations to Benefit (NASA) the Environment Management and Operation of the Virtual Astronomical Observatory NASA, USDA, and NIH National Robotics Initiative National Institute of Standards Interaction in Basic and Applied Scientific Research and Technology National Science and Technology Council, National Plant Genome Initiative–Plan Genome USDA, NIH, DOE, and U.S. Agency for Research Program International Development U.S. Census Bureau NSF Census Research Network Food and Drug Administration (FDA) NSF–FDA Scholar in Residence Program at FDA Source: Nelson (2011). Distribution of Funding for Specific Research Activities The process by which funding is distributed to specific research activities is intended to produce a high-quality research portfolio that recognizes the mission of the particular agency or sector. Some of the agencies or pro- grams the committee explored focused on specific goals, and others aimed to develop a balanced portfolio. For example, FIATECH favors research that will be implemented by the construction industry. In contrast, NIH

OCR for page 95
106 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future has a spectrum of programs that ranges from basic research to clinical trials to implementation. ARS allocates funding based on the expected quality and performance of the project, its relevance and impact, and situational criteria such as customer support (Kenna and Berche 2012). Toward these ends, new projects go through a peer-review process that employs panels with membership external to ARS but with ARS oversight. FIATECH uses its roadmap to guide an annual process in which pro- posals are submitted by members, reviewed by their topics’ champions within the organization, revised, submitted for final review, and (poten- tially) approved by the board of directors. The success of this process is of course dependent on the quality of the roadmap and the integrity of the internal reviewers. The NIH research investment process is more elaborate, recognizing not only that the quest for innovation is serendipitous and that impact can be long term, but also that balance must be achieved through shorter- term deliverables and realistic constraints on human capital and resources. For NIH, the decision about who to fund is based on a two-tiered review process that is referred to by many in the research community as the inter- national “gold standard” of scientific review. This process includes • Peer-review panels comprising external experts who evaluate the sci- entific merit of grant applications, and • Institute advisory councils that evaluate how well the expected appli- cations address their particular Institute’s mission and programmatic priorities. Currently, NIH funds about one application in five. Scored criteria include significance, investigators, approach, environment, and poten- tial innovation. Attributes considered but not scored relate to how well the proposed research complements other projects being funded, for example, or whether policy issues such as protection of human subjects; inclusion of women, minorities, and children; humane treatment of ver- tebrate animals; and prevention of possible biohazards are adequately addressed in the proposal. NSF also conducts rigorous peer evaluations for project selection. Key criteria are intellectual merit and the likelihood of broader impacts.

OCR for page 95
Research Frameworks in Domestic Nontransportation Sectors 107 Conduct of Research As described in Chapter 2, the actual research is not conducted in isolation but in concert with a diverse portfolio of other research projects directed at innovation; this diversity is intended to ensure that activities at any given time are occurring at all stages of the research pipeline. However, the total- ity of these projects requires coordination and cooperation among numer- ous participants. The following examples illustrate the range of strategies that the studied organizations use to ensure a full pipeline: • To balance its portfolio, ARS explicitly includes program coordination in its national program cycle, which addresses a program’s ensemble of individual projects, especially their performance and potential implementation of their results; • To move research into practice more rapidly, FIATECH negotiates intellectual property issues with project participants right from the beginning; • To facilitate a diversity of research efforts, NIH has numerous funding mechanisms, including – Research projects to support a discrete and circumscribed objective and to be performed by the named investigators in an area repre- senting specific interests and competencies; – Small Business Innovation Research Phase I grants to support proj- ects, limited in time and amount, to establish the technical merit and feasibility of research and development ideas that may ultimately lead to commercial products or services;12 – Undergraduate Institutional Grants to enable minority institutions, at their discretion, to make training awards to individual students or staff; – Centers, contracts, collaborative agreements, or consortia, among other models; and • To make stronger connections to practice, the NSF partners with other, more mission-oriented organizations, as described in the pre- vious subsection on research agenda setting. 12 All federal agencies with extramural programs above a certain amount are required to have a Small Business Innovation Research program.

OCR for page 95
108 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future Research Evaluation Because research evaluation promotes quality research, enhances coor- dination and cooperation, and engages stakeholders, most agencies engage in some form of it, whether for selection of projects, assessment of progress, or as a feedback mechanism for setting new directions. The use of peer review by NIH and NSF for prospective evalua- tion is well accepted by researchers. However, performance assess- ment based on long-term impacts, especially in the case of basic and advanced research, is not so well accepted because of the lack of con- sensus about the construction and use of reliable and valid measures. As a practical matter, NSF uses representative metrics, such as num- bers of papers published in peer-reviewed journals or numbers of stu- dents graduated. ARS reviews programs and gathers data on outcomes. The Farm Bill of 1998 (P.L. 105-185) requires that all ARS research be reviewed every five years; consequently, 20 percent of the agency’s programs undergo a retrospective evaluation each year. These evaluations involve peer assessment, with a focus on scientific merit. Oversight is provided by the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board. Data on outcomes are gathered during project imple- mentation and are used to improve project coordination. Dissemination of Results Most federal agencies expect researchers to integrate strategies for the dissemination of research results into their research projects. For exam- ple, NSF requires researchers to include a dissemination plan in their proposals. Several agencies also do some of the dissemination themselves. For example, ARS uses several mechanisms so that information and tech- nology reach researchers and practitioners. These mechanisms include • The National Agricultural Library, a departmental resource for agri- cultural and related information; • The Office of Technology Transfer, which oversees Cooperative Research and Development Agreements, patents, and licensing with industry and other partners;

OCR for page 95
Research Frameworks in Domestic Nontransportation Sectors 109 • Public affairs staff, who produce Agricultural Research magazine, news releases, exhibits, and a website; • Other scientific publications, as well as conferences, workshops, and field days; and • Releases of germplasm13 for use by the public. Similarly, NIH supports the National Library of Medicine. Implementation of New Knowledge Agencies and other organizations that involve stakeholders through- out the research process appear to be more successful at implementing research results than those who do not engage stakeholders. For exam- ple, FIATECH, which focuses on helping to deploy innovations, engages stakeholders’ support of implementation by addressing issues of intel- lectual property early on, by involving end users in the research process, and by identifying key deliverables. Similarly, NIH links basic research to clinical applications; NSF asks grantees to constantly keep the broader impacts of their research in mind; and NREL identifies each project’s barriers to implementation. LESSONS LEARNED Although none of the domestic nontransportation research frameworks examined (those of ARS, the astronomy and astrophysics decadal sur- vey, FIATECH, NREL, NIH, and NSF) was directly transferable in its entirety to the U.S. surface transportation research enterprise, the com- mittee gained valuable insights from its consideration of these entities’ different approaches. This section discusses the lessons learned, grouped under five major themes: • Nature of the research enterprise, • Agenda setting, • Distributing funds, • Growing opportunities for basic research, and • The innovation process. 13 Germplasm is the collection of genetic resources for an organism.

OCR for page 95
110 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future Nature of the Research Enterprise Guest speakers’ presentations to the committee highlighted the funda- mental differences between mission-oriented and scientific agencies. By definition, mission-oriented agencies focus on applied research relevant to their mission, with specific targets and an emphasis on implementa- tion. As in the case of ARS, much of this research is conducted internally with limited external peer review. Similarly, research led or sponsored by industry is generally short term and applied, with successful implemen- tation a high priority, as in the case of FIATECH. Scientific agencies such as NSF engage in the basic research and dis- covery part of the innovation process. These agencies have broad goals and often operate with a flexible bottom-up research agenda. Much of the research is conducted externally, thereby engaging a large science community. Peer review is emphasized as an important mechanism for research evaluation, and exploratory research is recognized as being rela- tively high risk, but also as offering the potential for major discovery. DOE conducts basic research and also engages in applied research, development, and implementation activities in support of its mission, and so it combines the features of mission-oriented and scientific agen- cies. In addition, the culture of an organization and the nature of its research enterprise are closely related. In the case of DOE and NIH, both of which have strong research efforts, a research culture permeates the organization. Evidence of this culture includes actions such as listing basic research needs (http://science.energy.gov/bes/efrc/research/basic- research-needs/) and the widespread use of a peer-review process. Agenda Setting Agenda setting is most successful when there is a clearly defined research community and it is well represented in the process. That is, effective agenda setting is inclusive, engaging stakeholders in the establishment of priorities and identification of projects. As a result, these communi- ties have leverage in influencing funding allocations. For example, the decadal survey engages the relatively small astronomy and astrophysics community, and the resulting research priorities, although often contro- versial, nonetheless reflect a community consensus. Similarly, FIATECH and NIH engage stakeholders in setting the agenda.

OCR for page 95
Research Frameworks in Domestic Nontransportation Sectors 111 Connecting agenda items to well-articulated national policies, stra- tegic plans, and initiatives is not only politically prudent but also can drive an agenda. For example, NREL builds its agenda based on admin- istration policy and DOE’s initiatives and priorities; this agenda then influences NREL’s diverse research activities. FIATECH takes a similar approach, albeit at a far more modest scale, basing its research agenda on a strategy defined by its parent organizations in response to clearly articulated problems. Distributing Funds When rigorous peer review is used to select projects, the research com- munity is more tolerant of the process and the quality of the results appears to improve. The peer-review processes used by NSF and NIH, for example, are well accepted and, although they entail considerable time, effort, and in-kind contributions of the research communities, they pro- vide an assessment of individual projects that is as objective as possible. Growing Opportunities for Basic Research NSF’s mission and its broad-based experience in helping to seed and nurture basic research efforts offer potentially valuable lessons for ini- tiating a basic research initiative in surface transportation. The agency’s experience in partnering with other agencies could also be valuable in fostering such an initiative, even though NSF and the U.S. DOT do not have a strong tradition of working together, at least to date. Innovation Process A well-designed stakeholder-engagement process can help identify and overcome barriers to the implementation of research outputs. Several models show how. For example, FIATECH directly addresses intellectual property issues, which can present a strong barrier to implementation; ARS uses a variety of outreach mechanisms to disseminate its research results to practitioners with the intent of stimulating technology trans- fer; and NIH has many different types of research programs as part of its effort to involve diverse constituencies both in the conduct of research and the application of its results.

OCR for page 95
112 Framing Surface Transportation Research for the Nation’s Future REFERENCES Abbreviations DOE U.S. Department of Energy NRC National Research Council Anderson, J. 2011. NIH: Turning Discoveries into Health. Presented to Committee on National Research Frameworks: Application to Transportation, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., July 19. Christensen, D. 2011. Transportation Energy in the U.S.: Directions. Presented to Com- mittee on National Research Frameworks: Application to Transportation, Transpor- tation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., Oct. 24. DOE Strategic Goal. 2011. http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/h2_fuel_initiative.html. Fuglie, K. O., and P. W. Heisey. 2007. Economic Returns to Public Agricultural Research. Economic Brief No. 10, USDA Economic Research Service, September. http://www. ers.usda.gov/media/195594/eb10_1_.pdf. Haynes, M. 2011. The Decadal Science Strategy Survey Process. Presented to Committee on National Research Frameworks: Application to Transportation, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., July 19. Jackson, R. 2011. A Perspective on FIATECH. Presented to Committee on National Research Frameworks: Application to Transportation, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., Oct. 24. Kenna, R., and B. Berche. 2012. Statistics of Statisticians: Critical Masses for Research Groups. Significance, Vol. 9, No. 6, December, pp. 22–25. http://onlinelibrary.wiley. com/doi/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2012.00617.x/pdf. Koonin, S. 2011. America’s Energy Challenges. Presentation by the Undersecretary for Science, U.S. Department of Energy, Boulder, Colo., June 7. https://www.aplu.org/ document.doc?id=3264. Nelson, P. 2011. A Perspective Motivated by National Science Foundation Research Opportunities. Presented to Committee on National Research Frameworks: Applica- tion to Transportation, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., Oct. 24. NRC. 2007. Decadal Science Strategy Surveys: Report of a Workshop. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11894.html. NRC. 2010. New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics. National Acad- emies Press, Washington, D.C. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12951. St. John, J. 2011. USDA Agricultural Research Service Research Program and Project Management Model. Presented to Committee on National Research Frameworks: Application to Transportation, Transportation Research Board of the National Acad- emies, Washington, D.C., July 19.