National Academies Press: OpenBook
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1994. Major Award Decisionmaking at the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2268.
×

MAJOR AWARD DECISIONMAKING AT THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Panel on NSF Decisionmaking for Major Awards

Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy

National Academy of Sciences

National Academy of Engineering

Institute of Medicine

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C.
1994

Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1994. Major Award Decisionmaking at the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2268.
×

National Academy Press
2101 Constitution Ave., NW Washington, DC 20418

NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. It is a result of work done by an independent panel appointed by the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, which has authorized its release to the public. The members of the panel responsible for this report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance.

This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee and by the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. Both consist of members of the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine.

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Robert M. White is president of the National Academy of Engineering.

The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences in its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine.

The Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy is a joint committee of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. It includes members of the councils of all three bodies.

Sponsor: This study was funded with Federal funds from the National Science Foundation (NSF) under contract number LPA-9123428. The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the NSF, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 94-66065

International Standard Book Number 0-309-05029-4

Copyright 1994 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Available from:
National Academy Press,
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20418

B-274

Printed in the United States of America

Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1994. Major Award Decisionmaking at the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2268.
×

PANEL ON NSF DECISIONMAKING FOR MAJOR AWARDS

ROBERT H. RUTFORD (Chair), President,

University of Texas at Dallas, and

Chairman of the Polar Research Board,

National Research Council

CLARENCE R. ALLEN, Professor of Geology and Geophysics, Emeritus,

California Institute of Technology

ALBERT A. BARBER, Special Assistant to the Chancellor,

University of California, Los Angeles—Washington D.C. Office

HARVEY BROOKS, Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics, Emeritus, in the Division of Applied Sciences, and Benjamin Peirce Professor of Technology and Public Policy, Emeritus,

John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University

CHRISTOPHER COBURN, Director,

Public Technology Programs, Battelle Memorial Institute

SUSAN E. COZZENS, Associate Professor,

Science and Technology Studies Department, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

FRANK D. DRAKE, Professor of Astronomy and Astrophysics,

University of California, Santa Cruz, and

President,

SETI Institute

DONALD S. FREDRICKSON, President,

D.S. Fredrickson Associates, Inc.

FREDRICK S. HUMPHRIES, President,

Florida A&M University

ANITA K. JONES, Chair,

Department of Computer Science, University of Virginia (resigned May 31, 1993, to become Director of Defense Research and Engineering, Department of Defense)

LARRY K. MONTEITH, Chancellor,

North Carolina State University

DOUGLAS D. OSHEROFF, Professor,

Department of Physics, Stanford University

JUDITH A. RAMALEY, President,

Portland State University

LYLE H. SCHWARTZ, Director,

Materials Science and Engineering Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Staff

MICHAEL McGEARY, Study Director

ELIZABETH BLOUNT, Senior Project Assistant

Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1994. Major Award Decisionmaking at the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2268.
×

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, AND PUBLIC POLICY

PHILLIP A. GRIFFITHS (Chair), Director,

Institute for Advanced Study

ROBERT McCORMICK ADAMS, Secretary,

Smithsonian Institution

BRUCE M. ALBERTS, President,

National Academy of Sciences

(Ex-Officio)

ELKAN BLOUT, Harkness Professor,

Department of Biological Chemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, Harvard Medical School

FELIX BROWDER,

Department of Mathematics, Rutgers University

ROBERT A. BURT, Alexander M. Bickel Professor of Law,

Yale Law School

DAVID R. CHALLONER, M.D., Vice President of Health Affairs,

University of Florida

ALBERT M. CLOGSTON,* Member,

Center for Material Sciences, Los Alamos National Laboratory

F. ALBERT COTTON, Distinguished Professor of Chemistry; Director,

Laboratory for Molecular Structure and Bonding, Texas A&M University

ALEXANDER H. FLAX, Senior Fellow,

National Academy of Engineering

RALPH E. GOMORY, President,

Alfred P. Sloan Foundation

THOMAS D. LARSON, Consultant

JOHN L. McLUCAS,* Aerospace Consultant

MARY JANE OSBORN,

Department of Microbiology, University of Connecticut Health Center

C. KUMAR N. PATEL, Vice Chancellor,

Research Programs, University of California, Los Angeles

PHILLIP A. SHARP, Head,

Department of Biology, Center for Cancer Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

KENNETH I. SHINE, President,

Institute of Medicine

(Ex-Officio)

ROBERT M. SOLOW, Institute Professor,

Department of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

H. GUYFORD STEVER, Member,

Carnegie Commission on Science and Technology

MORRIS TANENBAUM, Vice President,

National Academy of Engineering

Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1994. Major Award Decisionmaking at the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2268.
×

ROBERT M. WHITE, President,

National Academy of Engineering

(Ex-Officio)

SHEILA E. WIDNALL,* Associate Provost and Abby Rockefeller Mauze Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics,

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Staff

LAWRENCE E. McCRAY, Executive Director

BARBARA A. CANDLAND, Administrative Coordinator

*  

Term expired June 30, 1993

Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1994. Major Award Decisionmaking at the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2268.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1994. Major Award Decisionmaking at the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2268.
×

Preface

Under the guidance of the National Science Board (NSB), the National Science Foundation (NSF) supports science and engineering research and education projects. NSF does not carry out these projects itself. It chooses the best proposals submitted by researchers in universities, colleges, and other research institutions. NSF uses a merit review process to identify the most promising projects to receive funding awards. Merit review has two distinctive features: it relies on independent outside peer reviewers to assess the quality of proposals, and it uses criteria that emphasize technical quality and also promote other goals of the nation’s research base such as equal opportunity, human resource development, and a broader geographic and institutional infrastructure.

Most of the awards made by NSF are to individuals or to small groups of scientists and engineers. This report addresses a small but important set of awards—very large awards for major research facilities, interdisciplinary research centers, and other large-scale research-related activities. Because of their budgetary impact and importance, it is critical that these major projects be carefully chosen on the basis of their contributions to the nation’s research enterprise and not according to political, bureaucratic, or other considerations. To achieve this, major award proposals are subjected to a merit review process. Merit review of major awards is more complicated and sometimes more controversial than that for individual investigator and small group awards.

This report is based on an 18-month study of the NSF-NSB system for making major awards. The study was undertaken by a broad-based expert group, which makes a series of recommendations

Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1994. Major Award Decisionmaking at the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2268.
×

for improving the planning, selection, and renewal of such awards. The recommendations appear in the chapters on these topics and are summarized in the executive summary.

The panel would like to thank the individuals who took the time to meet with us and share their knowledge, experiences, and views. Special thanks go to Alan M. Gaines, assistant for science and technology to the director of NSF, and NSF liaison official for this study, who made sure we had full and timely access to the publicly available information needed for the study.

The panel was briefed on the decisionmaking process for major awards at its first meeting by NSF and NSB officials: Frederick M. Bernthal, deputy director (chair, Director's Action Review Board); William C. Harris, assistant director for mathematical and physical sciences; Mary E. Clutter, assistant director for biological sciences; Joseph Kull, chief financial officer (executive secretary, NSB Committee on Programs and Plans); and Marta Cehelsky, NSB executive officer. Then-director Walter E. Massey met with the panel at a later meeting. Warren J. Baker, chair, NSB Committee on Programs and Plans, also briefed the panel on how the NSB reviews major award proposals. Former NSF director John B. Slaughter, who recently chaired the site selection committee for the NSF-supported Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory, graciously provided his views on the evolution of the major award review process in an interview with a panel member.

The staff would also like to thank others at NSF who provided information and insight: Robert P. Abel, Charles N. Brownstein, Thomas N. Cooley, Peter W. House, Madeleine E. Hymowitz, James M. McCullough, Lynn Preston, and Joanna E. Rom. Susan E. Fannoney of the NSB staff was especially helpful in locating and providing NSB documents relating to NSB review and approval of 10 case study awards; Florence Heckman, NSF librarian, pointed the way to materials on the history of proposal review at NSF; and George Mazuzan, NSF historian, provided access to the historical files of NSF.

The panel appreciates the efforts of Michael McGeary, the study director, who pulled together a remarkable amount of information on

Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1994. Major Award Decisionmaking at the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2268.
×

NSF's merit review policies, procedures, and practices, as well as the 10 case study award decisions, and assisted the panel in drafting the report. Elizabeth Blount, staff associate, took care of the many administrative details of panel meetings and report production with skill, energy, and unfailing good cheer. Jeffrey D. Porro, consultant, edited early drafts of the report. We are also grateful for the support and assistance of the staff of the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, including Lawrence E. McCray, executive director, and Barbara Candland, executive assistant, and of Philip M. Smith, executive officer, National Academy of Sciences. Florence Poullin was copy editor. National Academy Press staff who helped turn the report into a book included Stephen Mautner, Dawn Eichenlaub, and James Gormley.

Finally, I would like to thank the panel members for their willingness to devote considerable time to the study and for their contributions to this report. The recommendations reflect their vast experience and wisdom and their desire to give NSF and the NSB constructive advice for better decisionmaking on major awards. Panel member Anita K. Jones was able to participate substantially in the drafting of the report before resigning in May 1993 to become the director of defense research and engineering in the Department of Defense.

Robert H. Rutford

Chairman of the Study Panel

Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1994. Major Award Decisionmaking at the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2268.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1994. Major Award Decisionmaking at the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2268.
×
   

Recommendation 5: Cost Sharing as a Criterion

 

74

   

NSF Procedures for Reviewing Proposals

 

76

   

Proposal Review Process

 

76

   

Policies and Procedures for Dealing with Bias and Conflict of Interest

 

80

   

Award Decisionmaking

 

80

   

Findings and Recommendation on Review Procedures

 

83

   

Recommendation 6: A Two-Phase Merit Review Process

 

84

4

 

AWARDING MAJOR PROJECTS: NSB ROLE, REVIEW PROCESS DESIGN, AND DECISION DOCUMENTATION

 

89

   

NSB Role and Procedures

 

89

   

Findings and Recommendations on the NSB Role

 

93

   

Recommendation 7: Reorienting the NSB Workload

 

93

   

Designing the Review and Solicitation Process

 

94

   

Proposal Review Planning Requirements

 

94

   

NSB Approval of Solicitation Announcements

 

97

   

Findings and Recommendations on Proposal Review Planning

 

101

   

Recommendation 8: Planning the Review Process and Criteria

 

101

   

Documenting Award Decisions

 

104

   

Findings and Recommendations on Award Documentation

 

106

   

Recommendation 9: More and Better Public Documentation of Award Decisions

 

106

5

 

RECOMPETITION OF AWARDS

 

109

   

Project Continuation at NSF

 

109

   

Findings and Recommendations

 

113

   

Recommendation 10: More Recompetitions

 

113

6

 

LOOKING TO THE FUTURE

 

117

 

 

APPENDIXES

 

 

A

 

Biographical Sketches of Panel Members

 

121

B

 

Major Awards Supported by NSF

 

127

C

 

Awards Approved by National Science Board, FY 1986–1992

 

137

D

 

Major Award Criteria from Recent Solicitation Announcements

 

150

E

 

The Ten Case Studies

 

155

 

 

REFERENCES

 

156

Page xiii Cite
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1994. Major Award Decisionmaking at the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2268.
×

MAJOR AWARD DECISIONMAKING AT THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1994. Major Award Decisionmaking at the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2268.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1994. Major Award Decisionmaking at the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2268.
×
Page R1
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1994. Major Award Decisionmaking at the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2268.
×
Page R2
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1994. Major Award Decisionmaking at the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2268.
×
Page R3
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1994. Major Award Decisionmaking at the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2268.
×
Page R4
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1994. Major Award Decisionmaking at the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2268.
×
Page R5
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1994. Major Award Decisionmaking at the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2268.
×
Page R6
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1994. Major Award Decisionmaking at the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2268.
×
Page R7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1994. Major Award Decisionmaking at the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2268.
×
Page R8
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1994. Major Award Decisionmaking at the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2268.
×
Page R9
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1994. Major Award Decisionmaking at the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2268.
×
Page R10
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1994. Major Award Decisionmaking at the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2268.
×
Page R11
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1994. Major Award Decisionmaking at the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2268.
×
Page R12
Page xiii Cite
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1994. Major Award Decisionmaking at the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2268.
×
Page R13
Suggested Citation:"FRONT MATTER." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1994. Major Award Decisionmaking at the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/2268.
×
Page R14
Next: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY »
Major Award Decisionmaking at the National Science Foundation Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $45.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

As part of its mission to foster high-quality scientific and engineering research, the National Science Foundation (NSF) plans, grants, and administers major awards to universities and other research institutions for national research facilities, multidisciplinary research centers, and other large-scale research projects. Although few in number, less than 100, such projects account for about 30 percent of NSF's annual research budget.

This book provides a useful overview of how such projects are planned, reviews proposals for merit, and evaluates ongoing projects for renewal awards. The panel makes a series of recommendations for strengthening major award decisionmaking.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!