Building an Effective Environmental Management Science Program Final Assessment (1997) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
G: LETTER REPORT
G: LETTER REPORT
Pages 148-167
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 148... ...
The statement of task for the Gommittee's work is given in Attachment A The committee members were selected to provide a balance of expertise and perspectives, including knowledge of and experience with the weapons complex and its clean-up challenges, and the proposal solicitation process related to basic research.
|
From page 149... ...
The committee does note, however, that the titles indicate that the Department received proposals in a wide range of research areas listed in the FY 1996 program announcement. The committee also received copies of the guidelines that were given to the merit and relevance review panelists by the offices of Environmental Management (EM)
|
From page 150... ...
The committee believes that such a self-contained announcement is helpful to the research community because it provides most of the information needed to prepare a competitive proposal in a single, readily accessible package. The committee recommends that the Department use the same approach in developing the FY 1997 program announcement, and it offers suggestions below on the following elements of the announcement: .
|
From page 151... ...
Also as noted in the Initial Assessment report, research should be broadly relevant to EM's clean up mission. That is, the basic research supported in the EMSP should address the phenomena and processes that underpin EM's clean up problems.
|
From page 152... ...
The committee believes that this approach would encourage researchers who are not knowledgeable of EM's clean up problems to apply their expertise and suggest solutions that may not have occurred to the authors of the program announcement. It is beyond the experience and the expertise of the committee to provide a list of EM problems that should be included in the FY 1997 program announcement.
|
From page 153... ...
For program managers and review panelists, the tight schedule placed severe pressures on the preproposal selection process and final proposal reviews. The committee believes that more time should be allowed in the FY 1997 program competition to alleviate these pressures.
|
From page 154... ...
The committee believes that such credibility is less likely to be achieved when the review process has the appearance of a 'Clack box" into which proposals are fed and out of which Finding decisions emerge. To achieve more transparency in the processand to provide for a higher quality of merit review by allowing panelists to reach consensus on proposal scoring and ranking-the committee strongly recommends that ER follow established practices of other federal agencies with basic research programs, such as the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation, by constituting the FY 1997 review panels as FACA committees.
|
From page 155... ...
If funding is constrained to approximately $50 million per year-the amount of funding available to the program in FY 1996-then funds for new or competitive renewal projects will decrease by approximately 75 percent. Recognizing that a serious funding problem may be developing, the committee strongly encourages the Department to explore mechanisms to provide full funding for successful national laboratory proposals for the FY 1997 proposal competition.
|
From page 156... ...
The committee encourages the Department to utilize these dissemination mechanisms to publicize the FY 1997 proposal competition, and it recommends that the Department explore additional mechanisms to make the research community more broadly aware of the FY 1997 proposal competition. To this end, the committee recommends the use of paid advertisements in professional journals such as Science, Chemical and Engineering News, and EOS to publicize this program in FY 1997.
|
From page 157... ...
2. How can a basic research program help add value to DOE EM's cleanup efforts?
|
From page 158... ...
2. How can DOE identify changing needs for basic research as the program evolves?
|
From page 159... ...
Sattelberger Los Alamos National Laboratory Leon T Silver California Institute of Technology
|
From page 160... ...
Appendix G Letter Report G.13 ATTACHMENT C
|
From page 161... ...
One of the report's principal recommendations was that the Department shoul d postpone the rel ease of the 1997 program announcement until it had time to identify and incorporate the lessons learned from the FY 1996 proposal competition, and to think more carefully, using the advice of the committee where appropriate, about how the Environmental Management Science Program should be structured and managed. As the Department begins work on the FY97 program announcement, it is most interested in receiving the committee's advice on the content of the announcement, particularly on the statement of research needs.
|
From page 162... ...
Appendix G-Letter Report G.15 Thus, it would be most helpful if the committee could provide this advise in ~ short report to the Department no later than October 1, 1996. I appreciate your consideration of this request.
|
From page 163... ...
G.16 Building an Effective EMSP: Final Assessmerlt ATTACHMENT D Example Proposal Format Project Abstract Project Narrative Goals Scientific Significance of Project Relevance of Project to the EM Cleanup Mission Background Research Plan Appendices Preliminary Studies (if applicable) Literature Cited Research Design and Methodologies Collaborative Arrangements (if applicable)
|
From page 164... ...
is continued at the FY 1996 level of $43 million for 3-year grants, and these awards are Ended Filly in the first year, as was the case for the FY 1996 proposal competition. · The ratio of dollars committed each year to awards to non-DOE performers to the dollars committed each year to new awards to national lab performers remains constant at FY 1996 levels.2 · Awards to national lab performers are paid in equal installments over 3 years.
|
From page 165... ...
As shown in Table E.2, the mortgage from the FY 1996 award cycle creates a significant drain on program funds through FY 1999. Indeed, by FY 1999 only $10 million in new funds are available to non-DOE performers and $6 million in new funds are available to national laboratory performers, about a quarter of the funding available in FY 1996.4 The committee believes that the following conclusions can be inferred reasonably from the scenarios shown above: (1)
|
From page 166... ...
1 Hypothetical Funding for the EMSP when annual program funding is unconstrained. Funds Distributed During Fiscal Year (millions of dollars)
|
From page 167... ...
430000 00 1997 18000 00 1998 1200 00 1999 100 00 2000 25 00 2001 200 2002 . 17 National lab performers 1996*
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.