Building an Effective Environmental Management Science Program Final Assessment (1997) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
CHAPTER 4: PROPOSAL SELECTION AND FUNDING
CHAPTER 4: PROPOSAL SELECTION AND FUNDING
Pages 42-54
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 42... ...
employs a two-stage review process to evaluate proposals submitted to the program a review of scientific and technical merit followed by a review to assess relevance to the cleanup mission. The merit reviews are performed by panels of scientists and engineers convened by Office of Energy Research (ER)
|
From page 43... ...
This proposal review process has received considerable scrutiny from the committee in its previous reports. In general, the committee has been satisfied with the design of the review process as noted, for example, In the following excerpt from page 6 of its Letter Report: The committee reaffirms its endorsement (from the Initial Assessment Report)
|
From page 44... ...
The committee has two concerns about the transparency and technical credibility of the merit review process, concerns that were expressed In its Letter Report. First, as presently managed, the merit review process is "opaque" to those who submitted proposals to the program, merit review panelists, and the broader research community.
|
From page 45... ...
Department of Energy Type of Collaboration Partnerships involving a single universi~ Number Percent 27 Partnerships involving multiple universities 7 Partnerships involving a single national laboratory 22 Partnerships involving multiple national laboratories 20 5 16 3 3 Partnerships involving universities and national laboratories 31 21 Partnerships involving universities and industry Partnerships involving universities, national laboratories, and industry No partnerships (i.e., single-investigator awards) 47 Information not available 34 <1 Total 140 100 of the proposal reviews.2 Additionally, the merit review panelists were asked to provide individual scores on proposals, but they were not told how their scores were used by ER program managers to make award .
|
From page 46... ...
The current process allows ER program managers to operate fairly autonomously with relatively little visibility In the research community for decisions that are being made in the program. In its Letter Report the committee recommended that ER constitute its merit review panels as FACA committees.
|
From page 47... ...
The committee recommends that the Department examine the entire review process for the EMSP with the goal of increasing its transparency and technical credibility. To this end, the committee recommends that the Department carry through on its stated intention (in its response to the 1991 GAO report)
|
From page 48... ...
This mortgage developed because the Department was unable to fully fund awards to national laboratory investigators but instead had to commit funding from future-year budgets. in the Letter Report the committee presented a financial analysis for the EMSP based on the funding commitments from the FY96 competition.
|
From page 49... ...
. Total annual program funding is constrained to FY96 levels As in the steady-state funding scenario, the ratio of dollars committed each year to awards to non-DOE performers to the dollars committed to new awards to national laboratory performers remains essentially constant at FY96 levels.
|
From page 50... ...
In discussions with the committee, EMSP staff have stated that DOE financial practices do not permit them to provide full funding for multiyear proposals from DOE performers. ER staff told the committee that the Director of the Office of Energy Research would like to change these practices and provide filll funding for national laboratory proposals
|
From page 51... ...
In some of its programs but has so far been unable to do so. Indeed, ER staff indicated that they are finding it increasingly difficult to provide multlyear intending for university proposals, even in regular ER programs.
|
From page 52... ...
Over time this situation is very likely to adversely affect the quality of the program and to diminish its potential benefit to the overall EM program. The committee notes that DOE itself recognized that EMSP should be a significantly larger program, on the order of $150 million (as expressed by Thomas Grumbly, then-Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management, in the document entitled Summary of Workshop to Initiate the Development of a Science Program to Support the Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Managements.
|
From page 53... ...
The committee does not believe that stakeholders should be involved in the day-to-day management of the program, particularly the proposal review and selection process. Proposal review and selection should be based primarily on expert judgments of the intrinsic merit of the proposed research, the feasibility of the technical approach, the competence of the principal investigators to undertake the proposed research, and the adequacy of the facilities for carrying out the proposed work.
|
From page 54... ...
DOE should also improve and enhance the ways in which it informs the potential users of EMSP results (e.g., technology managers at the various sites) about the process and the outcome of EMSP proposal selection.
|
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.