National Academies Press: OpenBook
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2012. A Review of NASA Human Research Program's Scientific Merit Assessment Processes: Letter Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13440.
×

A Review of
NASA Human Research Program’s
Scientific Merit
Assessment Processes

Letter Report

Committee on the Review of NASA Human Research
Program’s Scientific Merit Assessment Processes

Board on Health Sciences Policy

James A. Pawelczyk, Larisa M. Strawbridge,
Andrea M. Schultz, and Catharyn T. Liverman, Editors

INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE
OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2012. A Review of NASA Human Research Program's Scientific Merit Assessment Processes: Letter Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13440.
×

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS • 500 Fifth Street, NW • Washington, DC 20001

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. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.

This study was requested by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and supported by Award No. NNH08CC26B, Task Order 3, between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Any opinions, finding, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the organizations or agencies that provided support for this project.

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-26050-3
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-26050-7

Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu.

For more information about the Institute of Medicine, visit the IOM home page at: www.iom.edu.

Copyright 2012 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America

The serpent has been a symbol of long life, healing, and knowledge among almost all cultures and religions since the beginning of recorded history. The serpent adopted as a logotype by the Institute of Medicine is a relief carving from ancient Greece, now held by the Staatliche Museen in Berlin.

Suggested citation: IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2012. A review of NASA Human Research Program’s scientific merit assessment processes: Letter report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2012. A Review of NASA Human Research Program's Scientific Merit Assessment Processes: Letter Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13440.
×

“Knowing is not enough; we must apply.
Willing is not enough; we must do.“

                                        —Goethe

images

INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE
   OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

Advising the Nation. Improving Health.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2012. A Review of NASA Human Research Program's Scientific Merit Assessment Processes: Letter Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13440.
×

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

Advisers to the Nation on Science, Enginnering and 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. Ralph J. Cicerone 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. Charles M. Vest 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 by 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. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.

The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.

www.national-academies.org

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2012. A Review of NASA Human Research Program's Scientific Merit Assessment Processes: Letter Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13440.
×

COMMITTEE ON THE REVIEW OF NASA HUMAN RESEARCH PROGRAM’S SCIENTIFIC MERIT ASSESSMENT PROCESSES

JAMES A. PAWELCZYK (Chair), Pennsylvania State University

MICHELLE H. BIROS, University of Minnesota Medical School

DIVYA CHANDRA, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Department of Transportation

IAN D. GRAHAM, University of Ottawa

CHAVONDA JACOBS-YOUNG, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

KATHIE L. OLSEN, ScienceWorks, LLC

TERRY M. RAUCH, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, Department of Defense

SALLY J. ROCKEY, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health

CAROL E. H. SCOTT-CONNER, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics

PETER SUEDFELD, University of British Columbia

IOM Staff

CATHARYN T. LIVERMAN, Project Director

ANDREA M. SCHULTZ, Project Director

LARISA M. STRAWBRIDGE, Research Associate

JUDITH L. ESTEP, Program Associate

ANDREW M. POPE, Director, Board on Health Sciences Policy

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2012. A Review of NASA Human Research Program's Scientific Merit Assessment Processes: Letter Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13440.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2012. A Review of NASA Human Research Program's Scientific Merit Assessment Processes: Letter Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13440.
×

Reviewers

This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report:

David F. Dinges, University of Pennsylvania

Karl Friedl, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command

James Lightbourne, National Science Foundation

Adrian Mota, Canadian Institutes of Health Research

Sharlene C. Weatherwax, Department of Energy

Laurence R. Young, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by David Longnecker, Association of American Medical Colleges. Appointed by the Institute of Medicine, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments

Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2012. A Review of NASA Human Research Program's Scientific Merit Assessment Processes: Letter Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13440.
×

were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2012. A Review of NASA Human Research Program's Scientific Merit Assessment Processes: Letter Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13440.
×
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2012. A Review of NASA Human Research Program's Scientific Merit Assessment Processes: Letter Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13440.
×
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2012. A Review of NASA Human Research Program's Scientific Merit Assessment Processes: Letter Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13440.
×

Acronyms

ARS   Agricultural Research Service (USDA)
 
BAA   broad agency announcement
 
CIHR   Canadian Institutes of Health Research
 
DARPA   Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
DOD   Department of Defense
DOE   Department of Energy
 
EAGER   EArly-concept Grants for Exploratory Research (NSF)
 
FAA   Federal Aviation Administration
 
HRP   Human Research Program (NASA)
 
IOM   Institute of Medicine
IRB   institutional review board
 
MIT   Massachusetts Institute of Technology
 
NASA   National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NIH   National Institutes of Health
NOAA   National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NSF   National Science Foundation
 
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2012. A Review of NASA Human Research Program's Scientific Merit Assessment Processes: Letter Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13440.
×
OER   Office of Extramural Research (NIH)
 
QI   quality improvement
 
RAPID   Rapid Response Research (NSF)
RFA   request for applications
RFP   request for proposals
 
SAIC   Science Applications International Corporation
 
UPCG   Unique Processes, Criteria, and Guidelines (NASA)
USDA   U.S. Department of Agriculture
 
VA   Department of Veterans Affairs
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2012. A Review of NASA Human Research Program's Scientific Merit Assessment Processes: Letter Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13440.
×
Page R1
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2012. A Review of NASA Human Research Program's Scientific Merit Assessment Processes: Letter Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13440.
×
Page R2
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2012. A Review of NASA Human Research Program's Scientific Merit Assessment Processes: Letter Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13440.
×
Page R3
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2012. A Review of NASA Human Research Program's Scientific Merit Assessment Processes: Letter Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13440.
×
Page R4
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2012. A Review of NASA Human Research Program's Scientific Merit Assessment Processes: Letter Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13440.
×
Page R5
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2012. A Review of NASA Human Research Program's Scientific Merit Assessment Processes: Letter Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13440.
×
Page R6
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2012. A Review of NASA Human Research Program's Scientific Merit Assessment Processes: Letter Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13440.
×
Page R7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2012. A Review of NASA Human Research Program's Scientific Merit Assessment Processes: Letter Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13440.
×
Page R8
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2012. A Review of NASA Human Research Program's Scientific Merit Assessment Processes: Letter Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13440.
×
Page R9
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2012. A Review of NASA Human Research Program's Scientific Merit Assessment Processes: Letter Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13440.
×
Page R10
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2012. A Review of NASA Human Research Program's Scientific Merit Assessment Processes: Letter Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13440.
×
Page R11
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." Institute of Medicine. 2012. A Review of NASA Human Research Program's Scientific Merit Assessment Processes: Letter Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13440.
×
Page R12
Next: Letter Report »
A Review of NASA Human Research Program's Scientific Merit Assessment Processes: Letter Report Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $32.00 Buy Ebook | $25.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

At the request of NASA, an IOM committee reviewed NASA Human Research Program's (HRP's) Scientific Merit Assessment Processes for directed research. Directed research is commissioned or noncompetitively awarded research that is not competitively solicited because of specific reasons, such as time limitations or highly focused or constrained research topics.

The scientific merit assessment processes have been developed by NASA to evaluate individual directed research tasks in order to ensure the scientific integrity of the HRP's directed research portfolio. The committee examined the HRP's current scientific merit assessment processes and conducted a public workshop to identify best practices among other federal agencies that use various assessment processes for similar types of directed research.

Review of NASA Human Research Program's Scientific Merit Processes: Letter Report finds that the scientific merit assessment process used by the HRP for directed research is scientifically rigorous and is similar to the processes and merit criteria used by many other federal agencies and organizations - including the Department of Defense, National Institutes of Health, and the United States Department of Agriculture - for comparable types of research. This report also makes recommendations on ways to streamline and bolster the accountability and transparency of NASA's current processes.

  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!