National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Appendix A: Biographical Information of Committee and Staff
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Recommendations Table." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Optimizing the Nation's Investment in Academic Research: A New Regulatory Framework for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21824.
×
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Recommendations Table." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Optimizing the Nation's Investment in Academic Research: A New Regulatory Framework for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21824.
×
OVERARCHING RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDATION ONE: The regulatory regime (comprising laws, regulations, rules, policies, guidances, and requirements) governing federally funded academic research should be critically reexamined and recalibrated.
RECOMMENDATION TWO: To advance the government-academic research partnership, research institutions must demand the highest standards in institutional and individual behavior. This can only be achieved if universities foster a culture of integrity among academic leaders, faculty, postdoctoral trainees, students, and staff, and institutional administrators, and mete out appropriate sanctions in instances where behavior deviates from the ethical and professional norms of the institution and of the academic research community. Universities that deviate from or fail to enforce the norms of behavior should be sanctioned. The committee recommends that a newly established Research Policy Board (see Recommendation 7.1 below) should collaborate with research institutions on the development of a policy to hold institutions accountable for such transgressions.
RECOMMENDATION THREE: Inspectors general responsibilities should be rebalanced so that appropriate consideration is given both to uncovering waste, fraud, and abuse and to advising on economy, efficiency, and effectiveness. The relationship between inspectors general and research institutions should be based on a shared commitment to advancing the nation’s interest through a dynamic and productive research enterprise.
RECOMMENDATION FOUR: The committee recommends the creation of a new mechanism, to include an active public-private forum and a designated official within government, to foster a more effective conception, development, and harmonization of research policies (see Recommendations 7.1 and 7.2 below).
SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Topic: Proposal Preparation
Policy / Statute / Regulation(s): Specific Agency Requirements
Affected Parties: Institutional Researchers Research Agencies
Actors: Congress

White House Office of Management and Budget

Federal Agencies Funding Research

Relevant Report Section: Part 1, Chapter 4
Recommended Actions: 4.1. The committee recommends that Congress, in concert with the White House Office of Management and Budget, conduct a transparent and comprehensive review of agency research grant proposal documents for the purpose of developing a uniform format to be used by all research funding agencies.
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Recommendations Table." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Optimizing the Nation's Investment in Academic Research: A New Regulatory Framework for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21824.
×

4.2. The committee recommends that research proposal information should be limited to the minimal information necessary to permit peer evaluation of the merit of the scientific questions being asked, the feasibility of answering those questions, and the ability of the researcher/research team to carry out that research. For proposals demonstrating these characteristics, any supplementary information should, if requested, be provided just-in-time.

4.3. The committee recommends that research agencies develop a central repository to house assurances similar to the Single Audit Clearinghouse of the Federal Demonstration Partnership (FDP).

4.4. The committee recommends that Congress task a single agency with overseeing and unifying efforts to develop a central database of investigator information.

Topic: Progress Reporting
Policy / Statute / Regulation(s): Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance)
Affected Party: Federal Agencies Funding Research
Actor: White House Office of Management and Budget
Relevant Report Section: Part 1, Chapter 4
Recommended Action: 4.5. The committee recommends that the White House Office of Management and Budget require that research funding agencies use a uniform format for research progress reporting.
Topic: Subrecipient Monitoring
Policy / Statute / Regulation(s): Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance)
Affected Party: Institutional Administrators
Actor: White House Office of Management and Budget
Relevant Report Section: Part 1, Chapter 4
Recommended Action: 4.6. The committee recommends that the White House Office of Management and Budget amend the Uniform Guidance to clarify that subrecipient monitoring requirements apply to institutions of higher education only to the extent necessary for prudent project and performance monitoring, and do not require more extensive monitoring of subrecipients’ institutional compliance with all federal statues, regulations, policies, and institution-wide business practices.
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Recommendations Table." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Optimizing the Nation's Investment in Academic Research: A New Regulatory Framework for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21824.
×

As an immediate, interim measure, the committee recommends that the Office of Management and Budget permit research institutions to use subrecipients’ publicly available Single Audit Reports to verify that subrecipients have not been otherwise debarred or suspended with respect to the receipt of federal funds. For those with a clean Single Audit Report, the prime institution should be allowed to rely on the Single Audit Act oversight process as an alternative to conducting a review of the adequacy of the subrecipient’s institutional systems and business practices.

Topic: Conflicts of Interest
Policy / Statute / Regulation(s): Public Health Service Regulations1: 42 CFR Part 50, Subpart F (2011)

NSF Grants Policy Manual, NSF 05-131 (2005)2

Uniform Guidance3: 2 CFR Part 200 (2013)

Affected Parties: Institutional Researchers

Institutional Administrators

Actors: Congress

White House Office of Science and Technology Policy

Research Institutions

Federal Agencies Funding Research

Relevant Report Section: Part 1, Chapter 5
Recommended Action: 5.1. The committee recommends that Congress, in concert with the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and in partnership with research institutions, develop, within the upcoming fiscal year, a federal-wide financial conflicts of interest policy to be used by all research funding agencies.

___________________

1Public Health Service Agencies include: National Institutes of Health (NIH), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality (AHRQ), Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), and Indian Health Service (IHS)

2While the NSF adopted the 1995 PHS FCOI regulations, the agency chose not to adopt the changes in the new 2012 PHS FCOI regulation. Thus the NSF’s policy is essentially identical to the former PHS policy.

3The Uniform Guidance applies to all federal agencies.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Recommendations Table." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Optimizing the Nation's Investment in Academic Research: A New Regulatory Framework for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21824.
×
Topic: Human Subjects Research
Policy / Statute / Regulation(s): The Common Rule, codified at Protection of Human Subjects, 45 CFR 46 (2009).

FDA Regulations

“Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects,” Federal Register 80, no. 173 (September 8, 2015): 53933

Affected Parties: Institutional Researchers

Institutional Administrators

Human Research Participants

Actors: Congress The 18 Federal Agencies Following the Common Rule4
Relevant Report Sections: Part 1, Chapter 5 Part 2, Chapter 9
Recommended Actions: 5.2. The committee recommends that Congress direct federal agencies following the Common Rule to institute a risk-stratified system of human subjects protections that substantially reduces regulatory burden on minimal-risk research while reserving more intensive regulatory oversight for higher risk research.

5.3. The committee recommends that Congress direct federal agencies following the Common Rule to require, for multisite research studies, that a single IRB with the necessary staff and infrastructure serve as the IRB of record for all domestic sites.

5.4. The committee recommends that Congress direct agencies, within a designated period of time, to align and harmonize their regulations (and definitions) concerning the protection of human subjects.

5.5. In instances of minimal-risk research where requiring informed consent would make the research impracticable, the committee recommends that Congress amend the FDA’s authority so as to allow the FDA to develop criteria for waiver or modification of the requirement of informed consent for minimal-risk research.

5.6. The committee recommends that Congress instruct HHS to work with other agencies to ensure that research involving biospecimens is eligible for a waiver or modification of informed consent, so long as the proposed research meets the conditions for waiver or modification of informed consent as specified in the Common Rule.

___________________

4These 18 agencies include: Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Education, Energy, Health & Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing & Urban Development, Justice, Transportation, Veterans Affairs, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, Agency for International Development, National Aeronautics & Space Administration, and the National Science Foundation.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Recommendations Table." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Optimizing the Nation's Investment in Academic Research: A New Regulatory Framework for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21824.
×

9.1. The committee recommends that Congress authorize, and the President appoint, an independent, free-standing national commission modeled on the President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. This commission was authorized by Congress under Public Law 95-622 in 1978, appointed by the President in 1979, and existed outside the structure of federal departments and agencies. The commission had a direct line-item appropriation from Congress, appointed its own staff, and set its own agenda.

Congress should charge the proposed commission with examining and updating as necessary the ethical, legal, and institutional frameworks governing human subjects research. The commission should make recommendations to the President, Congress, and relevant federal agencies regarding how the basic ethical principles governing human subjects research should be applied to unresolved human research questions and novel human research contexts.

The commission should have two broad charges:

  1. Recommend to the President and Congress ethically sound regulatory approaches for unresolved questions in human subjects research.
  2. Recommend to the President and Congress revisions in the legal and institutional structures for regulating research with human subjects.

9.2. To ensure that the proposed national commission can address the full range of unanswered questions regarding the protection of human subjects in federally funded research, the committee recommends that the executive branch withdraw the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects. The committee further recommends that the regulatory structure protecting human research subjects not be revised until the national commission has issued its report and the research community, patient groups, the public, and others have had an opportunity to consider and respond to the commission’s recommendations.

Topic: Animal Research5
Policy / Statute / Regulation(s): The Laboratory Animal Welfare Act. Pub. L. No. 89-544 (1966); Animal Welfare Act Amendments of 1976, 7 USC, 2131-2159 (1976); 9 CFR Chapter 1, subchapter A, part 2 (2016); Health Research Extension Act of 1985. Pub. L. No. 99-158 (1985); Plan for Use of Animals in Research, 42 USC § 283E (1999; and Animals in Research, 42 USC § 289D (2010)

___________________

5The policies and statutes listed here are just a sampling of the many that govern the use of animals in research. For a more complete listing of the statutes, policies, principles, agency directives, and reference manuals that govern the use of animals in research, see Table 5-1 on pages 107-109 on Part I of this report.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Recommendations Table." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Optimizing the Nation's Investment in Academic Research: A New Regulatory Framework for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21824.
×

U.S. Government Principles for the Utilization and Care of Vertebrate Animals Used in Testing, Research and Training Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals

Affected Parties: Institutional Researchers

Institutional Administrators

Actors: Congress

White House Office of Science and Technology Policy

Federal Agencies Funding Animal Research

Institutional Researchers Conducting Animal Research

Research Institutions

Relevant Report Section: Part 1, Chapter 5
Recommended Actions: 5.7. The committee recommends that Congress direct the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to convene within one fiscal year representatives from federal agencies that fund animal research and representatives from the research community to assess and report back to Congress on the feasibility and utility of developing a unified federal approach for the development, promulgation, and management of policies and regulations pertaining to the care and use of research animals.

5.8 The committee recommends that reporting, assurances, and verifications to agencies should be reduced and streamlined. Agencies should adjust their requirements for reporting such that animal-related noncompliance reports are tiered to the level of significance or impact on animals and included in an annual report rather than submitted on an individual event basis. Annual reports to individual agencies about animal care programs should be replaced by a single annual report under the proposed Federalwide Assurance mechanism. Processes that are redundant to the IACUC approval process, such as the Vertebrate Animal section of PHS grant applications and the DOD central administrative protocol review, should be eliminated.

5.9. The committee recommends that research institutions should assess their own regulatory processes to determine where their compliance activities can be streamlined to ensure effective use of indirect research recovery costs, while still meeting the requirements of federal regulations.

Topic: Audits and Audit Climate
Policy / Statute / Regulation(s): Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance)
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Recommendations Table." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Optimizing the Nation's Investment in Academic Research: A New Regulatory Framework for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21824.
×
Affected Parties: Inspectors General

Agency Heads

Institutional Researchers

Institutional Financial Officers

Actors: Congress

Inspectors General

Federal Agencies

Relevant Report Section: Part 1, Chapter 6
Recommended Actions: 6.1. The committee recommends that Congress require inspectors general to:
  • Resolve issues regarding their interpretation of agency policies and priorities with the agency before conducting formal audits of research institutions, except for those situations in which the audit itself is directed toward inconsistent agency policy interpretations;
  • Include in their semi-annual reports, publish on their web sites, and highlight in their presentations to Congress examples of effective, innovative, and cost-saving initiatives undertaken by research institutions and federal research agencies that both advance and protect the research enterprise;
  • Provide to Congress, and make publicly available, information generated each year on the total costs (agency and institutional costs) of inspectors general audits of research institutions, the total amounts of initial findings, the total amounts paid by institutions after audit resolution, and any significant management, technology, personnel, and accountability steps taken by research institutions as the result of a completed audit;
  • Reexamine the risk-based methodology in identifying institutions as candidates for offices of inspectors general audits to take into account the existing compliance environment/oversight on campuses, recognizing that many research institutions have clean Single Audits, are well-managed, and have had long-standing relationships with the federal government; and
  • Encourage all federal inspectors general to report only final audit resolution findings on their websites and in their semi-annual reports to Congress.
Topic: Reporting of Compensation for Personnel Expenses
Policy / Statute / Regulation(s): Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance)
Affected Parties: Institutional Researchers

Institutional Financial Officers

Actors: Congress

White House Office of Management and Budget

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Recommendations Table." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Optimizing the Nation's Investment in Academic Research: A New Regulatory Framework for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21824.
×
Relevant Report Section: Part 1, Chapter 6
Recommended Action: 6.2. The committee recommends that Congress and OMB affirm that research institutions may take advantage of the flexibility provided by the Uniform Guidance with regard to the documentation of personnel expenses.
Topic: Procurement Standards
Policy / Statute / Regulation(s): Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance)
Affected Parties: Institutional Researchers

Institutional Financial Officers

Actor: White House Office of Management and Budget
Relevant Report Section: Part 1, Chapter 6
Recommended Action: 6.3. The committee recommends that the White House Office of Management and Budget amend the Uniform Guidance as follows:
  • Amend Section 200.329 to read: “Procurement by micro-purchases. Procurement by micro-purchase is the acquisition of supplies or services on a purchase order from a single vendor, the aggregate dollar amount of which does not exceed $10,000 (or $2,000 in the case of acquisitions for construction subject to the Davis-Bacon Act). OMB shall periodically revisit and adjust the $10,000 threshold to account for escalating costs of supplies and services.”
  • Add the following sentence to the list of criteria for the permissible purchase of supplies and services through noncompetitive bids (Section 200.320): “The procurement is necessary for research, scientific, or other programmatic reasons, such as instances where the purchase is for a specialized service or of a necessarily quality that is only available from a single vendor, or if only one vendor can deliver in the required time frame.”
Topic: Financial Reporting
Policy / Statute / Regulation(s): Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance)
Affected Parties: Institutional Researchers

Institutional Financial Officers

Actor: White House Office of Management and Budget
Relevant Report Section: Part 1, Chapter 6
Recommended Action: 6.4. The committee recommends that White House Office of Management and Budget amend the Uniform Guidance to establish a mandatory 120 day timetable for the submission of all financial reports for all federal research funding agencies.
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Recommendations Table." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Optimizing the Nation's Investment in Academic Research: A New Regulatory Framework for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21824.
×
Topic: Cost Accounting Standards
Policy / Statute / Regulation(s): Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance)
Affected Parties: Institutional Researchers

Institutional Financial Officers

Actor: White House Office of Management and Budget
Relevant Report Section: Part 1, Chapter 6
Recommended Action: 6.5. The committee recommends that the White House Office of Management and Budget amend the Uniform Guidance so that research universities are not required to submit a revised Cost Accounting Disclosure Statement (DS-2) each time they change their accounting practices, as long as those practices are in compliance with the Uniform Guidance and are posted promptly on the universities’ web sites. Rather, the initial disclosure statement and revisions to it should be submitted to the research institution’s cognizant agency in coordination with the institution’s F&A proposal.
Topic: Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer
Policy / Statute / Regulation(s): Reporting on Utilization of Subject Inventions, 37 CFR 401.8
Affected Parties: Institutional Researchers Federal Agencies Funding Research
Actors: Congress National Institute of Standards and Technology
Relevant Report Section: Part 2, Chapter 10
Recommended Actions: The committee recommends that Congress:

10.1 Congress transfer responsibility for the operation of the invention report system (currently iEdison) to the Department of Commerce and allocate appropriate resources to the department for upgrading the invention reporting system so as to create a user-friendly interface for the input of data on inventions.

10.2 The Department of Commerce, in consultation with the proposed Research Policy Board, should develop a uniform set of requirements regarding the frequency and type of data to be submitted to federal agencies regarding invention reporting, ensuring that these do not exceed what is required by the Bayh-Dole Act.

10.3. Authorize the Department of Commerce to require that the invention data reporting obligations imposed on recipients of federal funding by all agencies are aligned with agreed upon reporting requirements.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Recommendations Table." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Optimizing the Nation's Investment in Academic Research: A New Regulatory Framework for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21824.
×
Topic: Select Agents and Toxins and Dual-Use Research of Concern
Policy / Statute / Regulation(s): Possession, Use and Transfer of Select Agents and Toxins, 7 CFR 331 (2005)

Possession, Use and Transfer of Select Agents and Toxins, 9 CFR 121 (2005)

Select Agents and Toxins, 42 CFR 73 (2005)

Affected Parties: Institutional Researchers

Federal Agencies Funding Research

Actors: Executive Branch

Federal Select Agent Program

Federal Agencies Funding Research

Relevant Report Section: Part 2, Chapter 11
Recommended Actions: 11.1. The committee recommends that the President assign the responsibility for regulating all microbes and toxins on the select agents and toxins list to a single agency.6

11.2. The committee recommends that the Federal Select Agent Program develop and promulgate a reasonable inventory management system for biological select agents and toxins that takes account of the living, self-replicating nature of biological agents.

11.3. The committee recommends that the regulations7 governing select agents and toxins be amended to:

  1. Allow researchers to more readily access relevant select agents in times of public health emergencies.
  2. Increase the number of lower virulence strains of select biological agents available to researchers.
  3. Make more transparent the process by which materials are added to and removed from the select agents and toxins list.
Topic: Export Controls
Policy / Statute / Regulation(s): Export Control Reform Initiative

___________________

6The proposed Research Policy Board could take a leadership role in discussions about which agency should have responsibility for the regulation of the microbes and toxins on the select agents and toxins list.

7Possession, Use and Transfer of Select Agents and Toxins, 7 CFR 331 (2005); Possession, Use and Transfer of Select Agents and Toxins, 9 CFR 121 (2005); and Select Agents and Toxins, 42 CFR 73 (2005).

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Recommendations Table." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Optimizing the Nation's Investment in Academic Research: A New Regulatory Framework for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21824.
×
Affected Parties: Institutional Researchers

Department of Commerce

Department of State

Actors: Congress Executive Branch
Relevant Report Section: Part 2, Chapter 12
Recommended Actions: 12.1. The committee recommends that Congress and the Administration support a robust continuation and renewal of the Export Control Reform Initiative. Even under current statutes, the initiative has the potential to make further, marked improvements (e.g., to the regulations, oversight process, and ease of compliance) that would bring significant benefits to national security, to commerce, and to the economy, as well as to federally funded university research. The lessons learned in the initiative over the past five years could help participants in the process accelerate the rate at which needed regulatory revisions are proposed and adopted.

12.2. The committee recommends that the Export Control Reform Initiative seek university input at all stages of the process. The Research Policy Board proposed in Part 1 of this committee’s report would be an ideal vehicle for providing such input.

12.3. The committee recommends that the Export Control Reform Initiative work closely with universities and other stakeholders to specifically address the deemed export provisions8 and vigorously support the spirit and letter of the fundamental research exclusion.

Topic: Regulatory Framework
Policy / Statute / Regulation(s): Requires New Legislation / Executive Action
Affected Parties: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, White House Office of Management and Budget White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
Actor: Congress
Relevant Report Section: Part 1, Chapter 7

___________________

8As recommended by the report The Deemed Export Rule in the Era of Globalization [U.S. Deemed Export Advisory Committee, The Deemed Export Rule in the Era of Globalization (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, 2007)].

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Recommendations Table." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Optimizing the Nation's Investment in Academic Research: A New Regulatory Framework for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21824.
×
Recommended Action: 7.1. The committee recommends the creation of a new mechanism, to include an active public-private forum and a designated official within government, to foster a more effective conception, development, and harmonization of research regulations of similar purposes across agencies.

Specifically, the committee recommends that Congress take the following actions:

  • Establish a new entity, a Research Policy Board. The RPB would be a self-funded, government linked entity serving as the primary policy forum for discussions relating to the regulation of federally funded research programs in academic research institutions.
  • Establish a new Associate Director, Academic Research Enterprise, in the White House OSTP, having responsibilities to:
    1. serve as one of two principal federal contact points for the RPB;
    2. oversee and facilitate the general health of the government-academic research partnership;
    3. work in partnership with OMB-OIRA to manage the overall regulatory burden; and
    4. jointly with the Administrator of OIRA, issue an annual report to Congress on regulatory issues and actions affecting the research partnership.

7.2. The committee recommends that participants in the government-academic research partnership adopt the…set of operational principles [articulated on pp. 14-15 of this report] as a part of the new regulatory framework for federally funded academic research.

The committee recommends that research institutions conduct a review of institutional policies developed to comply with federal regulations of research to determine whether the institution itself has created excessive or unnecessary self-imposed burden (see Chapter 7).

The committee recommends that research institutions revise self-imposed burdensome institutional policies that go beyond those necessary and sufficient to comply with federal, state, and local requirements (see Chapter 7).

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Recommendations Table." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Optimizing the Nation's Investment in Academic Research: A New Regulatory Framework for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21824.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Recommendations Table." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Optimizing the Nation's Investment in Academic Research: A New Regulatory Framework for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21824.
×
Page 219
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Recommendations Table." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Optimizing the Nation's Investment in Academic Research: A New Regulatory Framework for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21824.
×
Page 220
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Recommendations Table." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Optimizing the Nation's Investment in Academic Research: A New Regulatory Framework for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21824.
×
Page 221
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Recommendations Table." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Optimizing the Nation's Investment in Academic Research: A New Regulatory Framework for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21824.
×
Page 222
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Recommendations Table." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Optimizing the Nation's Investment in Academic Research: A New Regulatory Framework for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21824.
×
Page 223
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Recommendations Table." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Optimizing the Nation's Investment in Academic Research: A New Regulatory Framework for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21824.
×
Page 224
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Recommendations Table." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Optimizing the Nation's Investment in Academic Research: A New Regulatory Framework for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21824.
×
Page 225
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Recommendations Table." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Optimizing the Nation's Investment in Academic Research: A New Regulatory Framework for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21824.
×
Page 226
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Recommendations Table." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Optimizing the Nation's Investment in Academic Research: A New Regulatory Framework for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21824.
×
Page 227
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Recommendations Table." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Optimizing the Nation's Investment in Academic Research: A New Regulatory Framework for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21824.
×
Page 228
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Recommendations Table." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Optimizing the Nation's Investment in Academic Research: A New Regulatory Framework for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21824.
×
Page 229
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Recommendations Table." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Optimizing the Nation's Investment in Academic Research: A New Regulatory Framework for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21824.
×
Page 230
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Recommendations Table." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Optimizing the Nation's Investment in Academic Research: A New Regulatory Framework for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21824.
×
Page 231
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Recommendations Table." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Optimizing the Nation's Investment in Academic Research: A New Regulatory Framework for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/21824.
×
Page 232
Next: Appendix C: Committee Meeting Agendas »
Optimizing the Nation's Investment in Academic Research: A New Regulatory Framework for the 21st Century Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $65.00 Buy Ebook | $54.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Research universities are critical contributors to our national research enterprise. They are the principal source of a world-class labor force and fundamental discoveries that enhance our lives and the lives of others around the world. These institutions help to create an educated citizenry capable of making informed and crucial choices as participants in a democratic society. However many are concerned that the unintended cumulative effect of federal regulations undercuts the productivity of the research enterprise and diminishes the return on the federal investment in research.

Optimizing the Nation's Investment in Academic Research reviews the regulatory framework as it currently exists, considers specific regulations that have placed undue and often unanticipated burdens on the research enterprise, and reassesses the process by which these regulations are created, reviewed, and retired. This review is critical to strengthen the partnership between the federal government and research institutions, to maximize the creation of new knowledge and products, to provide for the effective training and education of the next generation of scholars and workers, and to optimize the return on the federal investment in research for the benefit of the American people.

  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!