"The report changes the relationship from one of cost accounting principles to one of mutual respect." Robert Richardson, Cornell University Department of Physics
Over time, the rules and regulations governing federally- sponsored university-based research have evolved in an arbitrary and ad hoc manner. Now the Administration, through the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) and the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) - seeking input from the academic community - has set about trying to improve and clarify federal policies in order to strengthen and enhance the government-university partnership. (The NSTC comprises cabinet-level officials of the science and technology agencies, while PCAST is a group of private-sector leaders in the field.)
Concerns within the university community about increasingly inconsistent and complex federal policies led President Clinton in 1996 to call on his NSTC to conduct an across-the-board review of how the federal government sponsors research at universities. Last month, the NSTC released its report, "Renewing the Federal Government-University Research Partnership for the 21st Century." The study proposes a set of overarching principles to guide federal science agencies in their interactions with universities, and identifies, for further action, areas where improvements need to be made.
On May 25, PCAST held the first in a series of public hearings to receive comments and feedback on the report's proposals. Changes to federal rules and regulations can often appear "arbitrary" and "capricious" and disregard the impact on the overall university research enterprise, noted Presidential Science Advisor Neal Lane. While the NSTC solicited advice from the academic community in developing the report, he said, this series of hearings after the report's release is an opportunity "to hear from you again about what we got right, what we got wrong."
The 21-page report sets out four proposed Guiding Principles to govern interactions between federal agencies and universities:
1. Research is an Investment in the Future.Expected benefits "often accrue beyond the investment horizons" of the private sector, and federal investments should be managed as a broad portfolio.
2. The Linkage Between Research and Education is Vital.Students play a dual role by both learning and contributing to research, and federal policies should recognize this role and discourage unnecessary "financial or operational distinctions between research and education."
3. Excellence is Promoted When Investments are Guided by Merit Review."A well-designed merit review system rewards quality and productivity," can accommodate high-risk endeavors, and relies on the informed advice of qualified, independent individuals.
4. Research Must Be Conducted with Integrity.Acceptance of public funds entails ethical obligations, and "the credibility of the entire enterprise relies on the integrity of each of its participants."
The NSTC then lays out a series of operating principles, and identifies a number of specific problems it intends to examine further and make recommendations on. These specific issues include: ensuring that agency policies treat students "in a manner consistent with their dual roles as researchers and students;" developing "a government-wide definition of research misconduct;" examining ways to expand the use of merit review; assessing the impacts of agency accounting practices and limitations on cost reimbursement; identifying "best practices" for conforming to environmental, health and safety responsibilities; reducing differences in grant administration across agencies; and establishing working groups "dedicated to continuing review and assessment of the government-university partnership."
Two main concerns were emphasized repeatedly by speaker after speaker at the May 25 PCAST meeting. The first involved cost- sharing and federal policies for cost reimbursement by the universities. The second dealt with the lack of federal recognition of the dual role played by students performing research, and its implications for student support on research grants, and the taxability of tuition remission. A third federal policy of concern cited frequently is of recent origin and not mentioned in the report: revision of OMB Circular A-110 to make federally-sponsored research accessible under the Freedom of Information Act.
North Carolina State University Chancellor Marye Anne Fox, speaking on behalf of the Presidents of the National Academies of Science and Engineering and the Institute of Medicine, commented that many in the American public believe research and education can be decoupled and research is not essential to education. She was also concerned about the A-110 revision, saying the fear is not about data sharing - which the Academy supports - but about the premature release of unconfirmed data, and its effects on intellectual property rights. Several speakers pointed out what Princeton University's Christopher McCrudden called the "apparent disconnect" between the nation's science policy objectives and many agency regulations in such areas as university investment in research infrastructure, voluntary donation of faculty time to federal research, simplification and uniformity of grant application procedures, and support of students performing research. "University research is being pulled in two directions," McCrudden said.
The NSTC will allow 12 months for additional dialogue with stakeholders before finalizing the principles put forth in its report. It is encouraging feedback from the academic community. The report is available on the OSTP web site at http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OSTP/html/rand/index.htm and it is possible to submit comments electronically via that site.