Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
Records pertain to the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
285792613
label
Miscellaneous [1 of 3] [1991]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
285792613
contentType
document
title
Miscellaneous [1 of 3] [1991]
description
Records pertain to the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
citationUrl
identifierLocal
62091-001
collections
Records of the White House Office of Science and Technology (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Allan D. Bromley Files
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
285792613
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
e943d6870e004697
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
2005-0336-F
2005-0336-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin:
Science and Technology Policy, Office of (OSTP)
Series:
Bromley, D. Allan, Files
Subseries:
Miscellaneous Files
OA/ID Number:
62091
Folder ID Number:
62091-001
Folder Title:
Miscellaneous [1 of 3] [1991]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
0
0
0
0
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
01. Memorandum
To: Allan Bromley From: Tom Ratchford
1/11/91
(b)(1)
Re: PCAST Advice for Developing an International
Framework for Basic Science Megaprojects (3 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Science and Technology Policy, Office of (OSTP)
Series:
Bromley, D. Allan, Files
Subseries:
Miscellaneous Files
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
[Miscellaneous] [1 of 3] [1991]
Date Closed:
5/7/2010
OA/ID Number:
62091-001
FOIA/SYS Case #:
2005-0336-F
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile.
FILE: PCAST
.
JAN'29 '91 14:16 FROM JOHN P. MCTAGUE
PAGE. 001
Ford
John P. McTague
Ford Motor Company
Vice President
The American Road
Technical Affairs
P. O. Box 1899
Dearborn, Michigan 48121-1899
FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET
DATE:
29 January 1991
TO:
Dr. Tom Ratchford
TELEPHONE:
(202) 395-7396
FAX:
(202) 395-3719
FROM:
Dr. John McTague
TELEPHONE:
(313) 322-7105
FAX:
(313) 845-0512
NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET): 13
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
02. Letter
To: Tom Ratchford From: John McTague
1/24/91
(b)(1)
Re: Conversation with Katasuhiko Umehara (12 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Science and Technology Policy, Office of (OSTP)
Series:
Bromley, D. Allan, Files
Subseries:
Miscellaneous Files
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
[Miscellaneous] [1 of 3] [1991]
Date Closed:
5/7/2010
OA/ID Number:
62091-001
FOIA/SYS Case #:
2005-0336-F
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile.
Retchford
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506
April 11, 1991
Looks
o/c
MEMORANDUM FOR OSTP STAFF
Hold
FROM:
KEN YALE
SUBJECT:
Next PCAST Meeting
Please review the attached agenda for the next PCAST
meeting, and provide comments directly to Tom Welch or Bill
Snyder, at X5101, by MONDAY MORNING, APRIL 15, 1991.
If we do not hear from you by that time, we will assume that
you concur with the agenda items.
Thank you.
Ratchford
DRAFT
As of April 8, 1991
PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL OF ADVISORS
ON
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
MAY 2-3, 1991
AGENDA
THURSDAY, MAY 2, 1991
OPEN SESSION 9:00 AM - 11:00 AM
CONFERENCE ROOM
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
722 JACKSON PLACE, NW
8:30 - 9:00
ARRIVAL AND COFFEE
9:00 - 9:30
OPENING REMARKS
DR. BROMLEY
9:30 - 10:30
THE OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT DR. JOHN
- AN OVERVIEW OF RECENT REPORTS GIBBONS
10:30 - 11:00
DISCUSSION
11:00 -
CLOSING REMARKS
DR. BROMLEY
AND MOVE TO ROOM 208,
OLD EXECUTIVE OFFICE BUILDING
DRAFT
THURSDAY, MAY 2, 1991 Continued
CLOSED SESSION 11:00 - 4:30 PM
CORDELL HULL CONFERENCE ROOM
ROOM 208
OLD EXECUTIVE OFFICE BUILDING
11:15 - 11:45
NATIONAL SECURITY AND
DR. BUCHSBAUM
TECHNOLOGY PANEL
- A PROGRESS REPORT
11:45 - 12:15
HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING
DR. BUCHSBAUM
AND COMMUNICATIONS PANEL
- A PROGRESS REPORT
12:15 - 1:00
LUNCH
1:00 - 1:30
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
DR. LOVEJOY
RESOURCES PANEL
- A PROGRESS REPORT
1:30 - 2:00
EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES
DR. LIKINS
PANEL
- A PROGRESS REPORT
2:00 - 2:30
PANEL ON MEGAPROJECTS IN THE
DR. McTAGUE
SCIENCES
DR. RATCHFORD
- A PROGRESS REPORT
2:30 - 3:00
BIOSCIENCE AND BIOTECHNOLOGY
DR. NATHANS
PANEL
- A PROGRESS REPORT
3:00 - 3:15
BREAK
3:15 - 3:45
THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
HON. LAMAR
ALEXANDER
3:45 - 4:00
DISCUSSION
4:00 - 4:30
DISCUSSION OF JULY AGENDA
DR. BROMLEY
AND CLOSING REMARKS
DRAFT
FRIDAY, MAY 3, 1991
CLOSED SESSION 9:00 AM - 12:00 NOON
ROOSEVELT ROOM
WEST WING
WHITE HOUSE
8:30 - 8:50
ARRIVAL AND COFFEE
(DR. BROMLEY'S OFFICE, ROOM 358, OEOB)
8:50 - 9:00
MOVE TO ROOSEVELT ROOM
9:00 - 9:15
PREPARATION FOR THIS MORNING
DR. BROMLEY
9:15 - 9:30
APPROVAL OF TERMS OF REFERENCE
DR. GOMORY
AND MEMBERS FOR PCAST PANEL ON
DR. SHAPIRO
INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS
9:30 - 10:00
GOVERNOR SUNUNU
10:00 - 10:15
DISCUSSION
10:15 - 10:30
BREAK
10:30 - 11:00
OTHER BUSINESS
11:00 - 11:15
DISCUSSION
11:15 - 12:00
OTHER BUSINESS AND
DR. BROMLEY
CLOSING REMARKS
7
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLIC
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506
DATE: 34/11/91
TO:
JohN Mcrague
ADDRESS: FORD MOTOR Co.
Telephone Number: 313-322-7105
Fax Number:
313-845-0512
FROM: Tom RaTCHFORD
Telephone Number: 202-456-2894
Fax Number: (202) 395-3719
Number of Pages (including cover sheet): 17
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING
INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE
2101 Constitution Avenue, Washington, D.C. 20418
Date: April 9, 1991
Contact: Susan Turner-Lowe or Stephen Push
(202) 334-2138
EMBARGOED: NOT FOR RELEASE BEFORE 3 P.M. EDT, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10
THREAT OF GREENHOUSE WARMING
JUSTIFIES SOME ACTIONS NOW
WASHINGTON In spite of great uncertainties in the science of global
climate change, the United States should adopt a limited portfolio of measures to
reduce production of greenhouse gases, a panel of the Committee on Science,
Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP) administered by the National Academies of
Sciences and Engineering and the Institute of Medicine said today.* Greenhouse gases
trap heat around the earth and may be responsible for observed increases in average
global temperature.
For the first time in a report that discusses the full range of greenhouse
gases, the panel performed engineering and economic analyses for policy options and
recommended a mix of initiatives that, over their lifetimes, would either cost
relatively little or produce net savings. It did not, however, call for fixed caps on
carbon dioxide emissions or taxes on energy use at this time.
Recommended programs include phasing out chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) :- long-
lived greenhouse gases that also destroy atmospheric ozone -- in accordance with
international agreements. In addition, the panel recommended adoption of energy
policies that include efficiency and conservation; suggested exploring an energy
(MORE)
*The panel's report, Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming, is available for $14.95
(prepaid) plus shipping from the National Academy Press at the mailing address in the
letterhead; telephone (202) 334-3313 or 1-800-624-6242. The publication sales office
is located at 2001 Wisconsin Ave., N.W., Harris Building room 384. Reporters may obtain
copies from the Office of News and Public Information, also at the letterhead address.
- 2 -
pricing mechanism that would reflect the cost of environmental degradation; called for
increased efforts to reduce deforestation and increase reforestation; and recommended
some measures to help human and ecologic systems adapt to future climate change.
Most of these actions can be achieved with "best practice" technology
currently available. Altogether, they would cut U.S. emission of greenhouses gases an
estimated 10 percent to 40 percent below the 1990 level, the panel estimated.
Global warming that has occurred in this century -- between about 0.5
degrees and 1 degree Fahrenheit - is consistent with some models, the panel noted, but
it could also be the result of natural climatic variability. "Neither can be ruled
out," the panel said.
Based on current projections, the concentration of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere would be roughly double pre-Industrial Revolution levels by the middle of
the next century, causing a possible rise in average global temperature of between 2 F
and 9 F. The panel noted that this is broader than ranges adopted in other analyses,
but believes that prudent policy choices should be based on conservative assumptions in
the face of large uncertainty.
Moreover, the panel was concerned about the possibility of "surprises" not
predictable by current methods but nevertheless characteristic of complex systems. If
global warming is more serious than anticipated, more stringent measures would need to
be taken, it added.
The study was requested by Congress in 1988. It presents the principal
findings and recommendations and incorporates input from three other COSEPUP panels
that evaluated national options for reducing or offsetting emissions of carbon dioxide
and other greenhouse gases, and assessed the sensitivity of people, economic
activities, and natural ecosystems to climatic change. The study was chaired by Daniel
J. Evans, former governor and U.S. senator from the state of Washington and an engineer
by training.
GREENHOUSE GASES
Greenhouse gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, CFCs and
(MORE)
- 3 -
hydrogenated CFCs, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide. These gases act like a
greenhouse, effectively warming the planet. If the rate of climate change increases,
some ecosystems may not be able to adjust and might be severely affected.
Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and CFCs continue to
rise. The 1990 concentration of carbon dioxide is about 25 percent higher than at the
turn of the 19th century; it currently is increasing by about 0.5 percent per year,
mostly as a result of burning fossil fuels and forest land. Methane levels are
slightly more than double the presumed concentration in 1750 and rising by almost one
percent a year. CFCs do not occur naturally and were not present at all in the
atmosphere until a few decades ago.
The primary tools for evaluating the effect of increasing greenhouse gas
concentrations on climate change are exceedingly complex computer programs called
"general circulation models" (GCMs). For a doubling in greenhouse gas concentrations,
different GCMs project temperature rises of between about 2 F and 9 F. The panel
recommended research to improve GCMs.
"The larger of these temperature increases would mean climate warming
greater than any in human history," the panel noted. "If the higher GCM projections
prove to be accurate, massive responses would be needed, and the stresses on this
planet and its inhabitants would be serious," it warned.
REDUCING OR OFFSETTING GREENHOUSE EMISSIONS
The biggest single reduction of greenhouse emissions recommended by the
panel would come from eliminating CFCs. It recommended that the United States continue
"aggressive phaseout" of CFCs and their replacement by non-greenhouse gas substitutes,
as the nation promised in signing the London Protocol last year. The agreement calls
for the elimination of CFCs by the year 2000.
It also recommended that "full social cost pricing" of energy be studied,
"with a goal of gradual introduction of a such a system." Social cost pricing means
setting the price of each form of energy at the cost necessary to recoup all societal
costs not normally assessed in present pricing mechanisms. Moreover, the nation should
(MORE)
- 4
"make greenhouse warming a key factor in planning for our future energy supply mix,"
fostering energy conservation and efficiency, reforming state public utility
regulation, increasing research on alternative energy supplies, and boosting research
and development of a "new generation" of nuclear reactors.
Because trees and other plants remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere
during photosynthesis, the panel urged that the United States act to reduce global
deforestation and continue a moderate domestic reforestation effort. However, many
details about this remain to be resolved, the committee stressed.
In collaboration with international partners, the United States should also
continue to study geoengineering efforts - - altering cloud abundance, use of space
mirrors to deflect incoming radiation, and artificially adding nutrients to the oceans
to increase the uptake of carbon by marine algae. The panel noted that the
effectiveness of such actions and their environmental impact, especially their
contribution to depletion of the ozone layer, must be carefully evaluated before they
could be seriously considered for use.
ADAPTING TO GREENHOUSE WARMING
Because of its wide geographic variation and advanced technologies, the
United States likely would suffer less from global warming than less-developed or
smaller countries. This does not mean we can ignore the possible consequences in
smaller countries, the panel said. To enhance adaptation in the United States to
greenhouse warming, it proposed:
maintaining agricultural basic, applied, and experimental research to
ensure ample food supply;
boosting efficiency of water use through water-pricing policies and
better management of the water supply;
planning greater margins of safety for long-lived structures -- such as
bridges, buildings, dams, and highways : - that are now built with current frequency and
magnitude of storms and droughts in mind; and
moving to slow losses in biodiversity, including actions to inventory,
(MORE)
- 5 -
collect, and preserve wild species and consider purchase or lease of lands suitable for
assisting vulnerable species to migrate to new habitats.
GLOBAL LEADERSHIP
"The United States should resume full participation in international
programs to slow population growth and should contribute its share to their financial
and other support because of the potential to make a major contribution to raising
living standards and to easing environmental problems like greenhouse warming," the
panel said. However, reducing population growth alone "may not reduce emissions of
greenhouse gases because it may also stimulate growth in per capita income" and greater
use of energy.
The panel also said that the United States should participate fully in
international agreements and in programs to address greenhouse warming.
IMPROVING THE KNOWLEDGE BASE
Researchers should continue and expand collection and dissemination of data
on the Earth's climate record and of data needed to refine GCMs, the panel stressed.
Moreover, it recommended work to improve weather forecasts especially for
extremes, and for long-term (weeks or seasons) weather changes : - to ease adaptation to
climate change.
Field research also should be conducted, including studies of entire
ecosystems over long periods of time, to learn how carbon dioxide enrichment in the
atmosphere affects the balance of species and determine how it might affect
biodiversity. Research on social and economic aspects of global change and greenhouse
warming also should proceed apace, the panel urged.
Membership of the panel authoring this report and the other three panels
participating in the study is attached. The reports of all four panels will be
published in a single volume later this year.
#
#
#
stl: a,b,d,e,f,g,j,1,m
POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF GLOBAL WARMING - EFFECTS PANEL
Chair
GEORGE F. CARRIER
T. Jefferson Coolidge Professor of Applied Mathematics
Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
WILFRIED BRUTSAERT
ROBERT E. DICKINSON
THOMAS B. KARL
Professor of Hydrology, Civil and
Institute of Atmospheric Physics
Meteorologist
Environmental Engineering
Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Climate Research and Applications
Cornell University
University of Arizona
National Climate Data Center
Ithaca, N.Y.
Tucson, Ariz.
Asheville, N.C.
ROBERT D. CESS
JOHN IMBRIE
MICHAEL C. MACCRACKEN
Leading Professor
H.L. Doherty Professor of Oceanography
Physicist and Division Leader
State University of New York
Department of Geological Sciences
Atmospheric and Geophysical Sciences
Stony Brook
Brown University
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory
Providence, R.I.
University of California
HERMAN CHERNOFF
Livermore
Professor of Statistics
Harvard University
BERRIEN MOORE
Cambridge, Mass.
Professor and Director, Institute for the
Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space
University of New Hampshire
Durham
POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF GREENHOUSE WARMING - MITIGATION PANEL
Chair
THOMAS H. LEE
Professor Emeritus, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
PETER BREWER
RICHARD GARWIN
EDWARD S. RUBIN
Monterey Bay Aquarium and Research
Thomas J. Watson Research Center
Professor, Mechanical Engineering and
Center
Yorktown Heights, N.Y.
Public Policy, and Director,
Pacific Grove, Calif.
Center for Energy and Environmental
JOSEPH GLAS
Studies
EDITH BROWN WEISS
Director, Freon Products Division
Carnegie Mellon University
Professor of Law
E.I. du Pont de Nemours &.Co.
Pittsburgh, Pa.
Georgetown University
Wilmington, Del.
Washington, D.C.
MILTON RUSSELL
(resigned from panel October 1990)
KAI N. LEE
Professor of Economics
Associate Professor
University of Tennessee
RICHARD N. COOPER
Department of Political Science and
Knoxville, and
Professor of Economics
Institute for Environmental Studies
Senior Economist
Harvard University
University of Washington
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Cambridge, Mass.
Seattle
Oak Ridge, Tenn.
ROBERT CRANDALL
GREGG MARLAND
STEPHEN H. SCHNEIDER
Senior Fellow
Scientist, Environmental Science Division
Head, Interdisciplinary Climate Systems
Brookings Institute
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Washington, D.C.
Oak Ridge, Tenn.
Boulder, Colo.
ROBERT EVENSON
JESSICA TUCHMAN MATHEWS
EUGENE B. SKOLNIKOFF
Professor of Economics
Vice President
Professor of Political Science
Economic Growth Center
World Resources Institute
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Yale University
Washington, D.C.
Cambridge
New Haven, Conn.
ARTHUR H. ROSENFELD
THOMAS H. STIX
DOUGLAS FOY
Professor of Physics and
Professor, Department of Astrophysics and
Executive Director
Director, Center for Building Science
Plasma Physics Laboratory
Conservation Law Foundation
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Princeton University
Boston, Mass.
University of California
Princeton, N.J.
Berkeley
ROBERT A. FROSCH
Vice President
General Motors Research Labs
Warren, Mich.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF GLOBAL WARMING - EFFECTS PANEL
Chair
GEORGE F. CARRIER
T. Jefferson Coolidge Professor of Applied Mathematics
Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
WILFRIED BRUTSAERT
ROBERT E. DICKINSON
THOMAS B. KARL
Professor of Hydrology, Civil and
Institute of Atmospheric Physics
Meteorologist
Environmental Engineering
Department of Atmospheric Sciences
Climate Research and Applications
Cornell University
University of Arizona
National Climate Data Center
Ithaca, N.Y.
Tucson, Ariz.
Asheville, N.C.
ROBERT D. CESS
JOHN IMBRIE
MICHAEL C. MACCRACKEN
Leading Professor
H.L. Doherty Professor of Oceanography
Physicist and Division Leader
State University of New York
Department of Geological Sciences
Atmospheric and Geophysical Sciences
Stony Brook
Brown University
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory
Providence, R.I.
University of California
HERMAN CHERNOFF
Livermore
Professor of Statistics
Harvard University
BERRIEN MOORE
Cambridge, Mass.
Professor and Director, Institute for the
Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space
University of New Hampshire
Durham
POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF GREENHOUSE WARMING - MITIGATION PANEL
Chair
THOMAS H. LEE
Professor Emeritus, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
PETER BREWER
RICHARD GARWIN
EDWARD S. RUBIN
Monterey Bay Aquarium and Research
Thomas J. Watson Research Center
Professor, Mechanical Engineering and
Center
Yorktown Heights, N.Y.
Public Policy, and Director,
Pacific Grove, Calif.
Center for Energy and Environmental
JOSEPH GLAS
Studies
EDITH BROWN WEISS
Director, Freon Products Division
Carnegie Mellon University
Professor of Law
E.I. du Pont de Nemours &.Co.
Pittsburgh, Pa.
Georgetown University
Wilmington, Del.
Washington, D.C.
MILTON RUSSELL
(resigned from panel October 1990)
KAI N. LEE
Professor of Economics
Associate Professor
University of Tennessee
RICHARD N. COOPER
Department of Political Science and
Knoxville, and
Professor of Economics
Institute for Environmental Studies
Senior Economist
Harvard University
University of Washington
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Cambridge, Mass.
Seattle
Oak Ridge, Tenn.
ROBERT CRANDALL
GREGG MARLAND
STEPHEN H. SCHNEIDER
Senior Fellow
Scientist, Environmental Science Division
Head, Interdisciplinary Climate Systems
Brookings Institute
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Washington, D.C.
Oak Ridge, Tenn.
Boulder, Colo.
ROBERT EVENSON
JESSICA TUCHMAN MATHEWS
EUGENE B. SKOLNIKOFF
Professor of Economics
Vice President
Professor of Political Science
Economic Growth Center
World Resources Institute
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Yale University
Washington, D.C.
Cambridge
New Haven, Conn.
ARTHUR H. ROSENFELD
THOMAS H. STIX
DOUGLAS FOY
Professor of Physics and
Professor, Department of Astrophysics and
Executive Director
Director, Center for Building Science
Plasma Physics Laboratory
Conservation Law Foundation
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Princeton University
Boston, Mass.
University of California
Princeton, N.J.
Berkeley
ROBERT A. FROSCH
Vice President
General Motors Research Labe
Warren, Mich.
KEYNOTE ADDRESS
J. THOMAS RATCHFORD
Associate Director for Policy and International Affairs
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Executive Office of the President
AAAS Science and Technology Policy Colloquium
Washington, D.C.
April 11, 1991
It's great to be back at the AAAS R&D Policy Colloquium, while Allan Bromley is
fulfilling a long-standing commitment at Yale University. Having played the role of
moderator at this particular session for a decade makes delivering the keynote this
year a particular challenge and privilege. I just hope the moderator is as kind to me
as I was to earlier speakers on this podium.
Let me begin by paying homage to the AAAS and its leadership for continuing and
improving this valuable policy forum. The vision of Bill Carey and the sound
scholarship and writing skills of Willis Shapley launched this venture on a course
that has held true to this day. But like all enduring canons, revealed truth evolves
under the influence of latter day prophets. It's heartening to see Al Teich, Steve
Nelson and crew laboring away in the AAAS monastery, incorporating the latest
prophecies -- or should I say leaked administration documents -- into their science
policy scripture. I should add that, from all accounts, Rich Nicholson is a superb
father superior.
This morning I shall say a few words about Administration R&D budgets and policy
intentions. I shall follow the tradition of this distinguished Colloquium that examines
budgets and, using the poetic equivalent of a Fourier transform, speaks of policy.
You might be interested to know that, in my current line of work, I meet with a fairly
large contingent of foreign dignitaries. Perhaps the most common question I receive
is "What is U.S. science and technology policy?" My response is that while we have
no formal list of science and technology priorities, we do have a general policy of
investing in merit-based S&T programs and projects, with the details reflected in the
myriad budget decisions that are made each year. If pressed, I point out the AAAS
reports do an excellent job of deciphering policy from budget data.
I shall try also to provide a few insights as to what life is like in Allan Bromley's
White House Science Office. For starters, let me say the environment is exhilerating,
in spite of the long hours, daunting work load, and numerous "fire fights" that arise
on a daily basis. Some of my friends say that my demeanor doesn't reflect an
appropriate level of stress, strain and lost sleep. I just want all of you to know that
the rumored explanation I'm adjusting so well because I rested up for this during the
previous decade at AAAS is a complete fabrication, with no basis in fact.
In my opinion, the environment for science and technology in this Administration is
exceptionally supportive. This is not just because President Bush recognizes the
importance of science and technology, recruited someone with the stature and talents
of Allan Bromley, and gave him the title and perquisites of Assistant to the President.
A large number of the President's senior advisors also understand the importance of
science and technology, and recognize that R&D budgets are investments in the
future. It would be impossible to provide an inclusive list of such folk, but John
2
Sununu and Michael Boskin certainly qualify. On the budget side of the house --
and this is, after all, a colloquium on R&D budgets Dick Darman and his chief
lieutenants Bob Grady, Tom Scully, Bob Howard and Janet Hale all recognize
the investment character of R&D expenditures. Within OMB, in all four budget
directorates, one finds a quality of professional staff with a depth of knowledge and
expertise about science, technology, and related research and education issues that is
not understood or appreciated in the science establishment.
OUTLINES OF THE BUDGET
In preparing for this talk, I went back and read Allan's keynote address from last
year, and what struck me was how quickly and how much of what he said has come
to pass. In particular, both the President's Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology and FCCSET - the Federal Coordinating Council for Science,
Engineering, and Technology -- are now up and running smoothly. PCAST has been
having monthly meetings at the White House, and the President and senior White
House officials have been sitting in on portions of almost all those meetings. And
several FCCSET committees have had an important influence on this year's budget,
as I'll describe in a moment.
First, though, let me touch on the budget's overall outlines. As you know, research
and development are treated very well exceedingly well in this year's budget. The
13 percent increase for R&D to a total of $75.6 billion represents one of the
largest increases for any component of the budget. Furthermore, these proposals are
following a year in which the Congressional appropriations for R&D, while not at the
levels requested by the Administration, were still quite strong.
This increase is all the more remarkable in that it comes under the first year of the
new budget agreement, in which real growth in the domestic discretionary budget is
essentially limited to the rate of inflation. Cuts, therefore, had to be made in other
programs to accommodate increases in research and development, even though many
of these other programs have very strong constituencies.
In his hearings this spring, Allan has been citing a number of policy rationales for
increasing the size of the R&D budget. These include enhancing the science and
technology base, strengthening science and mathematics education, resolving social
concerns, increasing economic growth, enhancing national security, and promoting
international cooperation.
But if I were searching for the broadest possible rationale for increasing our support
of science and technology, it would be this: The Bush Administration is gradually
trying to shift the balance of federal spending more toward investments in the future
and away from current consumption. Such a shift is not easy to accomplish in a
political setting where consumption translates readily into votes and time horizons
rarely extend beyond the next election. But many people, both in the Executive
Branch and in the Congress, recognize that we are underinvesting in the future of our
3
nation, and I believe that the Bush Administration is starting to make real progress
in shifting the terms of the debate.
AREAS OF EMPHASIS IN THE BUDGET
In a $75.6 billion budget, there are inevitably going to be many areas of emphasis,
and I'll cover just a few. One of the most important is basic research. The budget
proposes an 18 percent increase at the National Science Foundation, which would
finally return NSF to the doubling track established by President Reagan and
supported by President Bush. Furthermore, over 80 percent of that amount would go
directly to individual investigators and their research infrastructure, which would ease
some of the proposal pressure that has been building in recent years.
The increase at the National Institutes of Health -- in absolute terms is even larger
than at the NSF: about $500 million, or about 6 percent of the FY 1991 budget.
Also, the increase is structured in such a way that funding for research project grants
grows by about 9 percent. If these proposals are enacted, NIH will be funding more
principal investigators than it ever has in the past.
Together, NSF and NIH support over half of the federally-funded basic research done
in the United States, and over 75 percent of the federally-funded basic research done
in universities. By focusing special attention on these agencies, the Administration is
seeking to strengthen what Allan often refers to as the heart and backbone of
American science and technology.
COMPETITION AND EXCELLENCE
Yet it should be remembered that we will never fully satisfy the needs of university
researchers for funds nor should we. Competition remains an indispensable part of
a system based on excellence. The challenge is to balance competition with the needs
of the nation and with the many opportunities that now exist within science.
Some in the scientific community have been calling for increases in the support of
basic research that far exceed what has been proposed. The glib answer to such calls
is that, given the new budget agreement, such increases are politically impossible in
the next few years.
But there is a more substantive reply. Compared with other countries, the United
States invests very heavily in basic research. In fact, I think it can be said that
many other countries do not pay their fair share of the amounts needed to increase
the world's storehouse of knowledge. This can be seen quite clearly in the preference
of students and senior scientists alike to come to the United States to work and
study. Nowhere else can they find better institutions, better support, and the
intellectual excitement vital to forefront research.
4
However, in an age of instant communications and well-traveled and competitive
scientists, the comparative advantage from doing basic research and carrying the
resulting new knowledge into commercial and military products is not as large as it
once was. We, therefore, have to take the actions of other countries into account in
making decisions about how to support basic research.
This
is
also
a
consideration in another major area of emphasis in the budget technology
development. The budget includes increased funding for a number of generic
precompetitive technologies, including high performance computing and
communications, biotechnology, advanced manufacturing and materials, and
aeronautics. In fact, the budget goes so far as to state that it is providing increased
funding "for all major civilian applied R&D areas."
This is an important measure of the Administration's intentions. We see the
government as having a vital role in the development of technologies up to the point
at which the private sector can recognize the promise of those technologies and act to
convert them into valuable products and processes. This was one of the important
messages contained in the document U.S. Technology Policy released by OSTP last
September.
FCCSET AND THE PRESIDENTIAL INITIATIVES
The budget also includes three special Presidential initiatives in science and
technology, each of which is based on the work of a committee under FCCSET. The
initiatives are in high-performance computing and communications -- an important
example of the generic technologies I just mentioned global change, and education
and human resources. Let me use education as an example of the FCCSET process,
since this was the initiative with which I was most directly involved.
Over this last year, FCCSET's Committee on Education and Human Resources --
which is chaired by Admiral James Watkins, the Secretary of Energy -- did a
thorough budgetary and programmatic review of science, mathematics, engineering,
and technology education at all levels, from grade school to graduate school. The
committee found, first of all, that much more was being done at the Federal level
than anyone had expected. In Fiscal Year 1991, the federal government directly spent
about $1.7 billion in these areas, with graduate and precollege education receiving the
largest sums and undergraduate education receiving somewhat less.
The committee then sought to establish strategic objectives and funding priorities for
federal programs in these areas. It decided, for example, that the greatest priority
was precollege education, both for the training of new scientists and engineers and for
the general scientific and mathematical literacy of the public. Within precollege
education the committee cited teacher preparation and enhancement as the most
important thing the federal government can support.
The work of the committee has met with great success within the federal government.
For one, the budget proposes a 13 percent increase in the programs covered by the
5
committee. But many program managers and agency heads have noted the way in
which this committee, and the two other committees doing budgetary crosscuts, were
able to bring great coherence to what had formerly been a confusing welter of federal
programs.
Watching the operations of a revitalized and reorganized FCCSET has been very
fascinating to me. For well over a century, observers of science have debated whether
the federal effort in science and technology would be more efficient if it were all
conducted by a single department -- a Department of Science and Technology. I do
not believe that it would. I believe that the diversity of the present system, in which
researchers have more than one source of funding for their ideas, has contributed
greatly to the strength of American science and technology.
But it remains true that more than a few areas of federal science and technology need
more coordination. In science and mathematics education, for example, many senior
people working on very similar subjects but in different agencies had never even met
each other. FCCSET offers a way to bring these people together with a common set
of objectives. It offers a way to integrate science programs while maintaining the
advantages of pluralism. If I were asked to name the most important thing that
Allan has done since becoming head of OSTP, I would answer his recognition and
implementation of the full potential of the FCCSET process.
SUPPORT FOR "BIG SCIENCE"
As you know, the budget also provides increased support for a number of what have
been called "big science" projects. Actually, I don't find this to be a very illuminating
or helpful label. Many big science or "megaprojects" are actually coordinated
programs of research being done by individual investigators, whether at one place or
in separate locations such as the human genome project or astronomy research.
Other megaprojects most notably the space station -- are not primarily science
projects. For that matter, all megaprojects -- by virtue of their being big -- are
subject to important nonscientific influences.
Nor is it true, as some have said, that the Administration has never seen a large
science project that it does not like. Many, many more projects are proposed to and
by the agencies than ever make it into the budget. In its final form, the budget
actually represents a cascade of priority decisions that are made over the course of its
preparation.
One important consideration in many of these projects has been the growing role of
the Congress in shaping them. Last year's budget for NASA is a good example. The
FY 1991 House appropriations report for NASA established an upper limit on the
funding profile for development of a redesigned space station of no more than 10
percent growth per year, with a peak-year funding of no more than $2.6 billion. What
this means is that the funding for the program will not follow a least-cost
construction path, based primarily on technical and engineering considerations.
6
Rather, future funding is on a predetermined course, and NASA has to adapt to that.
In a deeper sense, what this reflects is Congress's growing recognition that it is facing
a zero-sum game not only in any given year but in the outyears. The headroom
available in the past to provide for outyear increases in new program starts is no
longer available. This raises some very important questions which have not yet
been completely worked out regarding the projects already under way and those
now being planned for the next few years.
INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
I might point out, as an aside, that there is a way around the zero sum game, and
that is to view large scientific projects on an international rather than a national
basis. Our office has been doing a great deal of work on this subject over the past
year and a half, with some progress being made.
The policy rationale for international cooperation is clear: large scientific projects
are now becoming too expensive for any one country to afford, but they produce
knowledge and technologies that are of value to many countries. All countries are,
therefore, generally better off if they work together.
The question is how to carry out this cooperation. A FCCSET committee the
Committee on International Science, Engineering, and Technology - has been looking
at this question, and Allan has held discussions with a number of science advisors
from other countries to examine the issue. PCAST also has a panel on this subject
to provide input from the private sector, which is vitally interested in these projects.
We expect that these efforts will enable us to engage in a deeper dialogue with the
science ministers from the OECD nations next year.
Many difficult issues still need to be resolved. Let me give you an example. Seven
years ago at this colloquium, Reimer Lüst, spoke. He was then President of the Max
Planck Society in Germany and President-elect of the European Space Agency (ESA).
I remember his luncheon address very well, because I arranged for it at the last
minute. Last fall I visited Lüst in Paris at ESA headquarters, just as he was ending
his term. Unfortunately for me, it was just a few days after Senate Appropriations
had whacked $850 million off the funding for the Space Station.
Lüst is a good friend and normally a very gentle person, but his message to me that
day was anything but gentle. He said that I may not realize what is happening, but
if the United States backed out on the Space Station agreement it would kill
European cooperation with the United States in high energy physics, in fusion, in
virtually every other major area of science and technology. He advised that for our
own good, we should not do it. We have to take feelings like this into account as we
approach international cooperation in the basic sciences.
7
CONGRESSIONAL EARMARKING OF FACILITIES
I said earlier that Congress is becoming much more involved in the shaping of large
science projects. There is another area in which they are becoming more involved in
R&D budgets as well through the earmarking of funds for R&D and for R&D
facilities. This year the budget request includes an analysis done by our office
showing that Congress earmarked over $800 million in FY 1991 for R&D projects and
R&D facilities, with over $400 million of this amount going to academic institutions.
This is a substantial amount of money, and it has sharply increased in recent years.
Earmarking typically supports projects that do not undergo merit review, and thus
there is no way to judge their quality. Furthermore, earmarking seriously undermines
the ability of the Administration to set priorities, because it greatly increases the
uncertainty regarding Congressional action on the requests we send to the Hill.
Many people have been asking in recent years what can be done to reduce the
pressures to earmark. Personally, I think that the behavior of the Congress is
unlikely to change. Members of Congress are simply doing what they were elected to
do when they respond to constituent requests.
Rather, I believe that much of the responsibility for dealing with the large and
increasing levels of earmarking in Congressional appropriations rests with the
university community. What is needed, therefore, is for the academic research
community to foreclose the comparative advantage sought by those in their ranks who
aggressively pursue pork barrel funding at the expense of their fellow institutions who
support the principle of merit review.
There are several ways to do this, but I have time to note just one. Neither NSF nor
NIH, two agencies central to the support of academic research, have significant funds
earmarked for R&D or R&D facilities in their budgets. If the academic community
were to unite behind a simple prohibition of NSF or NIH funding to any university
that accepts earmarked funds, the atmosphere at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue
would, no doubt, change dramatically. It would remove an important part of the
uncertainty that now overhangs Administration formulation of budget priorities. And
it could allow for the kind of reasoned consideration of the issues affecting academic
research institutions that this country critically needs.
This is an important problem. Think about it.
CONCLUSION
These are some of the issues that have been occupying our thoughts in putting
together this year's budget and in presenting it to the Congress. But as you well
know, a lot can happen to a budget by the time it travels along Pennsylvania Avenue
and emerges from the Hill. Congress can take a much different view of the R&D
8
budget than does the Administration. And in some cases both of us are subject to
forces beyond our control.
The situation reminds me of a story that is popular in our house, since my wife come
from "a tennis family," and our children and I are participants in the sport. It's
about a man who was totally obsessed with tennis; he lived, breathed, ate, and slept
tennis. But there was one thing that worried him more than anything else. Was
there tennis in heaven?
Finally, he decided to get an answer once and for all by going to a highly-
recommended fortune teller, Madame Helga. So he went down a seedy sidestreet in
the city, found Madame Helga's office, and put the question to her: Is there tennis
in heaven?
"This is one of the most difficult questions I've ever been asked," she replied. "I will
have to consult on it overnight. Come back tomorrow and I will have your answer,
and bring your checkbook because it's going to be very expensive."
So the next day the man returned to Madame Helga and paid the very large fee that
she demanded. She then said, "I have good news and bad news. Which would you
like first?"
The man replied, "Well, tell me the good news."
"There is indeed tennis in heaven," the fortune teller said. "In fact, there are tennis
courts as far as the eye can see. There are grass courts, clay courts, and hard
surface courts. There's never a waiting list, ball boys are assigned to every court, and
God himself plays in some of the tournaments.
"That's amazing," the man said. "So what's the bad news."
"Well you're scheduled for doubles at 4:00 this afternoon."
There are difficult questions facing us in the months and years ahead, and we may
not be pleased with all the answers. There will be some good news, and there will be
some bad news. But if we keep in mind that the public supports science and
technology because it pays off and we keep reminding our neighbors and our
representatives in Congress of that fundamental fact - R&D budgets will continue to
prosper. In the meantime, I think we can look forward to a good year for science
and technology.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 16, 1991
Dear David:
I am pleased that you will have the opportunity to testify on the subject of academic
research facilities. As you know, the Administration is still discussing this issue. We
may eventually wish to take up the issue in PCAST but, for the time being, I think
that your individual testimony can serve us well by outlining and reiterating the
fundamental issues which impinge on the health of our university research system.
Fundamentally, I think that the points we made in our 1986 "Packard-Bromley
Report" still hold and that the recommendations we made pertaining to the academic
infrastructure deserve to be underscored once again: 1) the cost of maintaining
infrastructure is an integral part of federally sponsored research costs; 2) catch-up
funding (merit-based and shared equally with non-Federal sources) is needed to
correct the serious deterioration of our university infrastructure caused by years of
deferred capital investments; and 3) use allowances on facilities and equipment should
be based on more realistic depreciation rates.
Since the issuance of our report, many other voices have joined the debate and
additional reports have supported our findings. For example, the 1988 Cornelius
Pings report on indirect costs, prepared for the AAU, put forth a recommendation
similiar to our own that the useful life of facilities be reduced from 50 years to 20
years and that equipment be amortized over 4 to 7 years (we had suggested 5 to 10
years) from the current 15 years. Most recently, in February 1991, the GUIRR issued
an options paper on Research Facility Financing that also suggests increasing the rate
of reimbursement as an option. Incidentally, the Roundtable estimates very roughly
that such an adjustment would cost the Federal Government about $100 million per
year.
You may recall that, since the issuance of our report, NSF established a modest
research facilities program at an approximate annual level of $20 million. In
January of this year NSF announced 78 awards totaling $39 million to institutions in
37 states. The recipient institutions agreed to cost-share about $61 million from
institutional, state, and other sources.
In the Administration's FY 1992 budget request, no funds have been requested for the
research facilities program because of a higher-priority $50 million NSF research
instrumentation initiative. However, the FY 1992 request does includes a $25 million
buildings and facilities program at the Department of Agriculture as part of its
National Research Initiative.
In 1988 and 1990, the NSF Research Facilities Office surveyed the state of research
facilities in the United States, and its findings are supportive of those in our own
report. The 1988 survey revealed a reported research facility capital project need of
$11.6 billion ($8.1 billion in new construction and $3.5 billion in repair and
renovation). In the 1990 survey, the total reported need had increased to $15.6
billion ($10.6 billion for new projects and $5.0 billion for repair and renovation).
Of the $15.6 billion, institutions were planning to spend $3.6 billion on capital
projects, deferring $12 billion indefinitely ($8 million for new construction and $4
billion for repair and renovation.)
The OTA report on "Federally Funded Research: Decisions for a Decade," released
just last week, touches on the issue of academic facilities. The report does not make
recommendations in this regard but raises the issue of "how much is enough?",
distinguishing between necessarily subjective definition of "need" (as surveyed by NSF)
and the more quantifiable notion of "demand" (as evidenced, for example, by the
number of proposals submitted to the NSF facilities program.)
We at least have a sense of the order of magnitude of what is needed to remedy the
university facilities situation. As long as our resources fall short of the needs, the
more difficult and more immediate questions are how to allocate the resources we
might be able to muster. For example, should we emphasize new construction or
repair and renovation? Should we concentrate resources on a limited number of
institutions (and, if so, which types), or should we spread our resources more widely?
In your testimony, you may wish to note that improving our current infrastructure
rather than expanding it is our best option. This could be accomplished by
emphasizing repair and upgrading of current facilities rather than building new
facilities. On the whole, it would probably be wise to confine the bulk of your
remarks to the "Packard-Bromley Report". A number of trends are currently
accelerating in Washington, including the earmarking and indirect cost issues, which
you probably will not want to get into at this time.
I am sending you excerpts of some of the reports I have mentioned. I hope that the
information will be useful to you.
Sincerely,
Allan
D. Allan Bromley
Assistant to the President
for
Science and Technology
The Honorable David Packard
Chairman of the Board
Hewlett-Packard Company
1501 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
OTA REPORT
Federally Funded Research: Decisions for a Decade
April 1991
Advisory Panel
Bernadine Healy, Panel Chair
Chairman, Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation
William Carey
Herman Postma
Consultant to the President
Senior Vice President
Carnegie Corp.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems
Purnell Choppin
Larry Smarr
President
Director
Howard Hughes Medical Institute
National Center/Supercomputer Applications
University of Illinois, Urbana
Herbert Doan
Consultant
Amy Walton
Midland, MI
Manager
Science Data Analysis and Computing Laboratory
Gertrude Elion
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Scientist Emeritus
Burroughs Wellcome
Sheila Widnall
Abby Mauze Rockefeller Professor of
Robert Fossum
Aeronautics and Astronautics
Professor, Electrical Engineering
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Southern Methodist University
George Wise
S. Allen Heininger
Specialist-Communications
Corporate Vice President
General Electric
Monsanto Co.
Donald Holt
Ex-Officio Members
Director
Ted G. Berlincourt
Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station
Director
Research and Laboratory Management
Todd LaPorte
Office of the Secretary of Defense
Professor of Political Science
University of California, Berkeley
James Hays
Acting Senior Science Advisor
Leon Lederman
National Science Foundation
Professor of Physics
Ruth L. Kirschstein
University of Chicago
Director
Cora Marrett
National Institute of General Medical Sciences
Professor of Sociology
National Institutes of Health
University of Wisconsin, Madison
F. Karl Willenbrock
William Massy
Assistant Director
Vice President for Finance
Scientific, Technological and International Affairs
Stanford University
National Science Foundation
Alan McGowan
Sister Agency Member
President
Richard Rowberg
Scientists' Institute for Public Information
Director, Science Policy Research Division
Robert Myers
Congressional Research Service
Assistant Professor of Agronomy
Library of Congress
University of Missouri, Columbia
NOTE: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the advisory panel members.
The panel does not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report. OTA assumes full responsibility for the
report and the accuracy of its contents.
iv
OTA EXCERPTS
Summary and Issues for Congress 9
ting
Table 2-Federally Funded Research in the 1980s and 1990s (In percent)
Fiscal year 1980
Fiscal year 1991 (est.)
S of
R&D as percent of total Federal budget
5.0
Total research as percent of Federal R&D
4.7
by
38.9
Basic research as percent of Federal R&D
36.3
15.7
n be
Basic research as percent of total Federal budget
19.1
0.8
0.9
are
eas-
Agency
Fiscal year 1980
Fiscal year 1991 (est.)
vhat
Percent of total (basic) research funds distributed, by agency
HHS/NIH
29/24 (38/35)
34/29 (40/37)
DOD
20 (12)
tute
15 (8)
NASA
14 (12)
16 (15)
her,
DOE
11 (11)
12 (14)
ible
NSF
8 (17)
9 (15)
USDA
the
6 (6)
5 (5)
Other
7 (4)
10 (4)
ent,
SS.
Performer
Fiscal year 1980
Fiscal year 1991 (est.)
Percent of total (basic) research funds, by performer
Universities
32 (50)
36 (47)
Federal
32 (25)
30 (23)
reat,
Industry
18 (7)
15 (9)
iter-
Nonprofits
6 (6)
8 (9)
and
FFRDCs®
11 (11)
11 (12)
is in
Ranking
Fiscal year 1980
Fiscal year 1988
estle
Percent distribution of Federal R&D funds at academic institutions
Top 10
25
25
spe-
Top 20
40
39
sci-
Top 50
68
65
Top 100
84
the
85
KEY: DOD=U.S. Department of Defense; DOE=U.S. Department of Energy; FFRDC=Federally Funded Research and Development Center; USDA=U.S.
and
: the
NASA-National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Department of Agriculture; NSF=National Science Foundation; HHS/NIH-U.S. Department of Health and Human Services/National Institutes of Health;
The category of FFRDCs includes all Federally Funded Research and Development Centers that are not administered by the Federal Government.
1 set
NOTE: R&D data are based on Federal obligations; calculations involving the total Federal budget are based on outlays. Columns may not sum to 100 percent
due to rounding.
ress
each
SOURCES: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991, based on National Science Foundation data; U.S. General Accounting Office data; Economic Report
of the President (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1991); and Budget of the United States Government: Fiscal Year 1992
(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1991).
face
here
Issues and Options for Congress
:s for
earch
Although priority setting occurs throughout
the Federal Government, it falls short in three
man
earch
ways. First, criteria used in selecting various
ysis,
ISSUE 1: Setting Priorities in the
areas of research and megaprojects are not
mak-
Support of Research
made explicit and vary widely from area to
gres-
area. This is particularly true, and particularly
ublic
Summary
a problem, at the highest levels of priority
e is
setting, e.g., in the President's budget and the
Priorities are set throughout the Federal
congressional decision process. Second, there
Government at many levels. At the highest
is currently no mechanism for evaluating the
search
level, research priorities are compared to
total research portfolio of the Federal Govern-
ources
nonscience and nonengineering needs. At the
ment in terms of progress toward many na-
Effect
next level, priorities are set across research
tional objectives, although recent efforts by the
fields, such as biomedicine and mathematics.
Office of Science and Technology Policy have
report,
Federal
Within fields, agency programs reflect re-
search opportunities in subfields and relevance
lead to some cross-agency planning, budget-
try site
ing, and evaluation. Third, the principal criteria
figure
to national needs. Finally, research projects are
for selection, scientific merit and mission
compared, ranked, and awarded Federal funds.
relevance, are in practice coarse filters. Con-
20
Federally Funded Research: Decisions for a Decade
research priorities, especially at the macro level.³
research system, competition drives up de-
Whether their exhortations lead to clearer research
mand for funding, because success in the
agendas (including the suspension or postponement
research environment often correlates highly
of some activities) remains to be seen, and whether
with the financial resources of research groups.
these investments are balanced, well-managed, and
yield the desired consequences is hard to judge in
Direct cost containment by the research
real time. But surely the policy process is enriched
agencies may not be an appropriate Federal
by drawing a map of the choices, the benefits, and
role, although Congress might direct the agen-
the costs to be incurred by the scientific community
cies to pursue specific measures at their
discretion and to evaluate their effectiveness.
and the Nation.
Instead, greater cost-accountability could be
ISSUE 2: Understanding Research
encouraged by the executive branch and Con-
gress. In particular, the Federal Government
Expenditures
should seek to eliminate the confusion around
Summary
allowable indirect costs, and develop better
estimates of future expenditures, especially for
Many in the scientific community claim that
megaprojects where costs often escalate rap-
the "costs of doing research" are rising
idly.
quickly, especially that the costs of equipment
and facilities outpace increases in Federal
Discussion
research funding. The most reliable data are
available from research agencies, and can be
Many researchers state as an overriding problem
analyzed at two levels: 1) total Federal expend-
that the "costs of doing research" have risen much
faster than inflation in the Gross National Product
itures for research, and 2) individual compo-
nents of research project budgets. OTA finds
(GNP), and Federal expenditures for research have
that Federal expenditures for research have
not kept pace with these rising costs. Included in the
risen faster than inflation, and more research-
costs of research are salaries, benefits, equipment,
ers are supported by the Federal Government
facilities, indirect costs, and other components of
than ever before. Salaries and indirect costs
research budgets. Equipment and facilities are typi-
account for the largest and fastest growing
cally named as most responsible for increased
costs.⁴⁰
share of these expenditures. However, these
findings do not truly address the claims ex-
However, addressing these claims is difficult,
pressed above, because of the numerous and
because it is hard to define what is meant by the costs
sometimes inconsistent meanings of the costs
of doing research. Research activities become
of doing research.
cheaper to complete with time, as long as the scope
Most research activities become cheaper to
of the problem and the standards of measurement do
complete with time, as long as the scope of the
not change. But this is not the way progress is made.
problem and the standards of measurement do
Advances in technology and knowledge are "en-
not change. However, advances in technology
abling": they allow deeper probing of more complex
and knowledge are "enabling": they allow
problems. This is an intrinsic challenge of research.
deeper probing of more complex scientific
There is an extrinsic challenge as well. Experi-
problems. Experiments are also carried out in
ments are carried out in an environment that is
an environment driven by competition. While
driven by competition. Competition is part of the
competition is part of the dynamic of a healthy
dynamic of a healthy research system. One sign of a
39In addition to those cited previously, see Robert M. Rosenzweig, President, Association of American Universities, "Address to the President's
Opening Session, The Gerontological Society of America," 43rd annual meeting, Boston, MA, Nov. 16, 1990; John H. Dutton and Lawson Crowe,
"Setting Priorities Among Scientific Initiatives," American Scientist, vol. 76, No. 6, November-December 1988, pp. 599-603; Albert H. Teich,
"Scientists and Public Officials Must Pursue Collaboration To Set Research Priorities," The Scientist, vol. 4, No. 3, Feb. 5, 1990, pp. 17; and Tina M.
Kaarsberg and Robert L. Park, "Scientists Must Face the Unpleasant Task of Setting Priorities," The Chronicle of Higher Education, vol. 37, No. 23,
Feb. 20, 1991, p. A52.
40See Janice Long, "Bush's Science Advisor Discusses Declining Value of R&D Dollars," Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 68, No. 17, Apr.
23, 1990, pp. 16-17; Science: The End of the Frontier?, op. cit., footnote 14; and OTA interviews at the University of Michigan and Stanford University,
July-August 1990.
OTA
Summary and Issues for Congress
21
de-
healthy research system is that it can expand to
the number of Ph.D. scientists are employed in the
the
produce more research. "Needs" in the research
academic sector. 43 By these measures, science has
hly
environment are thus open-ended.
grown more productive (and consequently the cost
ips.
per-unit output of research has decreased). 44 How-
Although competition exists in the research com-
ever, there is no metric to compare a "unit" of
rch
munity, it does not necessarily drive down costs, as
today's research with one in the past.
eral
would be expected in typical "markets." In an
en-
earlier era, the chief cost of research was the annual
Thus, "Are the costs of research going up?" is not
heir
salary of the principal investigator (PI). Today, the
a useful question for policy purposes. Research
ess.
PI is often the head of a team with many players and
expenditures by the Federal Government are
be
access to the latest research technologies. In the face
awarded and accounted for on an annual basis. What
on-
of inherent uncertainty about the eventual outcomes
gets included in these expenditures can be modified
ent
of research,⁴¹ sponsors must apply various criteria in
by adjusting the scale and pace of scientific research.
und
predicting the likelihood of eventual project success,
Especially for basic research, these factors are
tter
such as access to sophisticated equipment or the
variable, though the competition for personal and
for
availability of appropriately trained personnel.
institutional recognition pushes PIs toward larger
ap-
These criteria are often associated with higher rather
teams and more sophisticated instrumentation. In
than lower costs. Success, therefore, often comes to
mission-oriented science, the rate of research may be
those who spend the most (especially if research
dictated by pressing concerns (e.g., curbing the
teams are relatively evenly matched). In fact, com-
AIDS epidemic is desired as quickly as possible).
roblem
petitive proposals are often the most expensive and
low bids can actually decrease a proposer's chance
For policy purposes, research costs equal expen-
1 much
of winning a grant. Because additional personnel
ditures: if the Federal Government provides more
roduct
h have
and sophisticated equipment are seen by sponsors as
funds, "costs" will go up accordingly. A more
being instrumental in the conduct of research, costs
useful policy question might be: "Is Federal spend-
1 in the
pment,
are ultimately limited by what sponsors are willing
ing on individual components of research project
to spend.
budgets reasonable?" The Federal Government will
ents of
tend to have a different point of view on this question
re typi-
Products, or "outputs," of scientific research
from the research performer. OTA has explored both
creased
have also traditionally defied measurement.⁴² Con-
perspectives.
sequently, the price of research measured in eco-
ifficult,
nomic terms-the cost per-unit output-is ex-
Incomplete and murky data on research expendi-
e costs
tremely difficult to estimate. Analysis using crude
tures complicate questions on the costs of research.
measures of scientific "productivity" suggests that
Analysis of Federal expenditures for the conduct of
ecome
the cost of producing a published paper or perform-
research must factor what Federal agencies are
e scope
nent do
ing a given scientific measurement has decreased:
willing to spend for personnel, facilities, and instru-
S made.
with less than double the investment per year since
mentation, while analysis of expenditures by re-
re "en-
1965, more than double the number of papers are
search performers is confounded by the expenditure
omplex
published today in academia, and more than double
accounting schemes that vary from research institu-
esearch.
Experi-
41See, for example, Richard Nelson, "The Allocation of Research and Development Resources: Some Problems of Public Policy," Economics OJ
that is
Research and Development, Richard Tybout (ed.) (Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 1965), pp. 288-308. Nelson points out that research
and development has economic value because the information permits people to do things better, and sometimes to do things that they did not know
t of the
how
to
do before. [but] there is no simple way to evaluate the benefits society can expect from the knowledge created by different kinds of R&D
ign of a
(pp. 293-294). Also see Mansfield, op. cit., footnote 3.
⁴²Published papers and patents have been used as proxies, but they cannot be standardized. See Susan E. Cozzens, "Literature-Based Data in Research
President's
Evaluation: A Manager's Guide to Bibliometrics," final report to the National Science Foundation, Sept. 18, 1989.
son Crowe,
⁴³On the former, see H.D. White and K.W. McCain, "Bibliometrics," Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, voi. 24, 1989, pp.
1 H. Teich,
119-186; and on the latter, National Science Board, op. cit., footnote 12, tables 5-17 and 5-30.
nd Tina M.
⁴⁴However, even if one acccepts these definitions of research output, the productivity of research relative to other economic activities might still be
37, No. 23,
stagnant. Economist William Baumol explains that research, due to the price of labor rather than increases in its productivity, has an " inherent
tendency to rise in cost and price, persistently and cumulatively, relative to the costs and prices of the economy's other outputs." He warns that the
o. 17, Apr.
consequence may be an impediment to adequate funding of R&D activity, that is, to a level of funding consistent with the requirements of economic
University,
efficiency and the general economic welfare." See W.J. Baumol et al., Productivity and American Leadership: The Long View (Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press, 1989), ch. 6, quotes from pp. 116, 124.
OTA
22
Federally Funded Research: Decisions for a Decade
Figure 8-Estimated Cost Components of U.S. Academic R&D Budgets: 1958-88 (in billions of 1988 dollars)
6
6
SOURCE: Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable, Sci-
ence and Technology in the Academic Enterprise: Status,
Trends and Issues, (Washington, DC: National Academy Press,
1989), figure 2-43.
5
5
NOTE: Constant dollars were calculated using the GNP Implicit Price
Deflator.
DEFINITION OF TERMS: Estimated personnel costs for senior scientists
and graduate students include salaries and fringe benefits, such as
4
4
insurance and retirement contributions. Other direct costs include
such budget items as materials and supplies, travel, subcontractors,
computer services, publications, consultants, and participant support
costs. Indirect costs include general administration, department
3
3
administration, building operation and Imaintenance, depreciation and
use, sponsored-research projects administration, libraries, and stu-
dent-services administration. Equipment costs include: 1) reported
expenditures of separately budgeted current funds for the purchase of
research equipment, and 2) estimated capital expenditures for fixed or
2
2
built-in research equipment. Facilities costs include estimated capital
expenditures for research facilities, including facilities constructed to
house scientific apparatus.
DATA: National Science Foundation, Division of Policy Research and
1
1
Analysis. Database: CASPAR. Some of the data within this
database are estimates, incorporated where there are discontinui-
ties within data series or gaps in data collection. Primary data
source: National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resource
0
Studies, "Survey of Scientific and Engineering Expenditures at
0
Universities and Colleges"; National Institutes of Health; American
1958
1963
1968
1973
1978
1983
1988
Association of University Professors; National Association of State
Universities and Land Grant Colleges.
Senior
Graduate
Other direct
scientists
students
Indirect
Equipment
Facilities
Trends in Components of Total
Federal Research Expenditures
tion to research institution. 45 In addition, much of
Analyzing Federal expenditures for specific line
the current debate over rising expenditures takes
items of research budgets reveals interesting trends
place within a context of agency budget constraints
(again see figure 8). First, reimbursements for
and pressures felt by research performers.
indirect costs are the fastest growing portion of
Federal research expenditures. Indirect costs is a
The most reliable data on Federal research expen-
term that stands for expenses that research institu-
ditures are available from research agencies, and can
tions can claim from the Federal Government for
be analyzed at two levels: 1) total Federal expendi-
costs that cannot be directly attributed to a single
tures for research, and 2) individual components of
research project, i.e., they are distributed over many
research project budgets. OTA finds that total
investigators who share research infrastructure and
expenditures on individual components of grants
administrative support. Federal support for indirect
have risen over inflation, but not nearly at the rate for
costs has increased since the 1960s, with the largest
total Federal expenditures for research (see figure 8).
increases in the late 1960s and the 1980s. In 1958,
Instead, growth in the size of the research work force
indirect cost billings comprised 10 to 15 percent of
supported by the Federal Government seems to
Federal academic R&D funding. By 1988, that share
account for the largest increase in Federal research
had risen to roughly 25 percent.⁴ In addition, some
expenditures. Also, the largest component increases
agencies allow more than other agencies in indirect
of research project budgets are for salaries and
costs. For example, in 1988, the indirect cost as a
indirect costs.
percent of the total R&D expenditures allowed at
⁴⁵For an attempt to compare expenditures at two public and two private universities associated with the performance of National Science
Foundation-funded research, see G.W. Baughman, "Impact of Inflation on Research Expenditures of Selected Academic Disciplines 1967-1983," report
to the National Science Foundation and the National Center for Educational Statistics, NSF/PLN 8017815, Nov. 8, 1985. Also see Daniel E. Koshland,
vol. 249, July 6, 1990, pp. 10-13.
"The Underside of Overhead, Science, vol. 249, May 11, 1990, p. 3; and "The Overhead Question," letters in response to Koshland's editorial, Science,
⁴⁶National Science Foundation, The State of Academic Science and Engineering (Washington, DC: 1990), p. 121.
OTA
Summary and Issues for Congress
23
(1988 dollars) in 1981 to more than $70,000 in 1988.
In the same period, the number of full-time equiva-
Sci-
atus,
lent scientists and engineers employed in academic
ress,
settings rose steadily from about 275,000 to almost
340,000.4⁸
Price
Third, Federal support for academic research
ntists
ch as
equipment alone increased from $0.5 billion in 1968
clude
(1988 dollars) to $0.9 billion in 1988. Despite
tors,
oport
pronounced increases and improvements in equip-
ment
hand
ment stocks in the 1980s, 36 percent of department
1 stu-
heads still describe their equipment as inadequate (to
orted
conduct state-of-the-art research). This is in part due
se of
edor
to the reduction in the obsolescence time of equip-
pital
ment and instrumentation use since the late 1970s.4
ad to
and
Finally, the Federal share of all capital expendi-
this
tures for academic facilities (which include both
tinui-
data
research and teaching facilities) has never topped
urce
one-third. Now it is less than 10 percent. 50 For
is at
rican
Photo credit: Bob Kalmbach, University of Michigan
university research facilities alone, the Federal
State
Government provided an estimated 11 and 16
These scientists are in an ion beam laboratory at the
University of Michigan. Research often requires state-of-
percent, respectively, of private and public univer-
the-art equipment.
sity capital expenditures in 1988-89. The govern-
ment also supports research facilities through depre-
NIH was 30 percent, whereas it was less than 24
ciation, operation, and maintenance charges
percent for NSF (a proportion unchanged since the
accounted for in the indirect cost rate. In 1988, the
mid-1980s).47
Federal Government supplied nearly $1 billion to
line
nds
Second, increasing numbers of investigators and
support university infrastructure. Almost 20 percent
rising salaries (and the benefits that go with them)
was for facilities depreciation, while the rest was
for
of
have driven up the price of the personnel component
recovered for operation and maintenance costs. 51
S a
of direct costs. University personnel speak of the
Academic administrators claim that with growing
itu-
increased competition for faculty with other sectors
frequency, aging laboratories and classroom build-
for
of the economy, and note that faculty salaries have
ings falter and break down,⁵² and many claim that
agle
been rising significantly over inflation during the
facility reinvestment has not kept pace with growing
any
last decade. The average total compensation (sala-
needs. However, the picture is not clear. For
and
ries and benefits) for academic Ph.D.s in the natural
example, when asked by NSF, a majority of the
rect
sciences and engineering increased from $59,000
research administrators and deans at the top 50
gest
58,
⁴⁷Tbid., p. 142; and Association of American Universities, Indirect Costs Associated With Federal Support of Research on University Campuses: Some
Suggestions for Change (Washington, DC: December 1988).
t of
4$Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable, Science and Technology in the Academic Enterprise: Status, Trends, and Issues
are
(Washington, DC: National Academy Press, October 1989), pp. 2-34 and 2-47, based on National Science Foundation data.
me
⁴⁹National Science Foundation, Academic Research Equipment in Selected Science/Engineering Fields: 1982-83 to 1985-86, SRS 88-D1
rect
(Washington, DC: June 1988).
is a
50For public universities, 50 to 60 percent of the facilities funds come from the States, and 30 percent from bond issues. For private universities, roughly
1 at
one-third comes from the Federal Government, while another one-third is from donations. See Michael Davey, Bricks and Mortar: A Summary and
Analysis of Proposals to Meet Research Facilities Needs on College Campuses (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 1987).
⁵¹Over the period 1982 to 1988, the Federal support of university infrastructure grew by over 70 percent in real terms. These figures are presented
ence
in "Enhancing Research and Expanding the Human Frontier," op. cit., footnote 26, pp. 61-62. The document further states that: "Each academic
eport
land,
institution grants.' The must provide a certification that its research facilities are adequate (to perform the research proposed) as a condition of accepting research
$12 billion of needed, but unfunded capital projects.
reported in the National Science Foundation surveys of universities
not had an apparent effect on the ability of universities to accept Federal research funds."
has
ence,
⁵²Karen Grassmuck, "Colleges Scramble for Money to Reduce Huge Maintenance Backlog, Estimated to Exceed $70 Billion; New Federal Help Seen
Unlikely," The Chronicle of Higher Education, vol. 37, No. 6, Oct. 10, 1990, pp. A1, A34.
OTA
24
Federally Funded Research: Decisions for a Decade
research universities replied that their facilities were
ity in expenditures for performers (e.g., researchers
"good to excellent," whereas a majority of the
could be encouraged to use the money saved one
research administrators and deans in the schools
year in the next year, a so-called no-cost extension).
below the top 50 estimated that their facilities were
Within such cost-accountability measures, Congress
"fair to poor.'
might also direct the agencies to experiment with
The crux of the facilities problem is that research
cost-containment schemes and to evaluate their
and academic centers can always use new or
effectiveness.
renovated buildings, but how much is enough? Even
Greater cost-acountability is especially important
though "need" may not be quantified in the
in the calculation of indirect cost rates. At present,
different sectors of the research enterprise, a demand
the guidelines for calculating costs are detailed in
certainly exists. For example, when NSF solicited
conjunction with OMB Circular A-21 and have been
proposals for a $20 million program in 1989 to
in force since 1979. Every major research university
address facilities needs, it received over 400 propos-
has an indirect rate established for the current fiscal
als totaling $300 million in requests.54
year for recovery of costs associated with sponsored
Federal Policy Responses to Increased Demand
research. These rates have evolved over many years
as a result of direct interaction and negotiation with
Many Federal agencies have experimented with
the cognizant Federal agency. There is a wide range
grant-reducing measures, such as the salary caps
of indirect costs rates among universities, with most
required by Congress and temporarily imposed by
noticeable differences between public and private
NSF and NIH, the ceilings on indirect costs currently
institutions (rates tend to be higher at private
in place at USDA, the elimination of cost-blind
institutions). Rates vary because of: 1) significant
reviews of proposals in some research programs at
differences in facilities-related expenditures, 2) un-
NIH, the limitation of funds supplied in new grants
derrecovery by some universities, 3) imposition of
to researchers with multiple Federal grants at the
limits by some government agencies in the negotia-
National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and
the institution of fixed-price grants in some NSF
tion process, and 4) diversity in assigning compo-
nent expenditures as direct or indirect.⁵⁶
programs. 55 Congress could pursue permanent
grant-reducing measures to slow or limit increases in
However, confusion around what is contained in
research expenditures on individual research grants.
the indirect cost rate is getting worse, not better. This
However, it may not be an appropriate Federal role
reflects, in part, the difficulty of separating expendi-
to dictate specific allowable costs in research
tures along lines of research, instruction, and other
projects. In general, allowing market forces to
functions. 57 Recent investigations by the Office of
determine costs has been a tradition in Federal
Naval Research and the House Committee on
policy.
Energy and Commerce have also uncovered signifi-
Instead, greater cost-accountability could be en-
cant variation in the accounting of indirect costs by
the cognizant Federal agencies and research univer-
couraged. One benefit of cost-accountability could
sities. 58 These differences should be sorted out, and
be incentives for performers to spend less than what
more explicit and understandable guidelines de-
was targeted in project budgets, and greater flexibil-
vised.
September 1988), p. 26.
⁵³National Science Foundation, Scientific and Engineering Research Facilities at Universities and Colleges: 1988, NSF 88-320 (Washington, DC:
p.2.
54See Jeffrey Mervis, "Institutions Respond in Large Numbers to Tiny Facilities Program at NIH, NSF," The Scientist, vol. 4, No. 8, Apr. 16, 1990,
55For a discussion of various options, see Barbara J. Culliton, "NIH Readies Plan for Cost Containment," Science, vol. 250, Nov. 30, 1990,
Higher Education, vol. 37, No. 3, Nov. 21, 1990, pp. A19, A21.
1198-1199; and Colleen Cordes, "Universities Fear That U.S. Will Limit Payments for Overhead Costs Incurred by Researchers." The Chronicle pp. of
⁵⁶Association of American Universities, op. cit., footnote 47.
"Indirect Costs of Federally Funded Academic Research," unpublished paper, Aug. 3, 1984, p. 1.
⁵⁷Eleanor C. Thomas and Leonard L. Lederman, National Science Foundation, Directorate for Scientific, Technological, and International Affairs,
November-December Chronicle 1990, pp. 1, 13; Colleen Cordes, "Conceding 'Shortcomings,' Stanford To Forgo $500,000 in Overhead on U.S. Contracts," Observer,
58See Marcia Barinaga, "Stanford Sails Into a Storm," Science, vol. 250, Dec. 21, 1990, p. 1651; "Government Inquiry," Stanford
Overhead of Higher Education, Jan. 30, 1991, vol. 37, No. 20, pp. A19, A22; and Colleen Cordes, "Stanford U. Embroiled in Angry Controversy The on
Charges," The Chronical of Higher Education, Feb. 6, 1991, vol. 37, No. 21, pp. A1, A20-A21.
OTA
Summary and Issues for Congress
25
ers
It is also important to stress accuracy in develop-
spending, and competition in the university environ-
one
ing estimates of costs for megaprojects. When the
ment. In the academic environment, researchers are
on).
Federal Government "buys" a megaproject, the
asked today to publish more papers, shepherd more
ress
initial investment seems to represent a point of no
with
graduate students, and bring in more Federal funding
return. Once the go, no-go decision has been made
heir
than their predecessors.⁶ If they do not meet these
at the national level, the commitment is expected to
expectations, some report a sense of failure. 62 This
be honored. However, criteria for consideration in
ant
the funding of a science megaproject could conceiv-
is true even if they have succeeded, but not by as
ably include: startup and maintenance costs, cost of
much or as quickly as they had hoped.
ent,
in
unanticipated delay, cost of users' experiments, and
een
likely changes in the overall cost of the project from
To boost research productivity and to compete
sity
initial estimate to completion. Some estimates for
with other research teams, faculty attempt to lever-
cal
science megaprojects double before the construction
age their time with the help of postdoctoral fellows,
red
is even begun, and costs of operating a big science
nontenure track researchers, and graduate students
facility once it is completed are sometimes not
who are paid lesser salaries. Due to the shortage of
ars
considered.⁵⁹
ith
faculty positions for the numbers of graduate stu-
age
Megaprojects will always be selected through a
dents produced, young Ph.D.s have been willing to
ost
political process because of their scale, lumpiness,
take these positions in order to remain active
ate
and incommensurability. Since their costs, espe-
researchers. This availability of "cheap labor" is
ate
cially in following years, affect other disciplines'
seen by many senior researchers and their institu-
ant
abilities to start new, large projects, megaprojects
tions as the only way they can make ends meet in
un-
could well be considered as candidates for crosscut-
competing for grants. 63 This is a trend toward an
of
ting, priority-setting analysis before the practical
"industrial model," where project teams are larger
tia-
point of no return. As the National Academy of
and responsibilities are more distinct within the
po-
Sciences' report on budget priorities reminds:
group.⁶ While the expenditures charged to an
"
it is necessary to specify the institutions,
individual grant may be less (since more grants may
1 in
individuals, and organizations that will be served;
be required to support the diverse work of the group),
his
[and] the costs of the program. The cost of
the overall cost of supporting a PI and the larger
di-
investment for the Federal Government is an impor-
group are greater.
her
tant criterion to apply to all scientific research,
of
including megaprojects.
Some experiments have been attempted on U.S.
on
Performer Expectations
campuses to temper the drive for more research
ifi-
publications (as a measure of productivity). For
by
Not all problems in research costs can be ad-
example, at Harvard Medical School, faculty are
ver-
dressed by the Federal Government. Many research-
allowed to list only five publications for considera-
and
ers point to higher expectations, which require more
tion in tenure reviews, with similar numbers set for
de-
59For example, see Kuntz, op. cit., footnote 31; and David P. Hamilton, "The SSC Takes on a Life of Its Own," Science, vol. 249, Aug. 17, 1990,
pp. 371-372.
DC:
⁶National Academy of Sciences, op. cit., footnote 6, p. 11.
⁶¹This is especially true in entrepreneurial research areas such as biotechnology. See Henry Etzkowitz, "Entrepreneurial Scientists and Entrepreneurial
990,
Universities in American Academic Science," Minerva, vol. 21, summer-autumn 1983, pp. 198-233.
62Science: The End of the Frontier? op. cit., footnote 14.
pp.
le of
"
⁶³Labor economist Alan Fechter, Executive Director, Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel, National Research Council, writes:
personnel costs constitute roughly 45 percent of total costs and this percentage has remained reasonably stable over time. Given that salaries
of faculty (i.e., principal investigators) have been rising during the 1980s, this suggests that the staffing pattern of research projects has been changing,
with the input of PIs decreasing relative to other, less expensive resources. There is some evidence to support this hypothesis in the report of GUIRR
fairs,
[Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable] [that] finds in academia an increasing ratio of nonfaculty to faculty," personal
communication, Nov. 15, 1990. See Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable, op. cit., footnote 48.
ver,
⁶⁴Elsewhere this has been called the "industrialization" of science, or a new collectivized form in which characteristics of both the academic
The
and industrialized modes are intermingled." See John Ziman, An Introduction to Science Studies (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press,
1984), p. 132 (elaborated below).
y on
⁶⁵Noted at OTA Workshop on the Costs of Research and Federal Decisionmaking, July 19, 1990.
OTA
26
Federally Funded Research: Decisions for a Decade
other promotions. 66 Thus, the quality and impor-
urgent calls to augment Ph.D. production in the
tance of the candidate's selected set of papers is
United States. OTA believes that the likeli-
stressed, though measuring these characteristics
hood of these projections being realized is
remains controversial. 67 However, strong incentives
overstated, and that these projections alone are
militate against reducing research volume. Most
poor grounds on which to base public policy.
overhead is brought into the university by a small
For instance, they assume continued growth in
number of research professors. (At Stanford, 5
demand in both academic and industrial sec-
percent of the faculty bring in over one-half of the
tors, independent of the level of Federal
indirect cost dollars.) Any measure that would
funding. In both this and previous OTA work,
reduce grant awards and publications produced by
however, OTA has indicated the value to the
these investigators would deprive the university of
Nation-regardless of employment opportuni-
revenues. In fact, many universities in tight financial
ties in the research sector-of expanding the
straits try to maximize the level of research volume. 68
number and diversity of students in the educa-
The Federal Government must seek to understand
tional pipeline (K-12 and undergraduate) for
better the trends in expenditures in the research
science and engineering, preparing graduate
environment-especially variations across institu-
students for career paths in or outside of
tional settings-and craft government policies to
research, and, if necessary, providing retrain-
allocate resources effectively. Reliable analyses of
ing grants for researchers to move more easily
research expenditures at all of the Federal agencies
between research fields.
are not available. Future studies of expenditures
should look not only at the economic forces that
2. Total participation in science and engi-
increase (and decrease) research expenditures, but
neering can be increased if the opportunities
also at the sociology of research organizations,
and motivation of presently underparticipating
including the demography of research teams and
groups (e.g., women, minorities, and research-
institutional policies for sponsored projects.⁶
ers in some geographic locations) are ad-
Federal agencies clearly must understand increas-
dressed. Federal legislation has historically
ing demands to fund research, as research universi-
played an important role in recruiting and
ties and laboratories are an invaluable resource for
retaining these groups. Also, "set-aside" pro-
the United States. Devising mechanisms for coping
grams (which offer competitive research grants
with research expenditures is one of the central
to targeted groups) and mainstream discipli-
challenges to the Federal system for funding re-
nary programs are tools that can enlarge,
search in the 1990s.
sustain, and manage the diversity of people and
institutions in the research system.
ISSUE 3: Adapting Education and
Human Resources To Meet
3. Research in many fields of science and
Changing Needs
engineering is moving toward a larger, more
"industrial" model, with specialized responsi-
Summary
bilities and the sharing of infrastructure. In
Three issues are central to education and
response, the Federal Government may wish to
human resources for the research work force:
acknowledge changes in the composition of
research groups and to enhance the opportuni-
1. Recent projections of shortages of Ph.D.
ties and rewards for postdoctorates, nontenure
researchers in the mid-1990s have spurred
track researchers, and others.
⁶⁶The National Science Foundation also now limits the number of publications it will consider, as evidence of an applicant's track record, in reviewing
grant proposals. See David P. Hamilton, "Publishing By-and For?-the Numbers," Science, vol. 250, Dec. 7, 1990, pp. 1331-1332.
67See N.L. Geller et al., "Lifetime Citation Rates to Compare Scientists' Work," Social Science Research, vol. 7, No. 4, 1978, pp. 345-365; and A.L.
Porter 103-124. et al., "Citations and Scientific Progress: Comparing Bibliometric Measures With Scientist Judgments," Scientometrics, vol. 13, 1988, pp.
⁶⁸OTA interviews at Stanford University, Aug. 2-3, 1990.
1989 (Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer, 1990).
⁶⁹See Susan E. Cozzens et al. (eds.), The Research System in Transition, Proceedings of a NATO Advanced Study Institute, II Ciocco, Italy, Oct. 1-13,
OTA
34
Federally Funded Research: Decisions for a Decade
both the participation in, and the capacity of, the
other areas, however, data are scarce. For
Federal research system. But because the annual
instance, almost no consistent information
funding for each program remains modest (typically
exists on the size and composition of the
in the $10 million range), program impact is limited.
research work force (as opposed to the total
Without set-asides, the Federal Government
science and engineering work force), or what
would have little confidence that once scientific
proportion is supported by Federal funds
merit has been demonstrated, other differentiating
(across agencies).
criteria would be applied to the funding of research-
Most research agencies, with the exception
ers. However, to a research system already strapped
of NSF and NIH, devote few resources to
for resources, the funding of such "tangential"
internal data collection. Consequently, most
concerns is seen by some as diverting precious
analyses must rely on NSF and NIH data and
dollars away from the core need to advance knowl-
edge.99
indicators alone, potentially generalizing re-
sults and trends that might not apply to other
Human resources are perhaps the most important
agencies. Furthermore, it is not clear how
component of the research system. Through support
agency data are used to inform research deci-
of scientists and engineers, graduate students, and
sionmaking, as some challenge current policy
the educational pipeline, the Federal Government is
assumptions and others are reported at inappro-
instrumental in the creation of a strong research
priate levels of aggregation.
work force, which has been expanding under this
OTA suggests additional information that
support since the 1950s. In the 1990s, however, the
could be collected for different levels of
research work force-in its myriad forms of organi-
decisionmaking, concentrating in areas of pol-
zation and scale of effort-has reached such a size
icy relevance for Congress and the executive
that it feels strain under the Federal Government's
branch. However, better information may not
present approach to supporting the conduct of
be cost-free. The idea is not merely to add to
research. In addition, accommodating to an expand-
data collection and analysis, but to substitute
ing research work force, and to the changing ethnic
for current activities not used for internal
and racial composition of students in the educational
agency decisionmaking or external account-
pipeline for science and engineering, poses chal-
ability. Refined inhouse and extramural data
lenges to the Federal research system. Human
collection, analysis, and interpretation would
resources issues have implications not only for the
be instructive for decisionmaking and manag-
number of participants in the research work force,
ing research performance in the 1990s.
but also for the character of the research that new
entrants automatically bring to the Nation's research
Discussion
enterprise
Many organizations collect and analyze data on
ISSUE 4: Refining Data Collection and
the research system. First and foremost is NSF, with
Analysis To Improve Research
its numerous surveys, reports, and electronic data
Decisionmaking
systems that are publicly available. Certainly the
most visible compendium of data on the research
Summary
system is the biennial report, Science & Engineering
Indicators (SEI), issued since 1973 by the National
Data collected on the health of the Federal
Science Board, the governing body of NSF. 100 Other
research system-dollars spent for research,
sources include the other Federal research agencies;
enrollments, and academic degrees awarded in
the National Research Council; the Congressional
specific fields, and outcome measures such as
Research Service; professional societies, especially
publications and citations-are extensive. In
the American Association for the Advancement of
reflect the multiple objectives of research funding would be a key element to consider.
⁹⁹Change comes incrementally and at the margins of the enterprise. But if one were constructing the system from scratch, mainstreaming criteria to
¹⁰⁰See Susan E. Cozzens, "Science Indicators: Description or Prescription?" OTA contractor report, September 1990. Note that Science
Engineering by the Science Indicators (SEI) was named Science Indicators until 1987. SEI builds on data collected, published, and issued in many other reports &
Resources Studies Division of the National Science Foundation.
DAtada
"PINGS REPORT"
Indirect Costs
Associated with
Federal Support of
Research on
University
Campuses:
Some Suggestions
for Change
Report of the AAU Ad
Hoc Committee on
Indirect Costs to the
Executive Committee of
the Association of
American Universities
December 1988
PINGS REPORT
S
Executive Summary
I. INTRODUCTION
A. The Problem
The American government long ago entered into a mutually beneficial partnership
with the nation's universities for funding research and educating future researchers.
However, the partnership has grown stale. There no longer exists in government a
strong, shared vision of how and why government should support research and
training in universities, and the underpinnings of the partnership have come under
increasing attack. In addition, growth in research budgets has been accompanied by
burgeoning expectations, with the result that available resources are actually more
strained than before in many areas. Pressures caused by the federal deficit have
exacerbated these problems. Issues of principle have been ignored to achieve short-
term budgetary objectives. As a result, long-term needs of academic research are
being underfunded, with serious long-term consequences.
B. The System
The government sponsors university research and development through grants and
contracts. Included in this process is a system for reimbursement of the costs, both
direct and indirect, of conducting research. This system, although intrinsically
sound, has been a source of continual frustration for all concerned, because it is
complex and not easily understood or explained.
OMB Circular A-21 sets forth the principles and procedures which govern the
system's operation. It calls for the costs of each university's federally sponsored
research to be reimbursed by the government on the basis of an individually
determined indirect cost rate.
This rate is the ratio of two numbers multiplied by 100. The numerator is the
summation of all the allowable costs of an institution's research which are
attributable to its externally sponsored and separately budgeted research not
directly charged to grant or contract budgets. The denominator is the summation of
the modified total direct costs expended by the institution under those research
programs. The resulting rate is then applied to each contract and grant. The rate-
setting usually follows negotiations which involve documentation of costs and a
decision on the full level of costs that should be assigned to the federally sponsored
research on the campus.
PINGS
Page V
Executive Summary
C. & D. The Ad Hoc Committee
In response to growing concern over indirect cost issues, the Executive Committee
of the AAU charged an ad hoc committee to review the current system, particularly
the rules set forth in Circular A-21, and to identify problems and suggest changes.
The Ad Hoc Committee met on a total of 13 occasions between March 1987 and July
1988, inviting guests from various government agencies, universities, and profes-
sional scientific societies. It finished drafting its report on September 8, 1988. The
adoption of the report by the AAU membership was confirmed by its Executive
Committee on December 13, 1988.
II. BACKGROUND
A. History of OMB Circular A-21
In 1947 the Office of Naval Research, then the primary supporter of university
research, negotiated with universities the first formal principles for determining
applicable research costs based on actual costs. These principles introduced the use
of campuswide average rates, deliberately eschewing the use of marginal cost rates.
In 1958 these principles were revised and issued as Bureau of the Budget Circular A-
21. They allowed for varying circumstances among universities, but required
justification and documentation of costs and development of methods for
distributing costs between instruction and research. Certain costs were declared
unallowable. Universities with less than $250,000 in annual federal research
costs. funding were permitted to use a simplified approach for calculating and allocating
Between 1961 and 1983, Circular A-21 was revised eight times. Following various
efforts in the early 1980s to limit indirect cost reimbursements, OMB in 1986
imposed a fixed allowance for faculty administrative effort that could be charged to
research; this established a precedent for departure from a cost-based system.
B. Changing Context
The preceding history of OMB Circular A-21 is only part of the total picture. The
entire context in which the indirect cost system operates is changing. Important
changes include pressures on university faculty, cumulative effects of conflicts
between faculty and university officers over indirect costs, increasing obsolescence
of research facilities and equipment, and the basic relationship between universities
and the federal government's support of research.
The 1986 OMB/DHHS assault on the principles of OMB Circular A-21 reveals little
commitment to an ongoing government-university partnership. Any change in
attitude toward support of university research will inevitably focus to some extent
Executive Summary
PINGS
Page
on indirect costs. If indirect costs continue to increase as a line item in the federal
basic budget, for whatever reason, they might be particularly exposed, especially if the
rationale and explanations for such increases are not forthcoming.
Also troubling is the increasing Congressional practice of allocating funds for
specific university research programs and facilities without agency review of the
scientific merits. This practice reflects an increasing demand to spread research
dollars the more broadly among different classes of universities and geographically. To
extent that Congress or the agencies continue to yield to this demand but do not
provide additional funding, there will be pressure to increase the supply of direct
research dollars by capping or reducing reimbursements for indirect expenses.
III.
PERSPECTIVES AND PERCEPTIONS
In this section of the report, the Ad Hoc Committee offers its perspective on some
held aspects of the complex whole that is indirect cost recovery and notes the perceptions
in the several affected communities.
A.
Acceptance of the Basic System (Circular A-21)
about the effectiveness of OMB Circular A-21. However, the Committee did not
Many who deal with indirect cost matters have at one time or another complained
find any support for eliminating the current system. Rather, there was general
consensus that the system is basically sound but could be improved. Happily,
recommendations for change did not seem to stem from narrow, special interests.
B. Averaging
As defined, the indirect cost rate is an average. Like many averages, it may be
representative of the whole, but it can be misinterpreted if it is assumed to be
principal investigator; each research program incurs indirect costs that are
descriptive of a local situation. Even in a large institution, there is no average
distributed somewhat differently than they are in the university-wide average.
New patterns of program funding raise the possibility of change in indirect cost
recovery practices. There has been a trend in recent years toward larger grants to
selected universities, such as the grants made through the NSF Engineering
overhead rates for these large centers. However, this could result in institutions'
Research Center Program. If this trend increases, pressures may mount for special
having a great number of different indirect cost rates that would be difficult for both
institutions and agencies to calculate and manage. In addition, annual fluctuations
in rates are likely to increase, if averaging is minimized and the ability of agencies to
indirect costs include increasing uncertainty of the calculation and divisiveness
deal with rapid rate fluctuation is questionable. Further pitfalls in disaggregation of
resulting from incentives to direct funds through channels with lower rates.
PINGS
age
Page Vii
Executive Summary
C.
Attitudes and Perceptions
1. Government Officials
There is little concern among government officials over the fact that research
programs need administrative support and that real costs are incurred. The concern
is over the rigor with which these costs are calculated and allocated to the research
programs. Because of federal budget pressures, universities can expect to be more
vulnerable for costs that are not easily quantified or documented and that are one
step removed from the execution of the research.
None of the government officials who talked with the Committee believed that the
relationship between the government and research universities was truly governed
by a principle of full recovery of incurred costs. This attitude has serious
implications for indirect cost recovery. It has led to formal and informal
requirements for explicit cost-sharing by universities. Some university officials
suspect that it occasionally enters into negotiations over annual rates, which may
account in part for significant variations in rates by geographic region.
2.
Faculty Groups
Overall, most faculty are realistic about indirect costs. But there is persistent and
consistent criticism from faculty about the quality of administration and the
maintenance of facilities in support of research. In most cases, the level of faculty
understanding in these areas was not high. The realities of indirect costs, along with
many other aspects of institutional financing, seem to be better accepted on
campuses where there is an ongoing and broad-based consultation on the full range
of issues attendant to the financing and management of the institution.
3.
University Administrative Officers
Attitudes toward indirect costs and interpretation and explanation of indirect cost
issues vary widely within different administrative offices on most campuses.
Diverse interpretation is most common on the issue of full recovery. However,
there is also diverse interpretation of the nature and use of the funds involved, with
some seeing them as reimbursements for already incurred costs and others seeing
them as new, discretionary money available after all costs are paid. This creates
great potential for confusion. Some administrators believe that low indirect cost
rates make it easier to compete for federal research funds, and explain their
institutions' unusually low rates in part as strategies to gain competitive advantage.
D.
Shared Benefits
In today's research university, the functions of teaching, research, and public service
are often inseparable. Allocation of costs among these functions has proven to be
exceedingly difficult and is an ongoing source of ambiguity and controversy. While
Executive Summary
PINGS
Page vill
some categories of costs can be assigned unambiguously, others cannot. This is one
of the major reasons for variations in rates from institution to institution. There are
intrinsic differences in the balance between teaching and research from university to
university, and there also will be reasonable differences of judgment about the
appropriateness of allocation in the areas of overlapping usage.
E.
Negotiation of Rates and Management of Revenues
Every major research university has a rate established for the current fiscal year for
recovery of indirect costs associated with sponsored research. In all instances, these
rates have evolved, institution by institution, over the last 30 to 40 years as a result
of direct interaction with the cognizant federal agency. The outcomes clearly reflect
the attitudes and practices within the particular federal agency involved. Attitudes
within a given university also affect the indirect cost rates that have evolved.
A number of state institutions have complicated relationships with their state
governments regarding allocation of funds. Some operate very much like private
universities, where all indirect cost recoveries flow into the institution's general
fund. At others, indirect cost recoveries are assigned directly to the state treasury.
Clearly, a university that keeps all of its indirect cost recovery has a much greater
incentive to provide the necessary documentation to recover costs as fully as
possible. Universities whose funds flow back into the state treasury may find it
hard to justify the costs of personnel and systems needed to document more
complete recovery. Some state institutions have a combination of these two models.
In many universities, both private and public, the institution allocates discretionary
funds to a principal investigator in proportion to his or her success in attracting
external research funding. In some cases, this is overtly described as returning some
part of the overhead to the faculty member. This creates potential for confusion
within and outside the institution.
Institutions should be more precise in their characterization of the practice of using
institutional funds to assist individual research faculty. The frequent description of
refunding a portion of the overhead is not correct and is easily misinterpreted.
Many institutions choose to allocate general funds equal to a portion of their indirect
cost recovery to support their faculty's research. We suggest these allocations be
more carefully labeled to describe their actual purpose.
F. Cost-sharing
Even though one of the principles underlying OMB Circular A-21 is full cost
recovery, cost-sharing has been a fact of life for as long as the federal government
has sponsored university research.
age VIII
PINGS
Page ix
Executive Summary
one
are
Independent research and development funds are one example of costs that are not
y to
allowed to universities. Other forms of cost-sharing result from the negotiation
process. There have been times when cost-sharing has been required by
Congressional action. Agencies also have introduced their own requirements. Cost-
sharing has not been restricted to large programs. It also has been required on
individual investigator grants for more than 20 years.
Particularly in times of tight budgets, the government focuses on indirect costs as
the most likely area where universities can forego payment. The intent is to provide
the full level of direct funding to principal investigators while the university gives
up some indirect cost reimbursement.
G. Vulnerability of Rates and Components
The university community can expect that tensions over indirect cost recovery will
persist, and that it may be easier politically to constrain payment of those costs than
to limit outlays for direct research support. If the university community cannot
easily explain and defend the payments in this category, it should reasonably expect
difficulty in sustaining them. On the other hand, the community should insist that
the process be conducted openly and without acrimony.
IV. DIFFERENCES IN INDIRECT COST RATES
There is a wide range of indirect cost rates among the nation's research universities.
Most noticeable is the difference, on average, in rates between public and private
universities, although there are anomalies within each group. Clearly, institutional
peculiarities lead to differences in various components of the rate. Total rates vary
by more than a factor of two from the highest to lowest, and individual components
of the rates can differ by more than a factor of ten.
The dominant reasons for variation in rates are: (1) real and significant differences
in facilities-related costs, (2) tacit or overt underrecovery by some universities, (3)
imposition of arbitrary limits by some government agencies in the negotiation
process, and (4) diversity in assigning component costs as direct or indirect.
V. CONCLUSIONS
A.
Basic Relationship
It would be in the best interests of both the federal agencies who sponsor research
and the university community to acknowledge explicitly that teaching and research
functions are inextricably intertwined. It also needs to be acknowledged that there
is mutual benefit to the government and the university community in this system.
Executive Summary
PINGS
Page X
allocate Furthermore, it should be accepted that there are complications in all attempts to
costs precisely between teaching and research functions.
Periodic contentiousness on the matter of indirect costs is due in part to
the fundamental differences of opinion on the nature of the basic relationship between
federal government and research universities.
B. System for Recovering Indirect Cost
It is very likely that there will always be concerns and controversies over the
administrative, library, and student services components of the indirect cost
long as universities and federal negotiators are required to agree on an allocation rate, of as
those costs among research, instruction, and other functions. The facilities-related
components of the indirect cost rate are much less controversial. There are sound
practices underlying reimbursement for facilities-related costs on the basis of
documented and allocated costs incurred, and the outcomes should reflect each
the university's special circumstances. Moreover, there may be some merit in exploring
possibility of directly charging certain elements of facilities-related expenses.
1. Full Recovery of Costs of Research
The principles of full cost recovery have not been met in practice, and there is loss
charges, except as an abstract limit.
of credibility in urging the position of full cost recovery, either for direct or indirect a
2. Changes That WIII Affect Indirect Cost Rates
private universities will need to increase indirect cost recoveries in order to
Aging laboratory facilities and equipment are a major concern. Both public and
All involved parties would be well served if these changes were openly
debt and depreciation costs for new and renewed science and engineering facilities. meet
acknowledged and accurately described.
3. Variation in Rates
Apparent variations in rates do not conceal overrecovery by some universities. To
the contrary, no single institution is approaching full recovery; many are
would significantly underrecovering for actual costs incurred. The university community very
be well served by making it more apparent that administrative costs
relatively constant across all public and private universities, but that the overall are
arbitrary outcomes imposed by federal negotiation process, and by voluntary
variations in rates are significantly affected by true differences in facility cost, by
underrecovery by certain universities.
Page X
PINGS
Page XI
Executive Summary
3 to
4. Faculty Involvement
There should be less emphasis on attempting to educate faculty on the narrow issue
en
of indirect costs, and more emphasis on involving them in discussions of indirect
costs in the broader context of the university's financial welfare.
VI.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The current system for identifying, allocating, and recovering the costs of sponsored
research should not be abandoned. However, changes could be made that would
enhance the system's clarity and improve its credibility. Moreover, it may be
possible and reasonable to narrow the range of rates charged by different
universities. Both the federal government and the university research community
have a stake in making the system simpler, more transparent, and more credible.
The Committee makes its suggestions with the sole intention of improving the
system. The suggestions are not intended to generate more funds for universities or
to save money for the government.
Recommendation 1
The indirect cost rate should be split into two new rates which are additive: a
facilities and equipment rate, which includes operation, maintenance, and
depreciation (or its equivalent), and a rate that includes all other components, such
as administration, library, and student services.
A number of campuses are incurring indebtedness to construct new science
complexes, and there will be a natural tendency for them to apportion some of the
costs of this indebtedness to research budgets. If such charges become a source of
pressure for overall rate increases, it will be better to identify this pressure openly as
facility-driven rather than to confuse it with administrative costs and other items.
The second rate contains those costs which are less easy to define in terms of their
attribution to research activity. Therefore, it is somewhat more likely to be
controversial and subject to review and modification. However, the components of
this rate, in general, have come into reasonable equilibrium and will not be subject
to much pressure for increases in the near future on a nationwide basis.
Recommendation 2
Threshold rates should be established for the administrative, library, and student
service cost components of the indirect cost rate.
These rates could be claimed without further documentation, or be supplanted by a
higher rate if documentation were supplied. Implementation of this recommen-
dation would allow universities to recover reasonable costs incurred, and at the
Executive Summary
PINGS
F
Page xii
same time help provide simplification and removal of contention over something
that never will be exact. To that end, both parts of this recommendation are
essential, i.e., there must be a right to invoke a threshold rate schedule or to recover
in excess of that, based on documentation. The schedule of threshold rates should
reflect the average or prevailing practice, or perhaps just slightly below, since a
radically reduced schedule would be accepted only by a handful of institutions.
Recommendation 3
Universities and the federal government should be encouraged to negotiate
multiple-year rates.
There has been an increased practice in the last several years of negotiating firm rate
schedules for as much as three to five years in advance. In such a process, both the
federal government and the universities are reasonably well served.
If there is agreement on a set of threshold rates for administrative, library, and
student services components, then setting of forward rates would primarily involve
facilities-associated expenses, which are particularly amenable to reasonably
accurate projection.
Recommendation 4
The averaging principle for indirect costs, which tends to produce one rate per
campus, should be reaffirmed and accepted by all government agencies.
Widespread use of multiple rates would, on balance, do much more harm than
good. The damage from increased contention, distortion of incentives,
destabilization of rates, and the extra cost of administering such a system far
outweigh any advantage. This is especially apparent when the system is viewed on
a governmentwide basis, where departures from the average tend to cancel
themselves out. There is sometimes reason for separate rates, but fragmentation of
rates on a single campus should be avoided.
Recommendation 5
The cut-off for invoking the short form allowed by Circular A-21 for recovery of
indirect costs should be raised to $10 million in total annual federally sponsored
research volume so that a greater number of smaller universities can avail
themselves of this arrangement.
Recommendation 6
More costs should be charged directly.
PINGS
Page XII
Page xiii
Executive Summary
ting
In current practice, costs that are charged directly at one university may be
recovered through the indirect cost rate at another. More consistent practices would
over
be fairer to both universities and federal sponsoring agencies and would help
ild
reduce some of the variation in rates. It should be noted, however, that there is
significant faculty concern about such a move.
Recommendation 7
There should be greater uniformity in what is included in the base of direct research
expenditures.
While all universities exclude certain costs in the base, significant differences still
exist in the way each university "modifies" the total direct costs of its research
program. This is another factor contributing to the variation in rates nationwide.
This recommendation is critical to the implementation of Recommendation 2.
Recommendation 8
There should be greater consistency in negotiating rates among cognizant agencies
and their geographic field offices, as well as a more effective appeal process.
Rates should not reflect idiosyncratic views of negotiating officers positioned in
agency field offices. There should be an appeals system which provides for timely
and accessible review by a neutral third party.
Recommendation 9
Technological obsolescence should be factored into use allowances for research
facilities and equipment, and reasonable transition rules should be adopted when
switching from use allowance to depreciation.
Aging facilities and obsolete equipment are major problems. In addition to
providing direct support, the government should permit buildings to be amortized
over a more realistic, 20-year life instead of the present 50-year life. Equipment
should be amortized over four to seven years instead of the present 15-year life. The
government also should make it easier to use the depreciation method by
recognizing that OMB Circular A-21 permits recovery of the acquisition cost of
buildings and equipment acquired with university funds.
Recommendation 10
The federal government should not attempt to meet budget targets by tampering
with generally accepted accounting principles.
The principles of accounting for indirect costs must be separated from decisions
about how costs should be shared between sponsors and the universities.
Executive Summary
PINGS
Page xiv
of Confusing budget and management objectives can, in fact, drive the overall
there research, is less add unnecessary administrative burdens, and decrease up productivity. cost If
decision in concert with the federal science agencies, and the entire science
money available for support of research, Congress should make that
community should accept the outcome.
Recommendation 11
financial processes of the university.
Universities should find ways for interested faculty to become more aware of the
There is need for education about the total costs of research, how these
effects incurred, how they are distributed between direct and indirect categories, costs and are the
of changes in funding on the financial health of universities. Education is
community. needed both within the federal government and within the university research
Recommendation 12
and Universities should consider new and innovative techniques to hold down costs,
regulations on universities.
the federal government should be more aware of the cost impact of its
The best way to contain indirect cost rates is through containment of indirect
Universities should consider development of incentive systems for control of costs. not
impact research programs and pass-through costs.
only general administrative and facility costs but also those which specifically
The university community should attempt to convey factual and consistent
consequences of any proposed rule changes.
information to federal officials on not only the monetary impact but also the general
Recommendation 13
A limited amendment of OMB Circular A-21 is necessary to achieve the
recommendations contained in this report.
recommendations. the Many improvements in practice could be brought about within
Some of the specific changes that are possible are alluded to in the preceding
of COGR, both by the federal agencies with changes in their rules, or by mutual agreement by
university community through voluntary guidelines developed perhaps
of Recommendations OMB Circular A-21. 1, 2, and 5 would only be achieved by rewriting selected portions
universities and the federal government. However, changes proposed in
SCIENTIFIC AND
ENGINEERING
RESEARCH FACILITIES
AT UNIVERSITIES
AND COLLEGES: 1990
Kenneth Burgdorf, Westat
Judith F. Coakley, NSF
Paul Newman, Westat
Terrie Squadere, Westat
William Renfrew, Westat
(nsf
SEPTEMBER 1990
National Science Foundation
NSF 90-318
NSF
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In order to sustain a strong academic research
very little overall change from 1988 to 1990,
capability and to enable the expansion of the
either in the total amount of space assigned
nation's research capacity, the facilities that house
to science and engineering (S/E) disciplines
the research enterprise must be maintained and
or in the total amount of space used for
replenished. The size, condition, and adequacy of
organized research.
these research facilities impact on the quantity and
quality of the research conducted at our nation's
As in 1988, the 100 largest R&D performers
universities and colleges. In recognition of the
accounted for the majority of all academic
need for objective and systematic information on
R&D space in 1990 (70 percent); they
the status of academic research facilities, Congress
accounted for 84 percent of total R&D
directed the National Science Foundation (NSF), in
expenditures.
the Authorization Act (P.L. 99-159, section 108):
More than 85 percent of the current
to design, establish, and maintain a
academic research space is concentrated in
data collection and analysis capability.
five S/E fields; the biological (22 percent),
for the purpose of identifying and
agricultural (18 percent), and medical (17
assessing the research facilities needs of
percent) sciences, engineering (15 percent)
universities and colleges. The
and physical sciences (14 percent).
Foundation, in conjunction with other
appropriate Federal agencies, shall
Of a total 276 million net assignable square feet of
conduct the necessary surveys every 2
space in science and engineering fields at American
years and report the results to the
universities and colleges, 116 million square feet
Congress.
(about 40 percent) is allocated to research. 1 This is
not appreciably different from the amount of R&D
This report is the third in this biennial series, due
space reported in 1988. The vast majority of the
to Congress in September 1990. It is based on
research space was located in doctorate-granting
NSF's 1990 Survey of Scientific and Engineering
institutions (96 percent). Three-fourths of all
Research Facilities at Universities and Colleges.
academic research space was in public institutions,
This is the second full-scale study involving
somewhat higher than the share of total R&D
research space by science/engineering field and
spending (65 percent) that occurs in these
type of institution.
institutions.
The survey data on new and deferred construction,
Seventy percent of this R&D space (81.7 million
new and deferred repair/ renovation, and the
NASF) is housed in the 100 largest research-
condition and adequacy of existing research
performing institutions, based on total R&D
facilities are based on both quantitative and
spending in science and engineering fields (Chart
qualitative assessments provided by academic
1).² They have a mean of 800,000 square feet of
research institutions. Although some of these data
research space per institution. Other doctorate-
are by their very nature subjective, they do capture
granting institutions account for 25 percent of total
an overall picture of the current status of facilities.
R&D space, with an institutional mean of 150,000
However, this report does not, nor was it intended
square feet. Non-doctorate granting institutions
to, assess the impact of facilities on the quality of
continue to account for less than 5 percent of all
research being conducted at academic institutions.
academic research space (5.2 million NASF), with
an average of 22,000 square feet per institution.
Amount, Condition, and
Adequacy of Research Space
1 All estimates of research space are based on net assignable
square feet (NASF) assigned to organized research. See
Amount of Research Space
Appendix pages A-6 and C-2 for definitions.
2
The "largest 100 R&D performers" (based on total research
There are an estimated 116 million net
expenditures in science and engineering) were selected as an
assignable square feet (NASF) of research
analytical grouping because they represent significant
proportions of R&D expenditures (83 percent) and space (70
space available at the nation's research-
percent). They are also referred to as the "top 100 research
performing institutions in 1990. There was
institutions" throughout this report.
xiii
Chart 1
Distribution of space assigned to science/engineering (S/E) disciplines
by institution type: 1990
NSF
5%
12%
25%
29%
59%
70%
All assigned S/E space
R&D space
(276 million square feet)
(116 million square feet)
Top 100 R&D
Other doctorate-granting
Non-doctorate-granting
Source: National Science Foundation, SRS
Adequacy of the Current Amount of
Condition of Current Research Space
Research Space
The proportion of total R&D space that
In each of the five largest S/E disciplines,
institutions reported to be in need of limited
40 to 60 percent of the institutions that
or major repair/renovation in 1990 was 39
perform research in the discipline reported
percent, the same percentage as reported in
need for more research space.
1988 (Chart 2).
In most fields and in most institution types,
however, the reported need for increased
Chart 2
amounts of research space does not appear
Institution-assessed quality/condition of academic
research facilities: 1990
to have grown from 1988 to 1990.
In each of the major S/E disciplines, upwards of 40
16%
percent of the institutions that perform research in
26%
the discipline reported in the 1990 survey that they
need more research space. Reports of inadequate
23%
amounts of research space were most prevalent
among medical schools (for both biological and
35%
medical sciences), and such reports were more
widespread in 1990 than in 1988. In most
(base = 116.3 million sq. ft.)
disciplines, however, the need for more research
space does not appear to have grown since 1988.
Suitable for use in most sophisticated research
Effective for most uses
By discipline, ratings of "generally adequate" or
Needs limited repair/renovation
better in relation to the amount of space ranged
Needs major repair/renovation
from a low of 48 percent of institutions with
programs in medical sciences to a high of 68
Source: National Science Foundation, SRS
percent of those with programs in psychology. In a
few fields (e.g., the physical sciences and
At the other end of the quality/condition
engineering), the number of schools reporting a
spectrum, there may have been a slight
need for more space has declined slightly since the
overall increase in the amount of space that
1988 survey.
institutions reported as being suitable for
xiv
Chart 3
Total spending for construction and repair/renovation of
NSF
academic research facilities by discipline: 1986-89
Engineering
$818
$502.
Physical sciences
$583
$270
Environmental sciences
$139
$39
Mathematics
$10/$15
Computer science
$126
$26
Agricultural sciences
$302
$43
Biological sciences
$1040
$426
Medical sciences
$1152
$411
Psychology
$48/$25
Social sciences
$86
Facilities construction
$44
Facilities
Other sciences, n.e.c.
$209
$47
repair/renovation
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Dollars in millions
Source: National Science Foundation, SRS
the "most highly developed and scientifically
New facilities construction accounted for
sophisticated research"; the estimates
over 70 percent of these capital project
increased from 24 percent of R&D space in
expenditures ($4.5 billion).
1988 to 26 percent in 1990. In absolute
terms, the total amount of research space
These capital projects were heavily
rated in this category rose about 12 percent.
concentrated in four disciplines, the
Absolute increases were seen across almost
medical, biological, and physical sciences
all institution types and all S/E fields.
and engineering, which collectively
accounted for 80 percent of all construction
Institutions in the top 100 reported a larger
expenditures and 87 percent of all
proportion of their research space as
repair/renovation expenditures (Chart 3).
"suitable for the most highly developed
research" (27 percent) than was found at
other doctorate (24 percent) or non-
Construction of New Research Facilities
doctorate institutions (19 percent).
Institutions reported groundbreaking for
new construction projects totalling about
Capital Projects To Maintain, Improve,
$4.5 billion over the 1986-89 period. About
or Expand Research Space
$2.0 billion was reported for projects begun
in 1986-87 and $2.5 billion in 1988-89.
Institutions spent a total of $6.4 billion for
When completed, these projects will
construction and repair/renovation of S/E
produce over 20 million square feet of new
research facilities over the four-year period
R&D space.
1986-89. This estimate excludes all
construction, repair, or renovation projects
The actual construction activity in 1988-89
that cost less than $100,000.
as reported in the 1990 survey was not as
extensive as institutions had planned for
XV
Chart 4
NSF
Total expenditures and unit costs for recent and planned capital projects: 1986-91
New construction
Repair/renovation
$4
$400
$3.5
$311
$3
Dollars in billions
$2.5
$2.1
$2
Cost per square foot
of research space
$300
$231
$207
$200
G
$1
$1.04
$0.84
$0.96
$111
$100
$91
$62
1986-87
1988-89
1990-91
1986-87
1988-89
1990-91
(plan)
(plan)
Total expenditures
Unit costs
Source: National Science Foundation, SRS
1988-89 as reported on the 1988 survey.
facilities rather than to increase institutions'
The shortfall was greater for level of
total amounts of research space.
expenditures (27 percent less than planned)
than for amount of space (10 percent less
Spending for new construction in 1990-91 is
than planned). Approximately $1.0 billion
projected by institutions to grow by over 40
in planned new construction for 1988-89 did
percent, to a total of almost $3.5 billion.
not take place, mainly due to funding
constraints.
About 43 percent of all academic research
institutions broke ground for new R&D related
The unit cost (the average cost per square
construction projects in 1988-89, up from 37
foot) of the R&D components of the
percent in 1986-87. 3 Construction activity was most
construction projects actually undertaken in
prevalent among the largest 100 research
1988-89 ($231/square foot) was 12 percent
performers, 71 percent of which initiated projects
higher than the average unit cost of the
in 1988-89. New construction begun during 1988-
projects initiated in 1986-87 ($207/square
89 will produce a total of 10.6 million NASF of new
foot). Costs are estimated to rise an
additional 35 percent for 1990-91 projects,
to $311/square foot (Chart 4).
Although high levels of construction activity
occurred over the 1986-89 period,
comparable increases were not seen either
in the total amount of R&D space or in the
3
proportion of top quality R&D space. This
All data on construction and repair/renovation projects are
based on the institutions' fiscal years in which the projects
suggests that much of the new construction
were, or will be, initiated. For simplicity, references to the
is used to replace obsolete or inadequate
periods in which construction or repair/renovation begins
omit the notation "FY"; it is understood that all such dates
refer to the institutions' fiscal years.
xvi
NSF
research space when completed.⁴ This represents a
capabilities as contributing to rising construction
7-percent increase in research NASF when
costs. Geographic and local differences in
compared to projects initiated in 1986-87, but falls
regulatory and safety codes--e.g., seismic safety
short of the 11.8 million NASF that had been
codes--often result in regional average unit costs
planned as reported by institutions on the 1988
that are markedly higher than those seen
survey. Costs for the 1988-89 projects totalled $2.5
elsewhere.
billion, considerably less than the $3.4 billion that
had been projected two years earlier. Inability to
obtain sufficient funding was the principal reason
Repair/Renovation of Existing Research
given by respondents for postponing or scaling back
Facilities
planned construction projects.
Spending for facilities repair/renovation
Institutions projected in the 1990 survey that they
grew from $840 million in 1986-87 to $1.04
plan to spend approximately $3.5 billion on new
billion in 1988-89, in contrast to institution
construction projects in 1990-91. This represents a
projections that had envisioned decreased
40-percent increase in expenditures over the 1988-
spending (Chart 4).
89 level for construction of 11.2 million NASF of
new research space, the equivalent of 10 percent of
The total space affected by these repairs,
existing research space.
however, decreased somewhat, resulting in
higher average unit costs for the R/R
The rising construction expenditures can be
projects actually undertaken in 1988-89 than
attributed to two factors: (1) the steady annual
had been projected two years earlier--
growth in the amount of research space under
$91/square foot versus $80/square foot.
construction, and (2) the rapid growth in the unit
cost of research space. Costs per square foot for
Expenditures for R/R activities in 1988-89 were
new construction grew from $207/square foot in
higher than projected by institutions in the 1988
1986-87 to $231/square foot in 1988-89; costs are
survey--$1.04 billion versus a projection of $754
estimated at $311/square foot for 1990-91 projects
million. The total space affected by these repairs
(Chart 4).⁵
increased somewhat, from 9.4 million NASF to 11.5
million NASF. This suggests that institutions may
Institutions have consistently reported that
underestimate the extent to which future R/R
construction costs are driven not only by the need
projects are needed in response to technical,
for more research space, but by the need for
regulatory, or emergency requirements.
upgrading the quality of the space. Costs are
driven by Federal, state, and local government
Similar to the 1988 survey, institutions report that
safety and regulatory requirements as well as by the
plans for R/R in 1990-91 will decline by 9 percent
need for high-tech facilities. Institutions repeatedly
over 1988-89 levels. Unit costs for R/R activities,
mentioned the need to upgrade animal care
however, are projected to increase substantially.
facilities, toxic and hazardous waste storage and
disposal facilities, and telecommunication
Deferred Capital Projects
4 This does not necessarily imply a direct increase in the total
An estimated $15.6 billion would be
amount of space available for research purposes, as much of
required to address institutions' currently
this new space will be used to replace other aging or
inadequate space, or space that will be converted to other
reported needs for additional research space
uses.
and for repair/renovation of existing
⁵Iₜ should be noted that these unit costs are presented as
research space. Since institutions plan to
analytic constructs only, and are used to make descriptive
spend a total of $3.6 billion for research-
comparisons. They should not be construed to represent
related capital projects in 1990-91, this
actual unit costs for any specific construction project, but are
useful in tracking broad cost trends over time. Unit costs for
leaves an estimated $12.0 billion backlog of
capital projects are highly variable, depending on the specific
needed but unfunded capital projects (Chart
requirements of the particular project and on S/E field and
5).
geographic region of the country.
xvii
NSF
Chart 5
Trends in deferral of needed research facilities capital projects: 1988 to 1990
Type of capital project
Survey year
1988
1990
(Dollars in billions)
New construction
Needed at time of survey
$8.1
$10.6
Planned for two years following the survey *
- $2.3
$2.6
Deferred
$5.8
$8.0
Repair/renovation
Needed at time of survey
$3.5
$5.0
Planned for two years following the survey
$0.8
$1.0
Deferred
$2.8
$4.0
Capital projects, total
Needed at time of survey
$11.6
$15.6
Planned for two years following the survey
- $3.0
$3.6
Deferred
$8.6
$12.0
For those institutions that reported they need additional research space and plan new construction projects.
Source: National Science Foundation, SRS
The current $12 billion level of deferred
The current overall level of deferred
capital projects represents a 40-percent
construction means that, for every dollar of
increase over the level found in 1988 ($8.6
planned new construction in 1990-91, $3.11
billion).
of needed construction will be deferred (up
from $2.48 in 1988).
As in 1988, about two-thirds of the current
capital project backlog is in the area of
Although the numbers of institutions reporting
deferred construction ($8 billion of $12
inadequate amounts of research space did not
billion).
change much from 1988 to 1990 in most S/E
disciplines, actual and planned construction costs
have increased significantly. Consequently, the
Deferred New Construction
estimated cost of addressing unmet needs for
facilities expansion has also increased, and this is
If all institutions were able to construct
reflected in the deferred construction figures given
additional research space in the S/E
above.
disciplines that report an inadequate current
amount of space, at the same average cost
as for the construction projects that are
Deferred Repair/Renovation
being planned for 1990-91, the estimated
total would be $10.6 billion. Of this, $2.6
Institutions have consistently expressed concern
billion of needed expansion is being planned
over the backlog of needed repair and renovation
for 1990-91; the rest, $8.0 billion, is being
activities for research facilities.
deferred into the indefinite future.
In the 1988 survey, the anticipated deferred
The current level of deferred construction
R/R in 1988-89 (i.e., the difference between
($8 billion) is 38 percent above the level
the projected total cost of all needed R/R
found in 1988 ($5.8 billion).
and the anticipated cost of all planned R/R)
was $2.78 billion. According to 1990 survey
xviii
NSF
Chart 6
Relative sources of funds for research facilities capital projects begun in 1986-89
2%
4%
11%
9%
8%
27%
Federal government
22%
State/local government
Private donations
28%
Institutional funds
49%
28%
12%
Debt financing
Other sources
Private institutions
Public institutions
($2.1 billion)
($4.2 billion)
Source: National Science Foundation, SRS
data, the amount of deferred R/R will rise
Sources of Funds
to more than $4.0 billion by the end of 1991.
Similar to the findings in the 1988 study,
The amount of R&D space needing R/R is
major sources of funds for new construction
slightly larger in 1990 than it was in 1988.
projects in 1988-89 came primarily from
Also, the anticipated unit cost of R/R for
three sources: state/local governments,
1990-91 is higher than it was two years ago
private donations, and debt financing.
for 1988-89 ($111/square foot versus
Public institutions acquired nearly half of
$91/square foot).
their funding from state/local governments,
while private institutions depended mainly
The amount of R/R now planned for 1990-91 is
on private donations (Chart 6).
lower than was planned in 1988 for 1988-89 (8.6
million NASF versus 9.4 million NASF). The
Both public and private institutions
result is that the estimated cost of the backlog--the
depended primarily upon institutional
R/R that will be deferred in 1990-91--has risen to
funding for R/R projects.
$4.06 billion. Thus, if all research space needing
R/R in 1990 (39 percent of existing research space)
The Federal government provided a
were to receive it, at the same cost per square foot
comparatively small share of total direct
as was found in institutions actually planning such
funding for both new construction and R/R
projects, the cost would be $5.0 billion, roughly 5
projects in 1988-89, about 14 and 6 percent,
times the amount institutions plan to spend.
respectively.⁶ Still, in absolute terms,
Therefore, it is estimated that institutions will defer
Federal funds for new construction of
about $4.25 in needed R/R for every $1.00 that will
research facilities more than doubled over
be spent.
6, This report includes data on the direct costs of construction
and repair/renovation and the sources of funds for these
direct costs. No attempt was made to quantify future indirect
cost pressures resulting from current or planned projects.
xix
Chart 7
Sources of funds for research facility
NSF
capital projects begun in 1986-87 and in 1988-89 by control of institution*
$1200
Public institutions
57
Private institutions
$1000
31
1068
981
255
$800
Dollars in millions
$600
660
,354
314
296
$400
279
333
107
306
$200
264
274
215
119
218
178
$0
54
86-87
88-89
86-87 88-89
86-87 88-89
86-87
88-89
86-87
88-89
Federal
State/local
Institutional
Private
Debt/other
government
government
funds
donations
Sources of funds
Data include expected total project costs of R&D components of new construction and repair/renovation projects begun in the
specified two-year periods.
Source: National Science Foundation, SRS
the 1986-89 period. The increase was seen
funding dropped somewhat, and the use of debt
mainly at public institutions (Chart 7).
financing other than tax-exempt bonds grew from
less than 1 percent in 1986-87 to 12 percent in
Private institutions' use of tax-exempt bonds
1988-89.
and other debt financing for new
construction projects doubled from $124
Public institutions, in contrast to private
million in 1986-87 to $254 million in 1988-
institutions, acquired almost half of all new
89. Much of this increase ($87 million)
construction funding from state/local governments.
involved non-tax-exempt debt.
The Federal government provided the second
largest portion in 1988-89, growing from a 3-
The increasing use of taxable bonds and
percent share in 1986-87 to 16 percent. Only 9
other debt may be related to the fact that, of
percent of construction costs were secured from
the 30 private institutions that are among
debt financing.
the 100 largest research performers in the
nation, nearly two-thirds had reached the
Expenditures for repair/renovation of research
$150 million statutory limit on tax-exempt
facilities for both private and public institutions
bonds in 1990.
totalled $1 billion in 1988-89. Both types of
Private institutions expended $738 million for new
institutions obtained over half of their R/R funding
from institutional funds. The second largest source
construction projects in 1988-89 while public
for private schools was debt financing (24 percent),
institutions invested $1.7 billion. Substantially
while public institutions depended more upon
different patterns of funding support were
state/local governments (33 percent). The Federal
reported.
share of costs for R/R activity, 6 percent, doubled
in absolute terms over 1986-87 levels, with most of
Private institutions depended mainly on private
the increase going to private institutions.
donations (36 percent) and debt financing (34
percent) to support new construction in 1988-89.
Private institutions reported that they plan to float
This funding pattern is consistent with findings for
$350 million in tax-exempt bonds for new
1986-87 projects with two exceptions: institutional
construction projects in 1990-91, more than twice
XX
NSF
the value of bonds issued during 1988-89. For
Methodology
private institutions only, recent legislation has
placed a $150 million limit on outstanding tax-
The Survey of Scientific and Engineering Research
exempt bonds. Among the 30 private institutions in
Facilities at Universities and Colleges is conducted
the top 100, 16 had reached the cap by 1988; 19, by
every two years. The first full-scale baseline study
1990; and another 3 expect to do so in the next two
was conducted in 1988 and a report was submitted
years.
to Congress in September of that year. The 1990
study was conducted during the fall and winter of
1989-90 with a report due to Congress in
Research Facilities at Historically Black
September 1990.
Colleges and Universities
Prior to the 1988 survey, NSF developed the
While historically black colleges and
research facilities survey questionnaire in
universities (HBCUs) reported a 30-percent
cooperation with several higher education
overall increase in the total amount of
associations, university representatives, and an
research space available in 1990, they
expert advisory panel. The survey universe includes
continued to account for just over 1 percent
doctorate- and non-doctorate-granting institutions
of total research space for all academic
as well as historically black colleges and universities
research institutions.
(HBCUs) that perform research in science and
engineering.
In 1988-89, HBCUs obtained about
80 percent of their research facilities
The 1990 survey collected quantitative as well as
construction and R/R funding from either
qualitative data for individual science and
Federal or state/local government sources,
engineering fields. This provided a detailed picture
similar to levels reported for 1986-87
of the amount and condition of available research
lebt
projects.
space, recent and planned repair/renovation and
rom
construction activities, and sources of funds for
t in
Historically black colleges and universities reported
these capital projects for the years 1988 through
high levels of research facility construction activity
1991. There was little difference between the 1988
over the 1986-89 period, resulting in a 30-percent
and 1990 survey questionnaires. Additional detail
vate
overall increase in the total amount of research
was added to the "sources of funds" questions to
new
space available in 1990. The 1.4 million NASF
gather needed information of specific private
nts.
used for research represents just over 1 percent of
sources. Also, the data for main institutions and
ond
total NASF for all academic institutions, similar to
associated medical schools, which were collected
3-
the HBCU share of total academic R&D spending.
on separate questionnaires in 1988, were combined
ly 9
These proportions have not changed significantly
into one questionnaire for the 1990 survey.
rom
since the 1988 survey.
The data in this report were obtained from a
HBCUs obtained more than 80 percent of total
stratified probability sample of 253 universities and
rch
research facilities funding from government
colleges in a universe of 525 institutions. The
ions
sources. The Federal government accounted for 53
universe datafile included all universities and
of
percent of total funding over the 1986-89 period,
colleges that offered a master's or doctoral degree
ling
while state/local government sources provided 29
in the sciences and/or engineering, all others that
irce
percent.
had separately budgeted S/E research and
nt),
development (R&D) expenditures of $50,000 or
pon
Facility condition ratings were generally more
more, and all historically black colleges and
eral
positive for HBCUs than were seen in most other
universities (HBCUs) reporting any R&D
led
institution categories. However, the proportion of
expenditures. Within strata, institutions were
t of
R&D space rated as being "suitable for the most
sampled with probability proportionate to the size,
highly developed and scientifically sophisticated
based on R&D expenditures in science and
research" declined somewhat, from 36 percent in
engineering. The institution sample for the 1990
loat
1988 to 31 percent in 1990. The amount of space
survey was essentially the same as for the 1988
new
requiring limited or major R/R remained constant
study. All of the schools ranked in the top 50 and
vice
at 25 percent.
98 of the top 100 were sampled. The 253
xxi
NSF
institutions in the sample accounted for more than
Findings from the 1990 study are statistically
75 percent of total academic R&D expenditures
weighted to provide national estimates for all
and at least 70 percent of spending in each S/E
schools that perform R&D activities. The response
discipline. The 1990 study included the same 29
rate was 94 percent for all universities and colleges.
HBCUs that were surveyed in the 1988 study.
The overall item nonresponse rate was less than
1 percent.
xxii
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
FILE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506
March 18, 1991
PEAST
MEMORANDUM FOR
FROM:
TOM DISTRIBUTION WELCH Tom
SUBJECT:
PCAST EXECUTIVE ORDER
Attached is the current Executive Order and Charter for PCAST. You will notice that
they expire on June 30, 1991. Since it is complex and quite time-consuming, we would
like to begin the extension process now.
Therefore, we are asking for any comments or suggestions you may have on the
Charter and Executive Order. We are interested in all comments whether substantive,
technical, or editorial. Please submit your comments to the PCAST office as soon as
possible, but no later than Monday, April 1, 1991. This will allow for discussion at the
April PCAST meeting.
Thank you very much for your help.
Attachment
Distribution:
Associate Directors
Assistant Directors
Maryanne Bach
Barbara Ferguson
Bill Wells
Ken Yale
office of the Press Secretary
(Miami, Florida)
January 19, 1990
For Immediate Release
EXECUTIVE ORDER
PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL OF ADVISORS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
the authority vested in me as President by the
Constitution By and laws of the United States of America, and the in
to establish, in accordance with the provisions of
order Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 2),
an advisory committee on science and technology, it is hereby
ordered as follows:
Section 1. Establishment. There is established the
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
("Council"). The Council shall be composed of not more office than
members, one of whom shall be the Director of the be
of 15 Science and Technology Policy, and 14 of whom shall be
distinguished individuals from the private sector to
appointed by the President. The Director of the Office of of
Science and Technology Policy shall serve as Chairman the
Council. The Vice Chairman shall be appointed by the
President from among the 14 private sector members. The
Chairman shall report directly to the President.
Sec. 2. Functions. (a) The Council shall advise the
President on matters involving all areas of science and
technology.
In the performance of its advisory duties the
developments in science and technology, and shall, through the
Council (b) shall conduct a continuing review and assessment of
Chairman, report thereon to the President whenever requested.
The Chairman may, from time to time, invite experts
to investigate (c) and report to the Council on specific issues of
national consequence.
Sec, 3. Administration- (a) The heads of Executive
agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law, provide to the
Council and its panels such information with respect
scientific and technological matters as required for the
purpose of carrying out its functions.
Members of the Council shall serve without any
compensation (b) for their work on the Council. However, members
be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu
appointed from among private citizens of the United States of may
subsistence, as authorized by law for persons serving
intermittently in the Government service (5 U.S.C. 5701-5707).
funds (c) available for the expenses of the office of Science and
Any expenses of the Council shall be paid from the
Technology Policy.
reimbursable basis, provide such administrative services
(d) The office of Administration shall, on a
2
sec, 4. General. (a) Notwithstanding any other
Executive order, the functions of the President under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, except that of
reporting to the Congress, which are applicable to the
Council, shall be performed by the Office of Administration
in accord with the guidelines and procedures established by
the Administrator of General Services.
(b) The Council shall terminate on June 30, 1991, unless
sooner extended.
GEORGE BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 19, 1990.
# # #
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
CHARTER
PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL OF ADVISORS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
1.
Committee's Official Designation:
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
(PCAST). The Council was established by Executive Order
Number 12700, dated January 1990.
2.
Objective and Scope of Activities and Duties:
The purpose of the PCAST is to advise the President on
all matters involving science and technology.
In furtherance of this mission the PCAST shall conduct
a continuing review and assessment of developments in
science and technology and the chairman may invite
panels of experts to investigate and report to the
Council on specific issues of national importance.
3.
Duration
The Council will have continuing responsibility for advising
the President. The Council will terminate on June 30, 1991,
unless sooner extended.
4.
Official to Whom the Council Reports:
The PCAST will report to the President, through the Chairman
of the Council.
5.
Agency Council: Responsible for Providing Necessary Support for this
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).
6.
Description of Duties:
The Duties of the Council are solely advisory and are stated
in paragraph 2 above.
7.
Costs:
The estimated annual operating cost of the Council is
$375,000, including 2 man years of support staff activity.
8.
Estimated Number and Frequency of Meetings:
The President's Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology shall normally meet twelve times each year at
regular intervals, and at such other times as may be called
by the President or the Director, OSTP. In addition, 10-15
meetings each year by Panels are anticipated.
9.
Panels:
Panels may be formed to conduct studies on specific issues
assigned by the President or the Director, OSTP.
10. Members:
PCAST members shall be appointed by the President from the
private sector. The PCAST shall consist of no more than 14
members and the Chairman. The Director, OSTP shall serve as
Chairman of the Council, and the Vice Chairman shall be
appointed by the President from the members of the Council.
The Council may utilize additional technical experts as
needed to constitute its panels and study groups. These
technical experts shall be appointed by the Chairman and
shall serve at the pleasure of the Chairman.
This Charter for the Advisory Committee named above is
hereby approved:
Signed:
Deluan Broml
Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and
Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, and
Chairman, President's Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology.
Date signed:
January 23, 1990
Date filed:
January 24, 1990
DRAFT
May 6, 1991
DRAFT PCAST MEMORANDUM
FROM:
JOHN McTAGUE, ON BEHALF OF PCAST
SUBJECT:
INVESTING IN THE FUTURE - FOLLOW THROUGH WITH
CONGRESS
The Council reiterates its support for the important investment in the future proposed
in your FY 1992 Budget submission, particularly in the areas of research and
development. At the March PCAST meeting you noted the lack of a natural political
constituency for research, especially individual investigator efforts. This makes all the
more important strong White House follow-up with the Congress, particularly as
consideration moves to the appropriation process.
From the authorization hearings and budget resolutions to date, it is becoming
increasingly clear that sustaining your R&D priorities will require your personal and
visible participation. If you were to call together both Republican and bipartisan
Congressional leaders to highlight the priority this investment has for the nation it
would be particularly effective. The Council recommends such an action, realizing the
many demands on your time and political capital.
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7021 ; 5- 7-91 ; 9:25AM :
2023951575-
2023953462:# 2
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506
May 6, 1991
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL OF ADVISORS ON SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY
FROM:
ToM WELCH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Tom
SUBJECT:
Follow-on Actions From May PCAST Meeting
As you are aware, there are many follow-on items from the May meeting. Because of
the complexity of some of these tasks and since Dr. Bromley will be leaving for the
Soviet Union on Friday, May 10, he has asked that three of these items be given your
priority attention so that they can all be adequately addressed before his departure.
This means that a deadline for completion of each of these items will be no later than
12:00 NOON on Thursday, May 9, 1991.
The first item is the preparation of the briefing memoranda for the President. As
discussed during last week's meeting, designated members will compose a short
memorandum as part of a package to the President on behalf of the entire Council.
Dr. Bromley will compose a cover memorandum for the package. Please note that we
will need to put each memorandum in a standard format and on appropriate stationery
for the final package to the President. In order for this to occur, we must adhere to a
strict time line. First, Dr. Bromley has requested to see a draft of each memorandum
prepared by the members as discussed during the May meeting no later than 12:00
NOON on Tuesday, May 7. This will allow for any comments to be faxed back to your
office by close of business on Tuesday. Last, to meet the Thursday deadline, the final
copy should be sent by fax no later than 12:00 NOON on Wednesday, May 8. Please
send all faxes to the PCAST staff office at (202) 395-1575.
The second item is the notification of Panel member nominees. In order for us to send
nominees the required forms before Dr. Bromley leaves, we request that each Panel
chairmen fax their final list of Panel members with their affiliations and addresses as
soon as possible, but again no later than 12:00 NOON on Thursday. At minimum, the
name and phone number for each Panelist is necessary.
The third item is final approval of Panel Terms of Reference. During the meeting,
minor changes were suggested for several of the Panel TORs. Working with the OSTP
sponsor for each Panel, we will send the updated version to the appropriate Panel
chairmen for final comment. Unless otherwise requested, the final Terms of Reference
will be signed by Dr. Bromley on Thursday, May 9, 1991.
Your cooperation on these 3 items will be greatly appreciated. Please note we will also
be sending you further information on the procedures and guidelines for future Panel
meetings. If you should have any questions or require assistance, please call me or the
designated OSTP sponsor.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 8, 1991
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JOHN McTAGUE, ON BEHALF OF PCAST
SUBJECT:
Investing in the Future - Follow Through With Congress
The Council reiterates its support for the important investment in the future proposed
in your FY 1992 Budget submission, particularly in the areas of research and
development. At the March PCAST meeting you noted the lack of a natural political
constituency for research, especially individual investigator efforts. This makes all the
more important strong Administration follow-up with the Congress, particularly as
consideration moves to the appropriation process.
From the authorization hearings and budget resolutions to date, it is becoming
increasingly clear that sustaining your R&D priorities will require your personal and
visible participation. If a White House meeting were called together, with both
Republican and bipartisan Congressional leaders to highlight the priority this
investment has for the nation, it would be particularly effective. The Council
recommends such an action, realizing the many demands on your time and political
capital.
FILE peasi
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506
Tom Welch- -
d have looked over the
Comony Megaprojects draft.
It needs a lot of work
I'll give it attention on
my return from the USSR
pn
5/9/91
CC: KenYale
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506
May 7, 1991
MEMORANDUM FOR J. THOMAS RATCHFORD
FROM:
TOM WELCH Tom
SUBJECT:
Draft PCAST Memorandum on Megaprojects
As you are aware during last week's PCAST meeting Dr. Bromley asked several
members to draft memoranda to the President on selected issues on behalf of the entire
Council. Attached is a first draft of the memorandum on Megaprojects as composed
by Ralph Gomory.
It would be very helpful if you could provide comments or suggestions on this draft
and get them back to the PCAST office by close of business today. This will help
enable us to forward the draft memorandum with the comments back to the author
and get a response before Dr. Bromley leaves for the Soviet Union on Friday.
Thank you very much for your cooperation.
Attachment
CC: Ken Yale
Needs Much
work
DRAFT
May 7, 1991
DRAFT PCAST MEMORANDUM
FROM:
RALPH GOMORY, ON BEHALF OF PCAST
SUBJECT:
Megaprojects
The Federal Government can be proud of its role in supporting research since World
War II. This research has had to two components, support of individual investigators
and support of Megaprojects. While both components have had significant successes,
the historical record shows that the most far reaching successes have clearly come from
the individual investigator component. We need only mention the work on solid state
physics that made the transistor possible, or the fundamental work on molecular
biology leading to the transistor. ?
PCAST is concerned that the working of the principal investigator system is under
great stress and is further threatened by the planned out-year growth of Megaprojects.
all
Some of the Megaprojects are bonafide - if expensive - scientific projects from which
significant results can be expected. The Superconducting Super Collider is an example
of this. However others, the Space Station is an example, which can make at best a
minor scientific contribution. Given their great expense, such projects can not be
justified, else. sofely on scientific grounds, and their continuation needs to be based on something
While in the past Megaprojects were affordable, and their our-year growth could be
dealt with in expanding budgets, this is no longer the case in this time of limited
budgets. PCAST is concerned that the impact is and will be felt on what has
historically been the most productive component, the individual investigator.
PCAST believes that priorities will have to be set and choices made among the
megaprojects. PCAST recognizes the sensitivity of this issue, and the fact that we are
dealing with major legacy decisions.
Nevertheless PCAST would be willing to contribute its views on these necessary choices
if the President finds that useful.
OSTP STAFFING SHEET
SUBJECT: Procedures for PCAST Panels
ORIGINATOR:
Tom week
PHONE
DATE ORIGINATED:
6/4
DATE DUE 6/4 cob
CORR TRACKING NO:
EXTERNAL COORDINATION:
COMMENTS
DATE
DIRECTOR
CHIEF OF STAFF
GENERAL COUNSEL
EXEC. ASST.
ACTION REQUESTED:
Clear/comment to Bill Snyder by cob (5p.m.)
today 6/4/91
COORDINATION
DATE
COMMENTS
Concur
Henderson, D.A.
$
Nonconcur
Concur
Phillips, W.
Nonconcur
Concur
Ratchford, J.T.
d have no specific suggestions
Nonconcur
except that the Panel chairmen
Concur
Wong, E.
should review in draft before
Nonconcur
the memo is issued - even
Concur
better, all PEAST members
Nonconcur
Concur
should veislew in draft.
Nonconcur
Concur
Nonconcur
Concur
Nonconcur
Concur
Nonconcur
Concur
Nonconcur
Concur
Nonconcur
Concur
Nonconcur
Concur
Nonconcur
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 4, 1991
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL OF ADVISORS ON SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY AND THE OSTP STAFF
FROM:
D. ALLAN BROMLEY
SUBJECT:
Procedures for PCAST Panels
Now that the PCAST Panels are taking shape I believe it important to review the
procedures and guidelines which are necessary to the operation of the Panels. PCAST
Panels will be composed of PCAST members only and outside expert witnesses
presenting testimony to the Panel. The two exceptions are the Technology and National
Security Panel which will have non-PCAST members appointed as consultants to the
Office of Science and Technology Policy and the High Performance Computing and
Communications Panel which will have both consultants and witnesses. The consultant
approach is necessary for these Panels because of the need for repeated, consensus
building among the PCAST and the other members of the Panel. It is important to
keep in mind while the structure of the Panels may differ, the following procedures and
guidelines will apply to all Panels.
Requirements under the Federal Advisory Committee Act
All PCAST Panels, regardless of their structure, and Panel sub-groups come under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). In general, FACA requirements apply to all
advisory groups which meet two criteria: (1) the group provides advice and
recommendations to a Federal official; and (2) the group has at least one non-Federal
member. There are exceptions, however none of which apply to the PCAST Panels or
Panel sub-groups.
Each group under FACA must satisfy several requirements, including:
0
Each Panel must publish a notice in the Federal Register of all meetings
and make them open to the public. Three original copies of the
announcement signed by Damar Hawkins must be given to the Federal
Register 15 days before each meeting. There are exceptions when
meetings may be in closed session. Tom Welch can discuss the
requirements for closed meetings with each of the Panel chairmen.
0
Each Panel must keep detailed minutes of all meetings and make them
available to the public. These minutes must include the time and place,
list of attendees, and copies of all documents dispersed during the
meeting. There are a few exceptions where portions of the minutes can
be withheld from the public, but regardless of the circumstance minutes
must always be taken.
0
Each Panel must have a designated Federal official present during all
meetings. In most cases, this will be the Office of Science and
Technology Policy sponsor for the Panel or their designee.
These meetings should be conducted using the model of a congressional hearing with
expert witnesses or industry representatives presenting testimony to the Panel
chairmen. There may also be question and answer sessions. The presenters may be
brought in on multiple occasions.
The National Science Foundation has prepared a very thoughtful document which
carefully outlines procedures for managing advisory committees which you may find
useful. It has been included for your future reference. Also enclosed is a booklet on
FACA published by the General Services Administration.
Travel
As is the case with all PCAST meetings, invitational travel orders will be issued by the
OSTP in order for members of the Panel and presenters to be reimbursed for per diem
and travel expenses at a government determined rate. (A sample letter of invitation for
Panel witnesses is attached)
To help ensure the successful implementation of these procedures and guidelines, I ask
that the Panel chairmen notify the PCAST staff office, (202) 395-5101 at least 3 weeks
in advance of all Panel meetings.
If you should have any questions or concerns about the operations of the Panels, please
let me know and I will try to help.
These success of these Panels will be vital to the continued success of PCAST in
maintaining its mission of advising the President. I look forward to hearing about your
progress.
Attachments
The Federal
Advisory
Committee Act:
An Overview
dvisory committees have played an
A
important role in shaping programs and
policies of the Federal Government
from the earliest days of the Republic. Since
President George Washington sought the
advice of such a committee during the Whiskey
Rebellion of 1794, the contributions made by
these groups have been impressive and
diverse.
U.S. General Services Administration
CSA
Committee Management Secretariat
Washington, DC 20405
hrough enactment of the Federal Advisory Committee Act
Together, GSA and the Federal community work together to
T
(FACA) of 1972 (Public Law 92-463, October 6, 1972), the
eliminate the overlap or duplication of advisory bodies, terminate
U.S. Congress formally recognized the merits of seeking
unnecessary or inactive committees, and develop committee
the advice and assistance of our Nation's citizens. At the
management regulations, guidelines, and training in response to re-
same time, the Congress also sought to assure that advisory
quirements of the Executive Branch and Congress.
committees:
Provide advice that is relevant, objective, and open to the public;
Complying with FACA
Act promptly to complete their work; and
Any advisory group, with limited exceptions, that is established or
Comply with reasonable cost controls and recordkeeping
utilized by a Federal agency and that has at least one member who
requirements.
is not a Federal employee, must comply with the FACA. To find out
if a group comes under the FACA, any individual may contact the
Role of Federal Advisory Committees
sponsoring agency's Committee Management Officer, or the GSA
Committee Management Secretariat at FTS/202 523-4884.
With the expertise from advisory committee members, Federal
officials and the Nation have access to information and advice on a
Requirements for Establishing
broad range of issues affecting Federal policies and programs. The
and Managing Advisory Committees
public, in return, is afforded an opportunity to participate actively in
the Federal Government's decisionmaking process.
Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, advisory committees
can be created only when they are essential to the performance of a
Federal Agency Responsibility
duty or responsibility conveyed upon the Executive Branch by law.
Before committees can be set up, high-level officials within the
Each Federal agency that sponsors advisory committees must
sponsoring agency must review and approve the request. Once a
adhere to the requirements established by the FACA, as well as
committee is approved, a charter is prepared outlining the commit-
those administrative guidelines provided by the U.S. General
tee's mission and specific duties and the charter is then forwarded to
Services Administration's (GSA) Committee Management Secretar-
GSA's Committee Management Secretariat and to the U.S.
iat. GSA has had the responsibility for overseeing the FACA since
Congress for final review. Following a required public notification
1977.
period, the committee may begin operation.
GSA's Role Under the FACA
Committee Management Officer
and Designated Federal Official
With approximately 1,000 advisory committees in existence at any
given time, special attention is required to assure compliance with
The Federal Advisory Committee Act also provides that each
the FACA, the Freedom of Information Act, and related regulations,
agency sponsoring a Federal advisory committee must appoint a
as well as to encourage effective and efficient use of committee
Committee Management Officer to oversee the administration of the
Act's requirements.
resources.
While Executive Branch departments and agencies are responsible
In addition, a Designated Federal Official must be assigned to each
committee to:
for continually reviewing committee performance in these areas, the
General Services Administration was designated by the President in
Call and adjourn committee meetings;
1977 to monitor committee activities governmentwide. As part of
this responsibility, GSA:
Approve agendas;
Conducts annual reviews of advisory committee accomplish-
Maintain required records on costs and membership;
ments;
Ensure efficient operations;
Responds to inquires from agencies on establishing new
Maintain records for availability to the public; and
committees or the renewal of existing groups; and
Provide copies of committee reports to the Committee Manage-
Prepares an annual report covering a summary of committee
ment Officer for forwarding to the Library of Congress.
activities.
Termination of a Committee's Charter
member should assure that he or she receives adequate information
from the sponsoring organization and completes any required ap-
Unless the renewal of a committee charter is justified under the
pointment papers and disclosure forms prior to service on a
committee.
FACA, the charter is automatically terminated after a two-year
period (or as otherwise provided by law).
Oral briefings and other explanatory material may be obtained
through the sponsoring organization's designated ethics official,
Advisory Committee Members
Committee Management Officer, or from the Office of Government
Ethics, which has governmentwide jurisdiction on Federal ethics
Federal advisory committee members are drawn from nearly every
issues.
occupational and industry group and geographical section of the
United States and its territories. The FACA requires that committee
Limits on Membership Terms
memberships be "fairly balanced in terms of the points of view
represented and the functions to be performed."
Each agency sets limits on the lengths of terms for serving on
As a result, members of specific committees often have both
advisory committees to allow for continually new membership.
expertise and vocational skills that parallel the program responsibili-
Generally, members are appointed to a two-year term.
ties of their sponsoring agencies. In balancing committee member-
ships, agencies are expected to assure that major--and sometimes
Open Access to Committee
strongly opposing--viewpoints are represented to provide a
Meetings and Operations
foundation for developing advice and recommendations that are fair
and comprehensive.
Under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act,
Federal advisory committees must:
Appointing Committee Members
Arrange meetings for reasonably accessible and convenient
locations and times;
Agency officials, Members of Congress, the general public, or pro-
fessional societies or current and former committee members may
Publish adequate advance notice of planned meetings in the
nominate potential candidates for membership.
Federal Register;
Selection of committee members is made based on the FACA's
Open advisory committee meetings to the public (with some
requirements and the potential member's background and qualifica-
exceptions--see the section on "Government in the Sunshine Act"
tions. Final selection is made by agency heads or their delegates.
below);
Prior to accepting an appointment with a Federal advisory commit-
Make available for public inspection all papers and records,
tee, each prospective member should meet with the appropriate
including detailed minutes of each meeting; and
agency Committee Management Officer and designated ethics
Maintain records of expenditures, with limited exceptions, for
officials to discuss duties and obligations, allowable expenses and
public inspection.
compensation limitations.
Government in the Sunshine Act
Federal Conflict of Interest Laws
Advisory committee meetings are closed or partially closed to the
Agency officials must provide prospective advisory committee
public based upon provisions of the "Government in the Sunshine
members with information regarding any applicable standards of
Act" (Public Act 94-409, September 13, 1976). Examples of
conduct--including those imposed by Federal conflict of interest
meetings that may be closed under the FACA are:
statutes. In some instances, members may be subject to special
limitations during the course of their service on an advisory commit-
Those including discussions of classified information;
tee. For some members, these restrictions also may apply (for
Reviews of proprietary data submitted in support of Federal grant
limited periods) after their committee assignments have ended.
applications; and
Some agencies may impose additional administrative requirements
Deliberations involving consideration of personnel information
as well. To avoid potential conflicts, each advisory committee
protected by the Privacy Act (Public Act 93-579, December 31,
1974).
For More Information
For more information on the requirements of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act, contact the General Services Administration's
Committee Management Secretariat at FTS/202 523-4884.
Copies of the following information materials also may be
obtained through the Committee Management Secretariat:
Annual Report of the President on Federal Advisory Commit-
tees (for current fiscal year)
Federal Advisory Committee Act (is in Annual Report)
Government in the Sunshine Act (excerpt is in Annual Report)
GSA Final Rule on Federal Committee Management (is in
Annual Report)
List of agency committee affiliations (is in Annual Report)
The Federal Advisory Committee Act: An Overview
Other materials, such as samples of nominating letters and
charters, are available from each agency or call GSA's Committee
Management Secretariat at FTS/202 523-4884.
Today, an average of 1,000 advisory commit-
tees with more than 20,000 members advise
the President and the Executive Branch on
such issues as the disposal of high-level
nuclear waste, the depletion of atmospheric
ozone, the national fight against Acquired
Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), and
efforts to improve the economy-such as those
suggested by the President's National Eco-
nomic Commission.
Cover engraving: Washington Presiding in the Convention, 1787,
J. Rogers after Wageman. No date.
nsf
Committee
Management
Guide
REVISED AUGUST 1990
Prepared by the
Division of Personnel and Management
WHEN and and
Cabine the san #
the was the THE
X
with
of a and
we TOTAL O
100
3
of was W
the WE
a
3
CMG
FOREWORD
This Guide is written primarily for the Designated Foundation Officials of NSF
advisory committees and panels, but contains useful information for anyone
working with committees in other capacities.
Contents are based on pertinent laws (the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA) and the Government in the Sunshine Act), regulations (GSA
Regulations on Advisory Committee Management), and NSF policy and
procedures embodied especially in NSF Manual 1, Chapter IV-100, "Committee
Management," NSF Manual 15, "NSF Conflict-of-Interest Rules and Standards of
Conduct," and NSF Manual 10, "Proposal and Award Manual".
The Forms Window has copies of ADM IV-100 and other NSF issuances. The
Committee Management Officer (CMO) and the Office of the General Counsel
have copies of the GSA Regulations, FACA, and the Government in the
Sunshine Act.
This revision of the Guide incorporates the new consultation form that replaces
the letter of consultation and charter, and includes guidance for subcommittees
and the new Special Emphasis Panels, as well as how to select the proper type of
group for advice.
If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Becky Winkler, the Committee
Management Officer, in the Management Analysis Branch of the Division of
Personnel and Management. She can be reached at 357-7363, in Room 208.
managet J. Windus
Margaret L. Windus
Director, Division of Personnel
and Management
Revised: August 1990
i
CMG
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Foreword
i
Chapter I - Introduction
A. Basic Information
1
B. Responsibilities
5
Chapter II - Establishing An Advisory Committee
A. Overview of the Establishment Process
7
B. Designating Members
9
C. Charter Preparation
12
Chapter III - Holding Meetings
A. Before the Meeting
16
B. During the Meeting
20
C. After the Meeting
22
Chapter IV - Disseminating Advisory Committee
Information to the Public
A. Information at Committee Meetings
24
B. Reports on Committees
24
C. Reports by Advisory Committees
26
Chapter V - Renewing/Amending Charters and
Terminating Committees
A. Renewals
27
B. Amendments
27
C. Expirations and Terminations
28
APPENDICES
Signature Authorities for Committee Management Documents
A-1
Consultation on Federal Advisory Committee (form)
A-2
Example of Information to Include in Consultation Form/Charter
A-4
Sample Notice of Establishment
A-6
Timetable for Establishing an Advisory Committee and
Announcing First Meeting
A-7
Notice of Meeting Format
A-8
Sample Notice of Renewal
A-9
NSF Form 1230, "Conflicts-of-Interest Statement for NSF Advisory
Committee/Review Panel Members"
A-10
Example of Minutes of Proposal Review Meeting
A-12
Types of Groups for Getting Advice
A-14
Example of a Closed Meeting Report
A-16
NSF Form 1216, "Multi-Campus System Waiver"
A-18
SUBJECT INDEX
iii
ii
CMG I A
CHAPTER I - - INTRODUCTION
A. BASIC INFORMATION
1. What is an advisory committee?
b. publish a notice in the Federal
Register of their establishment and
An advisory committee is any group
renewal (see Chapter II);
formed or used by a Federal agency
with one or more non-Federal
c. publish a notice in the Federal
members that is asked to give an
Register of all meetings which must
agency advice.
be open to the public with few
exceptions (see Chapter III);
The name or designation of the group
does not in any way affect whether
d. keep minutes of all meetings and
the group is an advisory committee.
make them available to the public
Just because you call the group
with few exceptions (see Chapter III);
something other than "advisory
committee," does not mean it is not
e. be renewed every 2 years or they
legally an advisory committee. See
terminate (see Chapter V); and
Appendix J for guidance on which
type of group to use.
f. at least annually, account for each
committee's costs, activities, and
2. What is "FACA"?
members (see Chapter IV).
The Federal Advisory Committee Act
Further details and instructions for
(FACA) is the law on which the
each of these requirements are
Committee Management Regulations
located in the remaining chapters, as
and NSF policies and procedures are
indicated above, and in appendices to
based. All Federal advisory
this Guide.
committees are subject to the
requirements of FACA. (See 4.,
4. Are there circumstances when a
below for exceptions.)
committee would not be subject to
FACA?
3. What are the requirements under
FACA?
Yes. The following criteria define
when an advisory committee must
Advisory committees must:
comply with FACA, but there may be
exceptions:
a. be chartered (see Chapter II);
1. group provides advice and
recommendations to a Federal
official;
1
CMG I A
- consists of one or more non-
- and -
Federal members, and
2. group has at least one non-
- discusses and deliberates on any
Federal member.
subject.
Examples of exceptions to these
5. Is there any reason to charter a
criteria are provided below.
committee even though it wouldn't be
required?
1) FACA would not apply where
advice and recommendations are
Yes. You might want to charter a
sought from only one individual, e.g., a
committee if you want to have its
single person advises a Program
meeting(s) publicized or if you expect
Officer in the conduct of a site visit.
the committee's recommendations to
be controversial (and therefore, might
2) An exclusion of criterion 1 is if
have widespread and/or long-term
advice is sought from individual
attention).
attendees at a meeting without the
benefit of discussion or deliberation.
6. What about subcommittees; do
The reason is that the group had not
they have to be chartered?
been used to obtain advice or
recommendations. If, however,
It depends on whether you want the
discussion occurs, the assumption is
advice directly or not. A
that this is a "source of advice and
subcommittee may function
recommendations" regardless of
independently of its parent committee
whether or not the group actually
or may offer recommendations to the
comes to a consensus.
Foundation officials through the
parent committee. NSF cannot
3) Criterion 1 is not met where
accept or use advice directly from a
advice is not given at meetings, e.g.,
subcommittee unless that
a) Federal and non-Federal officials
subcommittee is separately chartered
exchange facts or information, or b) a
under FACA. Otherwise, the work of
group requests a meeting with a
a subcommittee must be given to the
Federal official to express the group's
chartered parent committee for
views.
consideration before it is accepted by
NSF.
4) Criterion 2 is not met where all
members of the group are Federal
A subcommittee may be composed of
employees.
members drawn in whole or in part
from the parent committee.
In summary, FACA has jurisdiction
over any group that:
7. If I don't have to charter my
subcommittee, is there anything else I
- an NSF official convenes or uses,
need to do?
2
CMG I A
A subcommittee, whether chartered
However, you need not consider
separately or not, must comply with
chartering where a non-Federal
the requirements of FACA including
person advises a Program Officer
publishing notice of meetings at least
since this is not a "group" but one
15 days before all meetings. A
person advising the Government.
meeting must be open to the public
unless it, or a part thereof, is closed
Like other advisory committees, a site
pursuant to law with the explicit
visit group must be balanced in its
approval of the Office of the General
membership in terms of the points of
Counsel. Even if closed in its
view represented and the functions to
entirety, notice must be published in
be performed.
the Federal Register.
9. What alternatives to chartering do
All records, including everything
I have?
received by a committee and
everything it produces (e.g., drafts and
You could use an existing NSF
detailed minutes of meetings), must
committee, use another agency's
be kept until the committee is
committee, or you could hold public
disbanded.
hearings.
All records also must be available to
In fact, as part of the consultation
the public for inspection and copying
form in the establishment process,
unless they, or portions of them, must
you have to tell GSA why you
be withheld under one of the
decided not to use another method to
statutory exemptions such as where
meet your needs instead of setting up
disclosure would constitute an
a new committee. (See Appendix J
unwarranted invasion of personal
for alternatives.)
privacy.
10. Who can establish an advisory
8. Do I have to charter a site visit
committee?
group?
The Director, NSF, has delegated to
Site visit groups must be chartered
Assistant Directors and Staff Office
under FACA:
Directors responsibility for
.
establishing, as well as renewing and
- if they have one or more members
terminating, committees. (See
who are not employees of the Federal
Appendix A, Signature Authorities for
Government and
Advisory Committee Documents.)
- if the group's discussion or
11. If I need to charter a committee,
deliberation is used as a source of
what do I have to do to establish it
advice or recommendation, even if
and how long does it take?
the group does not give specific
advice or recommendations.
3
CMG I A
It takes about 2 months to set up a
Basically, NSF uses two names for
committee. (See Appendix E for
advisory groups advisory
timetable.) Briefly, you have to:
committees and advisory panels.
a. provide the CMO with
Advisory committees generally
information about the proposed
operate at the directorate or division
purpose, membership, meeting
level and provide advice,
frequencies, costs, etc. and obtain
recommendations, counsel, and
internal (Division Director and
critical review for specific program,
Assistant Director) approval;
division, and directorate activities.
b. consult with GSA by a
Advisory panels, on the other hand,
consultation form/charter (the CMO
generally operate at the program level
handles this), signed by the Division
and are mostly involved with proposal
Director and Assistant Director (see
review activities.
Appendix B);
Both committees and panels can be
C. notify the public by publishing a
used for program oversight.
Notice of Establishment in the
Federal Register (the CMO handles
A new type of advisory panel is the
this) (see Appendix D); and
Special Emphasis Panel (SEP). The
SEP is designed to encompass review
d. file the consultation
of proposals and applications for the
form/charter with Congress (the
various special initiatives in the
CMO handles this).
Agency, e.g., PYI, ROW, and SBIR.
Only one SEP is established in each
See Chapter II and Appendices B - E
division with special initiative
for specific details and requirements
proposals for review. The
for establishing an advisory
membership of the SEP depends
committee.
upon the types of proposals needing
review.
12. Who prepares the paperwork?
See Appendix C for more information
The program official who wants the
on SEP's.
committee prepares the documents.
However, once the documents are
14. What would happen if I had an
signed, the CMO processes them and
advisory committee that wasn't
serves as liaison with the GSA
established under the Federal
Committee Management Secretariat,
Advisory Committee Act?
Office of the Federal Register,
The committee would be illegal but
Library of Congress, etc.
you probably wouldn't go to jail.
13. How are advisory committees
structured at NSF?
However, you might be charged for
the illegal committee's expenses and
4
CMG I A
you could be sued, particularly if the
f. adjourns the meeting when he or
committee gave advice on policy,
she determines that adjournment is in
money, or regulations.
the public interest;
Also, the advice and
g. assures that the committee's
recommendations of the committee
recommendations are reviewed
might be considered invalid.
promptly and accepted advice is
implemented as appropriate;
If you discover you have a group that
should be chartered, contact the
h. maintains and provides minutes,
CMO.
reports, documents (subject to FOIA),
costs, and other information about the
B. RESPONSIBILITIES
committee;
1. Assistant Director or Staff Office
i. assures the committee's efficient
Director oversees compliance with
operation and that the FACA
FACA in his or her organization.
requirements are met; and
2. Designated Foundation Official
j. is familiar with the openness
(DFO) is the full-time or permanent
provisions of FACA. (See Chapter
part-time NSF staff member
III.)
designated by the Assistant
Director/Staff Office Director to be
3. Committee Management Officer
responsible for the committee.
(CMO) is designated by the Director
to ensure that legal and regulatory
The DFO:
requirements are met, to provide
advice and guidance to NSF officials,
a. approves or calls and attends
and to serve as liaison with other
committee meetings;
agencies about NSF advisory
committees.
b. approves the agenda;
The CMO:
C. ensures that the Notice of
Meeting is published in the Federal
a. reviews all proposed
Register and that minutes are
establishments, renewals, or charter
prepared and certified by the
amendments for overall compliance
Committee Chair on a timely basis;
with FACA, GSA Regulations, and
NSF policy;
d. ensures that all committee
members are instructed on current
b. coordinates and/or summarizes
ethics laws and regulations;
input to required committee
management reports;
e. guards against committee
member conflicts of interest;
c. maintains a central repository for
committee management documents,
5
CMG I B
e.g., charters (or consultation forms)
Advisory committees are usually
and membership lists;
chaired by a member of the
committee and selection (or election)
d. provides information to the public
of a chairperson is local option. In
on how to obtain copies of reports
some cases the chairperson is elected
and minutes of each committee; and
by the committee; in others, the
responsible Division Director or
e. makes determinations to close
Assistant Director selects the
meetings to the public when the
chairperson.
meetings are concerned with proposal
review or program oversight.
Advisory panels usually are chaired
Determinations for closing meetings
by an NSF staff member, usually the
for other reasons must be made by
Designated Foundation Official.
the Director, NSF.
7. Office of the General Counsel
4. Committee Management
(OGC) provides legal advice and
Secretariat (CMS) is part of the
interpretation of FACA and reviews
General Services Administration and
all requests to close committee
is responsible for overseeing and
meetings to the public.
reporting on Federal advisory
committees.
5. OMB Budget Examiner for NSF
programs and activities reviews all
NSF requests to establish advisory
committees.
6. Chairperson presides over
committee meetings and certifies to
the accuracy of minutes by signing
minutes.
6
CMG II A
CHAPTER II - ESTABLISHING AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
A. OVERVIEW OF THE ESTABLISHMENT PROCESS
1. What documents are required to
C for examples of information to
establish an advisory committee?
include on the consultation form).
The CMO will also ask you to
As stated in Chapter I, to establish an
prepare a notice of establishment (see
advisory committee you need a
Appendix D for a sample Notice of
completed consultation form (which
Establishment).
replaces the letter of consultation and
charter) and a Notice of
Once you have completed the
Establishment.
consultation form and your division
and directorate officials have signed
See question 3., below for details of
it, the CMO handles the concurrence
the process.
process.
2. How long can an advisory
GSA reviews the documents for
committee be in existence?
compliance with FACA and sends a
copy of the consultation form/charter
Advisory committees are established
to the NSF Budget Examiner at
for a maximum of 2 years. However,
OMB. The Budget Examiner uses a
a committee can be renewed, in 2-
working knowledge of NSF to
year increments, for as long as there
determine the real need for a
is a need for it. You may also have a
committee. The Budget Examiner
much shorter duration, depending
and GSA will jointly decide
upon the time required for the
concurrence in the establishment.
committee to accomplish its
objectives.
When GSA concurs, the CMO
publishes the Notice of Establishment
3. Exactly how does the
in the Federal Register.
establishment process work in terms
of paperwork flow?
The CMO files the consultation
form/charter with Congress, GSA,
The CMO will give you instructions
and the Library of Congress 15
on what information is necessary for
calendar days after the Notice
establishment and will work with you
appears in the Federal Register.
in creating the consultation form. For
SEP's, the CMO will give you a
The committee is effective on the "file
partially completed consultation form
date" (date consultation form is sent
for completion and approval within
to the Library of Congress) which the
your directorate (see Appendix B for
CMO types in the upper right corner
the consultation form and Appendix
of the consultation form/charter. The
7
CMG II A
CMO will also send you a copy of the
If OMB or GSA has questions or
filed charter.
problems with the establishment, they
call the CMO. The CMO either
If you have any questions, contact the
serves as liaison between you and
Committee Management Officer.
GSA or asks you to call OMB/GSA
(See Appendix E for the timetable.)
to provide additional information.
4. Who signs the consultation
6. Suppose I have to get a committee
form/charter and Notice of
established in a hurry, what do I do?
Establishment?
If you need a committee established
a. For a directorate-level advisory
in less than 2 months, contact the
committee, the Assistant Director
CMO immediately. In emergency
signs the Sponsoring Official block
situations GSA will take less time for
and the Other Concurring Agency
their review and will waive some of
Official block is left blank.
the time requirements for Federal
Register notices. See Appendix E for
b. For all other committees and
a detailed timetable and summary of
panels, the cognizant Division
procedures and review levels involved
Director signs the Sponsoring Official
in establishing a committee and
block and the Assistant Director signs
announcing its first meeting.
the Other Concurring Agency Official
NOTE: If your first meeting will
block.
have a closed session, let the CMO
In all cases, the position title of the
know so that the determination to
Designated Foundation Official is put
close the meeting to the public can be
in the Remarks section.
made 30 days before the meeting
date.
In addition to signing the consultation
form, the CMO signs the Notice of
7. Who keeps the records of a
Establishment.
committee and what must be kept?
5. How will I know when the
The CMO is responsible for some
committee is established?
documents, you are responsible for
the others. The CMO maintains a
The CMO will call you as soon as
central repository of all advisory
GSA informs her of their decision.
committees' original charters and
(GSA must decide within 15 days
consultation forms, other documents
from receipt of consultation form.)
related to the establishment, renewal,
GSA also follows up with a letter to
and/or termination, and
the Assistant Director/Staff Office
administrative reports such as those
Director and with a copy to the
required by FACA or GSA
CMO.
Regulations.
8
CMG II A
You must keep all other records until
the committee terminates. (See V-
2. What do I need to consider when
B.2 for information on records
selecting members?
retention.) Records include reports,
transcripts, minutes, appendices,
You need to consider: a) balanced
working papers, drafts, studies,
membership, b) number of members
agenda, or other documents that were
needed to perform the function, and
made available to or prepared for or
c) terms of service. These
by your committee.
considerations are described below.
Additionally, all records must be
a. Balanced Membership. FACA
available to the public for inspection
and Federal Advisory Committee
and copying unless they, or portions
Management Regulations require that
of them, must be withheld under one
Federal advisory committees maintain
of the statutory exemptions such as
balanced membership.
where disclosure would constitute an
unwarranted invasion of personal
This means you need to consider a
privacy.
cross-section of those directly
affected, interested and qualified, as
For SEP's, where different Program
appropriate to the nature and
Officers manage different panel
functions of the committee.
meetings, the DFO should be careful
Committees requiring technical
to ensure that each Program Officer
expertise should include persons with
provides to the DFO copies of these
demonstrated professional or personal
documents for reports and retention.
qualifications and experience relevant
There should be only one location
to the functions and tasks to be
designated for the retention of SEP
performed.
records in each division.
NSF has specific guidance on the
selection of members in Chapter I of
B. DESIGNATING MEMBERS
the Proposal and Award Manual
(PAM).
1. Do I have to wait until my
committee is effective before I can
The Director, NSF, is interested in
designate my members?
maintaining balanced membership on
NSF committees and at least annually
No, you can carry out all
reviews with each Assistant Director
administrative tasks, including
the statistical report on composition
designating members, before the
for his/her advisory committees. (See
committee is established. You may
Chapter IV B for more on this
not, however, operate, meet, or take
report.)
any action as a committee until it is
established (i.e., "filed" with Congress
Below are general guidelines on
following GSA's review and
balanced membership.
publication of Notice).
9
CMG II B
(1) Individual qualifications - each
committee to 5 for proposal review
member should have recognized
panels.
pertinent expertise or should have
demonstrated ability as a reviewer.
The exceptions are the Special
Emphasis Panels that have many
(2) Fields of expertise - within
more members serving during an
reasonable limits, members' fields of
entire year because the membership
specialty should be complementary
is fluid, depending upon the agenda
for the meetings.
within the group.
(3) Public impact - where pertinent,
c. Terms of Designation. Members
members should be representative of
normally serve up to 3 years.
geographic regions, organizations, or
Membership should be staggered so
segments of the public especially
that approximately one-third of the
where directly affected by issues
membership is replaced annually.
under consideration.
Again, exception is made for SEP's,
(4) Academic and nonacademic
where members serve only during the
impact - members from the academic
particular meeting for which they are
community should represent small,
designated.
medium, and large institutions,
including PUI's, as well as public and
3. How do I get members "on board"?
private institutions.
Members, including Federal members,
Whenever possible, concurrent or
are designated by a letter of
successive designations of individuals
designation. Each directorate/office
from the same institution should be
has its own internal requirements for
avoided. Representatives from
selection approval. Once the
outside the academic community are
selection is approved, you prepare a
also desirable in most instances.
letter of designation. The letter is
signed by the respective program
(5) Underrepresented views -
official, but usually not lower than the
special attention should be paid to
division director level.
obtaining qualified persons from
underrepresented groups such as
4. What kind of information do I
need to include in the designation
minorities, women, younger age
groups, and the disabled.
letter?
b. Number of Members. GSA
In addition to informing the
suggests a maximum of 25 members
prospective members of their duties,
for committees with an Agency-wide
obligations, and term of designation,
mission and 12 for all others. The
you should ensure that both Federal
average number of members per
members and non-Federal members
committee at NSF is 12 with a range
are aware of allowable expenses and
of 20 for a directorate-wide
10
CMG II B
compensation limitations as well as
OGC. Be sure the information on
NSF's conflicts requirements.
that form is complete and accurate.
5. What are the conflicts
For SEP members, you will need to
requirements?
get new submissions of NSF Form
1216 each time they are designated,
Before any member (including
where appropriate.
Federal members) can serve, you, as
Designated Foundation Official, must
7. Are all advisory committee
ensure that each potential member
members paid a fee for their services?
has read and signed NSF Form 1230,
"Conflicts of Interest Statement for
No. There is no requirement to pay
NSF Advisory Committee/Review
advisory committee members. Some
Panel Members." (See Appendix H
members will not want compensation
for copy of NSF Form 1230.)
and some are not allowed to be paid.
Federal members, for instance, are
After reading and signing the
not offered compensation by law (5
Statement, members return the form
USC 5533, 5536; 31 USC 484).
to you to resolve any future conflicts
issues. You must retain the forms
You should generally assume that all
and record any action taken. (See
non-Federal members wish to be paid
NSF Manual 15, Subpart B., Section
our standard $100 a day fee unless
681.20 (e.).) Also, at meetings you
they tell you otherwise.
must resolve conflicts questions.
Regardless of whether members are
For SEP members, you will need to
paid a fee or not, they are currently
get new submissions of NSF Form
authorized to be reimbursed up to
1230 each time they are designated.
$160/day for costs of hotel
accommodations, meals, taxis, and
See Chapter III for more information
miscellaneous expenses when in travel
and NSF Manual 15, Subpart B.,
status.
Section 681.20 (c.).
8. How are advisory committee
6. Are there any other forms
members paid?
concerning conflicts that are needed?
Members are paid under the guidance
Yes. If a member is from a state
of FIN I Section 170.
university system that has several
semi-autonomous campuses, before
Essentially, advisory committee
the meeting you complete an NSF
members are paid from PD&M funds
Form 1216, "Multi-Campus System
and advisory panel members from
Waiver." (See Appendix L.) You
program funds.
should keep one copy in the
committee files and send the other to
Formal paperwork to compensate
members is under a travel
11
CMG II B
authorization and reimbursement
responsible for it, and what is it going
obtained through a memorandum to
to cost.
DFM for non-Federal members. The
Division Director (or cognizant
2. How can I know what costs my
Assistant Director) signs the
committee will have before it's in
reimbursement memorandum.
operation?
Federal members must submit a
Part of the decision process in
travel voucher and attach appropriate
determining if you need a committee,
receipts.
includes thoughts about activities you
would want a committee to perform
The DAS travel contractor will obtain
as well as the amount of resources
airline tickets for you.
(staff time and member costs)
available to you for the committee.
You should contact your
Using this information, you can
Administrative Officer for specifics on
estimate committee costs.
preparing travel authorizations and
reimbursing members and latest cost
3. How do I calculate personnel
levels for fees, travel, and other
payments, as listed on the
consultation form?
expenses.
Personnel Payments include:
C. CHARTER PREPARATION
- non-Federal member
1. How do I know what to include in
compensation;
my consultation form (previously a
charter)?
- Federal members prorated salary
including fringe benefits (includes
The CMO will provide you with a
NSF staff who are chairpersons);
form to complete and give you advice
on filling it out. See Appendix B for
Note: This category includes members
the format to use for the consultation
from other Federal agencies and any
form and Appendix C for examples of
NSF employees who are considered
information to include on the form.
full-voting members of an advisory
group. In most cases, this applies to
This section provides information on
Program Officers who serve as
areas you need to address when
chairpersons of proposal review
requesting GSA concurrence on
panels. You should compute Federal
establishing a committee.
member compensation, including
fringe benefits, as you would staff
Basically, what GSA needs to know is
costs, except you don't compute the
what the committee will do, how long
person years. (See 7, below.)
will it exist, why another existing
group can't do it, what its
- Federal staff. This is comprised
membership will be, who's going to be
of multiplying NSF staff time (see
12
CMG II C
below) by the average annual salary
6. What do I do to calculate staff
of each staff member. The cost
support years?
includes fringe benefits (calculated by
multiplying the amount of
Staff Support Years is comprised of
compensation by 14%); and
any time Federal employees spend in
support of the advisory committee.
- non-member consultant
This includes time spent attending the
compensation.
advisory committee/panel meeting.
(See 8., below for an exception.)
You may estimate member costs
using your own formula or you may
Do the following for each individual
follow the guide below.
staff member:
Compensation: multiply the number
a. Total the estimated number of
of non-Federal members who will
days (or part of a day) that the staff
receive compensation by $100 (fee).
member is expected to work on the
(See B.7. for who can receive
committee, including meeting days.
compensation.) Then multiply the
total compensation cost by the
b. Multiply the estimated number of
number of meeting days. You would
days the staff member is expected to
use this procedure for determining
work on the committee by 8 hours to
non-member consultant costs as well.
get the total hours/year.
4. How do I compute costs for Travel
c. Divide the expected annual hours
and Per Diem, as shown on the
of work on the committee by 2087
consultation form?
(available hours per year) to get the
percentage of a work year to be spent
Travel and Per Diem is calculated for
on the committee.
non-Federal and Federal members,
NSF staff, and non-member
d. Multiply this percentage by the
consultants.
respective staff member's annual
gross salary to get cost per year for
You may compute travel costs by
that staff member's work on the
multiplying the number of members
committee.
on the committee by $500 (average
round-trip transportation cost and
Then, when you've done this for each
expenses).
staff member, add all of the salaries
and percentages of time expected to
5. What about "other" costs?
be spent on committee work for the
total staff costs and time.
Other costs include items such as
postage, rental of conference space in
a hotel, printing costs, and court
reporter fees.
13
CMG II C
7. Give me an example of a Program Officer (who is not a member of the
committee), Program Assistant, and Clerk-Typist who provide staff support for a
committee that holds 3 2-day meetings a year.
DAYS PER POSITION
Program
Program
Clerk-
Total Years
Officer
Assistant
Typist
and Costs
Attending Meetings
6
6
0
+ Admin. Time
6
6
15
= Total Days
12
12
15
(X 8 Hrs/Day=)
Hrs/Staff/Yr
96
96
120
Divide by 2,087 Hrs/Yr
= Staff Time/Yr
0.05 +
0.05 +
0.06 =
0.16 per.yrs.
.2 Staff Years
X Anl Salary
$67,112
$21,810
$17,312
= Personnel Cost
$3,355.60
+ $1,090.50
+
$1,038.70
= $5,484.80
X
14 % benefits
$
767.87 benefits
+ $5,484.80 Pers. Cost
$
6,252.67 Total Cost
Note: "Administrative time" could involve arranging meeting, assigning proposals
for review, sending proposals out in advance of meeting, typing minutes, preparing
reports, arranging/preparing travel documents, preparing agenda/meeting notice,
etc.
14
CMG II C
8. If a Program Officer is also a
9. Do I have to break out all of the
member of an advisory panel, e.g.,
above costs in my consultation
chairperson, would you count the
form/charter?
days he attends the meeting under
"staff support" or "Federal member
Yes, as shown in Appendix B, the
compensation"?
form submitted to GSA for
concurrence includes cost estimates
You would include meeting
for the current and next fiscal year.
attendance under Federal member
compensation. However, you would
include his/her time due to "staff
work" before and after the meeting
under staff costs and staff years.
15
CMG III A
CHAPTER III - HOLDING MEETINGS
A. BEFORE THE MEETING
1. What is the first thing I should do
mentioned earlier, more time is
to plan for a meeting?
needed to process a meeting that is
closed or partly closed to the public.
If the committee is new, you should
See Appendix F for meeting notice
be sure it will be formally established
requirements.
("filed") at least 20 days before you
plan to meet. You may, however,
Instead of preparing a notice of
designate members and determine
meeting, program staff with SEP's
meeting logistics (date, location, etc.)
may provide the CMO with meeting
between the time the consultation
information, i.e., panel name, dates,
form is delivered to GSA and the
times, agenda (e.g., PYI), type (e.g.,
charter (consultation form) is filed.
closed to the public), and room
number (and building, city, state, if
When you inform members officially
not at NSF). The CMO will then
of the meeting and provide them with
prepare the notice of meeting and
material to prepare for discussions,
have it published in the Federal
include NSF Form 1230 for signature
Register.
and returning to you. Where
appropriate, provide members with
NSF Form 1216 also. (See II B-5 &
2. Do I have to open my meeting to
6; Appendices H and L for forms.)
the public?
At the same time you set the meeting
Yes, the Federal Advisory Committee
date, you should decide on the type of
Act states that each advisory
meeting you need, i.e., open to the
committee meeting shall be open to
public, closed, or part open. See
the public. However, FACA allows
questions below for criteria and
for the exemption of certain types of
instructions for closing a meeting.
meetings from being open. At NSF,
we use the below-listed exemptions
As soon as you've decided the
from the Government in the Sunshine
meeting date, you should consider the
Act to close meetings for proposal
timing for announcing the meeting in
review and oversight.
the Federal Register and requesting a
determination to close the meeting, if
You may close a meeting, or part of a
necessary.
meeting, only where the specific
agenda item addresses:
The CMO will sign and publish the
notice of meeting and will process the
- trade secrets and commercial or
determination, if meeting is to be
financial information obtained from a
closed or part closed to the public. As
16
CMG III A
person that is privileged or
send your meeting notice (or
confidential (exemption 4); and
pertinent data) to the CMO at least
30 calendar days before the meeting.
- information of a personal nature
where disclosure would constitute
The notice or meeting data should
a clearly unwarranted invasion of
include a request to close all or part
personal privacy (exemption 6).
of the meeting and the reason
(proposal review or oversight) and
Discussions of the general thrust of a
should be signed by the DFO or
program or programmatic changes
designee. If the meeting is to be part
should not be closed. Where
open to the public, you should
possible, these discussions should be
indicate which part is to be closed.
placed on the agenda in an open
This document serves as your request
session.
to close a meeting.
There will be instances, though,
The CMO has been delegated
where discussion of non-exempt
authority to receive requests to close
material (e.g., proposals that have
meetings for proposal review and
been awarded) is inextricably
oversight and to make determinations
intertwined with the discussion of
that these meetings can be closed to
exempt material and no further
the public. In all cases, the CMO
separation is practical. When this
sends the request to the Office of the
happens, that portion of the meeting
General Counsel for review. (See
may be closed.
Appendix F for items required for
notices.)
3. Can I close my meeting when the
Committee of Visitors conducts
If your reason for closing a meeting
oversight?
(or part of a meeting) is for other
than proposal review or oversight,
Yes and no. Generally, the above
you should submit a request to the
exemptions will not support closing an
Director at least 30 calendar days
oversight meeting in its entirety; they
before the scheduled meeting. The
will support only those portions in
request should state the dates and
which specific declined proposals or
times of the meeting and should cite
particular peer reviews are to be
the specific exemptions of the
discussed.
Government in the Sunshine Act
(Sunshine Act) that justify closure.
4. What do I have to do to close a
meeting?
If the Director determines that the
request is valid, he issues a
The procedures to close a meeting
determination that the meeting may
depend on the reason you want it
be closed. A copy of this
closed. Generally, meetings are
determination is made available to
closed for proposal review or
the public upon request. (OGC and
oversight. In those cases, you should
17
CMG III A
the CMO maintain a copy of the
Sunshine Act for your information.)
7. What happens if the meeting has
to be cancelled, postponed, or
5. If committee members plan to
otherwise changed?
discuss committee business at an
informal gathering, should that
If there's time, the CMO will publish
discussion be made part of the formal
a cancellation or postponement notice
agenda and meeting announcement?
in the Federal Register. The CMO
could also publish an amendment to
Yes. You should discourage planned
the notice for such things as
discussion of committee business
significant changes in the agenda or
outside announced meetings. The
type of meeting, or in the number of
GSA Committee Management
days the meeting is to be held.
Secretariat believes that informal
meetings or gatherings of committee
If you want to change from an open
members in which substantive
to a closed meeting, contact OGC or
committee business is discussed
the CMO immediately for guidance.
should be disclosed if they occur.
If you need to change the time of the
GSA recognizes the administrative
meeting or room number at the last
difficulty in this area and believes that
minute, you could phone those people
the sponsoring agency can best
you knew were planning to attend and
determine whether a specific
post a sign on the door of the
gathering of committee members
scheduled room directing people to
constitutes an advisory committee
the correct room. You would, of
meeting. When in doubt, contact
course, announce any changes in time
either the Office of the General
at the meeting itself.
Counsel or the Committee
Management Officer.
8. Why must I publish a meeting
notice if the meeting is to be closed to
6. Suppose it's not possible to send
the public?
the meeting notice on time, what do I
do?
FACA requires that notices of all
meetings be published in the Federal
You can still publish the notice and
Register, except for reasons of
have your meeting but you must
national security.
include the reason for being late with
the meeting notice to be published in
9. How many copies of the meeting
the Federal Register.
notice do I need?
If your meeting is to be closed to the
You need only send one copy whether
public, you should inform the CMO
you provide 1) just the meeting data,
immediately even if you're not sure of
not in Notice format, or 2) the notice
the exact date of the meeting so the
in the proper format.
determination to close can be made.
18
CMG III A
12. What happens if I have to make a
The CMO signs all notices of
change in the agenda after the
meetings and will have the notice
meeting has started?
reproduced and distributed to:
You would make an announcement of
- Office of the Federal Register;
the change as soon as you are aware
of it. However, as stated earlier, you
- Committee Management files (also
may not change from a closed to an
documents determinations to close
open meeting because the public
meeting); and
would not have had notice of an open
meeting so they could attend.
- Contact person listed in the
meeting notice with date signed
13. If I need to have an emergency
indicated.
closed session at an open meeting,
what should I do?
Additional copies are sent to the
Office of the Director, OBAC (for
If the entire meeting was announced
transmittal to the NSB), OLPA (for
as open to the public, you probably
information to Congress), and to the
won't be able to close the meeting.
NETWORK editor for internal
When in doubt, you should
publication.
immediately contact the Office of the
General Counsel or the CMO for
10. Do meetings have to be held at
guidance.
NSF?
14. Suppose I have a 2-day meeting
No. All you have to remember is
with the closed session scheduled for
that the meeting facility should be
the second day but the first day's
reasonably accessible to all who may
session ended early enough for me to
attend (including disabled persons).
begin the closed session. Could I
begin the closed session or would I
11. Do all meetings have to be held
have to wait until the next day?
during the week and during normal
working hours?
You could start the closed session
early, since no members of the public
No. Some meetings start after 6 p.m.
would be invited to the closed session.
or are held on weekends. If prior
arrangements are required for entry
All you would need to do is announce
to the building after hours, you would
that the business scheduled for the
indicate in the meeting notice that
open session was completed and that
anyone planning to attend would have
the closed session would now begin.
to notify you before the meeting.
You would probably want to have a
Then you would provide building
break at this point to allow members
security with a list of potential
of the public to leave the meeting.
attendees.
19
CMG III A
15. If I had the reverse situation,
"Federal official" includes IPA's and
could I do the same thing, that is,
Visiting Scientists ("rotators").
start the open session early?
2. What are some of the things I, as
No, since some members of the public
DFO, need to be aware of while the
may be planning to attend the open
meeting is going on?
session. If you began the open
session early, you'd run the risk of
a. You should have all members,
having adverse publicity or being
staff, and visitors sign a roster.
sued. You should consult OGC
before considering this course of
b. You must have someone take
action.
minutes, regardless of whether the
meeting is open or closed. (This is
16. Do I have to notify anyone other
required by law.) See 5., below, for
than the CMO (for notice
content requirement for minutes.
publication) when I hold a meeting?
c. If the meeting is for proposal
review, the Conflicts-of-Interest
Although the law does not require
Regulations require you to read to
any other notification, you may wish
the panelists a statement concerning
to issue a press release or use the
conflicts (see NSF Manual 15, Section
NSF electronic Bulletin Board to
681.25(c)).
notify NSF staff. The CMO provides
meeting notices of open/part-open
d. You must resolve all conflicts
meetings to the editor of the
and record in the minutes the action
NETWORK for internal publication.
taken.
B. DURING THE MEETING
3. Who should take minutes?
That varies. Some program officials
1. Do I have to attend the entire
have their support staff take minutes
meeting?
and some might do it themselves.
For open meetings, some officials use
Yes, according to FACA a designated
a court reporter.
officer or employee of the Federal
Government shall chair or attend
4. Must the minutes be verbatim?
each meeting. That person is
authorized to adjourn the meeting
No, just an accurate description of
whenever he/she determines it to be
each matter discussed and the
in the public interest. "No advisory
resolution, if any, made by the
committee shall conduct any meeting
committee. And, it is not necessary
in the absence of that officer or
to record individual votes, only the
employee." (Public Law 92-463,
decision.
Section 10 (e).)
20
CMG III B
5. What is required to be included in
C. a list of members of the public
"detailed" minutes?
who presented oral or written
statements;
First, it should be noted that the
"detailed minutes" that FACA
d. an estimated number of other
requires may include information that
members of the public present;
may not be divulged to the public.
(See IV-A.2 for information on
e. a complete and accurate
dissemination to the public.)
description of each matter discussed
and conclusions reached; and
FACA or the Committee
Management Regulations require that
f. copies of each report or other
document received, considered, or
minutes include:
issued by the committee.
a. time, date, and place (and room
number) of meeting;
In addition, NSF policy requires that
proposal review meetings should
b. a list of committee members and
include a statement to document
agency employees who attended;
certain conflict situations, such as
when a panelist does not participate
in discussions involving his/her
institution or when a panelist has
some affiliation with the proposer.
SUGGESTED WORDING AND FORMAT:
- The following person(s) had a conflict of interest:
Member's Name
Proposal #
How Resolved (by DFO)
John Doe
89-12345
left room
Jane Smith
89-56789
did not participate in discussion
89-34545
nature of conflict was not so substantial to
Henry Clark
affect his judgment
Note: Before the minutes are distributed to the public, you should block out any
information that could be used to identify proposals that have been declined.
Some divisions list panelist names and proposal numbers involved in conflict
situations on a separate confidential list to guard against inadvertent disclosure of
declinees. (See NSF Manual 15, Section 681.25(d) and (e) for more information
and Appendix I for suggested format for minutes.)
21
CMG III B
6. If the meeting is closed to the
what the procedures are for public
public do I still have to have detailed
participation.
minutes?
8. Can I have a working luncheon or
Yes. Minutes must contain all of the
dinner?
information listed in 5., above.
Yes, just make sure you include it in
However, when considering what to
your meeting announcement.
send to the public, minutes of closed
meetings should be reviewed to
9. What happens if someone disrupts
ensure that they do not divulge any
the meeting?
information that should be protected.
(See Chapter IV-A for discussion
If the situation warrants, you, as an
about releasing minutes and other
officer of the Government, can
information to the public.)
adjourn the meeting if you believe it
to be in the public interest to do so.
7. If I have an open meeting, do I
You could also call building security
have to allow members of the public
(357-7919 at NSF).
to participate in the meeting?
C. AFTER THE MEETING
FACA requires that:
1. When are minutes due?
a. Each meeting be held at a
reasonable time and in a place
While there is no specific time
reasonably accessible to the public;
requirement, minutes generally should
be available 30 days after the meeting
b. Any member of the public be
date.
permitted to file a written statement
with the committee; and
However, if your committee has its
minutes approved by the full
C. Any member of the public be
committee at its next meeting and
allowed to speak at the meeting if the
you're not sure when the next meeting
agency's regulations so permit.
will be held, you may get the minutes
approved by mail or electronic
NSF has no standard guidelines on
message.
public participation in committee
meetings. You (as DFO) should
2. Who prepares and signs the
develop operating procedures that
minutes?
include provisions for appropriate
opportunities for public comment.
The Designated Foundation Official is
You may develop these procedures
responsible for assuring the
with your committee members.
preparation and distribution of
minutes; the chairperson is
The chairperson should let the public
responsible for certifying that the
know at the beginning of the meeting
minutes are accurate.
22
CMG III C
5. Are there other materials
3. Who should receive copies of the
concerning the panel meeting that I
minutes?
need to distribute externally?
You should send minutes to the CMO
Yes. If your panel reviewed
and to anyone who asks for them,
proposals, you automatically send the
including the public, as well as to all
proposer verbatim copies of peer
committee members, and interested
reviews and panel summaries,
or affected staff.
excluding the identity of the reviewer
and the reviewer's institutional
4. If the minutes haven't been
affiliation. Reports of site visit
certified, and someone requests
groups made in connection with the
documents that were distributed at
evaluation of a proposal must also be
the meeting, can I send them out?
sent to the proposer. (PAM VII-713
and O/D 90-12.)
Yes. Do not hold these documents
until minutes are ready for
6. Are panel summaries
distribution unless the requestor asks
the same as detailed minutes?
that all material be sent at one time.
No. FACA requires minutes; NSF
Remember, documents that were
requires panel summaries to
received, considered, or issued at the
document proposal review and inform
meeting or that were made available
proposers.
to committee members must be
available to the public upon request
unless they meet one of the
exemptions of FOIA.
If the requestor also asks for minutes,
you may tell him/her that you will
send them after they are certified.
23
CMG IV A
CHAPTER IV - DISSEMINATING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC
A. INFORMATION AT COMMITTEE MEETINGS
1. Besides minutes of meetings, what
Other information such as aggregate
information do I have to give to a
information for awards (or
requestor?
declinations or postpones) and
general discussion about the proposals
Subject to the Freedom of
themselves would be valid
Information Act, you must make
information to send to the public.
available for public inspection the
For example, you may include what
records, reports, transcripts, minutes,
research areas the proposals were
appendices, working papers, drafts,
from or possibly what research areas
studies, agenda, or other documents
need more attention.
that were made available to or
prepared for or by your committee
Appendix I provides an example of
until the committee ceases to exist.
minutes of proposal review meetings
and has areas noted that either must
NOTE: If the request mentions
or may be withheld from the public.
FOIA, you must immediately send it
(See also IV-B.1.b., below for closed
to the NSF FOIA Officer in OLPA.
meeting report requirements.)
2. What about minutes of meetings
that were closed to the public?
B. REPORTS ON COMMITTEES
As stated in Chapter III-B, you will
not be required to divulge any
1. What reports are required by
information that should be protected
FACA and GSA and when are they
(trade secrets, confidential
due?
commercial/financial information, and
personal information where disclosure
There are three reports required but
would clearly constitute an
none have a specific due date. A
unwarranted invasion of personal
description of each and the time of
privacy).
year they are due is as follow:
If you have any of that material in
a. Annual Report of the President
your minutes, you must sanitize the
on Federal Advisory Committees. This
minutes or other documents to
fiscal year report is required by
remove it before sending a copy to
FACA and consists of data such as:
the requestor.
- the number and types of meetings
held during the preceding fiscal year;
24
CMG IV B
- the number and titles of reports
Because of the tight turnaround for
prepared by the committee;
completing this report, you should
keep a running total of your
- a detailed accounting of all costs
committee's expenses.
incurred by the committee;
It is especially important that DFO's
- the manner in which committee
maintain in one place data on all of
membership is balanced;
the SEP meetings held during the
fiscal year. Otherwise, just
- the committee's accomplishments
assembling the data alone could
and justification for keeping it in
become a labor-intensive effort.
existence; and
b. Closed Meeting Report. If your
- the members' names and
advisory committee holds one or
occupations.
more meetings that are closed (or
partially closed) to the public, the
GSA compiles individual reports from
advisory committee must issue a
the agencies and departments into
report at least annually. In
one report for the President to send
accordance with FACA, the CMO
to Congress.
sends 8 copies of the report to the
Library of Congress for public
Additionally, GSA uses this report as
inspection and use and keeps 1 copy
the basis for the annual review of
in the committee file.
advisory committees. By reading the
justifications and committee
This report should set forth a
accomplishments that agencies report,
summary of the committee's activities
GSA determines if the committees
and related matters as would be
are essential.
informative to the public. No
information should be released that
Congress and the Executive Office of
would constitute an unwarranted
the President also review this report
invasion of personal privacy, that
for effectiveness and necessity of
would divulge confidential business
advisory committees in the
information or intellectual property,
or that would interfere with NSF's
Government.
ability to get candid reviews.
This report is automated (but not on
the NSF mainframe) and the CMO
Call NSF's FOIA Officer in OLPA or
will send you detailed instructions for
the Office of the General Counsel if
completing the report and the due
you are uncertain whether you can
withhold something that you want to
date.
withhold.
Generally, the report is due to the
CMO by mid-October and to GSA
See Appendix K for an example of a
the first week of November.
closed meeting report.
25
CMG IV B
The CMO sends out a reminder that
C. REPORTS BY ADVISORY
these reports are due, usually in the
COMMITTEES
spring.
1. What is the requirement
2. Are there any other reports
concerning advisory committee
regularly required?
reports?
Yes, the Annual Report on
Each time a committee issues a
Composition of NSF Advisory
formal report to NSF, 9 copies should
Committees is an internal report on
be sent to the CMO to be forwarded
committee membership. The
to the Library of Congress for public
Director, NSF, is interested in
use and one copy filed in the
maintaining balanced membership on
committee file.
NSF committees and at least annually
reviews a statistical report on
Reports should have a cover sheet
composition.
indicating the name of the committee
and name and date of the report.
The report contains an analyses on
age, geographic distribution, gender,
2. What kind of reports do I have to
race, disability, affiliation, and field of
submit?
science. Programs provide the raw
data and the CMO prepares the
Reports of Advisory Committees are
usually Committee of Visitors
report.
oversight reports or studies addressed
The data are collected simultaneously
to the Assistant Director.
with the Annual Report of the
President on Federal Advisory
"Reports of meetings" (minutes) are
Committees. The report is
not considered formal reports of
distributed to the Director, Executive
committees.
Council, Committee on Equal
Opportunities in Science and
Engineering, Division Directors,
DFO's and other interested staff.
26
CMG V A
CHAPTER V - RENEWING/AMENDING CHARTERS AND
TERMINATING COMMITTEES
A. RENEWALS
decide if you want to continue it.
The CMO also provides instructions
1. When must I renew my committee?
on how to renew your committee.
A committee automatically expires 2
B. AMENDMENTS
years after establishment unless it is
renewed. (See C., below.)
1. What do I need to do to amend my
consultation form/charter?
2. How do I renew my committee?
For minor amendments, you need to
The procedure for renewing a
send the CMO a copy of your
committee is the same as for
consultation form with changes
establishing one (see Chapter II) with
indicated in Remarks.
the following exceptions:
Examples of minor changes are: name
- The renewal consultation
changes, changes in the Designated
form/charter must be received by
Foundation Official, or slight
GSA at least 30 calendar days before
increases (10% or less) in number of
the committee is scheduled to expire
members or costs.
(generally 2 years from the Filed
Date indicated on the consultation
The DFO (or Sponsoring Official)
form).
and CMO sign the revised
consultation form and the CMO files
- A Notice of Renewal (see
it with Congress, the Library of
Appendix G) rather than a Notice of
Congress, and GSA. The CMO
Establishment is published in the
provides you with a copy for your
Federal Register and there is no time
committee files.
requirement for the Notice to be
published before the committee can
For major changes, such as changes in
meet. (For establishments, a
the objectives and scope of the
committee must wait 15 days after
committee, you must provide the
publishing notice of establishment
CMO with a copy of the consultation
before it can meet.)
form with revised information in the
appropriate blocks and identification
3. Does the CMO notify programs
of changes indicated in Remarks.
when a committee is up for renewal?
You and your Assistant
Yes, the CMO will send you
Director/Office Director, (or
notification before your committee
Sponsoring Official), and CMO sign
expires in sufficient time for you to
the revised consultation form. The
27
CMG V B
CMO then forwards the form to GSA
2. How are advisory committees
for concurrence.
terminated?
After GSA concurs, the CMO files
You may terminate a committee
the revised consultation form/charter
when you determine that its advice is
with Congress, the Library of
no longer essential. To initiate a
Congress, and GSA. The CMO
termination, send the CMO a
provides you with a copy for your
memorandum via your Assistant
committee files.
Director or Staff Office Director (for
approval) giving a brief explanation of
2. Does an amendment change the
why the committee is no longer
effective ("file") date of a committee?
essential and the date the committee
will terminate. The CMO will notify
No. The effective date remains the
GSA.
same as the date the original
consultation form/charter was filed
3. After I've terminated my committee
what should I do with the files I've
with Congress.
accumulated?
C. EXPIRATIONS AND TERMINATIONS
Once the committee terminates, the
records should be disposed of in
1. What happens if I don't renew my
accord with General Records
committee at the appropriate time?
Schedule No. 16, Section 8.
Essentially, what this means is that
Committees are distinguished by the
most of the records can be destroyed
designation "continuing" and "ad hoc".
after 3 years.
Identification of the type of
committee is in block #10 of the
consultation form.
A "continuing" committee expires if it
is not renewed within 2 years of the
filed date (in upper right corner of
consultation form).
"Ad hoc" committees are designed to
expire in less than 2 years, generally
by the proposed termination date,
located in block #7 on the
consultation form. If you decide to
continue an ad hoc committee beyond
its proposed termination date, you
must inform the CMO at least 30
days before that date.
28
CMG
APPENDIX A
SIGNATURE AUTHORITIES FOR COMMITTEE MANAGEMENT DOCUMENTS
Responsibility for signing various committee management documents is indicated
below:
Signature Authorities
Responsibilities
Director
Has overall authority of all NSF
committees as outlined in FACA
(delegated - see below); makes
determinations to close meetings for other
than proposal review and oversight.
Assistant Directors and
Sign consultation forms/charters for
Directors of Staff Offices
establishments/renewals/major
amendments; approve requests from
DFO's for terminations; and sign
designation letters where appropriate.
Division Directors
Sign establishment/renewal/major
amendment consultation forms/charters
for division/program level committees, in
conjunction with Assistant Directors.
Sign designation letters for
division/program level committees.
Committee Chair
Certify accuracy of minutes.
Committee Management
Signs documents required to be
Officer
published in the Federal Register
(meeting notices, Notices of
Establishment and Renewal), minor
consultation form/charter amendments,
and determinations to close advisory
committee meetings for proposal review
and oversight (Director signs any others).
A- 1
APPENDIX B
CMG
CONSULTATION ON FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE 0304-GSA-XX
FILED DATE:
1. DATE OF CONSULTATION:
2. NAME OF COMMITTEE:
3. COMMITTEE STATUS: A. ESTABLISHMENT B. REESTABLISHMENT
C. RENEWAL D. AMENDMENT TO CHARTER
-
4. AGENCY TO WHOM COMMITTEE REPORTS:
5. AGENCY PROVIDING COMMITTEE SUPPORT:
National Science Foundation
National Science Foundation
6. EST. DURATION OF
7. PROPOSED
8. EST. NO. OF
9. FREQUENCY OF
COMMITTEE (YRS): -
TERMINATION DATE:
TOTAL MEETINGS:
MEETINGS/YEAR:
-
-
10. TYPE OF COMMITTEE: A. AD HOC - B. CONTINUING
11. BRIEF STATEMENT COVERING COMMITTEE'S SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES OF ITS ACTIVITY.
12. DESCRIBE THE DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF COMMITTEE AND INDICATE IF THE GROUP PERFORMS OTHER
THAN ADVISORY FUNCTIONS.
13. WHY IS THE COMMITTEE ESSENTIAL FOR THE CONDUCT OF AGENCY BUSINESS AND IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST?
14. EXPLAIN WHY THE ADVICE OR INFORMATION CANNOT BE OBTAINED FROM OTHER SOURCES.
15. DESCRIBE THE AGENCY'S PLAN TO ATTAIN BALANCED MEMBERSHIP.
16. HAVE THE COMMITTEE AND SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS BEEN BRIEFED ON CURRENT ETHICS LAWS AND
REGULATIONS? Yes No - Explain
-
-
A- 2
APPENDIX B
(Continued)
SECTION B-COMMITTEE COST
DESCRIPTION
CURRENT FY
NEXT FY (EST)
17. A. PERSONNEL
(1) NON-FEDERAL MEMBERS
$
$
PAYMENTS
(2) FEDERAL MEMBERS
(3) FEDERAL STAFF
(4) NON-MEMBER CONSULTANTS
B. TRAVEL AND
PER DIEM
(1) NON-FEDERAL MEMBERS
(2) FEDERAL MEMBERS
(3) FEDERAL STAFF
(4) NON-MEMBER CONSULTANTS
C. OTHER
(RENTS, USER CHARGES,
GRAPHICS, PRINTING,
MAILING, ETC.)
$
$
D. TOTALS
18. FEDERAL STAFF SUPPORT YEARS: (in tenths)
SECTION C - REMARKS/NARRATIVE RESPONSES
The Designated Federal Official is the (position title).
SECTION D - CERTIFICATION
SIGNATURE:
DATE:
19. SPONSORING OFFICIAL
TITLE: Director, Division of (org title )
NAME: Dr. (name)
DATE:
20. COMMITTEE MANAGEMENT OFFICER
SIGNATURE:
TITLE: Management Analyst
NAME: M. Rebecca Winkler
SIGNATURE:
DATE:
21. OTHER CONCURRING AGENCY OFFICIAL
TITLE: Assistant Director for (directorate)
NAME: Dr. (name)
A- 3
APPENDIX C
CMG
EXAMPLE OF INFORMATION TO INCLUDE IN
CONSULTATION FORM/CHARTER
A. SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES. (Item 11)
[Advisory Committees] To provide advice, recommendations, and oversight
concerning support for research and research-related activities in the area of
(discipline).
[Advisory Panels] Primarily, to advise on the merit of proposals for research and
research-related purposes submitted to NSF for financial support. Additionally, the
Panel provides general advice, and policy guidance to the (program name) Program.
[Special Emphasis Panels] To advise on the merit of special initiative proposals or
applications submitted to NSF for financial support.
B. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES. (Item 12)
[Advisory Committees]
1. Advise NSF of the impact of its research support programs and other policies on
the scientific community.
2. [If applicable) Perform oversight of program management, overall program
balance, and other aspects of program performance.
3. [If applicable] Subcommittees may be formed to perform specific functions for
the Committee. Subcommittees will not function independently of the Committee, i.e.,
they will send all recommendations to the Committee for consideration.
[Advisory Panels]
1. Evaluate proposals and provide written recommendations on those proposals as a
part of the selection process.
2. Evaluate the state of the scientific field and the effectiveness of the Program in
meeting the needs of the field.
3. Review procedures in the Program to assure that those proposals of highest
scientific merit and with the greatest probability for future development of science are
selected for financial support.
A- 4
CMG
APPENDIX C
(Continued)
[Special Emphasis Panels] Review and evaluate proposals, which may include site
visits, and provide written recommendations on those proposals as a part of the selection
process for award.
C. BALANCED MEMBERSHIP. (Item 15)
Members are selected for their demonstrated scientific capability so as to represent a
reasonable balance of capability in the various subfields of the (discipline). Careful
consideration is also given to achieving age and geographical balance and to enhancing
representation for women, minority, and disabled scientists, as well as scientists from
predominately undergraduate institutions.
[Special Emphasis Panels] Membership will be selected on an "as needed" basis in
response to specific proposals/applications/sites to be reviewed. About (number) individual
panelists will be used each year. Members will be selected for their demonstrated scientific
and engineering expertise so as to represent a reasonable balance of capability in the
various subfields of the proposals to be reviewed. Consideration will also be given to
achieving geographic balance and to enhancing representation for women, minority,
younger and disabled scientists.
D. OTHER ITEMS USED IN SEP CONSULTATION FORMS.
Why is the committee essential? Outside expert advice on the merit and potential of
proposals is an essential component of the division's funding decision. Discussion by
panelists helps Program Officers to discern possible conflicts-of-interest or other sources of
bias, calibrate the reviews, and resolve differences of opinion among the panelists.
Why the advice or information cannot be obtained from other sources? While ad hoc mail
reviewers can be chosen to give a thorough technical review of a proposal, mail reviewer
judgments are normally made about a single proposal viewed in isolation. Panel review in
combination with mail review, can, in addition, provide judgments about the comparative
merits within a group of proposals or within a single complex, multidisciplinary proposal or
a facility. In addition, using existing NSF programmatic panels, where appropriate, would
add an inordinately large workload to these panels and the applications to be handled by
this panel are different in character from the research proposals handled by the existing
programmatic panels.
Note: SEP consultation forms have standard language due to their uniform functions, only
the scientific discipline and particulars such as number of members, meetings, and costs are
different.
A -
5
APPENDIX D
CMG
SAMPLE NOTICE OF ESTABLISHMENT
[Follow the instructions that appear in parentheses and
select the appropriate wording if a choice is given.]
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Committee Management
Notice of Establishment
The Assistant Director for (directorate) has determined that the establishment of the
(name of Committee/Panel) is necessary and in the public interest in connection with
the performance of duties imposed upon the Director, National Science Foundation
(NSF), by 42 USC 1861 et seq.. This determination follows consultation with the
Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration.
NAME OF COMMITTEE: (Enter official name of Committee or Panel from
consultation form/charter.)
PURPOSE: (Use wording from the Objectives and Scope section (#11) of the
consultation form or charter.)
BALANCED MEMBERSHIP PLANS. (Following information provided in item #15 on
the consultation form or in charter, describe your plan to attain balanced
membership.)
RESPONSIBLE NSF OFFICIAL: (Name and telephone number of official responsible
for responding to questions from, or for receiving comments provided by, any
interested person.)
M. Rebecca Winkler
Committee Management Officer
A - 6
CMG
APPENDIX E
Timetable for Establishing an Advisory Committee and
Announcing First Meeting
STEP
EST. # DAYS
DESCRIPTION
1. Prepare consultation
5
Program informs CMO; prepares documents as described in Guide; obtains
form & get directorate
signatures. (See Chapter II and Appendices A - - D.)
approval
2. CMO reviews & signs
1
CMO receives signed package, reviews for compliance with FACA, NSF policy, signs and
has handcarried to GSA. (See Chapter II.)
3. GSA reviews
15
If ok, GSA sends copy to NSF Budget Examiner at OMB. If ok, OMB informs GSA who calls
concurrence to CMO. If problem, GSA/OMB phones CMO who mediates to resolve problem.
(See Chapter II.)
4. Publish Notice
15
When GSA concurs, CMO informs program, signs the Notice of Establishment and has published
of Establishment
4 1/
in the Federal Register. (See Chapter II and Appendix D.)
If meeting to be closed/part open, program should inform CMO at least 30 calendar days before meeting.
5. File charter
(1) 2/
CMO files consultation form 15 days after Notice is printed. "File date" of consultation
form (date consultation form is sent to the Hill) is date committee is established.
CMO sends copy of consultation form to program. (See Chapter II.)
(Designate members)
(15) 2/
Program selects potential members, gets approvals, and sends letter of designation with
conflict-of-interest form to members. (See Chapter II.)
6. Publish Meeting
15
Program prepares Notice, gets approvals; CMO signs and has published in the Federal Register.
Notice
4 1/
(See Chapter III and Appendix F.)
Total Est.
59
Days Required for "Routine" Establishment
1/ The Federal Register requires 4 workdays to process notices.
2/ May file consultation form and select and designate committee members during establishment process.
NOTE: If committee establishment is required in less time; contact the CMO immediately.
A-7
CMG
APPENDIX F
NOTICE OF MEETING FORMAT
(Follow the instructions that appear in parentheses)
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
NOTICE OF MEETING
The National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
NAME: (Enter consultation form/charter name.)
DATE AND TIME: (Enter date(s) of meeting and time meeting starts and adjourns, e.g., July 8
and 9, 1990, 9:00 to 5:00 each day.)
PLACE: (Enter room number and street address. If meeting is being held in a hotel, include
suite number, if possible, and street address.)
TYPE OF MEETING: (Enter Open, Closed, or Part Open. If Part Open, indicate times for
open and closed portions.)
CONTACT PERSON: (List name, title, address, and phone number of person most
knowledgeable about meeting.)
PURPOSE OF MEETING: (State purpose of meeting rather than purpose of committee/panel.)
AGENDA: (Only need a summary but every category that is to be discussed must be mentioned.
May identify the type of proposals to be reviewed, e.g., PYI.)
A - 8
APPENDIX G
CMG
SAMPLE NOTICE OF RENEWAL
(Follow the instructions in parentheses and select the appropriate wording if a choice is
given.)
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Committee Management
Notice of Renewal
The Assistant Director for (directorate) has determined that the renewal of the (enter
name of committee/panel) is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the
performance of duties imposed upon the Director, National Science Foundation (NSF),
by 42 USC 1861 et seq.. This determination follows consultation with the Committee
Management Secretariat, General Services Administration.
Authority for this (Committee/Panel) expires (give date of 2 years after file date or, if ad
hoc, a shorter time) unless it is renewed.
M. Rebecca Winkler
Committee Management Officer
A-9
APPENDIX H
CMG
National Science Foundation
Washington, D.C. 20550
Conflicts-of-Interest Statement for
NSF Advisory Committee/ Review Panel
Members
Your designation as an advisory committee/review panel member requires that:
1. If you handle proposals or other applications, you must be aware of potential conflict situa-
tions. Examples of potentially biasing affiliations or relationships are listed on the back of this
form. Should any conflict arise during your term, you must bring the matter to the attention of
the person who asked you to serve as an advisory committee/review panel member. That offi-
cial will determine how the matter should be handled and will tell you what further steps, if any,
to take.
2. If your designation gives you access to information not generally available to the public, you
must not use that information for your personal benefit or make it available for the personal
benefit of any other individual or organization. This is to be distinguished from the entirely ap-
propriate general benefit of learning more about the Foundation, learning from other advisory
committee/review panel members, or becoming better acquainted with the state of a given dis-
cipline.
(TEAR HERE AND RETURN TO NSF)
I have read the list of possible conflicts on the back of this form and understand that I must con-
tact the appropriate NSF official if a conflict exists or arises during my term of service. I also will
not divulge any confidential information I may become aware of during my term. I further un-
derstand that I must sign and return this Conflicts Statement to the appropriate official before I
may serve.
Name (Please Print):
Signature:
Date:
Advisory Committee/Review Panel:
Date Received from Member:
To Be Retained in Program File
NSF Form 1230 (10-88)
All Previous Editions are Obsolete
A10
CMG
APPENDIX H
AS AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE OR REVIEW PANEL MEMBER, PLEASE REVIEW THESE EXAMPLES OF POSSIBLE
CONFLICTS PERIODICALLY DURING YOUR TENURE.
1. AFFILIATIONS WITH AN APPLICANT INSTITUTION. A conflict may be present if you have/hold:
Current employment at the institution as professor, adjunct professor, visiting professor, or similar position. (This includes
other campuses of a multi-campus system, but a waiver (NSF Form 1216) may be available.)
Current employment or are being considered for employment at the institution. (This includes employment via a consult-
ing or advisory arrangement.)
Any formal or informal reemployment arrangement with the institution.
Current membership on a visiting committee or similar body at the institution. (This is a conflict only for proposals or ap-
plications that originate from the department, school, or facility that the visiting committee or similar body advises.)
Ownership of the institution's securities or other evidences of debt. (Minor or indirect holdings are not considered con-
flicts.)
Any office, governing board membership, or relevant committee chairpersonship in the institution. (Ordinary membership
in a professional society or association is not considered an office.)
Current enrollment as a student. (Only conflict for proposals or applications that originate from the department or school
in which one is a student.)
Received and retained an honorarium or award from the institution within the last 12 months.
2. RELATIONSHIPS WITH AN INVESTIGATOR, PROJECT DIRECTOR, OR OTHER PERSON WHO HAS A PER-
SONAL INTEREST IN THE PROPOSAL OR OTHER APPLICATION.
Known family or marriage relationship. (Conflict only if the relationship is with a principal investigator or project director.)
Business or professional partnership.
Employment at the same institution within the last 12 months.
Past or present association as thesis advisor or thesis student.
Collaboration on a project or on a book, article, report, or paper within the last 48 months.
3. OTHER AFFILIATIONS OR RELATIONSHIPS.
Interests of the following persons are to be treated as if they were yours: Any affiliation or relationship of your spouse, of
your minor child, of a relative living in your immediate household or of anyone who is legally your partner that you are
aware of and that would be covered by Items 1 or 2 above (except for receipt by your spouse or relative of an honorarium
or award).
Any other relationship, such as close personal friendship, that you think might tend to affect your judgments or be seen as
doing so by a reasonable person familiar with the relationship.
(Reverse of NSF Form 1230)
A-11
APPENDIX I
CMG
Example of
Minutes of Proposal Review Meeting
National Science Foundation
Advisory Panel for Widgets
Minutes
(1) The Advisory Panel for Widgets met in closed session on May 19 and 20, 1990, from
8:00 to 5:00 each day in Room 1242, National Science Foundation, 1800 G Street,
N.W., Washington, D.C. The meeting was devoted to the review and evaluation of
research proposals.
(2) Panel members** present during the meeting were:
Dr. George Hill
Northwestern University
Dr. Patricia Brook
University of Texas @ Austin
Dr. Cliff J. Cleggett
Pennsylvania State University
Dr. Lucy A. Parlett
Williams College
Dr. Mary C. Fose
University of Maryland @ College Park
(3) Staff members present during the meeting were:
Dr. Harold West, Program Director, Widgets
Dr. April Posey, Assistant Program Director
Dr. Robert Fall, Associate Program Director
(4) The meeting began with a reminder to panel members about possible conflicts of
interests regarding the proposals to be reviewed. Members were cautioned about
the confidential information in the files and in the panel's discussions and
conclusions.
(5) The panel reviewed and evaluated 229 research proposals and projects as part of
the selection process for awards in the four program areas of the Widget Sciences
Research Section. The proposals fell about equally among the four programmatic
areas of the Section -- Physical Widgets, Chemical Widgets, Economics and
Geography.
Of the 229 proposals reviewed, 120 were recommended for award subject to
availability of funds and other considerations of the Program Officer, 60 were
recommended for award if funds become available, and 49 were recommended for
declination.
Panel discussion on proposals is summarized (panel summary**) and incorporated
herein by reference. This panel summary is filed in the pertinent proposal jacket
and a copy is sent to the proposer. When NSF makes an award, most information
about the proposal becomes available to the public, but the recommendation of the
panel is not disclosed to the public because it is a predecisional document in the
deliberative process.
A
CMG
APPENDIX I
(Continued)
Example of
Minutes of Proposal Review Meeting
(6) Members having a conflict and how the conflict was resolved are listed below (or is
attached).
Member's Name **
Proposal No.
How Resolved
Cliff Cleggett
WP 89-05844
did not participate in
the discussion
Lucy Parlett
WP 89-94723
left the room
Mary Fose
WP 89-23455
DFO determined that
the conflict was not so
substantial as to affect
her judgment
George Hill
WP 89-35984
left the room
(7) These minutes are an accurate summary of the matters discussed and conclusions
reached at this meeting.
Certified by:
(signature)
Harold West, Chairman
Advisory Panel for Widgets
Date:
** Information may be withheld if it enables someone to associate a review with an
individual panel member.
Basic Information Required in Minutes by FACA, Committee Management Regulations,
and/or NSF policy:
(1) time, date, place of meeting
(2) list of members present
(3) Agency employees present
(4) notation that Program Officer requested identification of potential conflicts
*
(5) accurate description of each matter discussed and resolution
(6) documentation of conflict situations
*
(7) certification by chairperson
* Required by NSF policy.
APPENDIX J
CMG
TYPES OF GROUPS FOR GETTING ADVICE
If you need:
Use:
Your Responsibilities are:
1. advice 1/ given
a chartered
directly to NSF
advisory
committee that is:
a. an existing NSF
If you use an existing advisory
committee or
committee, be sure you adhere to
another agency's
guidelines in CM Guide, e.g., announce
committee.
meetings, keep minutes, monitor
conflict-of-interest problems, and
- OR -
committee annually reports activities to
GSA.
b. committee you
If you establish your own committee,
establish solely for
you must follow all guidelines in the
this purpose.
CM Guide, e.g.,
a. Charter under FACA;
b. Announce meetings in Federal
Register, keep minutes, have balanced
membership;
C. Report activities annually via CMO to
GSA; and
d. File reports with Congress via CMO.
2. advice 1/ through
a dependent
a. Ensure parent committee's charter
another (parent)
(unchartered)
authorizes it to establish subcommittees;
committee, consisting of
subcommittee of
members, drawn in
an established
b. Ensure parent committee considers
whole or in part from
(chartered)
subcommittee's recommendations
parent committee
advisory
before advice is given to NSF.
committee
c. Ensure subcommittee adheres to
FACA requirements, see b-d above;
CMG
APPENDIX J
(Continued)
If you need:
Use:
Your Responsibilities are:
3. advice 1/ given
independent
a. Ensure parent committee's charter
directly to NSF from a
(chartered)
authorizes it to establish subcommittees;
subcommittee consisting
subcommittee
of members drawn in
formally
b. Ensure subcommittee adheres to
whole or in part from
established under
FACA requirements, see a-d above.4.
parent committee
an existing
advice from a group consisting of
advisory
Federal members only
committee
4. advice from a group
an advisory group
a. Adhere to conflict-of-interest
consisting of Federal
that is not subject
regulations;
members only
to FACA
b. Adhere to other NSF policy,
especially FOIA.
5. to share information
a public hearing,
a. Ensure that hearing is widely
about NSF programs
not subject to
announced to the public;
and/or obtain views
FACA
from the public, not
b. Ensure that no advice be received,
specific advice
only opinions;
C. Ensure public participation is open to
all.
"These groups consist of at least one non-Federal member.
APPENDIX K
CMG
Example of a Closed Meeting Report
(NSF Letterhead)
FY XXXX REPORT OF CLOSED MEETINGS OF THE
ADVISORY PANEL ON WIDGETS
The Advisory Panel on Widgets met four times during FY 1990. The purpose of
the panel is to review, evaluate, and discuss proposals submitted to the Widgets
Program for financial support. All sessions of the panel were closed to the public
because the panel was engaged in the review of proposals that included information
of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial
data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated
with the proposals. These matters were within exemptions 4 and 6 of the
Government in the Sunshine Act.
Each meeting began with reading of the NSF conflict-of-interest statement
reminding panel members about possible conflicts of interests regarding the
proposals to be reviewed. In accordance with Agency policy, members were
cautioned about the confidential information in the files and in the panel's
discussions and conclusions.
Throughout the fiscal year, the panel reviewed a total of 1,297 research proposals
and projects as part of the selection process for awards in the four program areas of
the Widget Sciences Research Section. The proposals fell about equally among the
four programmatic areas of the Section - Physical Widgets, Chemical Widgets,
Economics, and Geography.
Of the 1,297 proposals reviewed, 390 were recommended for award subject to
availability of funds and other considerations of the Program Officer, 667 were
recommended for award if funds become available, and 240 were recommended for
declination. A list of proposal numbers showing the panel's action on each was
prepared. To protect the personal privacy of the proposers, this list is not available
to the public. Lists of final award recipients are available when a final NSF
decision is reached.
[NOTE: If the list of final award recipients is available, you may wish to attach it
to your report.]
This report was prepared in accord with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act.
(signature)
Harold West, Chairman
Advisory Panel for Widgets
Date:
Attachment
CMG
APPENDIX K
(Continued)
EXAMPLE OF CLOSED MEETING REPORT
FY 1990 REPORT OF CLOSED MEETINGS OF THE
ADVISORY PANEL ON WIDGETS
No. Proposals
Meeting Date
No. Members Present
Reviewed
10/3-4/89
6
463
2/6-7/90
8
521
6/28-29/90
5
245
9/15-16-90
6
68
TOTAL PROPOSALS REVIEWED
1,297
APPENDIX L
CMG
National Science Foundation
MULTI-CAMPUS SYSTEM WAIVER
An NSF employee¹) or advisory committee/review panel member²) who has a continuing
employment, retirement, or reemployment relationship with a multi-campus institution may be
involved with proposals and other matters submitted to NSF from any campus of the institution
only if a waiver is approved before his or her involvement, but he or she can not be involved for
a campus where he or she has some direct affiliation.
CAUTION: A waiver cannot be granted for a person who participates in or advises on decision
making that affects the system instead of affecting only the single campus. For example, a
Department Chairperson advising on multi-campus budgeting or planning and a member of a
multi-campus advisory panel would not be eligible for a waiver.
is employed at
,
(NSF employee or committee /panel member)
(institution)
and works in a position that serves only that campus.
(campus)
The NSF employee or committee/review panel member has been appointed/designated to
serve the NSF from
to
. In this position, he/she may be asked, as a Federal
employee or committee/review panel member, to handle proposals or other matters from other
campuses.
Pursuant to 18 USC 208(b)(1), and the authority delegated to me by the Director, I have deter-
mined that his/her interests in the other parts of the institution are not so substantial as to be
deemed likely to affect the integrity of the services that the Foundation may expect from
him/her.
Therefore, he/she is disqualified as to matters involving only the campus cited above and may
participate in matters involving other parts of the institution.
(Signature and typed name of appropriate Assistant Director/Staff Office
(Date)
Director or Division Director)
1) NSF employee includes Visiting Scientist, IPA, and Special Government Employee (consult-
ant/expert)
2) Advisory Committee/Review Panel refers to members of advisory committees, advisory
panels, review panels, and oversight groups.
White - Originating Office
Pink - OGC
All Previous Editions are Obsolete
NSF Form 1216 (7/90)
A-18
CMG
SUBJECT INDEX
Subject
Page Number
Ad hoc committee, definition
28
Administrative time, definition
14
Advisory committee
1
definition, requirements
types of groups for getting advice
A-14
Agenda
5
approving
for meeting notice
16
Amendments, described and process
27
Assistant Director or Staff Office Director, responsibility
5
Budget Examiner, role in establishing a committee
7
Central repository for committee management documents,
responsiblity for maintaining
6
Chairperson
how to determine costs for
15
responsibility
36
role at meeting
22
selection of
6
Closed meeting
changing from an open meeting
18
criteria, examples
17
determination timing
18
notice of meeting
18
reporting on
25
requirements
3
timing of determination
8
when to decide
16
Closed session
emergency, at an open meeting
19
rescheduling
19
Committee activities and cost, reporting on
25
Committee Management Officer (CMO), responsibilities
5
Committee Management Reports
description
24
responsibility
5
Committee Management Secretariat, GSA, responsibility
6
Committee of Visitors, description of when to close to the public
17
Committee's operation, responsibility for
5
Committee's recommendations, assuring prompt review of
5
Conflict, situations documented, an example
21
Conflicts
requirements
11
resolution of
20
iii
CMG
SUBJECT INDEX
Subject
Page Number
Conflicts of interest
20
reading requirements at meetings
responsibility for guarding against
Congress
information sent to
4, 7, 25-28
25
role in Federal advisory committees
13
Consultant, compensation
Consultation form
7
description
A-2
example
A-4
information to include
12
preparation of
28
Continuing committee, definition
Costs
12
determining committee costs
documentation in consultation form
15
13
other, travel and per diem
12
personnel
Designated Foundation Official (DFO)
27
amending charter
22
developing operating procedures
17
requesting closed meeting
21
resolving conflicts
5
responsibility
20
role
20
role at meeting
25
role in reporting committee data
9
SEP management
Designation
10
of members from same institution
10
terms of
10
Designation letter, information to include
Determinations for closing meetings
6
other than proposal review and oversight
6
proposal review and oversight
3
Disclosure
Documents available at the meeting
23
public dissemination of
7
Duration (of committee), maximum
Effective date
28
change with amendment
7
of committee establishment
iv
CMG
SUBJECT INDEX
Subject
Page Number
Establishing a committee
concurrence
7
documents required
7
expeditious establishment
8
GSA's role
8, 12
notice of establishment, sample
A-6
notification of establishment
8
7
process
signature responsibility
8
timing
8, A-7
Establishment, notice of
7
Ethics laws and regulations, instruction
5
Expiration, how to identify expiration date
28
Federal Advisory Committee Act
definition
1
GSA regulations, NSF policy, overall compliance with
5
not subject to
1
subject to
2
Federal members, determining compensation
12
Federal Register
3
Federal staff
determining cost
12
fringe benefits
13
File date, definition
7
FOIA requests, what to do
24
GSA
role in amendments
28
role in establishing a committtee
7
role in reviewing/reporting on committees
25
role in terminations
28
Hotel accommodations, reimbursement for
11
Informal discussion, requirements under FACA
18
Information to the public, responsibility for providing
5
IPA, role
20
Meeting
access to secure location
19
accessibility
19
as working lunch/dinner
22
attendance, informing of changes
18
calling, or approving the call of
5
cancelled or postponed
18
change in agenda after start of meeting
19
close for other than proposal review or oversight
17
closed, procedure to
17
closed, report
25
V
CMG
SUBJECT INDEX
Page Number
Subject
Meeting (continued)
22
disruption, what to do
16
exemptions to close
20
Federal employee attendance
19
location, at NSF
18
notice of closed meeting
19, 20
notice, distribution
A-8
notice, format sample
18
notice, number of copies required
16
open to the public
17
part open, definition
16
planning
16
processing required documentation
5
responsibility for adjourning
16
timing of first meeting
19
when to schedule
Members
9
designating
12
determining compensation
11, 12
Federal
11
fee
10
getting "on board"
10
number of
25
reporting on
9
selecting
9
Membership, balanced
Minutes
23
and distribution of other material
21
content
21
disclosing to the public
23
distribution of
22, A-12
for closed meetings
20
how recorded
24
of closed meetings
22
preparation and signature
20
required whether open or closed meeting
5
responsibility for
22
when due
20
who records
Multi-Campus System Waiver (also see NSF Form 1216, below), requirement
11
Notice
5
meeting responsibility for publishing
16
meeting, data to include
18
meeting, late
27
of renewal
vi
CMG
SUBJECT INDEX
Subject
Page Number
NSF Form 1216, "Multi-Campus System Waiver"
example
A-18
requirement for
11
NSF Form 1230, "Conflicts-of-Interest Statement for NSF Advisory
Committee/Proposal
Review Panel Members"
example
A-10
requirements
11
Office of the General Counsel (OGC), responsibility
6
OMB Budget Examiner, responsibility
6
Open meeting
rescheduling
20
when to decide
16
Openness, responsibility for ensuring
5
Overview, requirements and Guide references
1
Panel summaries
not same as minutes
23
send to proposers
23
Public dissemination, documents to be made available
24
Public participation, at meetings
22
Records
3
availability to the public
9
definition
9
disposition of terminated/expired committees
28
how long to keep
9
responsibility for keeping committee records
8
Renewing a committee
notice, format sample
A-9
27
process
timing
27
Reports by Advisory Committees
requirement for dissemination
26
Reports of meetings
VS. minutes
26
Reports on committees
Annual Composition of NSF Advisory Committees
26
Annual Report of the President on Federal Advisory Committees
24
closed meeting report, example
A-16, 25
description
24
SEP (Special Emphasis Panel)
4
establishing
7
maintaining records for
9
notice of meeting
16
terms of membership
10
Signature Authorities
A-1, 8
vii
CMG
SUBJECT INDEX
Page Number
Subject
Site visit reports
23
send to proposers
4
Special Emphasis Panel
14
Staff support, example in deteriming
13
Staff Support Years, determining amount
28
Termination, process
12
Travel, making arrangements for
13
Travel and Per Diem, determining costs
20
Visiting Scientists, role
Withholding information, who to contact for guidance
25
viii
NW
POLICY States 29 the
and
and
OF
0
35
and the
THES the and
HOW