White House seeks scientists' comments

Research organizations and scientific societies are giving the White House an earful when it comes to their pet peeves about government support for research. The comments were invited by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). Many will become part of the agenda for a top-level review of policies and practices for funding research.The OSTP's National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) originally set a September 22 filing deadline for these comments. But a bug in the government's E-mail system deleted all the submissions that had been sent in before September 4. So OSTP extended the submission deadline to October 6 to allow those groups whose E-mails were lost to resubmit their ideas and to give other organizations more time to file.The assessment will target three main areas, including identifying common practices among various federal granting agencies to make life easier for researchers and managers at their institutions. Aligning funding mechanisms with the changing ways in which research is conducted, especially involving teams working on large scientific projects, is another goal, as is improving the accountability and cost-effectiveness of research so managers can "more transparently demonstrate responsible use of public resources."The NSTC Research Business Models Subcommittee will convene three regional workshops starting later this month to explore these areas. A fourth workshop will be held in Washington, D.C., in December to review the results and come up with overall policy recommendations. "This is not about what science we do, or even how much funding there should be," said Constance W. Atwell, cochair of the subcommittee. "It's about how we should go about supporting that science."Comments submitted by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) deal with two main areas, according to Steve Heinig, AAMC senior research fellow. "We are concerned with cost shifting, especially the 26% cap on cost reimbursement," he said, referring to the federal government's limit on reimbursing administrative costs of research. "We are urging that it be reviewed and reconsidered."The other area involves HIPAA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. While intended to reduce paperwork and cut down on fraud, the act also creates new criminal and civil liabilities for research that is already overseen by institutional review boards, Heinig said. "We think that should be part of the discussion as well."The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) has two main suggestions, said Howard Garrison, public affairs director. First, FASEB recommends eliminating regulations that principal investigators conduct database searches for alternatives to using animals in laboratory research. "These searches take time and effort and are not an adequate way to improve the care of research animals or even encourage their reduction and use," Garrison said. "It's problematic because it tends to become institutionalized as a requirement."In addition, FASEB wants the hazardous waste requirements for academic research labs to be modified. Currently, the labs are required to follow Environmental Protection Agency rules for waste disposal. The alternative, FASEB says, would be to adopt "best practices" guidelines that were prepared by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute in consultation with a number of academic research labs. "We feel that is a more sensible approach than [following] regulations designed for large industries."The first regional meeting workshop of the NSTC subcommittee will be held October 27 at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. That meeting will focus on aligning funding mechanisms with scientific opportunities. Topics to be considered include: size and type of grant and contract awards; policies that foster support for innovative approaches to interdisciplinary science and engineering; appropriate mix of investigators in academia and government labs; policies associated with university–private partnerships; and policies for construction and maintenance of research infrastructure.The second and third regional meetings will be held November 12 and November 17, at the University of Minnesota and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, respectively. Details about the regional workshops, including registration information, can be found on the Research Business Models Subcommittee Web site.The final workshop will be held December 9–10 in Washington, D.C., at the Jefferson Auditorium. That meeting will bring together results and proposals from the previous workshops as well as other public comments.Comments and observations from the research community are needed "so we can be sure we have some data we can use to drive the policy analysis," Atwell said. Comments are due on or before October 6, 2003 and can be e-mailed to: nstc_rbm@ostp.eop.gov.In particular, the subcommittee would like to receive feedback on the issues of inconsistency in policies and practices among federal agencies, whether the current process encourages or discourages innovative research, how researchers can best demonstrate return on federal research dollars, and how technology transfer issues have changed relationships among universities, industry, and government. "This will be a new look at how we do the business of science: how we fund science, the relationships between the federal agencies that support science, and the universities, research institutions, and small businesses that actually conduct the research," Atwell said.

White House seeks scientists' comments

Deadline approaching for contributions to government streamlining effort

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of