Archived File

1. Archived File The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated. See the OER Public Archive Home Page for more details about archived files.

2. Alignment of Funding Mechanisms with Scientific Opportunities Research Business Models Workshop October 27, 2003 Arthur Bienenstock

3. Some Important Research Trends • Industrial R&D labs performing less basic & precompetitive applied research • Interagency funding of research projects and facilities • Exciting research at borders of disciplines • Shared facilities & instruments • Many disciplines • Research involving toxic materials, human subjects • Shifting of research costs from federal government to universities • Declining participation by U.S. youth in science and technology • Need for U.S. citizens in defense-related research

4. Less Industrial Fundamental Research • Economic growth has arisen from research • National security dependent on research • Industry and government looking to universities to perform a major fraction of fundamental research • Important to keep research universities healthy

5. Many Funding Agencies • Multi-agency research funding serves nation well • Many perspectives • Fundamental research • Agency mission-related research • Increases administrative burden of federal government, universities and faculty • Nevertheless, big payoff • Must decrease administrative costs through more common policies and practices • Electronic research administration • Research misconduct policies, etc. • Federal Demonstration Partnership recommendations • Decrease faculty administrative burden through direct funding of direct administrative support

6. Interagency Funding of Research Projects and Facilities • Example – Gamma Ray Large Area Space Telescope - GLAST

7. Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope An experiment to study high-energy cosmic gamma-rays in the energy range 20 MeV to greater than 300 GeV DOE and NASA co-sponsors (in US) of the LAT Participation from France, Italy, Japan, and Sweden

8. Interagency Funding of Research Projects and Facilities • Example – GLAST • DOE's high energy physics detector expertise • NASA's space expertise • Different "business" modes • OMB & OSTP must "administer" interagency projects to ensure: • Joint planning and RFP's for future projects when appropriate • Smooth, efficient business practices • Government's and participants' administrative costs increased • Enormous scientific/technological efficiency and effectiveness

9. Exciting Research at Borders of Disciplines • Particle astrophysics • High energy physics • Astronomy and astrophysics • Bioengineering • Biology • Engineering • Physics • Nanotechnology • Physics • Engineering • Biology • "Teams" within disciplines also • Sample maker • Sample measurers, etc.

10. Exciting Research at Borders of Disciplines - 2 • Best participants in interdisciplinary research are strong in their own disciplines • Universities must keep disciplines strong • Universities must establish administration and facilities to encourage research at borders of disciplines • F&A costs will rise, but potential pay-off enormous • Vulnerability to research misconduct increased • Common research misconduct policies

11. Shared Facilities & Instruments • Very expensive - HEP accelerators, synchrotron & neutron facilities • Government funds construction, operation and improvements • Continuous up-grades to keep at state-of-art • Access by proposal • Expensive – Electron beam writers, high-field NMR, FIBs, NanoSIMS, etc. • Shared by many scientists, often from many disciplines • Important for research & training • Sizable investments • Usually service center model – fund & forget – university subsidies • Not model designed to keep them at state-of-art and fully effective • Too expensive to treat this way • Need model that anticipates continued development & up-grading – partial continued funding after purchase • Regional facilities?

12. Research Involving Toxic Materials & Human Subjects • Toxic materials • Nanofabrication • Biotoxins (health & war on terrorism) • Human subject research • Institutional review boards • Demanding ES&H challenges funded via administrative part of F&A reimbursement • Cost has increased markedly, but administration reimbursement rate capped

13. Shifting of Research Costs from Federal Government to Universities

14. Declining Participation by U.S. Youth in Science and Technology

15. Need for U.S. Citizens inDefense-Related Research • War on terrorism will be protracted • Classified research, performed at special laboratories, will require more U.S. citizens in science & technology at every level • But - must also continue to remain attractive to foreign graduate students • Must keep universities strong

16. Losing Ground: A National Status Report on the Affordability of American Higher Education

17. Losing Ground: A National Status Report on the Affordability of American Higher Education

18. Access to Public Research Universities • These institutions play major role in educating young Americans • Average tuition has increased to ~$4K • Limits access • Average amount of unreimbursed indirect costs and cost-sharing at research universities is ~$1K per student • Federal F&A/cost-sharing policies tend to make college less accessible

19. Summary • Nation has great stake in keeping universities strong in research and accessible to all economic classes • Increased administrative costs associated with multiagency funding and interdisciplinary research more than balanced by scientific and technological efficiencies and effectiveness • Government & universities must continue to cooperate to reduce administrative costs - Federal Demonstration Partnership • Ensure common policies and practices • Eliminate unnecessary regulations • Government must explicitly recognize increased research ES&H costs and fund them • Government must reverse trend of shifting research costs to universities • Appropriate F&A reimbursement

20. The End

21. GLASTProject History: DOE and NASA Sponsorship • Collaboration plans for GLAST presented to HEPAP, Jan 1997; submitted proposal for LAT to DOE, Feb 1998; reviewed by SAGENAP, April 1998 • NASA issued call for proposals for GLAST Instrument Technology Development, January 1998; U.S. part of collaboration submitted proposal; awarded June 1998 (1 of 2 proposals selected) • NASA (with DOE input) formed GLAST Council for advice on GLAST Mission; met January 1999 • NASA issued Announcement of Opportunity (AO) for Flight Investigations for the GLAST Mission, March 1999 • Proposal opportunities for science investigation + LAT Inst. and/or Gamma-ray Burst Monitor Inst.; Interdisciplinary Scientist (IDS) proposals • Collaboration Proposal for Flight Investigation and LAT Instrument accepted by NASA, Feb 2000 • Foreign endorsement of proposal by CNES, CEA, IN2P3, ASI, INFN, JGC, SGC: more on this later • Proposal endorsed by SLAC Director, committing $35M to fabrication of LAT (with concurrence of DOE)

22. DOE and NASA Sponsorship: Current Status • NASA and DOE began negotiation of “Implementing Arrangement” concerning the GLAST Large Area Telescope Project, April 2000; currently in “final” approval process at both agencies (after ~24 earlier drafts!): • will establish the roles and responsibilities of NASA and DOE; [an example is responsibility for necessary International Agreements] • GLAST Project to be conducted pursuant to broad MOU between agencies regarding Energy-related Civil Space Activities (dated July 9, 1992) • Establishes top level responsibilities of each agency • Separate MOU to establish DOE/NASA Joint Oversight Group (JOG); co-chaired by NASA SEU Director and DOE Director of High-Energy Physics. The JOG: • has responsibility to see that the GLAST LAT Project is effectively managed and executed; • provides programmatic guidance and direction • joint concurrence on Level-1 GLAST Requirements • coordinates DOE and NASA policy and procedures for the LAT Project

23. DOE and NASA Sponsorship: Current Status • In the absence of a signed MOU and Implementing Arrangement, the “JOG” has met several times to deal with substantive issues: • endorsed joint agency reviews of GLAST LAT Project; first joint DOE-NASA “Lehman” pre-baseline review held February 2001; • Agencies have, in effect, agreed to hold a joint Baseline Review (DOE) and PDR (NASA). Scheduled for October 2001; • Agencies conferred at the JOG level on 6-month launch delay in schedule due to NASA funding problems in FY02 and 03. • In addition to agency interactions at the Headquarters Level, there are daily interactions at the working level: • NASA GSFC has overall management responsibility for the GLAST Mission; day-to-day technical oversight, etc. • GSFC Project Manager, DOE LAT Project Manager (on site at SLAC), and LAT Project Manager have weekly conference calls important