Priorities for Federal Innovation Reform: A SRA Perspective.

Abstract

The National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) solicited responses from a variety of stakeholders to identify ways in which federal policy could be reformed to enhance innovation. The Society of Research Administrators International (SRA) responded to this initiative and identified the following specific priority areas for reform: the peer review process, funding for graduate research, evaluation of federally funded research, support for the research infrastructure, federal partnerships programs, mechanisms for addressing complex (multi-discipline and/or cross-sector) innovations, and accounting principles for R&D in the private and public sectors. This article presents the areas for reform recommended by SRA and the Society's rationale for these recommendations.

Introduction

The Society of Research Administrators International (SRA) was contacted by the Committee on Technology (CT), National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) and the Executive Office of the President on Priorities for Federal Innovation Reform to help "identify priorities for reforming federal policy to enhance innovation." The NSTC initiative is designed "to focus on a few high priority, immediate impact reforms to implement...[and] develop a longer-term reform plan to ensure that Federal policy fosters a proper environment for innovation." [1] NSTC is attempting, through this process, to develop federal regulations and policies that are more responsive to changing technology.

To accomplish these objectives, CT solicited responses from industry; academia; non-profits; and state, local and federal governments. Several potential areas for reform were identified and respondents were asked to identify specific priority areas, the types of reform that should be implemented and a timeframe for implementation. The following paper describes SRA's specific recommendations to the CT along with the Society's justification for each area of reform.

Nature of the Peer Review Process

Numerous agencies have reviewed their own peer review process and the General Accounting Office (GAO) spent many months reviewing the entire federal review process. Although the current system is still considered the best for evaluating funding proposals, it is not perfect. SRA noted the following real or perceived problems in the existing peer review system:

* The review process is unduly influenced by biases for and against certain theoretical frameworks, methodologies, investigators and institutions.

* Innovative theories and novel approaches and models are more often ranked lower than conservative and familiar options.

* Reviewers have the unfair advantage of seeing new advances and may give lower scores to competitors.

* The peer review process is too lengthy, generally taking from several months to a year before funding is approved.

* In general, only incremental advances are funded and even the "cutting edge" projects tend to be extremely conservative.

To eliminate such problems, federal agencies need to adopt the philosophy that innovation is a critical factor in the peer review process and include innovation as one of the review criteria for determining a proposal's success. Moreover, the term "innovation" needs to be redefined as something that is truly cutting edge, not merely an incremental advance in the status quo. The difficulty with innovation is that novel ideas tend to be associated with a high rate of failure, something our legislative bodies and the general public seldom tolerate.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has a program, called Small Grants for Exploratory Research, that bypasses the peer review process and has a very short turn around time. This program should be looked at as a basic model for encouraging innovation. However, if a peer review component is needed, it is critical to keep the time, from submission to funding, short to retain the innovative nature of the program.

Federal Funding Mechanisms for Graduate Research

The next generation of innovators is being funded through federal training programs such as the NIH Institutional Training Grants (T32) and the NSF Integrative Graduate Education and Research Training (IGERT) program. IGERT is a relatively new NSF program based on a paradigm that promotes interdisciplinary, integrated programs in industry and government. It is cross-continental in scope. Federal programs that stimulate research careers among minorities and students with disabilities also have been successful and should be continued.

However, many new researchers are supported by graduate assistantships on center or individual research grants and contracts. Unfortunately, funds for these programs have not increased significantly in more than 20 years. For example, with respect to NIH training programs, the number of men and women supported has decreased more than 15 percent since 1992.

Moreover, the nature of the funding for graduate students (i.e. traineeships vs. assistantships) should be tracked more effectively. Leaders in the academic community have unwritten policies that less qualified students are frequently placed in traineeships while the more qualified students are given research assistantships, which carry larger compensation packages and may provide more opportunity for publications and presentations. Given these problems, SRA made the following recommendations for change:

* Increase stipend amounts on traineeships and double the number of traineeships in the next five years.

* Track the students who are being supported by federal traineeships and research grants to evaluate effectiveness.

* Fund undergraduate programs to better prepare students for advanced degrees by implementing a program that requires industry collaboration and cost sharing.

* Provide funds specifically for graduate students to work in industry on innovative programs. Intellectual property agreements should benefit the student, industry and university.

Performance and Evaluation Criteria for Federally Funded Research

Evaluation of individual projects and entire federal research programs has always been a difficult endeavor. With the advent of GPRA (Government Performance and Results Act), these issues have come to the forefront. The only current method of determining success is the submission of a final report. The following additional metrics also should be considered:

* Publications in peer reviewed journals and number of citations by other researchers.

* Number of students supported (both graduate and undergraduate).

* Extended funding track record of investigators.

* Overall innovation index of groups or individual investigators, i.e. degree of impact of the research on the advancement of the field.

* The number of patents, licenses and products that result directly or indirectly from the funded project/program.

* For the federal agencies, the number of highly innovative or exploratory research projects supported.

* The number and quality of partnerships established with other universities, government labs, not-for-profit research entities and industry.

Availability and Accessibility of Research Infrastructure

The 1996 S&E Indicators showed alarming trends in allocation and availability of research space. For instance, 40 percent of institutions rate their space as inadequate. Between 1988 and 1994, total research space increased only 14 percent, and less than one-half of all construction was for research space (primarily for renovation or replacement). Also, support for instrumentation has declined (in constant dollars). In 1993, 69 percent of all research department heads indicated a need for new instrumentation.

The cost of research infrastructure, defined as the renovation or construction of facilities and the acquisition of new instrumentation, has not kept pace with the advancements in technology. Researchers and research institutions are being expected to train the next generation of innovators and to promote innovation with out-of-date instrumentation and inadequate facilities.

The result has been, in some laboratories, a continued emphasis on "safe" science. Many researchers and administrators have developed new skills in acquiring "pork" money for infrastructure needs. Despite the rhetoric in Congress against directed funding for infrastructure projects, the practice has continued because it is the only way to build costly state of the science facilities. As an example, in fiscal year 1999 only $30 million dollars was budgeted to expand, renovate or construct new facilities for biomedical or behavioral research.

Shared instrumentation and facilities among laboratories can increase effective utilization of the resources and may promote accessibility. However, a number of barriers are evident: lack of travel funds, extensive contractual terms and conditions in the use of federal facilities, the inability of graduate students and researchers to dedicate extended periods of time to off-campus work (class schedules and teaching requirements), and high cost of instrumentation use and payment methods. For instance, many federal facilities require forward payment, but federal grants do not permit this practice. SRA made the following recommendations for improving the research infrastructure:

* Drastically increase funding for research infrastructure through traditional agency funding mechanisms. These mechanisms should include the opportunity for leveraging funding from multiple agencies and reducing the contradictory terms and conditions on funding for facilities.

* The capacity for innovation should be a major review criterion (as opposed to standard laboratory facilities). For example, at feast a percentage of funds should be directed towards laboratories that specifically target new innovative research directions.

* Additional funds should be made available to utilize or share common facilities at universities, not-for-profit and government laboratories.

Current Federal Partnership Programs

There are numerous organizations (e.g. National Academy of Sciences; the Government, University, Industry Roundtable; and the Council on Competitiveness), as well as government policies, reports, congressional initiatives, and agency grant and contract programs that have promoted partnership ventures among various sectors and within sectors (e.g. university consortia). While partnerships are still difficult to establish and are at times tenuous to maintain, tremendous benefits can be derived from shared knowledge, resources and goals.

Success seems to vary by discipline. For example, material sciences received the largest share of SBIR Phase I awards but Phase II awards were most likely to go for electronic, computer technology or communications. Most successful SBIR or STTR awards were partnerships between small businesses and universities. Bayh-Dole gave non-profits and small businesses the right to retain ownership of inventions developed with federal funds. This has proved to be a tremendous boost to small start-up companies and the growth of new technologies and can in large part be credited for the spurred economic growth in the 1990s.

Universities, in turn, have promoted the expansion of start-up companies through exploitation of university technologies and facilitation of start-up companies in incubator facilities and research parks. Utah, North Carolina, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and California are states that have led the way in this type of activity. While title to technology is consistently a point of negotiation, it seldom is an unbreakable barrier.

Partnering always has been critical to the development of innovation and should be continually fostered. Less traditional models such as joint funding opportunities should be encouraged and supported. For example, the Office of Naval Research (ONR) and SRA have co-sponsored workshops on ways to leverage research that have attracted up to 500 participants from government, regional businesses and universities. These workshops (in Biloxi, Miss., Portland, Maine, and Salt Lake City, Utah) have generated new partnerships and facilitated an understanding of strategic needs of industries and academic constraints and opportunities.

The federal government needs to play an important role in fostering new partnerships and enhancing existing collaborations. SRA recommends that the federal government:

* Promote additional "Leveraging Workshops" based on the ONR model.

* Re-authorize the SBIR programs with expansion to include additional funding for training for SBIR recipients and training in implementing partnerships with other organizations.

* Remove restrictions on Department of Commerce grants that require that all intellectual property be titled to the for-profit entity of the partnership (flexibility is important).

* Remove some of the barriers that federal agencies have in the partnering process, i.e. it is difficult for federal agencies/employees to be 'full' partners in many situations.

* Increase opportunities for practitioners to learn how to identify partners, how to establish the relationship and how to maintain a true collaborative relationship. (All too often, the idea of partnering is embraced, but bringing the relationship to fruition can be difficult.)

* Increase the number of opportunities for joint funding of large, innovative programs. Some of the NSF Engineering Research Centers and Science and Technology Centers have done an excellent job of promoting industry, university and government interaction.

* Encourage universities and industry to work together to foster start-up companies and simultaneously monitor conflicts of interest in an appropriate manner.

Mechanisms for Addressing Complex (Multi-discipline and/or Cross-sector) Innovations

Today's complex problems require innovative and often multidisciplinary solutions. However, it is extremely difficult to cross institutes at NIH or cross programs at the U.S. Department of Energy or even cross directorates at the NSF.

Yet without the infusion of funding for various aspects of research, outside of the formal center mechanism, innovation or problem-based solutions do not occur. To facilitate or build mechanisms for cross-sectional research, new models should be explored and existing processes modified in the following manner:

* Improve the peer review process for multi-discipline research across divisions within an agency and improve the mechanism for shared funding.

* Establish a formal process (perhaps with the aid of the Federal Commons) for cross agency support for innovative, cross-disciplinary research. Right now the method of transferring funding to one lead agency is cumbersome and it is difficult to coordinate multiple agency approvals.

Accounting Principles for R&D in the Private and Public Sectors

The leading research institutions in the country have been required to submit the Cost Accounting Statement (CAS) disclosure. Also, the revision of A-21 reflects the rigid nature of the CAS principles, thus affecting all universities. These regulations and principles do not foster innovation or new exploratory research directions because of the rigidity of the categories. NIH has attempted, with some success, to relieve some of the regulatory burden and foster new research directions through the modular grant budget process. SRA further recommends that:

* Other agencies look at streamlining or reducing budgetary restrictions using the NIH Modular grant model where possible.

* The applicability of CAS to universities should be modified to allow for new exploratory research and to allow for funding in currently restricted categories.

Summary

Following receipt of responses from SRA; universities; industry; non-profit organizations; and state, local and federal agencies, CT and NSTC convened a National Summit on Innovation on November 30, and December 1, 1999. The attendees generated several recommendations that could affect "innovation, including globalization; capital markets; trade policy; priority setting in support for R&D; talent pool for innovation; and using the Internet to foster innovation." [2] Based on the responses from SRA, other organizations, and the National Summit on Innovation, a federal innovation initiative is being developed for the future.

Elliott C. Kulakowski, PhD, ("Priorities for Federal Innovation Reform: A SRA Perspective") is currently the Director of Research and Technology Development at the Albert Einstein Healthcare Network (AEHN) in Philadelphia, and provides administrative leadership for all research activities at AEHN. Previously, he served Temple University as the Associate Vice Provost for Research and Development and also as Associate Research Professor of Biochemistry at Temple University Medical School. Dr. Kulakowski also spent nine years at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, MD, as a researcher, program administrator and, most recently, as the Senior Scientific Advisor for the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Elliott is currently President of the Society of Research Administrators International (SRA). He joined SRA in 1990 and has served the Society in various capacities including Track Leader on Academics and Credentials for the Education and Professional Development Committee, Co-Chair of the 1998 SR A Annual Meeting, Planning Committee for the 1997 Annual Meeting, and has served on the Government Relations and National Education Committees.

Lynne Chronister ("Priorities for Federal Innovation Reform: A SRA Perspective") has been Director of Sponsored Projects and Research at the University of Utah since August 1997. She is responsible for managing approximately $225 million in grants and contracts awarded annually to the university. Prior to moving to Utah, Lynne was Director of Sponsored Programs at Mississippi State University for five years. Her previous position was as Assistant Director of Sponsored Programs at the University of South Alabama. Lynne started her career in research administration working for the Vermont Department of Corrections and spent a number of years as a free-lance proposal developer for various schools and agencies. She has served on numerous national and local task forces, boards, and review committees and is listed in International Who's Who and the Who's Who in Executives and Business. Lynne is a past president of the Society of Research Administrators and, since 1986, she has served in other elected and appointed positions and as a member of the Board of Directors for SRA.

Victoria J. Molfese, PhD, ("Priorities for Federal Innovation Reform: A SRA Perspective") is the Ashland/Nystrand Chair in Early and Middle Childhood Education, at the University of Louisville. She has published journal articles, books and book chapters, and has written grant proposals in support of research activities. Her longitudinal research on electrophysiological and behavioral predictors of cognitive development in children has been funded by grants from National Institutes of Health, March of Dimes, and Kellogg Foundation. Research on early predictors of reading disabilities is funded by grants from the U.S. Department of Education. She has been a study section reviewer for the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of Education. Victoria is currently the Immediate Past President of the Society of Research Administrators International (SRA). She joined SRA in 1986, and served on several national level SRA committees, has been President of the Midwest Section, and received the SRA Midwes t Section's Founders Award and SRA's Hartford-Nicholsen Award.

Notes

(1.) Letter from Neal Lane, Assistant to the President for Science, Technology and Innovation, to SRA, August 3, 1999.

(2.) 1999 Annual Report, National Science and Technology Council, p 28.