1. Research Business Models Subcommittee, CoS, NSTC Summary of Activities NSF Business and Operations Advisory Committee Geoff Grant October 22, 2003

2. Research Business Models Subcommittee* Goals: facilitate a coordinated effort across Federal agencies to identify and address important policy implications arising from the changing nature of scientific research examine the concomitant impacts these changes have had or should have on business models and business practices for the conduct of scientific research sponsored by the Federal government and carried out by academic, industrial, and government entities *http://rbm.nih.gov/

3. Research Business Models: Workgroups Common Practices Among Agencies Chair: Tom Cooley, CFO, NSF Alignment of Funding Mechanisms with Scientific Opportunities Co-Chairs: Nat Pitts, Director, Integrative Activities, NSF Christine Chalk, Program Analyst, DOE Appropriate Costs of Research Enterprise: determination, recovery, accountability Co-chairs: Chuck Paoletti, ONR Belinda Seto, Acting DDER, NIH

4. Request for Information Due October 6, 2003 Summary Total Comments Associations* Federal Agencies/FFRDCs Individuals Industry/Small Business Universities 46 12 2 10 3 19 * AAU, NASULGC, COGR, AAMC, AIRI, FDP, 3 animal welfare associations, etc.

5. Regional Meetings Berkeley- Lawrence Livermore Alignment of Funding Mechanisms with Scientific Opportunities October 27, 2003 Minneapolis- University of Minnesota Common Practices Among Agencies November 12, 2003 Chapel Hill- University of North Carolina and Duke University Appropriate Costs of Research Enterprise: determination, recovery, accountability November 17, 2003 Washington, D.C- RBM Priorities and Next Steps December 9-10

6. Preliminary Themes of Public Comments Align Funding Mechanisms with Science: Develop new policies and business arrangements to foster development, use, and continuous improvement of shared facilities and equipment Foster more cross-disciplinary support for special facilities and Federal labs, e.g as in NIH use of synchrotron facilities Increase support for specialized, shared instrumentation, especially MRIs, PET, and mass spectrometers Examine sufficiency of funding for “mid-size” multi- investigator funding Improve peer review oversight, extend its use more broadly, and coordinate inter-agency communication on project funding Implement a Federal facility loan guarantee program as recommended in NIH report

7. Preliminary Themes of Public Comments Common Practices: Reaffirm principles of the partnership Avoid overemphasis on “business models”, research is not a business Reconcile principles, cost reimbursement, regulations and operating policies, and audit practices Emphasize evaluation based on outcomes, not accounting Eliminate existing barriers (political and practical) for projects that transcend disciplines and specific agency missions Research administrative practices can be aligned with based on types of science and support, e.g single projects, investigator portfolios, multiple, collaborating investigators, and multidisciplinary, multi-agency projects Establish one eGov. solution, not multiple agency solutions Reaffirm Bayh-Dole tech transfer principles and minimize agency specific limitations of rights

8. Preliminary Themes of Public Comments Appropriate Costs of the Research Enterprise: Admin. cap, salary cap, caps on stipends and tuition costs, and elimination of the Biomedical Research Support Grant are inconsistent with basic objectives and shifts legitimate research costs to awardees Increases in compliance costs cannot be borne by recipients alone without impairing the research enterprise The cap on reimbursement of administrative costs and related cost-shifting are central issues that must be addressed in any discussion of Federal-academic business models The principle of full cost reimbursement is vital for the partnership to be successful Modify A-21 to allow direct charging of administrative services directly linked to the performance of research

9. Next Steps Synthesize Comments and Agency Perspectives Prioritize Issues Short term low hanging fruit Longer term, even more critical issues Design Implementation, Assign, Follow up, Implement Bring Issues Back to the B&O Advisory Committee Prioritizing? Sanity Check? Endorsement? Facilitating Solutions?