[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 244 (Tuesday, December 21, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71454-71456]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-32962]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

Office of Science and Technology Policy


Request for Comment on Proposed Statement of Principles of the 
Government-University Research Partnership

AGENCY: Office of Science and Technology Policy.

ACTION: Request for comment on proposed statement of principles of the 
government-university research partnership.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: An April 27, 1999 Presidential Memorandum directed that the 
National Science and Technology Council ``in consultation with research 
universities and other stakeholders in the Federal science and 
technology enterprise, shall develop a statement of principles that 
clearly articulates the roles, responsibilities, and expectations of 
each of the partners and establishes a framework for addressing future 
issues as they arise. Ultimately, this statement of principles will 
serve to shape future discussions and guide policy development and 
decision making.'' President Clinton asked that this action be 
completed within twelve months of the date of the memorandum. The 
findings and recommendations contained in the NSTC report on Renewing 
the Federal Government-University Research Partnership for the 21st 
Century should provide the basis for proceeding. The report proposed a 
draft statement of principles developed by the NSTC and recommended 
that it be finalized in consultation with the interested community. As 
part of this process, this notice seeks public comment.

DATES: The Office of Science and Technology Policy welcomes comments on 
the proposed policy. In order to be assured consideration, comments 
must be postmarked no later than February 18, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be mailed to Dr. Arthur Bienenstock, 
Associate Director for Science, Office of Science and Technology 
Policy, Washington, DC 20502. The entire NSTC report may be viewed 
electronically by going to the following web site: http://
www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OSTP/html/rand/index.htm. In order to provide 
comments electronically, click on ``Your comments,'' then on ``Click 
here to provide your electronic comments.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne-Marie Mazza, Office of Science 
and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President, Washington, 
DC 20502. Tel: 202-456-6040; Fax: 202-456-6027; e-mail: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In order for the partnership between the 
Federal government and the university community to thrive, there must 
be a clear understanding on the part of both parties of the goals of 
the partnership and the responsibilities of the partners. The following 
questions sometimes arise in consideration of this partnership: Why 
does the Federal government invest in university research? What is the 
role of graduate students in the research enterprise? On what basis are 
the costs of research allocated among the parties? Federal

[[Page 71455]]

laws, circulars, and regulations govern operational aspects of the 
government-university relationship in areas such as allowable costs, 
administrative procedures, compliance issues, and audit practices. Yet 
statements of the rationale, goals, and objectives of the public 
investment in university-based research remain implicit, or are 
dispersed in a variety of legislation and other policy documents. As 
long as this is so, the government-university partnership risks being 
defined primarily in an ad hoc manner, by detailed accounting, 
administrative, and financial management requirements, and not by 
broader national goals.
    In addition to the Presidential Memorandum to the NSTC cited above, 
the President also released on April 27, 1999 the NSTC report on 
Renewing the Federal Government-University Research Partnership for the 
21st Century. One of the recommendations contained in this report is 
the development of a statement of principles of the government-
university partnership in research. A clearly articulated statement of 
the principles of the partnership will help clarify the roles, 
responsibilities, and expectations of each of the partners and 
establish a framework for addressing future issues as they arise. 
Ultimately, an agreed upon statement of principles also would serve to 
shape future discussions, to formulate policies, and to help guide 
decision-making. The process itself of engaging the government and 
university partners in a dialogue will increase mutual understanding 
and provide a good foundation for resolving complex issues in the 
future. The purpose of this notice is to help further this dialogue.
    The NSTC report issued a proposed statement of the principles of 
the government-university partnership (see below). These were developed 
through interagency review and discussion that benefited greatly from 
input provided by the university community. Further dialogue is needed 
among all stakeholders before the principles are finalized.
    The goals in developing a statement of principles are to help 
foster an environment that promotes scientific discovery, technological 
innovation, and the development of the next generation of scientists 
and engineers. The Federal government recognizes the importance to the 
nation of the American university system and is driven by a desire to 
sustain that special resource for maximum benefit to the nation. A 
statement of principles will help articulate these goals, and provide 
guidance for translating these goals into actions. In order to be most 
effective, these principles must be understood and agreed upon by the 
parties to it.
    Below is the proposed statement of principles:

Proposed Statement of Principles of the Government-University 
Research Partnership

    The following are guiding principles that govern interactions 
between the Federal government and universities that perform research.

1. Guiding Principles

     Research Is an Investment in the Future.
    Government sponsorship of university research--including the 
capacity to perform research and the training of the next generation of 
scientists and engineers--is an investment in the future of the nation, 
helping to assure the health, security, and quality of life of our 
citizens. Government investments recognize that the expected benefits 
of research often accrue beyond the investment horizons of corporations 
or other private sponsors. Investments in research are managed as a 
portfolio, with a focus on aggregate returns; investments in individual 
research efforts that make up the portfolio are based on the prospects 
for their technical success, though not on a presumption that those 
outcomes can be predicted precisely.
     The Linkage Between Research and Education Is Vital.
    The integration of research and education is the hallmark and 
strength of our nation's universities. Students (undergraduates as well 
as graduates) who participate in federally sponsored research grow 
intellectually even as they contribute to the research enterprise. Upon 
graduation, they are prepared to contribute to the advancement of 
national goals and to educate subsequent generations of scientists and 
engineers. Their intellectual development and scientific contributions 
are among the important benefits to the Nation of Federal support for 
research conducted at universities. There should be compelling policy 
reasons for creating or perpetuating financial or operational 
distinctions between research and education. Our scientific and 
engineering enterprise is further enhanced by the intellectual 
stimulation brought to campus by students from varying cultural, 
ethnic, and socioeconomic origins.
     Excellence Is Promoted When Investments are Guided by 
Merit Review.
    Excellence in science and engineering is promoted by making awards 
on the basis of merit. Merit review assesses the quality of the 
proposed research or project and is often used in combination with a 
competitive process to determine the allocation of funds for research. 
Merit review relies on the informed advice of qualified individuals who 
are independent of those individuals proposing the research. A well-
designed merit review system rewards quality and productivity in 
research, and can accommodate endeavors that are high-risk and have 
potential for high gain.
     Research Must Be Conducted with Integrity.
    The ethical obligations entailed in accepting public funds and in 
the conduct of research are of the highest order and recipients must 
consider the use of these funds as a trust. Great care must be taken to 
``do no harm'' and to act with integrity. The credibility of the entire 
enterprise relies on the integrity of each of its participants.

2. Operating Principles

    The following operating principles are intended to assist agencies, 
universities, individual investigators, and auditing and regulatory 
bodies in implementing the guiding principles.
     Agency Cost Sharing Policies and Practices Must be 
Transparent.
    As in any investment partnership, each partner contributes to the 
research endeavor. While the primary contribution of universities is 
the intellectual capital of the researchers' ideas, knowledge, and 
creativity, it is sometimes appropriate for universities to share in 
the costs of the research (and in some cases cost sharing is required 
by statute). Cost sharing can be appropriate when there are compelling 
policy reasons for it, such as in programs whose principal purpose is 
to build infrastructure and enhance an awardee's institution's ability 
to compete for future Federal awards. Cost sharing is rarely 
appropriate when an awardee is acting solely as a supplier of goods or 
services to the government since this would entail a university subsidy 
of goods purchased by the government. If agency funds are not 
sufficient to cover the costs of a research project, the agency and the 
university should re-examine the scope of the project, unless there are 
compelling policy reasons to require university cost sharing. Agencies 
should be clear about their cost sharing policies and announce when and 
how cost sharing will figure in selection processes, including explicit 
information regarding the amount of cost sharing expected.
     Partners Should Respect the Merit Review Process.
    Excellence in science is promoted when all parties adhere to merit 
review

[[Page 71456]]

as the basis for distributing Federal funds for research projects and 
refrain from seeking Federal funds through non-merit-based means. 
Federal investments in research are made with the expectation that the 
research community will select promising research paths more 
productively and wisely by relying on merit review than can a process 
that bypasses merit review to directly fund a specific individual or 
institution. Success in obtaining funds outside the merit review system 
can be discouraging to researchers who participate in the process. Most 
significantly, bypassing merit review threatens to undermine research 
excellence. Merit review may be used in conjunction with other 
selection criteria to support agency or program goals.
     Agencies and Universities Should Manage Research in a 
Cost-Efficient Manner.
    The goal of all those involved in sponsoring, performing, 
administering, regulating, and auditing university-based research and 
associated educational activities of the research enterprise should be 
to make maximum resources available for the performance of research and 
education. This goal can be accomplished by keeping agencies' and 
universities' costs of compliance with Federal requirements to the 
minimum required for good stewardship of Federal funds. For example, 
administrative requirements should rely on the least burdensome and 
least costly methods that can effectively provide needed stewardship. 
Universities should likewise manage their Federal grants as efficiently 
as possible.
     Accountability and Accounting Are Not the Same.
    The principal measure of accountability must be research outcomes: 
have the researchers carried out a program of research consistent with 
their commitment to the government? Financial accountability is also 
important and should assure research sponsors that Federal funds have 
been used properly to achieve the goals of the research in a cost 
effective manner. Federal agencies must ensure that financial 
accountability requirements are limited to those that are reasonably 
required for good stewardship and that each measure adds sufficient 
value in terms of increased stewardship to justify the burdens and 
costs it imposes on universities and agencies.
     The Benefits of Simplicity in Policies and Practices 
Should Be Weighed Against the Costs.
    The costs and benefits of simplicity in regulatory, administrative, 
cost accounting, and auditing practices should be assessed against the 
costs and benefits of accommodating diverse Federal programs and the 
multiplicity of university organizational structures in determining 
best policies and practices. ``One size fits all,'' or uniformity for 
uniformity's sake can unintentionally increase requirements and 
burdens, but a multiplicity of practices can also be costly. These 
tradeoffs should be carefully assessed whenever changes in government-
wide or agency-specific policies and practices are proposed.
     Change Should be Justified by Need and the Process Made 
Transparent.
    The process of change in the government-university partnership 
should be made as transparent as possible. Modifications in 
administrative, regulatory, or auditing requirements, or in cost 
sharing expectations, should be kept as infrequent as possible, 
consistent with the need to respond to changing circumstances. The 
impact of change in one part of the system should be understood 
relative to the whole. Reasonable time should be allowed for both 
agencies and universities to adapt to change.

    Dated: December 15, 1999.
Barbara Ann Ferguson,
Administrative Officer, Office of Science and Technology Policy.
[FR Doc. 99-32962 Filed 12-20-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3170-01-P