Major Award Decisionmaking at the National Science Foundation (1994) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
5 RECOMPETITION OF AWARDS
5 RECOMPETITION OF AWARDS
Pages 109-116
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 109... ...
Also, the director makes an annual report to the National Science Board (NSB) on the performance of He peer review process.
|
From page 110... ...
These include both the large national facilities managed by consortia of research institutions anc] He national user facilities managed by inctividual universities (e.g., the National Optical Astronomy Observatories at Kitt Peak, Arizona, and near Cierra Tololo, Chile; National Radio Astronomy Observatory at Green Bank, West Virginia; National Astronomy anc!
|
From page 111... ...
, compared to NSF's more elaborate procedures for deciding whether or not a particular facility or center is worth continuing or should be competed again. If the activity is still deemed worthwhile, is the current grantee doing a good job that merits continuation or should the award be opened to competition?
|
From page 112... ...
in 1986 an NSF staff task force studied policies and procedures for terminating programs and major projects. They documented examples of successful terminations but also identified factors that tend to impede termination (e.g., the inherent interest of the peer review system, advisory committees, and program officers in identifying expansion areas and new opportunities; the development of constituencies for established activities and consequent loss of interest in other options or modes of program activity)
|
From page 113... ...
Although the sense of the meeting was that major projects should be reconsidered every 10 years, NSB stopped short of setting a specific number: "Automatically recomputing a major center or research facility every five years does not appear reasonable; however, renewal proposals undergo a rigorous peer review, typically including a site visit. Continuity of support is needed for at least 10 years, provided the facility or center is performing in a satisfactory manner." NSB also decided that "when recommendations for major projects are presented to the Director's Action Review Board for waiver or explicit consideration, a statement regarding plans for the end of the grant period will be included.
|
From page 114... ...
For its part, NSF should develop and NSB should adopt uniform guidelines for orderly transitions so that facility operators know what to expect should they lose a recompetition some day. Since an existing facility tends to have a natural advantage over a proposal on paper Me existing facility is operational, has staff and a track record, and sunk costs have been paid already NSF should make every effort to create a level playing field.
|
From page 115... ...
Given that the existing center or facility has a natural advantage, the purpose of a recompetition should be to seek better proposals that would justify the extra costs of relocation. The adequacy of support should also be carefully assessed as part of the periodic review of the continuing programmatic need for a major project, which we recommend should take place before considering whether or not to renew or recompete any award.
|
From page 116... ...
In response to this and similar problems with other astronomy facilities, the Astronomy and Astrophysics Survey Committee of He National Research Council made "restoring the infrastructure" of existing equipment its highest priority (NRC, 1991~.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.