<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="PostalCode"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="State"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="Street"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="address"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="place"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="PlaceName"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="PlaceType"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Monotype Corsiva";
panose-1:3 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
h1
{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:24.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
font-weight:bold;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:Arial;
color:windowtext;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:.5in 1.0in .5in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<h1><b><font size=6 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:24.0pt'>INSIDE
HIGHER EDUCATION <o:p></o:p></span></font></b></h1>
<h1><b><font size=6 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:24.0pt'>Leveling
the NSF Playing Field <o:p></o:p></span></font></b></h1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>August 31, 2009 <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Colleges
and universities contribute significantly to the cost of federally sponsored
research projects, through what they spend on research labs and equipment,
faculty start-up packages, and "indirect" costs that aren't
reimbursed by the government. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>At
various points, federal agencies have either required or encouraged them to
quite literally "share" the costs of research grants they win,
essentially putting up their own funds to match a portion of the grant's value.
The practice has been debated, though, with proponents arguing that it shows
institutions' commitment by forcing them to put their own "skin in the
game," but detractors saying that requiring or encouraging "cost
sharing" puts less-wealthy colleges and universities at a disadvantage against
wealthier peers, and can lead grant reviewers to favor proposals from
institutions that volunteer to contribute even though that isn't supposed to
factor into the decision making. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>The 2007
American COMPETES Act asked the National Science Board to weigh the pros and
cons in reassessing the cost sharing policies of the National Science
Foundation, and the board <a
href="http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2009/nsb0920/nsb0920_1.pdf" target="_blank">issued
a report</a> Friday that calls for ending the practice of "voluntary"
cost sharing in all circumstances, while continuing "mandatory"
contributions in a small number of industry-focused federal programs as
recommended by an <a
href="http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2008/rprt_congress_cs_policy.pdf"
target="_blank">interim report </a>the board issued last year.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>"The
board firmly believes that prohibiting voluntary committed cost sharing, and
permitting mandatory cost sharing requirements only in limited and appropriate
circumstances, will not reduce institutional commitment and financial
contributions to NSF-sponsored projects or negatively impact institutional
stewardship of Federal resources," Steven C. Beering, president emeritus
of Purdue University and chairman of the science board, wrote in a memo accompanying
the report. "Instead, it likely will enhance the ability of institutions
to strategically and flexibly plan, invest in, and conduct research projects
and programs, and will promote equity among grantee institutions in NSF funding
competitions."<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>The
report, "Investing in the Future NSF Cost Sharing Policies for a Robust
Federal Research Enterprise," recounts the history of the science
foundation's policies on cost sharing, which has <a
href="http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2009/nsb0920/nsb0920_4.pdf" target="_blank">shifted
repeatedly over 50 years</a>. In 2004, the science board eliminated mandatory
cost sharing requirements in all NSF programs, aligning the agency's practices
with those of other federal research agencies. The change did not address
"voluntary" cost sharing, which continued to be permitted under NSF
rules.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>Eliminating
required matching by institutions was designed to take an institution's ability
to contribute financially out of the peer review equation and "remove
eligibility barriers to participation in certain NSF programs by institutions
unable to provide the required cost sharing," among other beneficial
outcomes, the board writes in its new report.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>But the
2004 change created some problems, too, most notably that it made it more
difficult for colleges and universities to "leverage" federal money
to attract corporate research support in NSF programs that are designed to
encourage academic-industry collaboration.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>When the
panel on cost sharing began its work in late 2007, as demanded by the America
COMPETES Act, which was designed to strengthen the country's commitment to
research and education in the physical and natural sciences, it very quickly
reached the conclusion that the NSF should alter its policies on mandatory cost
sharing. Its February 2008 report recommended that the agency reinstate
mandatory matching in three programs with strong corporate involvement: the
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, Industry/University
Cooperative Research Centers, and <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Engineering</st1:PlaceName>
<st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Research</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceType w:st="on">Centers</st1:PlaceType></st1:place>
programs (which NSF promptly did).<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>The
report issued Friday, based on a broader review and soliciting of opinions on
the NSF's cost sharing policies, affirms that the NSF should "allow, but
narrowly circumscribe, the application of mandatory cost sharing requirements
in NSF programs in which cost sharing is foundational to achieve programmatic
goals," which at this point it defines as the programs above plus two
programs in which it was dictated by America COMPETES: the Major Research Instrumentation
Program and the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>The panel
dedicates much more discussion, though, to the thornier issue of
"voluntary" cost sharing -- which like many other financial issues
gets complicated because it becomes something other than fully
"voluntary," because those that don't pony up often come to be seen
(fairly or not) as weaker by those making decisions.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>"The
proposer community generally views offers of voluntary committed cost sharing
in proposals in increasing their competitiveness (i.e., likelihood of receiving
funding) in NSF funding competitions," the science board writes.
"Correspondingly, failing to offer significant voluntary committed cost
sharing in proposals is viewed as creating a competitive disadvantage. These
views are widespread and strong ... even though NSF instructs program officers,
reviewers, and the proposer community that voluntary committed cost sharing is
not to be a factor in the merit review and award decision process."<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>The
assessment that voluntary sharing creates inequity among research institutions,
combined with a desire to ease institutions' administrative burdens for
tracking voluntary cost sharing and to give colleges and universities
"maximum flexibility in expending their discretionary resources on
research activities," led the science board to recommend that "NSF
should prohibit voluntary committed cost sharing in all components of both
solicited and unsolicited proposals."<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>The
science board report includes one further recommendation that could bode well
for colleges and universities down the road: a suggestion that the federal
government review whether to raise the cap (currently at 26 percent) on the
percentage of administrative costs for which universities can be reimbursed by
the government on research projects. Universities are alone among among
contractors that do federal research on which such a cap is imposed, the
Council on Governmental Relations <a
href="http://206.151.87.67/docs/OrszagLetterAdministrativeRelief.doc"
target="_blank">notes</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>"The
board understands the fundamental intent of the administrative rate
reimbursement cap -- to ensure that the majority of research funding supports
direct research effort, rather than administrative costs -- but also concurs
with the general view of the research community that the current 26 percent
reimbursement cap requires re-evaluation," the report states.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>— <a href="mailto:doug.lederman@insidehighered.com">Doug Lederman</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><strong><b><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>© Copyright 2009 Inside Higher Ed</span></font></b></strong><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><strong><b><font size=4 face="Monotype Corsiva"><span
style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Monotype Corsiva"'>Linda Mason, Ed.D.</span></font></b></strong><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>Coordinator for Grant Writing and External Funding</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:PlaceName w:st="on"><font size=2
face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>Oklahoma</span></font></st1:PlaceName><font
size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'> <st1:PlaceType
w:st="on">State</st1:PlaceType></span></font></st1:place><font size=2
face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'> Regents for Higher
Education</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><st1:Street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on"><font size=2
face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>655 Research
Parkway, Suite 200</span></font></st1:address></st1:Street><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on"><font size=2
face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>Oklahoma City</span></font></st1:City><font
size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>, <st1:State
w:st="on">OK</st1:State> <st1:PostalCode w:st="on">73104</st1:PostalCode></span></font></st1:place><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>405-225-9486</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'><a href="mailto:lmason@osrhe.edu">lmason@osrhe.edu</a></span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial'>IP: 164.58.250.178</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>