The National Science Board's Task Force on Administrative Burdens' has issued a request for information (RFI) to reduce investigator’s administrative workload for federally funded research. The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) has developed a survey to guide the development of a response to this RFI (https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/FASEBadminburden). The survey requests up to three areas where you experience the greatest administrative burden in your daily operations.

Alternatively, you can submit individual responses as detailed in the full RFI, found here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-03-29/pdf/2013-07331.pdf

From the Federal Register:

"Purpose:

This RFI offers principal investigators with Federal research funding the opportunity to identify Federal agency and university requirements that contribute most to their administrative workload and to offer recommendations for reducing that workload. Members of the National Science Board’s Task Force on Administrative Burdens do not wish to increase your administrative workload with this request and you may choose to answer only those questions that are most pertinent to you. Your responses will provide vital input so that we can implement agency-level changes and offer recommendations to reduce unnecessary and redundant administrative requirements.”

In an email to USDA, National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) partners, NIFA director Sonny Ramaswamy released the agency's plan for implementing the sequester.  NIFA plans on funding all existing Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) awards, but will likely fund fewer new grants under the 5% reduction required by sequestration.   Formula and capacity funding along with other research, education and extension program funding would also take a hit. 

 The email in its entirety can be found below or at http://nifa.usda.gov/email_prntrs_seques.pdf

In a policy memorandum released today, the Obama Administration "has directed Federal agencies with more than $100M in R&D expenditures to develop plans to make the published results of federally funded research freely available to the public within one year of publication and requiring researchers to better account for and manage the digital data resulting from federally funded scientific research."

The White House post describing the new policy is copied below and is linked to here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/02/22/expanding-public-access-results-federally-funded-research?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+whitehouse%2Fostp+%28WhiteHouse.gov+Blog+Feed%3A+Office+of+Science+and+Technology+Policy%29

Expanding Public Access to the Results of Federally Funded Research

Posted by Michael Stebbins on February 22, 2013 at 12:04 PM EST

The Obama Administration is committed to the proposition that citizens deserve easy access to the results of scientific research their tax dollars have paid for. That’s why, in a policy memorandum released today, OSTP Director John Holdren has directed Federal agencies with more than $100M in R&D expenditures to develop plans to make the published results of federally funded research freely available to the public within one year of publication and requiring researchers to better account for and manage the digital data resulting from federally funded scientific research. OSTP has been looking into this issue for some time, soliciting broad public input on multiple occasions and convening an interagency working group to develop a policy. The final policy reflects substantial inputs from scientists and scientific organizations, publishers, members of Congress, and other members of the public—over 65 thousand of whom recently signed a We the Peoplepetition asking for expanded public access to the results of taxpayer-funded research.

To see the new policy memorandum, please visit:http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp_public_access_memo_2013.pdf

To see Dr. Holdren’s response to the We the People petition, please visit:https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/increasing-public-access-results-scientific-research

Michael Stebbins is Assistant Director for Biotechnology at OSTP

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) calls for applications for its Student Volunteer Program for Summer 2013.  Undergraduate, graduate, and professional program students are encouraged to apply - via OSTP:

OSTP Student Volunteer Program—Summer 2013

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is currently accepting applications for its Summer 2013 Student Volunteer Program. The application deadline is 11:59pm Friday, February 22nd. Students who are U.S. citizens and who will be actively enrolled during the Fall 2013 semester are welcome to apply.

More information and application instructions are available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/about/student/.

About OSTP. The Office of Science and Technology Policy advises the President on the effects of science and technology on domestic and international affairs. The office serves as a source of scientific and technological analysis and judgment for the President with respect to major policies, plans and programs of the Federal Government.

About the Student Volunteer Program. Student Volunteersare accepted for one of three annual terms (Spring, Summer, or Fall),which each last no more than 90 days.While these positions are without compensation, the assignments provide educational enrichment, practical work experience, and network opportunities with other individuals in the science and technology policy arena.

For questions, please contact Lauren Andersen, landersen@ostp.eop.gov.

Lauren Andersen

Policy Advisor

Office of Science and Technology Policy

Executive Office of the President

ASPB co-sponsored a briefing on Capitol Hill, titled "From the Root Up: Understanding the 2012 Drought,” with the American Meteorological Society. The House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology hosted the briefing, which discussed both the impacts to crops from this year’s drought as well as the meteorological and climate conditions that lead to the drought. Dave Wegner, Professional Staff for the House Committee on Transportation’s Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment provided opening remarks in order to frame the briefing and subsequent discussion. The briefing was well attended, with over 60 congressional staff and stakeholders present.

ASPB invited John Boyer (in photo, left), the E. I. du Pont Professor of Biochemistry and Biophysics Emeritus at the University of Delaware to speak about how plants respond to drought and the advances in crop drought tolerance. Dr. Boyer noted that this year’s drought in the Midwestern U.S. was initially expected to cause losses in our food supply. However, this was averted thanks to plant biology research that has led to the incorporation of drought tolerant traits in modern crops. Dr. Boyer explained that further research is needed in plant biology in order to build upon these successes and improve drought tolerance in crops. In response to a question from the audience, Dr. Boyer noted that despite these advances, food prices still rose this year because other parts of the world are increasingly demanding animal protein and, subsequently, increasingly demanding grain to feed animals.

The American Meteorological Society invited John Nielsen-Gammon (in photo, middle), Regents Professor at Texas A&M University and Texas State Climatologist, as well as Roger Pulwarty (in photo, right), Director of the National Integrated Drought Information System at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Dr. Nielsen-Gammon discussed how climatic conditions make certain parts of the world, including the Midwest, more susceptible to drought, and Dr. Pulwarty spoke about the ways in which various government agencies work with state and local stakeholders to plan decisions around drought information and forecasts.

ASPB will continue to educate Members of Congress and their staff on plant biology related issues through congressional briefings and meetings in order to advance plant biology research.

Changes to the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs are currently being implemented following the law that was signed in December 2011 to reauthorize these programs through 2017. As a result of these changes the Small Business Administration (SBA) is seeking comments from the community on its policy directive, which provides guidance to federal agencies to implement its SBIR/STTR programs. SBA feels that public input would be valuable and may use comments in an amended directive in the future.Please note that SBA can amend the policy directive as needed.

The recently passed law reauthorizing the SBIR/STTR programs contained several provisions of interest to universities including an agreement to slowly increase the set aside percentage for SBIR from 2.5 to 3.2 percent and the STTR set aside from 0.3 percent to 0.45 percent over the course of the six-year reauthorization. The reauthorization also increased Phase I and Phase II award levels, and included several provisions to promote commercialization.

Given the provisions of the law which could have a direct impact on universities I thought you would be interested in SBA's invitation to comment on the policy directive. Specific areas of interest to universities include, but are not limited to:

• Provisions to promote commercialization such as the proposed National Institutes for Health (NIH) Proof of Concept pilot program, which would provide funding to qualifying intuitions, including universities, to accelerate commercialization of research.
• Techniques to promote the transfer between Phase I and Phase II of SBIR.
• New commercialization benchmarks, which will be established in 2013.

The importance of innovation and public private partnerships to the current Administration across federal agencies, as well as increased funding for SBIR and STTR, make it important for universities comment on issues of relevance. Comments must be submitted to SBA by October 5, 2012. To assist stakeholders with the directives and provide further information on the comment process SBA is hosting a webinar on Wednesday, August 29, 2012 at 2pm EDT. To join the webinar, you must register by 11:59 on August 28 by emailing technology@sba.gov.

Additional Information:

• The final policy directive with request for comments for the SBIR program is available at https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/08/06/2012-18119/small-business-innovation-research-program-policy-directive.
• The final policy directive with request for comments for the STTR program is available at https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/08/06/2012-18120/small-business-technology-transfer-program-policy-directive. Information on the webinar can be viewed at https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/08/06/2012-18118/small-business-innovation-research-sbir-program-and-small-business-technology-transfer-sttr-program.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has modified its funding opportunity for proposals to improve the safety of the nation's food supply by reducing foodborne hazards. USDA intends to combine the fiscal year (FY) 2012 and FY 2013 opportunities and has increased the amount of funding available to approximately $10 million. The deadlines for the submission of letters of intent and full proposals have both been extended as outlined below. Please read the full Request for Application (RFA) for the changes to the previously announced food safety funding opportunity.

USDA seeks proposals with a focus on addressing emerging food safety issues, developing mitigation strategies for anti-microbial resistance, and improving the safety of fresh and fresh-cut fruits and vegetables. The Obama Administration has identified food safety as one of five major challenge areas for the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA). USDA continues to build on the original goals announced for the competitive Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI).

In the Request for Applications, USDA seeks proposals in three areas:

• Control and mitigation strategies for known pathogens on foods not generally the subject of foodborne illnesses, such as carrot juice, broccoli powder, pepper, and hazelnuts;
• Strategies to address antimicrobial resistance in food production; and
• Improving the safety of fresh and fresh-cut produce.

Letters of Intent: Letters of Intent are required and are due September 17, 2012.

Due Date: Applications are due December 5, 2012.

Total Funding and Award Size: USDA plans to provide up to $10 million for new grants under this funding opportunity.

Critical and Emerging Food Safety Issues. USDA will support both basic and applied research on emerging pathogens with a particular emphasis on mitigation strategies. Also of interest are strategies to control contamination of foods not usually associated with such pathogens. Collaboration with industry and government are encouraged.

Standard Grants may be up to $300,000 total, including indirect costs, for a project period up to five years. USDA expects to make up to six awards. Research grants are requested. Applications for Conference and Food and Agricultural Science Enhancement (FASE) Grants may also be submitted.

Effective Mitigation Strategies for Antimicrobial Resistance. USDA seeks grants addressing one or more of four topics: to identify critical points for mitigating antimicrobial resistance in animal production systems; to determine and assess effective mitigation strategies; to develop effective training and education materials; and to design studies to assess potential interventions.

Standard Grants may be up to $800,000 total, including indirect costs, for a project period up to five years. USDA expects to make up to six new awards. Integrated Projects are requested. Conference and FASE Grants will also be accepted. Applications from and collaborations with Minority-Serving Institutions, USDA EPSCoR institutions, and other small or mid-sized institutions are encouraged.

Safety of Fresh and Fresh-cut Produce. USDA identifies several challenges and seeks applications that focus on the ecology of foodborne pathogens in production, processing, and retail settings and strategies for countering such threats. Grants can also focus on how to improve methods of handling fresh and fresh-cut food products, and the development of new food processing technologies.

USDA seeks Standard Grants of up to $425,000, including indirect costs, for projects of up to five years. USDA anticipates making up to eight new awards. Integrated project proposals are requested. Conference and FASE Grants may also be submitted. Applications from and collaborations with Minority-Serving Institutions, USDA EPSCoR institutions, and other small or mid-sized institutions are encouraged.

Eligibility and Limitations: Eligible applicants include public, state, and private colleges and universities; Native American tribal organizations; non-profit organizations; small businesses; for-profit organizations other than a small business; and individuals.

Cost-sharing Requirement: Cost sharing is required under certain circumstances, including for equipment. If a funded grant is commodity specific and not of national scope, a one-to-one match can be required. There is some waiver authority available to the Secretary of Agriculture. Please see the full RFA referenced below for additional details.

Sources and Additional Information:

• The updated synopsis of the RFA is available at http://www07.grants.gov/search/search.do?&mode=VIEW&oppId=179614.
• The full updated RFA is available at http://www.nifa.usda.gov/funding/rfas/pdfs/2012_2013_afri_food_safety.pdf. The funding opportunity number is USDA-NIFA-AFRI-003850.

In introducing the House version of the Farm Bill, Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-OK) noted that the bill is bipartisan and that his work with his Ranking Member, Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN) has "resulted in a reform-minded, fiscally responsible policy that is equitable for farmers and ranchers in all regions and will lead to improved program delivery.” Rep. Peterson characterized the bill as putting Congress a step closer to "complet[ing] work on the 2012 Farm Bill before the current bill expires” on September 30. Rep. Peterson called on the House leadership to take up the bill for debate by the full House of Representatives before the August recess so the House and Senate can conference a final bill in September.

The Chairman and Ranking Member highlighted that the House bill:

• Saves more than $35 billion in mandatory funding, with nearly half of the savings associated with changes/reforms in the SNAP program;
• Repeals or consolidates more than 100 programs across USDA;
• Eliminates direct payments and countercyclical payments to farmers for commodity losses, as does the Senate bill, and makes changes to commodity policy that would save more than $14 billion;
• Consolidates conservation programs, going from 23 programs to 13 for savings of about $6 billion; and
• Makes changes to reduce the federal regulatory burdens on farmers, ranchers, and rural communities.

According to preliminary estimates by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the House version of the Farm Bill would reduce federal direct spending by an estimated $35.1 billion over ten years from current law projections. This bill governs spending on entitlement and mandatory programs that are not subject to annual appropriations action by Congress. It also authorizes appropriations for programs, such as the research and extension programs of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which Congress must fund each year in the appropriations bills.

The Committee adopts reforms to nutrition entitlement programs, including significant changes to the SNAP program, for net savings of nearly $16.1 billion over ten years. During Committee consideration of the bill, amendments to reverse the SNAP program cuts and to scale them back to $4.5 billion, the amount approved in the Senate version of the bill, were defeated.

As does the Senate bill, the House bill achieves additional deficit reduction by eliminating direct and countercyclical payments and related payments for major commodity programs, such as wheat, corn, soybeans, etc. These provisions save $14 billion over ten years. The Committee bill also includes provisions to streamline and reform commodity policy. CBO estimates net savings from the commodity programs at $23.6 billion over ten years. The Senate bill saved $19.8 billion over ten years. The House bill continues crop insurance with a goal of improving coverage for producers of all crops in all regions.

As does the Senate bill, the House bill proposes to eliminate duplication and consolidate federal programs, such as conservation programs. The House bill would save nearly $6.1 billion over ten years from proposed changes in conservation programs.

For the USDA research and extension programs, the House bill would largely extend current programs; however given current budget constraints, the Committee reduces existing authorization levels (not actual spending) by an estimated $500 million, and includes specific authorized funding levels for programs with open-ended ("such sums as may be necessary”) authorizations. The House Committee also removes USDA’s authority to fund non-competitive grants.

The most controversial provision in the research title of the bill is a requirement for USDA to institute a 1:1 match for applied research grants that are commodity-specific or State-specific. While there is waiver authority for the Secretary of Agriculture should such research be determined "a national priority,” there is significant concern over the requirement to match federal funding on a dollar-for-dollar basis. An amendment was offered by Rep. Terri Sewell (D-AL) to strike this provision (Section 7127) from the bill. After discussion and assurances by the Chairman and Ranking Member that they will work with Committee Members, affected stakeholders, and USDA to craft a consensus that could be included in the final bill, the amendment was withdrawn.

The House bill would extend the authorization for intramural research through the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) through FY 2017. It would also reauthorize the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) through FY 2017 and extend the authorization for NIFA’s extramural competitive grants program, the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI), at the current $700 million annual level (AFRI is funded at $264.5 million in FY 2012). The bill would also reauthorize funding for the Extension Service and extends authority for the Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSI) program.

The House Committee continues mandatory funding, as well as authorizes additional appropriations if Congress so chooses, for Specialty Crop Research, Organic Agriculture Research and Extension, and Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development. CBO estimates mandatory spending for research, extension, and related matters in the House bill at $546 million over ten years. The House broadens eligibility for the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development grants to military veterans, providing a set-aside of not more than five percent for this purpose.

Also within the research title, as did the Senate, the House bill would establish a new program to recruit, train, support, and retain veterinarians. The bill authorizes $10 million for each fiscal year beginning in FY 2013.

The House version of the Farm Bill has no provisions affecting the current formula grant programs for land-grant institutions. Formula programs authorized under the Hatch Act and Smith-Lever Act have open-ended authorizations for appropriations at "such sums as may be necessary.”

The House bill does not address the indirect cost rate as the 2008 Farm Bill did. Thus, under the proposed House bill, the indirect cost rate remains at the current level of 30 percent established in the FY 2012 Agriculture Appropriations bill. The House and Senate versions of the FY 2013 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill currently pending before Congress would extend the 30 percent indirect cost rate for another year. The 2008 Farm Bill increased the indirect cost rate from 19 percent to 22 percent.

The House bill does not include provisions that would establish a non-profit Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research (FFAR) to promote a public-private partnership to leverage additional funding for agriculture research. The Senate bill includes language to create FFAR with mandatory funding of $100 million toward this effort, which must be matched by non-federal funding through the Foundation.

The House Farm Bill would extend existing energy programs affecting rural areas for five years through FY 2017, including the Biomass Research and Development Initiative (BRDI), which would be authorized at $20 million annually. In a significant departure from the Senate bill, the House provides that these energy programs are subject to funding by Congress through the annual appropriations bills. The Senate bill provides nearly $800 million in mandatory spending to continue existing energy programs, which would require no further action by the Congress.

Following the completion of the House committee markup, Agriculture Secretary Vilsack issued a statement that took issue with the recommended deep cuts in the SNAP program and with "misguided” reductions to energy and conservation programs. The Secretary indicated that the Administration would work with Congress during the legislative process to achieve a Farm Bill that is consistent with the President’s budget and policies.

Sources:

To view the text of the House Committee-approved bill, a summary of its provisions, and a section-by-section description of the bill, please see http://agriculture.house.gov/singlepages.aspx?NewsID=1227&LSBID=1271.

On April 26, the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry approved legislation that, if enacted into law, would result in a far-reaching reorganization of programs supporting the nation’s farmers and ranchers. The bill, S. 3240, the Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2012, would dramatically restructure farm income support and crop insurance programs, as well as eliminate, consolidate, and streamline existing programs for conservation, rural development, trade, nutrition, energy, research and extension, forestry, and related programs for the five-year period through fiscal year (FY) 2017. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has announced he plans to take up the bill for debate by the full Senate in the near future.  Meanwhile, the House Agriculture Committee has concluded hearings on the Farm Bill and anticipates preparing its own bill later this summer.  

For the USDA research and extension programs, the Senate bill would largely extend current programs. The bill would extend the authorization for intramural research through the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) through FY 2017. The Senate bill would also reauthorize the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) through FY 2017 and extend the authorization for NIFA’s extramural competitive grants program, the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI), at the current $700 million annual level (AFRI is currently funded at $264.5 million in FY 2012). The bill would also reauthorize funding for the Extension Service.  

The Senate version of the Farm Bill has no provisions affecting the current formula grant programs for land-grant institutions. Formula programs authorized under the Hatch Act and Smith-Lever Act have open-ended authorizations for appropriations at "such sums as may be necessary.” 

Additionally, the Senate bill does not address the indirect cost rate as the 2008 Farm Bill did. Thus, under the proposed Senate bill, the indirect cost rate remains at the current level of 30 percent established in the FY 2012 Agriculture Appropriations bill. The 2008 Farm Bill increased the indirect cost rate from 19 percent to 22 percent.  

The bill would establish a significant new research initiative in the creation of a non-profit Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research (FFAR), which would promote a public-private partnership to leverage additional funding for agriculture research. The Senate bill includes mandatory funding of $100 million toward this effort, which must be matched by non-federal funding through the Foundation.  

The Senate Farm Bill would extend existing energy programs affecting rural areas, including the Biomass Research and Development Initiative (BRDI), which would be extended for five years through FY 2017 and would be authorized at $30 million annually. The most significant amendment adopted during the Committee consideration of the bill would provide $800 million in mandatory spending to continue existing energy programs. Of this amount, $26 million in mandatory funding is provided each year through FY 2017 for BRDI. 

For a full report on the 2012 Farm Bill from our government affairs consultants, Lewis-Burke Associates, please visit: /resource/group/6d461cb9-5b79-4571-a164-924fa40395a5/docs/120601_senate-reported_farm_.pdf

In keeping with the current administration’s interest in increasing U.S. scientist collaborations with international researchers, the National Science Foundation (NSF) hosted 47 leaders of funding agencies from 44 countries for the Global Summit on Merit Review. The two-day summit, held over May 14 and 15, culminated in the release of a Statement of Principles for Scientific Merit Review and the formation of the Global Research Council (GRC).

According to NSF Director, Subra Suresh the newly formed GRC will be a "voluntary,…virtual organization" for discussion of "shared goals, aspirations, and principles, and provide a vehicle to unify science across the globe." In its inaugural year, the GRC will focus its attention on strengthening scientific integrity and increasing open access globally.

The first GRC statement stresses six major principles for scientific merit review including: expert assessment, transparency, impartiality, appropriateness, confidentiality, and integrity and ethical considerations. These principles set a global consensus to facilitate cooperation among funding agencies and to provide guidance for implementation of merit review by new funding agencies.

Links:

• Global Research Council: Statement of Principles for Scientific Merit Review
• Science Insider: New Global Research Council Takes Off
• Science Insider: A Global Standard for Peer Review
• Office of Science and Technology Policy Blog: Merit Review: Ensuring Gold-Standard Science Around the Globe