Download Free Measuring The Impacts Of Federal Investments In Research Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Measuring The Impacts Of Federal Investments In Research and write the review.

The enactment of the America COMPETES Act in 2006 (and its reauthorization in 2010), the increase in research expenditures under the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), and President Obama's general emphasis on the contribution of science and technology to economic growth have all heightened interest in the role of scientific and engineering research in creating jobs, generating innovative technologies, spawning new industries, improving health, and producing other economic and societal benefits. Along with this interest has come a renewed emphasis on a question that has been asked for decades: Can the impacts and practical benefits of research to society be measured either quantitatively or qualitatively? On April 18-19, 2011, the Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy (STEP) and the Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy (COSEPUP) of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine, held a workshop to examine this question. The workshop sought to assemble the range of work that has been done in measuring research outcomes and to provide a forum to discuss its method. The workshop was motivated by a 2009 letter from Congressman Rush Holt (D-New Jersey). He asked the National Academies to look into a variety of complex and interconnected issues, such as the short-term and long-term economic and non-economic impact of federal research funding, factors that determine whether federally funded research discoveries result in economic benefits, and quantification of the impacts of research on national security, the environment, health, education, public welfare, and decision making. Measuring the Impacts of Federal Investments in Research provides the key observations and suggestions made by the speakers at the workshop and during the discussions that followed the formal presentations.
Measuring the Economic Impacts of Federal Investments in Research evaluates approaches to measuring the returns on federal research investments. This report identifies new methodologies and metrics that can be developed and used for assessing returns on research across a wide range of fields (biomedical, information technology, energy, agriculture, environment, and other biological and physical sciences, etc.), while using one or more background papers that review current methodologies as a starting point for the discussion. It focuses on tools that are able to exploit available data in the relatively near term rather than on methodologies that may require substantial new data collection. Over the last several years, there has been a growing interest in policy circles in identifying the payoffs from federal agency research investments, especially in terms of economic growth, competitiveness, and jobs. The extraordinary increase in research expenditures under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 and the President's commitment to science and technology (S & T) funding increases going forward have heightened the need for measuring the impacts of research investments. Without a credible analysis of their outcomes, the recent and proposed increases in S & T funding may not be sustained, especially given competing claims for federal funding and pressures to reduce projected federal budget deficits. Motivated by these needs and requirements, Measuring the Economic Impacts of Federal Investments in Research reviews and discusses the use of quantitative and qualitative data to evaluate the returns on federal research and development (R & D) investments. Despite the job-focused mandate of the current ARRA reporting requirements, the impact of S & T funding extend well beyond employment. For instance, federal funding in energy research may lead to innovations that would reduce energy costs at the household level, energy imports at the national level, and greenhouse gas emissions at the global level. In principle, these benefits can be measured as a return on research investments, with appropriate consideration of time lags to research outcomes and attribution to private as well as public expenditure. With appropriate metrics, the same could be true for benefits to public health, environmental quality, and food productivity and security. Federal funding of research leads to the development of human capital that is deployed in a variety of occupations with economic and social impacts. Research also produces information that is used in formal (e.g., regulatory and judicial) and informal (e.g., firm and consumer) decision making processes. In addition to reviewing the range of work (by academics, consultants, and research agencies themselves) that has been done in measuring research outcomes and providing a forum to discuss their methods, this report also considers the different methodologies used across fields of research (e.g., agriculture and energy research) to identifies which are applicable to a range of federal S & T funding.
Research is funded from public coffers to solve problems and create opportunities. Those government officers and legislators funding research do so in anticipation of results, but these results can be difficult to measure. Policy officials have good intentions to respond to public calls for accountability; but the complexity of cause-and-effect relationships . Economic measures are better known, but social impact measures are growing in number. This paper reports on a scanning done of existing policy papers and academic literature to identify possible measures for social benefits of research. The review finds that, when measuring for social impact, a combination of measures, linked to an understanding of intent, is required to provide a full assessment of benefit. Many types of measures are presented in this report with the goal of identifying concrete methods that can assess societal benefits, to reveal what we can expect from research, and which tools provide input into a broader understanding. Tangible effects are the target, since diffuse social effects are beyond measures. Findings include the following six key points:1. No single quantitative measure can reveal social impacts of research2. Quantitative (numerical) measures can be useful when research is narrowly focused on a specific social problem. Measures can include the following items:a. Size and capabilities of the newly trained workforceb. Percent of the population impacted by research resultsc. Enhanced reputation of national researchers d. Growth in capabilities of universities e. Publications, patents, and knowledge mapping3. Qualitative and quantitative approaches should be combined to provide a fuller assessment of benefit than would come from just numerical measures 4. Stakeholders, such as the general public, should define expectations early in the process of defining social benefits; public expectations should guide evaluation 5. The key actions required from stakeholders are the following:a. Tie measures to social values and relevanceb. Consult experts and collect available data c. Specify outcomes of interest with references to goalsd. Define 'impact' in terms of desired social benefits6. The literature cautions against putting too much emphasis on quantitative accountability, since this can drive the research process towards near-term, incentivized behavior rather than the desirable, but broader, societal goals.
This report examines the portfolio of research and development (R&D) expenditure surveys at the National Science Foundation (NSF), identifying gaps and weaknesses and areas of missing coverage. The report takes an in-depth look at the definition of R&D, the needs and potential uses of NSF's R&D data by a variety of users, the goals of an integrated system of surveys and other data collection activities, and the quality of the data collected in the existing Science Resources Statistics surveys.
In 1998, health expenditures in the United States accounted for 12.9% of national income-the highest share of income devoted to health in the developed world. The United States also spends more on medical research than any other country-in 2000, the federal government dedicated $18.4 billion to it, compared with only $3.7 billion for the entire European Union. In this book, leading health economists ask whether we are getting our money's worth. From an economic perspective, they find, the answer is a resounding "yes": in fact, considering the extraordinary value of improvements to health, we may even be spending too little on medical research. The evidence these papers present and the conclusions they reach are both surprising and convincing: that growth in longevity since 1950 has been as valuable as growth in all other forms of consumption combined; that medical advances producing 10% reductions in mortality from cancer and heart disease alone would add roughly $10 trillion-a year's GDP-to the national wealth; or that the average new drug approved by the FDA yields benefits worth many times its cost of development. The papers in this book are packed with these and many other surprising revelations, their sophisticated analysis persuasively demonstrating the massive economic benefits we can gain from investments in medical research. For anyone concerned about the cost and the value of such research-from policy makers to health care professionals and economists-this will be a landmark book.
Written in response to a request from the Senate Committee on the Budget, this paper reviews the available data on the economic value of federal investments in infrastructure, education and training, and R&D. It focuses on the empirical evidence produced since July 1991, when CBO last analyzed the issue in the study "How federal spending for infrastructure and other public investments affects the economy."
The nature of federal research funding has changed in the United States over the last 30 years. In part, federal research funding has changed in the distribution of funding across disciplines and across universities. Federal funding to universities with historically low levels of funding has also experienced greater growth than those universities with historically high levels of funding. In addition, universities have become more involved in the political process with respect to the allocation of funding for higher education. As the nature of government funding changes, this paper questions its effect on private donations to research and non-research universities. The general presumption of much of the existing theoretical work is that government and private funding for charitable goods are substitutes. Limited evidence exists to suggest, in some circumstances, there may be a positive correlation between these two sources of funding. Potentially, because the government undertakes the expense to gather information about the research universities, and engages in such activities as peer-review of research proposals, the government through its grant awards may provide a signal of quality of research or other information to donors that is less noisy than that available to private donors. Similarly, there may be other types of spillover effects from research funding to private donations. In this case, a change in government grants has both a positive and negative effect on private donations, suggesting a positive correlation between private and public donations if the effect from the dissemination of information is greater than the substitution effect of government grants. I examine data for private and public universities in the United States to measure the relationship between private and public donations under a fixed-effects OLS regression. I explore issues of bias from endogeneity or omitted variables and report the results from a two stage least squares regression in which I use a set of measures that affect federal research funding but not private donations. Regardless of the specification, the results suggest private and public donations are positively correlated for research universities and negatively correlated for non-research institutions. On average, increasing federal research funding by one dollar increases private donations by 65 cents at research universities, decreases private donations by 9 cents at universities whose highest degree granted is a masters, and decreases private donations by 45 cents at liberal arts colleges.
American leadership in the world is built on the foundation of its economic strength. Yet the United States faces enormous economic competition abroad and threats to its economy at home. In How America Stacks Up: Economic Competitiveness and U.S. Policy, Edward Alden, Bernard L. Schwartz senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and director of the Renewing America initiative, and Rebecca Strauss, associate director of Renewing America, focus on those areas of economic policy that are the most important for reinforcing America’s competitive strengths. Covering education, transportation, trade and investment, corporate tax, worker retraining, regulation, debt and deficits, and innovation, How America Stacks Up shows how, in a highly competitive global economy, these seemingly domestic issues are all crucial to U.S. success in the global economy. The line between domestic economic policy and foreign economic policy is now almost invisible, and getting these policies right matters for more than just U.S. living standards. The United States’ ability to influence world events rests on a robust, competitive economy. But without further investment in education, infrastructure, and innovation, Alden and Strauss show, the United States runs the risk of endangering its greatest competitive advantage. Through insightful analysis and engaging graphics, How America Stacks Up outlines the challenges faced by the United States and prescribes solutions that will ensure a healthy, competitive U.S. economy for years to come.
The deteriorating condition of federal facilities poses economic, safety, operational, and environmental risks to the federal government, to the achievement of the missions of federal agencies, and to the achievement of public policy goals. Primary factors underlying this deterioration are the age of federal facilities-about half are at least 50 years old-and decades of inadequate investment for their maintenance and repair. These issues are not new and there are no quick fixes. However, the current operating environment provides both the impetus and the opportunity to place investments in federal facilities' maintenance and repair on a new, more sustainable course for the 21st Century. Despite the magnitude of investments, funding for the maintenance and repair of federal facilities has been inadequate for many years, and myriad projects have been deferred. Predicting Outcomes of Investments in Maintenance and Repair of Federal Facilities identifies processes and practices for transforming the current portfolio of federal facilities into one that is more economically, physically, and environmentally sustainable. This report addresses ways to predict or quantify the outcomes that can be expected from a given level of maintenance and repair investments in federal facilities or facilities' systems, and what strategies, measures, and data should be in place to determine the actual outcomes of facilities maintenance and repair investments.