Download Free Setting Priorities For Publicly Funded Research Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Setting Priorities For Publicly Funded Research and write the review.

In its report into how priorities are set for publicly funded research, the Science and Technology Committee calls on the Government to make a clear and unambiguous statement setting out their research funding commitments and the periods of time over which those commitments apply.
In its report into how priorities are set for publicly funded research, the Science and Technology Committee calls on the Government to make a clear and unambiguous statement setting out their current research funding commitments and the periods of time over which those commitments will apply. Decisions about funding priorities are complex and require careful judgement about the deployment of funds between competing priorities. The Committee concludes that, in the current policy framework, there is a lack of oversight of the total spend on research which is needed to enable the Government to make coherent, well-founded decisions about the use of public funds to support research. The Committee recommends that: the Government Chief Scientific Adviser (GCSA) should publish figures annually, broken down by subject area, on all public spending to support research, and make appropriate recommendations to the Prime Minister; he should also attend Treasury meetings at which departmental budgets are considered; departmental CSAs should provide Ministers with timely information in advance of budget negotiations, to ensure that research funding decisions are informed by the best available advice. The Committee was also alerted to problems concerning the funding of cross-departmental research involving multiple funding agencies, including research to meet the grand challenges that society faces. To meet such challenges, the Committee recommends the establishment of specific mechanisms: to identify major cross-cutting policy challenges; and to identify, fund and co-ordinate appropriate responses to such challenges.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the single largest funder of health research in the United States, and research it has supported has been pivotal to the explosion of biomedical knowledge over the past century. As NIH's success has grown, so has pressure from advocacy groups and other members of the public to devote more spending to their health concerns. In response to a request from Congress, this IOM study reviewed NIH's research priority-setting process and made recommendations for possible improvement. The committee considered the: Factors and criteria used by NIH to make funding allocations. Process by which the funding decisions are made. Mechanisms for public input. Impact of congressional statutory directives on funding decisions. Among other recommendations, the book recommends that NIH seek broader public input on decisions about how to spend its nearly $14 billion budget; it also urged the agency to create new Offices of Public Liaison in the Office of the Director and in each of the 21 research institutes to allow interested people to formally take part in the process.
In 1995, the National Science Foundation (NSF) created a special account to fund large (several tens of millions of dollars) research facilities. Over the years, these facilities have come to represent an increasingly prominent part of the nation's R&D portfolio. Recently concern has intensified about the way NSF is selecting projects for this account. In 2003, six U.S. Senators including the chair and ranking member of the Senate Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations expressed these concerns in a letter to the NRC asking it to "review the current prioritization process and report to us on how it can be improved." This report presents a series of recommendations on how NSF can improve its priority setting process for large research facilities. While noting that NSF has improved this process, the report states that further strengthening is needed if NSF is to meet future demands for such projects.
The National Academies' Report regarding NSF's process for identifying, approving, constructing, and managing large-research-facility projects states: "A number of concerns have been expressed by policy-makers and researchers about the process used to rank large-research-facility projects for funding. First, the ability of new projects to be considered for approval at the National Science Board (NSB) level has stalled in the face of a backlog of approved but unfunded projects. Second, the rationale and criteria used to select projects and set priorities among projects for MREFC funding have not been clearly and publicly articulated. Third, there is a lack of funding for disciplines to conduct idea-generating and project-ranking activities and, once ideas have some level of approval, a lack of funding for conceptual development, planning, engineering, and design information needed when judging whether a project is ready for funding in light of its ranking and for preparing a project for funding if it is selected. Those concerns have eroded confidence among policy-makers and the research community that large-research-facility projects are being ranked on the basis of their potential returns to science, technology, and society." The report includes a number of recommendations by the Study Committee for actions by NSF to address these concerns. The National Science Foundation (NSF) embraces the spirit of the Report's recommendations. In this response we address the principles of the primary recommendations, leaving the detailed mechanisms to be addressed in consultation with our communities, the Office of Management and Budget (0MB), and Congress.