Better Accountability Procedures Needed in NSF and NIH Research Grant Systems
PAD-81-29
Published: Sep 30, 1981. Publicly Released: Sep 30, 1981.
Skip to Highlights
Highlights
GAO assessed the systems used by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to determine which research proposals by colleges, universities, and other nonprofit research institutions are to be funded and how scientific performance on the grants is assessed when continued support is provided. Specifically, GAO focused on the peer review system of the scientific performance accountability system which is used in large measure to determine which research proposals are to be funded and how scientific performance on the grants is assessed when continued support is provided.
Recommendations
Recommendations for Executive Action
| Agency Affected | Recommendation | Status |
|---|---|---|
| National Science Foundation | The Director of NSF should require that renewal proposal progress reports identify the objectives; show evidence of the progress toward their achievement; and any major changes in direction or emphasis and rationale for such changes, publications, and other input from a researcher's immediately preceding grant. |
Closed – Implemented
Please call 202/512-6100 for information.
|
| National Science Foundation | The Director of NSF should require that peer reviewers be asked when reviewing renewal proposals to specifically comment on a researcher's performance on the immediately preceding grant. |
Closed – Implemented
Please call 202/512-6100 for information.
|
| National Science Foundation | The Director of NSF should require that the documentation of panel peer review deliberations include the major elements required of the NIH peer review group summary statement when individual peer reviewers' written reviews do not provide this information. |
Closed – Implemented
Please call 202/512-6100 for information.
|
| National Science Foundation | The Director of NSF should require that peer review comments be automatically sent to researchers. |
Closed – Implemented
Please call 202/512-6100 for information.
|
| National Science Foundation | The Director of NSF should require that proposals identify the research objectives to be undertaken during the grant period. |
Closed – Implemented
Please call 202/512-6100 for information.
|
| National Institutes of Health | The Directors of NSF and NIH should require that proposals for new projects include evidence of progress from prior grants. |
Closed – Implemented
Please call 202/512-6100 for information.
|
| National Science Foundation | The Directors of NSF and NIH should require that proposals for new projects include evidence of progress from prior grants. |
Closed – Implemented
Please call 202/512-6100 for information.
|
| National Institutes of Health | The Directors of NSF and NIH should require that peer reviewers be furnished any available final technical reports and listings of publications from prior grants when researchers seek funding for new projects. |
Closed – Implemented
Please call 202/512-6100 for information.
|
| National Science Foundation | The Directors of NSF and NIH should require that peer reviewers be furnished any available final technical reports and listings of publications from prior grants when researchers seek funding for new projects. |
Closed – Implemented
Please call 202/512-6100 for information.
|
| National Institutes of Health | The Directors of NSF and NIH should require that more systematic and uniform review of annual progress reports be made by the program officers. |
Closed – Implemented
NIH adopted a new Progress Report Review Record, dated January 1984, which requires certification of review of progress reports and any actions taken.
|
| National Science Foundation | The Directors of NSF and NIH should require that more systematic and uniform review of annual progress reports be made by the program officers. |
Closed – Implemented
NSF has considered this recommendation and does not believe that additional certification or paperwork is required or would be useful. In contrast to NIH, NSF does not believe it wise to require any certification. Rather than continue to press a 4-year old recommendation, perhaps future GAO work will assess whether the need still exists.
|
| National Institutes of Health | The Directors of NSF and NIH should require that more specific guidelines be established regarding the extent to which researchers can change grant objectives without prior agency approval. |
Closed – Not Implemented
NIH follows the Public Health Service (PHS) Grants Policy Statement, which specifies that major changes in scope and direction must be submitted to PHS for prior approval. Similar to NSF, NIH officials do not believe that a clear threshold of major change is easily communicated.
|
| National Science Foundation | The Directors of NSF and NIH should require that more specific guidelines be established regarding the extent to which researchers can change grant objectives without prior agency approval. |
Closed – Not Implemented
NSF does not believe that this recommendation is a problem which needs attention. There is no easy way of specifying clearly a threshold, but NSF has not seen any problems arising from the statement as it presently stands.
|
Full Report
Office of Public Affairs
Topics
Colleges and universitiesGrant administrationGrant monitoringResearch and development costsResearch grantsResearch program managementTechnical proposal evaluationPublicationsGrant awardHearings