Last week's meeting of the DOE/NSF Nuclear Science Advisory Committee
included several presentations of particular interest to the wider science
and technology community. Addresses by speakers from the Department
of Energy, National Science Foundation, and the Office of Management
and Budget discussed funding, the government's response to terrorism,
and performance measurement. This FYI focuses on remarks concerning
performance measurement, which echoed many of the points recently made
in a speech by OMB Director Mitchell Daniels (see FYI
#144.)
The Administration's emphasis on measurement was clearly evident in
the presentations. "Management, metrics, and accountability"
were identified as the major administrative thrusts of the Department
of Energy. DOE applied research in Solar and Renewable Energy, Nuclear
Energy, Clean Coal, Fossil Energy, and Energy Conservation will be measured
using an "investment criteria" now under development (see
FYI #117.)
While this will not affect the DOE Office of Science in the FY 2003
budget cycle, measurement criteria will be implemented next fall as
a planning tool for basic research programs in the FY 2004 budget. A
strong focus of OMB's budgeting activity is program performance. In
making the case for program funding it will be "absolutely important"
that a program's objectives be clearly defined in understandable language,
one of the speakers said. Also necessary will be an explanation of why
the research is needed. A demonstration that progress is being achieved
in the program will also be required.
The Administration is aware that the development of sensible,
comprehensible, and accurate investment criteria for basic
research will not be easy, and it is seeking input from the
science community. That such criteria will be applied to
basic research programs is a certainty, one of the speakers
said, and will occur regardless of the level of involvement by
the science community. Community participation in the
development of investment criteria for basic research is a
must, the advisory committee was told. Without measurement
criteria it will be very difficult for basic research programs
to compete for additional federal funding, or even keep the
current level of funding, the committee was cautioned.
Efforts to develop program measurements are not new. During the Clinton
Administration the Government Performance and Results Act was enacted.
In 1999, a committee of the National Academy of Sciences developed a
five-year measurement criteria centering on the quality of the research
program, relevance to agency mission, and degree of international leadership
(see 1999 FYI
#29). At that time, the committee chairman described the Government
Performance and Results Act and said "the law can become a tool
of great value if working scientists understand its intention, help
educate people about their work, and lend their expertise to the development
of more accurate evaluations."
Judging by the comments made at the advisory committee meeting,
those remarks made in 1999 seem to accurately reflect the
Administration's position on the measurement of basic research
programs that will occur in the fall of 2002. "Programs that
are performing well will be rewarded," one of the speakers
predicted.
Enlarge text
Shrink text
Print
E-mail
Digg this
Del.icio.us
Furl