Sensenbrenner Chides Science Agencies
By September 30 of this year, federal agencies will be required to have detailed strategic plans and milestones for assessing their performance on a yearly basis. This requirement is the core of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, known as GPRA. Although the agencies have had four years to work on crafting meaningful measures, the science-based agencies in particular have experienced difficulties in determining how to measure the success of long-term research funding on an annual time-scale (see FYIs #106 and 140 , 1996.)
A dissatisfied James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), chairman of the House Science Committee, confronted officials from NSF, NASA, DOE and NOAA at a July 30 hearing. “As to the plans we will examine today,” he stated, “the agencies are to be commended on the hard work that is evident in these drafts. However, all the plans are deficient either in that they are missing required elements or the completed elements are insufficient.”
Much of the discussion focused on how to evaluate the performance of research on a short-term basis, and how research was coordinated across agencies to avoid unnecessary duplication and redundancy. NSF’s Acting Deputy Director, Joseph Bordogna, admitted during questioning that “we’re struggling to invent” ways to measure research effectiveness. “The first thing to understand,” he stated, is that “it’s almost impossible to assess investment in basic research except by the judgment of experts.” Diana Josephson, Commerce Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, added that “all the agencies are struggling with this -- we don’t know the answers to the questions yet.”
Susan Kladiva of the General Accounting Office testified that GAO, in a June report, commented on the need for greater coordination of cross-cutting activities. She explained that some of the science and technology agencies have missions that overlap in certain areas or “shared responsibility for national goals.” Asked who should take responsibility for that coordination, Kladiva said GAO did not specify in its report, but she noted that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has a central administrative role for GPRA activities. Ranking Minority Member George Brown (D-CA), remarked that the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) was intended to coordinate science and technology research across agencies, along with its Cabinet-level Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering and Technology (FCCSET.) However, as Brown pointed out, FCCSET was abolished. “The NSTC [National Science and Technology Council] was supposed to replace it,” he said, “but I’m not sure that’s working.”
“I’m disappointed that the Administration has had four years’ time to come up with” strategic plans, Sensenbrenner said, and “you’ve not come along further in complying with it.” He warned the witnesses: “I can assure you on behalf of the science committee that we’re gong to continue to be on your back, because I feel the future of science funding rests on...convincing the public it’s getting its money’s worth. I think the American public doesn’t understand the necessity of making the investment in science...to keep America number one in the next century.” He concluded, “GPRA is going to be a very, very key way to facilitate that.”
