It's tough to devise a winning strategy when the rules of the game change in midstream. Imagine that you're in the middle of a baseball game and the umpire suddenly starts calling batters “out” whenever they hit a foul ball, then decides to lengthen the distance to first base, and, before the inning is over, inserts another base in left field that runners must touch before heading home. Crazy as that sounds, it's not a bad analogy for what's been happening over the past few years with the Washington “umpires” who have rule-making authority over the long-running research game. They have seemed unmindful of the need for stable, predictable rules in order for the “game” to proceed in an orderly and fair-minded way.
The incredible success of the federal-academic research partnership over the past several decades is acknowledged by all to be one of the marvels of our time. Indeed, some of the most fantastic scientific achievements of all time can be credited directly to the close collaboration that has existed between the federal government and our country's research universities and medical schools. However, even the most successful partnerships tend to develop strains over time. This one certainly has. And frequent changes in the “rules of the game” are a root cause of many of the problems that have emerged. Stable, predictable rules are essential for minimizing confusion and conflict in any complex partnership.
Here are a few examples of the kinds of abrupt shifts in federal policies that have confounded research administrators: seemingly interminable editing of OMB's Circular A-21 (the complex guide for institutions to recoup their “indirect” costs of research); capping the level at which administrative expenditures can be recovered; imposing costly reporting requirements; capping the level at which faculty salaries can be reimbursed; and eliminating the Biomedical Research Support Grant (BRSG) mechanism. The upshot of these and other unilateral changes in the rules has been a progressive and significant shift in costs toward the academic side of the research partnership. Put in simple terms, more and more institutional resources are required each year to accept the same dollar of federal research support. Not a formula for sustaining a happy marriage.
Compounding the problem, of course, is the dwindling of the discretionary funds available for institutions to sustain the shifted cost burden. And how can institutions make intelligent decisions about long-term investments in expanded or improved research capacity when the ever-changing “rules of the game” create such uncertainty about whether our federal partner will be there to pick up its fair share of the costs?
Into this strained environment comes a ray of hope—a new report from the feds entitled Renewing the Federal Government-University Research Partnership for the 21st Century. Issued by the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), this timely report offers many promising approaches for remedying the current situation—promising, that is, if its action agenda actually leads to action.
The NSTC report re-emphasizes strongly the inseparability of research and education, and takes appropriate note of the overarching importance of integrity in the conduct of research. Of particular interest in the present context, the report deals openly with the impact of the government's cost-sharing policies and practices on the institutions doing the research. It offers a valuable point of departure for a much-needed re-examination of how to stabilize the terms of the federal-academic partnership, including the need to address current limitations on reimbursement of otherwise allowable research costs.
But if this excellent report is to avoid the fate of so many before it, the academic community is going to have to take some action. All too frequently in the past, reports like this one have had a brief moment in the sun, only to be given a quiet burial on the bottom shelf of a dusty bookcase. Unhappily, that seems to be the natural way of things—the default state, if you will.
This time could be different, though. I detect a growing understanding among policymakers of the need to shore up the partnership. More and more are coming to the realization that the major investments now being made in science, especially through the expanding NIH budget, will reap maximum benefits for society only if the academic side of the government-university research partnership has the capacity to take full advantage of the new scientific opportunities. The ability of academe to do so will be severely hampered if universities and medical schools are required to fund ever-increasing amounts of non-reimbursable “matching” funds as a condition for accepting the additional federal research support being made available.
Our challenge is to harness the growing awareness of this problem, and convince the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the NSTC itself to move forward on the report's recommendations.
If we keep the pressure on, perhaps this time we can make a difference!
