NSF Committee of Visitors (COV) Report

1
NSF Committee of Visitors (COV) Report

• Review of Bioengineering and Environmental
  Sciences (BES) Division of the Engineering
  Directorate
• 2005

2
BES COV Meeting RosterFebruary 28 March 2, 2005

• Dr. Christine A. Kelley
• Director, Division of Discovery Science and
  Technology, NIBIB/NIH
• Dr. Manfred R. Koller
• President and CTO, Oncosis
• Dr. Hendrik Meerman
• Genencor International, Inc.
• Dr. Vincent G. Murphy
• Department of Chemical Engineering
• Colorado State University
• Dr. John T. Novak
• Civil and Environmental Engineering Deparment,
  Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
  University

• Chair Dr. Larry V. McIntire
• The Wallace H. Coulter Department
• of Biomedical Engineering at Georgia Institute
  of Technology and Emory University
• Vice Chair Dr. Debra S. Knopman
• RAND Science and Techology
• Dr. Gilda Barabino
• Department of Chemical Engineering
• Northeastern University
• Dr. Jacimaria R. Batista
• Civil and Environmental Engineering
• University of Nevada, Las Vegas

3
Overview

• From February 28 March 2, 2005, the COV read
  and evaluated 92 jackets containing proposal
  actions from 2002-2004.
• Oral presentations were given by the head of the
  Engineering Directorate, the Division Director
  and the Program Directors.
• The COV commends the Division for its effective
  and efficient processing of proposal reviews,
  which exceeded 70 less than six month dwell-time
  target in each of the three years of study.

4
Overview (contd)

• This is particularly impressive in light of the
  greatly increased numbers of proposals processed
  compared to the 2000-2002 time frame of the last
  COV report.
• Overall, the COV found the programs in the
  Division were doing extremely well in meeting
  stated goals and objectives the management of
  BES appears excellent.

5
Integrity and Efficiency of the Programs
Processes and Management

• Resulting Portfolio of Awards
• COVs concerns were (1) the limited size of
  awards relative to the actual scope and cost of
  performing research in the supported BES-related
  fields (2) the low funding success rate, which
  discourages some in BES-supported fields from
  seeking NSF support (3) requirement for
  significant research funds in addition to NSF
  funding in order for PIs to make significant
  progress towards the specific aims of the BES
  grant.
• Management of the Program Under Review
• Although overall management appears excellent,
  the BES average success rate for 2004 was 13
  while the ENG average was 15. To improve these
  low success rates, management should consider
  exploring mergers and consolidations within ENG
  and with units of other directorates.

6
Outputs and Outcomes of NSF Investments

• Outcome Goal for People
• BES support has contributed to numerous new
  patents and contributed to economic development
  through its support for researchers who have
  established companies based on their research
  outcomes.
• BES has contributed to the development of a
  diverse workforce through CAREER Awards to
  diverse faculty and support for outreach programs
  to diverse students.
• BES has supported the efforts of investigators in
  the promulgation of science and engineering
  through outreach activities in grade schools,
  high schools and the community at large.
• BES support has facilitated the establishment of
  international collaborators.

7
Outputs and Outcomes of NSF Investments

• Outcome Goal for Organizational Excellence
• The COV recommends additional practices that
  would lead to a more agile, innovative
  organization
• To further strengthen the Division, the COV
  strongly recommends that BES hire a permanent
  Division Director for sustained management and
  leadership.
• The success rate for proposals in BES is low and
  the budget is not projected to increase. The COV
  recommends that BES set focused priority research
  and educational ideas. Also, a strategic
  implementation plan should be developed with
  future goals that are focused and specific and a
  map with out-year budget projections for the
  various programs.

8
Outputs and Outcomes of NSF Investments

• Outcome Goal for Organizational Excellence
  (contd)
• There should be a clear relationship between the
  numerous WTEC study outcomes and the program
  priorities and program announcements in the
  Division.
• The BES should be more pro-active with the
  nanotechnology announcement so the funded
  proposals have higher relevance to the Division.
• The Division should seek partnerships with other
  federal agencies to help leverage NSF funds.

9
Additional Concerns

• The COV discussed extensively the relative
  weighting of the technical merit and broader
  impact criteria without coming to a definite
  conclusion.
• There was concern, however, that the metrics for
  progress in technical merit are utilized
  extensively (e.g. peer reviewed publications)
  methods for evaluation of progress in broader
  impact were less clear.