In what's becoming a frequent ritual, the National Science Foundation is again reconsidering its cost-sharing rules, this time in ways that could mean savings for universities.
The agency's policy-setting National Science Board has issued a report that recommends banning "voluntary" cost sharing, in which an institution that wins a grant agrees to pay some of the costs of conducting the research.
The National Science Board, in a report issued earlier this month, also urged the federal government to consider raising the limit, currently 26 percent, on the amount that universities can collect for administrative overhead costs related to a federal research grant.
And the board agreed in its report to allow some "mandatory" cost sharing with its grants, but only in a "limited" set of circumstances, often involving cases where the commitment of a university payment might encourage collaboration with an industry partner.
The National Science Foundation gets an annual budget of about $6-billion from the federal government, which it uses to support about 20 percent of all federally financed basic research at American universities. Its rules for cost sharing have been controversial, already producing at least three different sets of changes over the past decade.
The board said it wanted to end so-called voluntary cost sharing out of a concern that financial offers can give an advantage to research grant applications from larger and wealthier universities that may not be based on the quality of the science. Ending voluntary cost sharing and strictly limiting any instances where the grant requires a contribution from the university, the board said, "likely will enhance the ability of institutions to strategically and flexibly plan, invest in, and conduct research projects and programs, and will promote equity among grantee institutions in NSF funding competitions."
The National Science Foundation has no estimate of how quickly it will carry out the recommendations, said an agency spokeswoman, Dana Topousis. --Paul Basken
Comments
1. vseidita - September 01, 2009 at 10:40 am
I believe there is a factual issue with this article. Many institutions have negotiated Facilites and Adminstrative (F&A) rates greater than 26%. Rates muast be considered in combination with basis on which the rate is applied. Modified total direct cost (MTDC) is a commonly used basis. Since this issue is vitally important to research universities you need to be more clear when describing pending changes which would have such substantial finanical impact on so many institutions.
2. dastone - September 01, 2009 at 11:16 am
The 26% figure refers only to the "A" in "F&A." Currently, the government only allows universities 26% of MTDC to cover costs associated with Administration (as opposed to overhead items like heat, lights, and space). For years universities have been demonstrating to the government that their actual adminstrative costs, many of which are associated with additional compliance and reporting requirements, far exceeds the existing 26% cap.
3. rlegeai - September 01, 2009 at 11:18 am
The 26% figure is the limit that is allowed on the *administrative* portion of F&A. The sentence should have read "...consider raising the limit, currently 26 percent, on the amount that universities can collect for *administrative* overhead costs..." Considering the ever-increasing reporting and compliance costs that universities incur with federally funded research grants, it would be appropriate to consider raising the cap on administrative IDC.