36 



iMi'K()\/\(, tiilai.I(h:ati()\ process/ 11 



Box 1.2 



Evaluation of FS&T Programs at the Department and Agency Leveu 



How It Might Work 



C^abinet secretaries or agency directors respond to presidential priorities and guidance. 

 The National Science and Technolog)' Council is a vehicle for coordinating cross-agencx' pro- 

 grams and assessing the adequacy of the entire FS&T budget. Budgets reflect federal fiscal 

 realities, the results of performance evaluations, and the recommendations of special labora- 

 tor>'-re\'iew commissions, and they allow for trade-offs to support new opportunities and new 

 mis.sions by closing out projects and laboratories with outmoded missions or poor evaluations. 



A response to the President's stated priorities from the director of the National Institutes 

 of Health and the .secretary of Health and Human Services, for example, miglit look like the 

 following: 



"Dear Mr (or .Ms.) President: 



"We recommend the termination of programs focused on A and the reduction of those 

 focused on B. following an external review. The savings from those closings and reductions 

 will total SXX million this year, but savings in future fiscal years will be larger, as shown in the 

 accompanying projection. We propose to reallocate $X of those savings to high-priority items 

 and emerging opportunities and problems. In response to your national priorities, we propose 

 to increase funding for research by $X on the causes of violence and interventions to prevent 

 it at the National Institute of Mental Health. In accord with your wishes to increase the na- 

 tional investment in the genetic origins of disease. $X million has been allocated, with SX 

 going to the National Outer for Human Cicnomc Research, and the remainder going to several 

 relevant institutes of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), as shown in the accompanying 

 chart. . . . 



"Since the time of initial budget planning, we have become aware of the alarming spread 

 of the alpha'\irus.a new infectious agent. The agent was identified by the rapid response of 

 investigators in the NIH intramural research program, working with the Centers for Disease 

 I (;ontr()l and Prevention in an international collaboration. We have used a fraction of the NIH 

 I discretionar\' account from the current fiscal xear to fund small grant supplements to .several 

 academic health centers, as well as several laboratories in the intramural program of the NIH. 

 1 (iiven tlie public health risk to the American people, we believe this is an urgent national 

 ! priorin. and NIH needs to mount a much larger and more permanent research program, in- 

 I eluding an extramural research effon to accompany our new intramural commitments. We 

 j request an additional SX million for this purpose. . . ." 



• Docs the allocation of budget reductions or increases recognize the highest- 

 piiorit) and highest-quality programs? Does it allow tor new initiatives'" 



• Does the agenc> s external scientific and technical advisory body agree with 

 the choices and priorities? 



• Are the procedures for evaluating qualir\ and mechanisms for using such 

 evaluations both .satisfactory? 



• Does the peer or competitive merit review process used in recommended 

 programs identif\ the best projects and performers, whether intramural or extramu- 

 ral? How is this demonstrated? 



