|
|
DOD Goes It Alone (For Now)
from zyn.com
By a vote of 68/29 the Senate has accepted the FY-2010
National Defense Conference Report which was approved by the
House on October 8. All that is needed is the Present's
signature which is expected shortly.
Although SBIR occupies only a few lines in this mammoth
1400+ page legislation (H.R. 2647), its inclusion insures
that the DoD SBIR/STTR and CPP will continue "as is" through
the end of fiscal year 2010 (September 30, 2010).
As reported previously, (
www.zyn.com/sbir/insider/sb-insider10-07-09.htm ) the
House and Senate Armed Services Committees (HASC & SASC)
took the unprecedented action of including SBIR
reauthorization language in their defense bill because they
were concerned over the lack of progress in SBIR
reauthorization by the House Small Business, House S&T, and
the Senate Small Business committees.
Originally the SASC's effort included the entire SBIR
reauthorization language of the Senate Small Business
Committee's bill (S.1233), thereby affecting all 11 agency
SBIR programs. However, in compromise with the HASC, the
SBIR language was narrowed to DoD only for a period of 14
years (later reduced to 1 year).
The House S&T and House Small Business Committees
strenuously objected to the inclusion of SBIR language in
Defense Authorization, but HASC stood its ground. It has
been suggested that House S&T subcommittee chair David Wu
(D-OR) helped to broker a compromise whereby the 14 year
reauthorization period was reduced to 1 year while the
relevant House and Senate SBIR conferees would try to pass a
respectable compromise SBIR reauthorization bill soon.
In the mean time you DoD SBIR folks should get ready for
DoD SBIR FY10.1 that should hit the streets November 12.
<back to top>
Ten Agency SBIR/STTR Programs Extended Through January 31, 2010
From zyn.com
As reported to you on Oct 26, Senators
Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME), chair and
ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business &
Entrepreneurship (SBE) were able to get the Senate to pass
S. 1929 that extends SBIR/STTR for all agencies (except DoD
which was handled separately) for 6 months, expiring on
April 30, 2010. The bill was then sent to the House for a
vote.
Naturally, Representative Nydia
Velazquez (D-NY), chair of the House Small Business
Committee (SBC), didn't see eye to eye with the Senate, so
she amended the bill by changing 6 months to 3 with an
expiration date of January 31, 2010. With the short leash of
the current October 31, 2009 expiration, and the fact that
the House will not meet on Friday, the Senate will concur
with the amendment and the President will sign this new
Continuing Resolution (CR).
Bottom line, the SBIR/STTR programs will be extended
through January 31, 2010, except for the DoD which was
addressed separately by the Senate and House Armed Services
Committees, and run through September 30, 2010.
The House and Senate are still in conference trying to
reconcile differences in their bills in order to pass a true
SBIR reauthorization bill. All conferees are being tight
lipped about the progress but it is believed that they are
getting close to a compromise bill. The Senate's bill
originally contained several compromises on sensitive issues
while the House was closer to "my way or the highway."
Consequently progress on conferencing the two bills has been
very slow and tough, to the point where some question if
they can "get er done."
The Senate and House Armed Services Committees, lead by
Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) and Representative Ike Skelton
(D-MO), were not comfortable with the above scenario.
Realizing that the SBIR, STTR and CPP programs were of great
importance and benefit to the Department of Defense (DoD),
as well as many small businesses, Levin and Skelton took
matters into their own hands and worked together (with their
ranking members and committees) to extended the DoD
SBIR/STTR/CPP programs though the end of the fiscal year
(September 30, 2010). The vehicle used was the 2010 National
Defense Authorization Act, signed into law Wednesday,
October 28.
The Armed Services committees were aided and abetted by
the Senate SBE, while the House's SBC and S&T committees
cried "foul", sent letters to Skelton and whined to Pelosi.
Ultimately House S&T subcommittee David Wu (D-OR) worked out
a compromise and the 14 year DoD extension was reduced to 1
year. Kudos to Levin, Skelton, Landrieu and their staff for
their efforts. Oh yes, a "restrained nod" to Wu for trying
to be helpful in a difficult situation.
<back to top>
Grant Application Basics
from the National Institutes of Health
What Does NIH Look For?
NIH funds grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts that
support the advancement of fundamental knowledge about the
nature and behavior of living systems to meet the NIH mission of
extending healthy life and reducing the burdens of illness and
disability. While NIH awards many grants specifically for
research, we also provide grant opportunities that support
research-related activities, including: construction, training,
career development, conferences, resource grants and more.
We encourage:
Projects of High Scientific Caliber
NIH looks for grant proposals of high scientific caliber that
are relevant to public health needs and are within NIH Institute
and Center (IC) priorities. ICs highlight their research
priorities on their Web sites. Applicants may want to contact
the appropriate Institute or Center to discuss the relevancy
and/or focus of the proposed research before submitting an
application. NIH also has a number of broad NIH-wide initiatives
that may be of interest.
Investigator-Initiated Research
NIH strongly encourages investigator-initiated research across
the spectrum of our mission. We issue hundreds of funding
opportunity announcements (FOAs) in the form of Program
Announcements (PAs) and requests for applications (RFAs) to
stimulate research in particular areas of science. Some
PAs, called “Parent Announcements,”
span the breadth of the NIH mission in order to ensure we have a
way to capture “unsolicited” applications that do not fall
within the scope of targeted announcements. The majority
of NIH applications are submitted in response to parent
announcements.
Unique Research Projects
Projects must be unique. By law, NIH cannot support a project
already funded or pay for research that has already been done.
Although you may not send the same application to more than one
Public Health Service (PHS) agency at the same time, you can
apply to an organization outside the PHS with the same
application. If the project gets funded by another organization,
however, it cannot be funded by NIH as well.
Who Is Eligible for an NIH Grant?
Each type of NIH grant program has its own set of eligibility
requirements. Applicants can find eligibility information
in section III of each funding opportunity announcement (FOA).
While the principal investigator (PI) conceives and writes the
application, NIH recognizes the applicant institution as the
grantee for most grant types.
Individual Eligibility:
NIH supports scientists at various stages in their careers, from
pre-doctoral students on research training grants to
investigators with extensive experience who run large research
centers. NIH is committed to supporting new and early stage
investigators (ESI). Reviewers give new and early stage
investigators special consideration, and NIH has programs
targeted specifically for these populations.
Generally, PIs and other personnel supported by NIH research
grants are not required to be U.S. citizens; however, some NIH
programs/mechanisms have a citizenship requirement. Any
citizenship requirement will be stated in the program
announcement (PA) or request for applications (RFA).
Institutional Eligibility:
In general, domestic or foreign, public or private, non-profit
or for-profit organizations are eligible to receive NIH grants.
NIH may limit eligibility for certain types of programs, such as
limitations on the participation of foreign entities or programs
for which only small businesses are eligible applicants.
Foreign Eligibility:
In general, foreign institutions and international
organizations, including public or private non-profit or
for-profit organizations, are eligible to apply for research
project grants. Foreign institutions and international
organizations are not eligible to apply for Kirschstein-NRSA
institutional research training grants, program project grants,
center grants, resource grants, SBIR/STTR grants, or
construction grants. However, some activity codes, such as
program project grants (P01), may support projects awarded to a
domestic institution with a foreign component. For purposes of
this policy, a “foreign component” is defined as performance of
any significant element or segment of the project outside the
United States (U.S.) either by the grantee or by a researcher
employed by a foreign institution, whether or not grant funds
are expended. Proposed research should provide special
opportunities for furthering research programs through the use
of unusual talent, resources, populations, or environmental
conditions in other countries that are not readily available in
the U.S. or that augment existing U.S. resources.
Foreign applicants are strongly encouraged to review the
Eligibility section of the Funding Opportunity Announcement
(FOA) to determine whether their non-domestic (non-U.S.) entity
(foreign organization) is eligible to respond to that particular
FOA. Additional information on grants to foreign institutions,
international organizations and domestic grants with foreign
components is found in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
<back to top>
Grant applications swamp NIH
From SPIE.com
The US National Institutes of Health, already groaning under the
weight of grant applications brought on by a $10.4-billion
economic stimulus package, is likely to be inundated with a
second tidal wave of applications this autumn that would send
success rates plummeting, agency officials predict.
The flood of applications for Challenge Grants, a new category
created by the stimulus funds, means that the success rate will
probably be less than 1%.
The agency is already reviewing more than 40,000
investigator-initiated applications; in a typical June review
round, that figure would be 16,000. The NIH normally uses around
8,000 reviewers; it is now up to about 30,000.
<back to top>
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: Saving and
Creating Jobs and Reforming Education
From
www.ed.gov
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)
provides approximately $100 billion for education, creating a
historic opportunity to save hundreds of thousands of jobs,
support states and school districts, and advance reforms and
improvements that will create long-lasting results for our
students and our nation including early learning, K-12, and
post-secondary education. This document describes the principles
and strategy that will guide the distribution and implementation
of the ARRA funds appropriated to the U.S. Department of
Education.
Accompanying
documents provide initial guidelines for three components of
ARRA education funding: the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund
(SFSF), Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (Title I), and the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B. Separately, we
will issue guidelines on other ARRA funds as they are
developed. The Department will periodically provide updated
information at
www.ed.gov.
Principles: The overall goals of the
ARRA are to stimulate the economy in the short term and
invest in education and other essential public services to
ensure the long-term economic health of our nation. The success
of the education part of the ARRA will depend on the
shared commitment and responsibility of students, parents,
teachers, principals, superintendents, education boards, college
presidents, state school chiefs, governors, local officials, and
federal officials. Collectively, we must advance ARRA's
short-term economic goals by investing quickly, and we must
support ARRA's long-term economic goals by investing
wisely, using these funds to strengthen education, drive
reforms, and improve results for students from early learning
through post-secondary education. Four principles guide the
distribution and use of ARRA funds:
-
Spend funds quickly to save and create jobs.
ARRA funds will be distributed quickly to states,
local educational agencies and other entities in order to
avert layoffs, create and save jobs and improve student
achievement. States and LEAs in turn are urged to move
rapidly to develop plans for using funds, consistent with
the law's reporting and accountability requirements, and to
promptly begin spending funds to help drive the nation's
economic recovery.
-
Improve student achievement through school
improvement and reform.
ARRA funds should be used to improve student
achievement. In addition, the SFSF provides funds to close
the achievement gap, help students from all backgrounds
achieve high standards, and address four specific areas that
are authorized under bipartisan education legislation –
including the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the
America Competes Act of 2007:
-
Making progress toward rigorous college- and
career-ready standards and high-quality assessments that
are valid and reliable for all students, including
English language learners and students with
disabilities;
-
Establishing pre-K-to college and career data systems
that track progress and foster continuous improvement;
-
Making improvements in teacher effectiveness and in the
equitable distribution of qualified teachers for all
students, particularly students who are most in need;
-
Providing intensive support and effective interventions
for the lowest-performing schools.
-
Ensure transparency, reporting and accountability.
To prevent fraud and abuse, support the most effective
uses of ARRA funds, and accurately measure and
track results, recipients must publicly report on how
funds are used. Due to the unprecedented scope and
importance of this investment, ARRA funds are
subject to additional and more rigorous reporting
requirements than normally apply to grant recipients.
-
Invest one-time ARRA funds thoughtfully to
minimize the "funding cliff." ARRA represents a
historic infusion of funds that is expected to be
temporary. Depending on the program, these funds are
available for only two to three years. These funds
should be invested in ways that do not result in
unsustainable continuing commitments after the funding
expires.
<back to top>
Building The Recovery
From Recovery.gov
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (Recovery Act) authorized the General Services
Administration’s (GSA) Public Building Service (PBS) to invest
$5.55 billion in federal public building projects. This includes
$4.5 billion to transform federal facilities into exemplary
high-performance green buildings, $750 million to renovate and
construct new federal offices and courthouses, and $300 million
to construct and renovate border stations. GSA recently
submitted
a list of proposed projects and cost estimates to Congress. Buildings were selected based on
the speed at which jobs could be created and the magnitude of
improved energy efficiency.
With 60 years’
experience and expertise in the building and real estate
industry, GSA is excited by this challenge to contribute to our
nation’s economic recovery, address strategic energy goals, and
reinvest in our public buildings. In a matter of months—once
approved, $1 billion worth of projects will be awarded in 120
days—funds will start flowing to all those in the building
industries: construction workers, electricians, plumbers, air
conditioning mechanics, carpenters, architects and engineers.
As an effective steward of the resources entrusted to
it, GSA is moving forward with speed tempered by its
responsibilities and its accountability to the American
taxpayer.
Projects
are funded in all 50 states and all contracts will be awarded
within the next two years.

Investing in its existing
facilities will reduce GSA’s backlog of needed repairs and
modernizations and increase the value of federal assets. The
most significant effect, however, might be the greatly-improved
energy efficiency and performance of these projects. For more
than 30 years, GSA has been an industry leader in the arena of
sustainability. This work will leverage that expertise, conserve
resources over the long-term, and yield inspiring models of
high-performance green design excellence. The projects funded by
the Recovery Act will also reduce our reliance on costly
operating leases by providing government-owned solutions for our
federal customers.
GSA/PBS is the landlord for the
civilian federal government. GSA/PBS manages 354 million square
feet of workspace for a million federal employees. This includes
8,600 government-owned and leased buildings in 2,200 American
communities. GSA/PBS helps preserve our past and define our
future as a steward of more than 480 historic properties.
GSA/PBS designs and builds award-winning courthouses, border
stations, federal office buildings, laboratories, and data
processing centers. Additionally, PBS:
-
Leases space;
-
Repairs, alters, and
renovates federal facilities;
-
Houses over 100 child
care centers;
-
Donates or sells real
estate for federal agencies;
-
Leads in energy
conservation, sustainability, recycling, and historic
preservation;
-
Commissions artwork
for new federal buildings and conserves a substantial
inventory of New Deal art.
The timeline of Recovery Act spending has
been a key issue in the debate and design of the Recovery Act
because of the elapsed time between when policy changes are
first proposed and actual spending begins to flow from enacted
changes. The chart below shows the projected time of state and
local-administered Recovery Act spending.

Over time, the programmatic focus of
Recovery Act spending will change. About two-thirds of Recovery
funds expected to be spent by states in the current 2009 fiscal
year will be health related, primarily temporary increases in
Medicaid FMAP funding. Health, education, and transportation is
estimated to account for approximately 90 percent of fiscal year
2009 Recovery Act funding for states and localities. However, by
fiscal year 2012, transportation will be the largest share of
state and local Recovery Act funding. Taken together,
transportation spending, along with investments in the community
development, energy, and environmental areas that are geared
more toward creating long-run economic growth opportunities will
represent approximately two-thirds of state and local Recovery
Act funding in 2012.
<back to top>
R &D
Budget and Policy Program
From AAAS
Federal Research Investments Continue to Decline in 2009 Budget
Although high-priority investments in physical sciences
research, weapons development, and human space exploration help
to keep the federal R&D outlook brighter than the bleak outlook
for domestic programs overall, the FY 2009 budget continues the
recent trends of declining federal support for research.
The federal investment in basic and applied research would fall
in real terms for the fifth year in a row if the FY 2009 budget
is enacted. Federal research did very well between 1998 and 2003
because of the campaign to double the budget of NIH, the largest
federal supporter of research. Other agencies also increased
their research investments in that time period because a string
of budget surpluses freed up resources for domestic
appropriations. But with the return of budget deficits in 2002
followed by restraints on domestic spending thereafter, growth
in research funding for NIH and other domestic agencies slowed
in 2004 and then reversed. At the same time, DOD research
support lagged as the Pentagon went to war in 2003 and shifted
resources away from research toward near-term projects, and NASA
research fell even within a stable R&D budget as it shifted
resources from research to development. As a result, federal
support for research is now in decline, with potential gains in
the physical sciences more than offset by eroding support for
biomedical research and other disciplines. The 2009 budget would
continue the downward slide in federal research funding and
leave the federal research portfolio 9.1 percent below the 2004
level in inflation-adjusted dollars.
Federal research investments are shrinking as a share of the
U.S. economy, just as other nations are increasing their
investments. As shown in the Figure below, the federal R&D
investment exceeded 1 percent of U.S. Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) until recently, buoyed by big increases in weapons
development, but is now declining sharply. Federal investments
in development, mostly in DOD, have held steady as a share of
the economy, but the federal research/GDP ratio is in free fall
down to a projected 0.38 percent in 2009, below the long-term
historical average of 0.4 percent after gains in the late 1990s.
Despite an increasingly technology-based economy and a growing
recognition among policymakers that federal research investments
are the seed corn for future technology-based innovations, the
U.S. government research investment has so far failed to match
the new realities despite the rallying points of innovation and
the American Competitiveness Initiative, and has also failed to
match the competition. Asian nations are dramatically increasing
their government research investments: both China and South
Korea, for example, are boosting government research by 10
percent or more annually.

<back to top>
R&D Spending is Highly Concentrated in a Small Number of States
From the National Science Foundation
Research
and development (R&D) expenditures in the United States are
highly concentrated in a small number of states. In 1998—the
most recent calendar year for which R&D data are available on a
state-by-state basis—the 20 highest ranking states in R&D
expenditures accounted for 85 percent of the U.S. total, while
the lowest 20 states accounted for only 4 percent. California,
at nearly $44 billion, had the highest level of R&D expenditures
in the Nation and accounted for one-fifth of the $215 billion
U.S. R&D total. California’s expenditures, plus those of the
five states in descending order with the next highest levels of
R&D spending—New York, Michigan, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and
Texas—accounted for nearly one-half of the entire national R&D
effort. And the top 10 states—adding, in descending order,
Illinois, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Maryland—accounted for
nearly two-thirds of the national R&D.
Among these top 10 states, California’s R&D effort exceeded, by
more than a factor of three, that of the next highest state, New
York, with $14 billion in R&D expenditures. After New York, R&D
levels declined incrementally to $8 billion for Maryland.
The leading ten Federal agencies that fund R&D reported a total
of $70 billion in Federal R&D obligations to all types of
performers in fiscal year (FY) 1998. California and Maryland
were the two largest recipients of total Federal R&D funds. The
Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) together provided 69 percent of this total.
Performers in California received 18 percent of DoD’s R&D
support, nearly three-fourths of it supporting industrial firms.
Maryland received 24 percent of HHS’ funding, almost
three-fourths of it for intramural activities at the National
Institutes of Health’s biomedical research facilities. In
addition to DoD, California was the recipient of more R&D funds
from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
and from the National Science Foundation (NSF) than any other
state. The main recipients in California of NASA R&D funding
were FFRDCs (most notably, its Jet Propulsion Laboratory) and
industrial firms. Ninety percent of NSF’s funding in California
was for universities and colleges. Maryland had the largest
share of any one Federal agency’s total R&D support, with 37
percent of the Department of Commerce’s R&D funds; nearly all of
this funding was for intramural research activities.
The NSF’s Division of Science Resources Studies (SRS) collects
and analyzes statistics on the geographic distribution of R&D
expenditures in the United States among the 50 states, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. These data are
categorized by type of performer (industry, Federal Government,
academia, FFRDCs, and other nonprofit organizations) and by
source of funds (industry, Federal Government, and academia).
The amounts of R&D funding from specific Federal agencies are
also provided. The most recent R&D data available by state are
for 1998. In that year, total R&D expenditures in the United
States were $227 billion, of which $215 billion could be
attributed to expenditures within individual states, with the
remainder falling under an undistributed, “other/unknown”
category. The statistics and discussion in this Data Brief refer
to state R&D levels in relation to the distributed total of $215
billion.
In addition to these state R&D statistics, SRS collects
state-specific data in its surveys of science and engineering
(S&E) personnel and institutions. These data and those assembled
from non-SRS sources (e.g., data on population, patents, and
GSP) are included in a set of 52 one-page S&E state profiles
available on the World Wide Web at
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/.
|
|