Penny, When questions such at this have come to me, I respond by saying that such an approach is more likely to have the opposite effect. In other words, the presumption that power and politics can weigh in on the peer-review process for a specific application is an insult to that process and the integrity of the review. I explain that such an approach is more likely to frustrate and annoy and put the proposal in a negative light -- because as Charlie points out - it can make people sick. While I cannot comment on all of the agencies listed, I would be very opposed about using such an approach with NIH, NSF, NEH, NEA, and the EPA. I have not had experience with the other agencies listed. Donna Berger, Ph.D. Coordinator, Academic Grants Marist College Phone: 845-575-3670 |------------> | From: | |------------> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| |Theresa Defino <xxxxxx@AOL.COM> | >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| |------------> | To: | |------------> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| |xxxxxx@hrinet.org | >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| |------------> | Date: | |------------> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| |05/12/2010 05:39 PM | >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| |------------> | Subject: | |------------> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| |Re: [RESADM-L] Question on the advisability of lobbying in the context of peer-reviewed programs | >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| |------------> | Sent by: | |------------> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| |Research Administration List <xxxxxx@hrinet.org> | >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| Penny, here's the key point: On the other hand, in a time of tight resources, my administration understandably does not want to lose out because we’re not engaging in lobbying when others are. Are you sure this is happening? On specific grants to that agency? -----Original Message----- From: Charlie Hathaway <xxxxxx@AECOM.YU.EDU> To: xxxxxx@hrinet.org Sent: Wed, May 12, 2010 5:19 pm Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] Question on the advisability of lobbying in the context of peer-reviewed programs At the risk of confirming my naivete about political reality, but also striving to uphold what I believe remains fundamental to the way the government funds most research, especially because what we, as researcher administrators, do is tremendously important to American citizens who are deserving of improved health and cleaner air and just plain better knowledge, I have to say that the idea of elected representatives getting involved in the peer review process makes me sick. If they want to talk to agency heads and lobby for particular kinds of research, fine. But hands off systems that should be merit driven. We should consider some of the rhetoric coming out of the new coalition in the UK: "...new kind of government...the start of the new politics: diverse, plural, when politicians of different persuasions come together to overcome their differences in order to deliver a good government for the sake of the whole country." CH At 04:11 PM 5/12/2010, you wrote: Dear Colleagues, I have been asked by my President and her Cabinet to gather information from my colleagues around the country on the issue of lobbying in the context of federal peer-reviewed grant programs. Specifically, the question is whether there should be any hesitation to ask one’s legislative delegation to advocate on behalf of a specific grant application that the institution is submitting. This has sparked some debate for us. On the one hand, the elaborate peer review process in place at many federal agencies (like NSF or NIH) leads one (me!) to believe that lobbying has little place and to do so would risk annoying the program officer/scientific review administrator who is trying to coordinate a fair review. On the other hand, in a time of tight resources, my administration understandably does not want to lose out because we’re not engaging in lobbying when others are. To be clear, I’m not talking about going after earmarks. I’m talking about peer-reviewed programs (e.g., PI Jones is submitting an R01 application to NICHD for his research on child development, and wants to ask his Senator to put in a good word, write a letter, etc….). I’ve been asked to get some level of granularity on this for my administration. I’d appreciate any tally marks or comments you might provide into the table below (or in general). I realize this is not scientific…just trying to take the pulse regarding agencies for which you might have an opinion. I’d be happy to share back with the list what I find. Thanks (and sorry for the cross-posting to both lists), Penny Agency Lobbying not advisable Lobbying maybe OK Of course lobby! Other thoughts??? National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Science Foundation (NSF) National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) US Dept. of Agriculture (USDA) US Dept. of Labor US Dept. of Energy US Institute of Peace US Dept. of Defense Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ________________________________________ Penny J. Miceli, PhD, CRA Director, Office of Sponsored Projects & Research Keene State College Phone: 603-358-2427 Fax: 603-358-2939 xxxxxx@keene.edu www.keene.edu/grants Office Location: 115 Winchester Street Mailing Address: 229 Main Street Keene, NH 03435-3510 Why participate in Undergraduate Research/Creative Endeavors at KSC? Ask our students! ====================================================================== Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists") ====================================================================== ====================================================================== Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists") ====================================================================== ====================================================================== Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists") ====================================================================== ====================================================================== Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available via our web site at http://www.hrinet.org (click on "Listserv Lists") ======================================================================
