[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 160 (Thursday, August 20, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42126-42128]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19930]
[[Page 42126]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Responsible Conduct of Research
AGENCY: National Science Foundation (NSF).
ACTION: NSF's Implementation of Section 7009 of the America COMPETES
Act.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) is announcing its
implementation of Section 7009 of the America Creating Opportunities to
Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science
(COMPETES) Act (42 U.S.C. 1862o-1). This section of the Act requires
that ``each institution that applies for financial assistance from the
Foundation for science and engineering research or education describe
in its grant proposal a plan to provide appropriate training and
oversight in the responsible and ethical conduct of research to
undergraduate students, graduate students, and postdoctoral researchers
participating in the proposed research project.''
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The responsible and ethical conduct of
research (RCR) is critical for excellence, as well as public trust, in
science and engineering. Consequently, education in RCR is considered
essential in the preparation of future scientists and engineers. The
COMPETES Act focuses public attention on the importance of the national
research community's enduring commitment and broader efforts to provide
RCR training as an integral part of the preparation and long-term
professional development of current and future generations of
scientists and engineers. A wide array of information exists to help
inform RCR training. For example, many professional societies as well
as governmental licensing authorities for professional scientists and
engineers have adopted policies or best practices that might be
usefully considered. In addition, research is illuminating existing
practices surrounding ethical issues, and providing an evaluation of
pedagogical innovations in ethics education. A recent NSF-funded
workshop entitled ``Ethics Education: What's Been Learned? What Should
be Done?'' was held by the National Academies of Science & Engineering
(NAE). Information about the workshop, as well as additional resources,
are available at: http://www.nae.edu/nae/engethicscen.nsf/weblinks/NKAL-7LHM86?OpenDocument. The workshop report is available at the NAE's
Center for Engineering, Ethics and Society Web site: http://www.nae.edu/?ID=14646. NSF is committed to continue its funding of
research in this important area through programs such as Ethics
Education in Science and Engineering: http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=13338&org=SES&from=home and to promote the
development and implementation of effective practices through its
education and training programs. The Foundation also will continue to
explore other mechanisms to support the academic community's efforts in
providing RCR training.
Implementation Plan: Effective January 4, 2010, NSF will require
that, at the time of proposal submission to NSF, a proposing
institution's Authorized Organizational Representative certify that the
institution has a plan to provide appropriate training and oversight in
the responsible and ethical conduct of research to undergraduates,
graduate students, and postdoctoral researchers who will be supported
by NSF to conduct research. While training plans are not required to be
included in proposals submitted to NSF, institutions are advised that
they are subject to review upon request. NSF will formally implement
the new RCR requirement via an update to the NSF Proposal and Award
Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG). It is anticipated that the
revisions to the PAPPG will be issued on October 1, 2009. NSF also will
modify its standard award conditions to clearly stipulate that
institutions are responsible for verifying that undergraduate students,
graduate students, and postdoctoral researchers supported by NSF to
conduct research have received RCR training. In addition, NSF will
support the development of an on-line RCR resource containing research
findings, pedagogical materials, and promising practices regarding RCR
in science and engineering. The development and evolution of the
ongoing online RCR resource will be informed by the research
communities that NSF supports, and it will serve as a living resource
of multimedia materials that may be used to train current and future
generations of scientists and engineers in RCR.
Discussion of Comments: One hundred eighty-eight (188) comments
were received in response to the February 26, 2009 Federal Register
notice (74 FR 8818) requesting comments on NSF's proposed plan. The
comment request included a series of questions to help guide the
comments:
What challenges do institutions face in meeting the new
RCR requirement?
What role should Principal Investigators play in meeting
NSF's RCR requirement?
There are likely to be differences in the RCR plans that
institutions develop to respond to this new requirement. What are the
pros and cons of exploring a diversity of approaches?
How might online resources be most effective in assisting
with training students and postdocs in the responsible and ethical
conduct of research?
Discuss possible approaches to verifying that the
requisite RCR training has been provided.
Following the close of the comment period, NSF reviewed and
responded to the comments. A summary of the comments and NSF's
responses are below:
Comment 1: 22 comments were received noting general challenges that
institutions will face in providing education and training that meet
the needs of a diverse community.
Response: NSF recognizes that many issues must be considered in
developing effective content and training mechanisms and that
universities and research institutions will need flexibility to develop
and deliver effective training that is tailored to their student/
postdoc needs.
Comment 2: 19 respondents commented on the resource burden the RCR
training requirement will place on institutions. It was specifically
suggested that the 26 percent cap on Facilities and Administration
costs currently contained in OMB Circular A-21, Cost Principles for
Educational Institutions (2 CFR Part 220), be lifted. (See http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=c8bb5a0992df470805b85610c02e77ec&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title02/2cfr220_main_02.tpl.)
Response: The 26 percent cap is specified in OMB Circular A-21, and
NSF, therefore, does not have the authority or independent discretion
to change it.
NSF, however, has supported, and will continue to support, research
on RCR training to help inform the development of training programs
through programs such as Ethics Education in Science and Engineering.
NSF will also continue to promote the development and implementation of
effective practices through its education and training programs such as
the Integrative Graduate Research and Education Traineeship Program.
NSF has also funded two beta sites (NSF Award 0936857, http://www.umass.edu/sts/digitallibrary/, and NSF Award 0936865, http://
www.onlineethics.org/
[[Page 42127]]
CMS/about/UserGuide/18848.aspx) to begin to provide an interactive
community online resource on ethics education in science and
engineering. These beta sites will provide a foundation for an ongoing
on-line RCR resource in ethics education in science and engineering
that NSF plans to award through open competition. NSF will also
continue to explore other potential methods to support the academic
community's efforts in providing RCR training.
Comment 3: Three respondents inquired whether the institution was
permitted to include the costs associated with RCR training as direct
costs on NSF awards.
Response: Most institutions have included training expenses in
their Facilities and Administrative (F&A) rate pool and they therefore
cannot charge the costs directly to proposals/awards per OMB Circular
A-21, Section F, Identification and Assignment of F&A costs. This is
not a decision that program officials and principal investigator(s) can
make on a proposal-by-proposal basis. Rather, the cognizant agency and
institution must determine the treatment of these costs during the
process of negotiating the institution's indirect cost rate. These
costs effect the development and oversight of the Facilities and
Administrative (F&A) rate and must be in compliance with the OMB cost
principles. Accordingly, the institution must involve its cognizant
agency along with NSF in this decision and provide information of their
current policies and procedures along with its disclosed practices per
its Disclosure Statement.
Comment 4: 35 respondents requested clarity or provided input on
whether or not NSF should provide guidance on content for training in
responsible and ethical research conduct.
Response: NSF understands that some institutions would like NSF
guidance regarding appropriate content for training in RCR. However,
NSF does not intend to issue NSF-specified standards and recognizes
that training needs may vary depending on specific circumstances of
research or the needs of students intending to pursue careers in a
variety of science and engineering settings after completing their
education. Therefore, it is the responsibility of each institution to
determine both the content and the delivery method for the training
that will meet the institution's particular needs for RCR training in
all areas at that institution for which NSF provides support.
Furthermore, each institution must decide if development of content or
pedagogical method is required, or if appropriate content and training
can be provided from some existing sources or capabilities, and take
appropriate action to implement its decisions.
NSF does support the development of resources and forums for the
research community to discuss the most appropriate content in ethical
research training and to develop shared guidelines. For example, NSF
funded a workshop held at the National Academies of Science and
Engineering in August 2008 entitled, ``Ethics Education: What Have We
Learned? What Should be Done?'' The workshop report is available at the
NAE's Center for Engineering, Ethics and Society Web site: http://www.nae.edu/?ID=14646. NSF has also funded two beta sites (NSF Award
0936857, http://www.umass.edu/sts/digitallibrary/, and NSF Award
0936865, http://www.onlineethics.org/CMS/about/UserGuide/18848.aspx) to
begin to provide an interactive community location and searchable
clearinghouse of resources on ethics education in science and
engineering. These beta sites will provide a foundation for an ongoing
on-line RCR resource in ethics education in science and engineering
that NSF plans to award through open competition. These kinds of
resources give institutions places to find materials and standard
approaches to ethics education that research communities have already
developed.
Comment 5: Three comments noted the challenge with identifying and
tracking postdocs and students to receive RCR training and suggested
that for tracking purposes it would be easier to extend the training
requirement to all students.
Response: NSF is requiring RCR training and tracking only for those
postdocs and students who receive support to conduct research on NSF
grants. However, NSF recognizes that all student and postdocs would
benefit from RCR training and that institutions may decide to extend
the training beyond NSF-supported students and postdocs at their
discretion.
Comment 6: 24 respondents provided input in response to NSF's
question on the role of the Principal Investigators in meeting NSF's
RCR requirement.
Response: The institution is responsible for certification that the
RCR training plan is in place and verification that the students and
postdocs have completed the RCR training. The role of a PI in meeting
these institution responsibilities is determined by the institution.
Comment 7: One respondent noted that NSF should encourage PIs to
include RCR training in annual and final reports.
Response: NSF will not require PIs to report on RCR training in
annual and final reports because the requirement for verifying training
will be part of the standard award conditions and institutions will
decide how they will track completion of training.
Comment 8: 15 respondents noted that an NSF-supported online RCR
resource will be an invaluable resource for materials, research and
innovative teaching and delivery methods.
Response: NSF is supporting two beta sites that provide resources
on ethics education in science and engineering. These sites will serve
as a foundation for an open competition for an ongoing on-line RCR
resource on ethics education in science and engineering. This resource
has the potential to provide a centralized location for information
that can be used to help institutions and PIs meet their own particular
needs. The resource will contain information the community develops
including research findings, pedagogical materials, and promising
practices regarding the ethical and responsible conduct of research in
science and engineering. The development and evolution of the ongoing
on-line RCR resource will be informed by the research communities that
NSF supports, and will serve as a living resource of multimedia
materials that may be used to train current and future generations of
scientists and engineers.
Comment 9: 11 respondents noted that although online training
modules may teach rules, policies and guidelines, they should be
complemented by more interactive, mentored-discussion of ethical
principles and evaluation of case studies.
Response: It will be up to each institution to determine how best
to ensure effective and appropriate education in responsible research
practices.
NSF funds innovative research and education projects in ethics
education in science and engineering including the development of
resources and forums for the research community to discuss the most
appropriate content in ethical research training and to develop shared
guidelines. For example, NSF funded a workshop held at the national
Academies of Science and Engineering in August 2008 entitled, ``Ethics
Education: What Have We Learned? What Should be Done?'' The workshop
report is available at the NAE's Center for Engineering, Ethics and
Society's
[[Page 42128]]
Web site: http://www.nae.edu/?ID=14646.
Institutions are encouraged to visit the two beta sites NSF is
supporting that provide resources on ethics education in science and
engineering. These sites will serve as a foundation for an open
competition for an ongoing on-line RCR resource on ethics education in
science and engineering. This resource has the potential to provide a
centralized location for information that can be used to help
institutions and PIs meet their own particular needs. The resource will
contain whatever information resources the community chooses to develop
and share including research findings, pedagogical materials, and best
practices. It will be up to each institution and discipline to
determine how best to ensure effective and appropriate education in
responsible research practices.
Comment 10: Six respondents noted current online resources that
might be used with the online resource.
Response: NSF will forward the recommended resources to the on-line
resource beta-site for consideration.
Comment 11: 20 respondents either suggested that NSF allow
institutions to develop their own systems to track and verify the
delivery of the required training or provided potential approaches to
accomplish this.
Response: NSF recognizes that there are many ways to achieve the
training objectives of RCR, each with strengths and potential pitfalls.
NSF intends to allow institutions to meet the verification requirement
using appropriate systems of their choosing.
Comment 12: One commenter suggested that NSF's proposed
implementation plan will not be effective because it does not include
systems to mitigate against unethical behavior.
Response: We note that the National Science and Technology Council
has developed a Federal policy on research misconduct, which authorizes
agencies to impose administrative actions on those who engage in
research misconduct. See NSF's implementation at 45 CFR Part 689. The
NSF Office of the Inspector General investigates reports of research
misconduct and refers the results of their findings to NSF management
for appropriate action.
Institutions involved in international collaborations might find
materials provided by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) ``Research Integrity: preventing misconduct and
dealing with allegations'' useful. See: http://tinyurl.com/l76p3b.
Comment 13: Six comments suggested that reviewers of proposals and
other faculty members should be required to take RCR training. These
comments appear to be aimed at the issue of plagiarism when reviewing
proposals. Another commenter suggested that only Ph.D. students should
be required to take such training.
Response: Section 7009 of the COMPETES Act mandates that
institutions applying for financial assistance from the Foundation
provide such training for undergraduate students, graduate students,
and postdoctoral researchers participating in the proposed research
project. Thus, reviewers and other faculty members are not required to
take such training, although undergraduate and graduate students are
subject to such a requirement. As to faculty members, institutions, at
their discretion, may expand the scope of such training to include
other categories of individuals not covered by Section 7009 of the
COMPETES Act. As to reviewers, NSF has a longstanding policy of
providing guidance and instructions to our reviewer community on the
confidentiality of information, which includes plagiarism, contained in
proposals and the treatment of conflicts-of-interest.
Comment 14: Two respondents suggested alternate mechanisms for an
institution to inform NSF that it has an appropriate training plan. One
commenter suggested that NSF require investigators to include a short
summary of their institutions' training plans in the body of the
proposal. Another commenter suggested that, in lieu of an institution
providing a certification with each proposal, an institution should
only have to submit such a certification once and, NSF should simply
compile a list of institutions that have provided the requisite
certification.
Response: Although these alternative mechanisms have merit, NSF has
chosen the implementation approach that is consistent with how NSF has
had institutions certify their compliance with statutory requirements
such as Non-discrimination, Conflict of Interest, Drug Free Workplace,
etc.
Comment 15: One respondent recommended that NSF make the
development of conceptual models and practical assessment of the
effects of RCR education a research priority.
Response: Although not an explicit research priority, NSF may
support proposals that address these topics. For example, proposals for
the development of conceptual models and assessment methods for RCR may
be appropriate for submission to programs in the Directorate for
Education and Human Resources. Innovative research on ethics and values
in science and engineering may be appropriate for submission to
programs in the Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences Directorate.
NSF expects that such proposals would compete for resources along with
other important educational and research activities.
Comment 16: NSF received 19 general comments. These include: (a)
comments expressing support for the requirement or support for the
value of RCR training in general; and (b) comments not related to the
RCR requirement.
Response: These comments provide valuable perspectives on RCR
training. However, no NSF responses are needed for purposes of this
Federal Register Notice.
Dated: August 14, 2009.
Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation.
[FR Doc. E9-19930 Filed 8-19-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P