Better Accountability Procedures Needed in NSF and NIH Research Grant Systems.

Abstract

The National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) awarded $2.2 billion in fiscal year 1980 for the support of basic research at colleges and universities. Peer review (expert advice of selected researchers) is the primary component of the research grant scientific performance accountability systems used for selecting research proposals to be funded. GAO studied a random sample of NSF and NIH basic research grants, and found that the peer review and internal review systems are working reasonably well. Although the systems are basically the same at the two agencies, the procedures differ. GAO found that some of the NIH peer review procedures have advantages over those at NSF, but believes that changes are needed by both agencies to improve their scientific performance accountability systems. (Author)

Open PDF

Document Details

Document Type
Technical Report
Publication Date
Sep 30, 1981
Accession Number
ADA108393

Entities

Organizations

  • United States Government Accountability Office

Tags

Communities of Interest

  • Biomedical

DTIC Thesaurus Topics

  • Biological Sciences
  • Biomedical Research
  • Business Administration
  • Computer Science
  • Congress
  • Ecology
  • Experimental Design
  • Governments
  • Law
  • Money
  • National Governments
  • Scientific Research
  • Social Sciences
  • Statistics
  • United States
  • United States Government
  • Workload

Readers

  • Academic Conference Management
  • Clinical Trial Research.
  • Defense Acquisition Program Management