1200 New York Ave., NW Suite 550 Washington, DC 20005 202-408-7500 fax: 202-408-8184 www.aau.edu Boston University Brandeis University Brown University California Institute of Technology Carnegie Mellon University Case Western Reserve University Columbia University Cornell University Duke University Emory Univ
May 8, 2013 Honorable Lamar Smith Honorable Eddie Bernice Johnson Chairman Ranking Member Committee on Science and Technology Committee on Science and Technology House of Representatives House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Johnson: We are aware of
1 May 8, 2013 Honorable Lamar Smith Honorable Eddie Bernice Johnson Chairman Ranking Member Committee on Science, Space & Technology Committee on Science, Space & Technology House of Representatives House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Johnson: Thos
AAU APLU COGR Joint Letter on GRANT Act
The undersigned organizations write to urge you to continue to support the competitive scientific merit review process and oppose any legislative language or restrictions that would eliminate funding for specific peer-reviewed research grants supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
As representatives of U.S. science, engineering, and higher education organizations, we write to you in strong support for the federal research and development budget of the National Science Foundation (NSF), and its mission—created over 60 years ago—to advance research across a broad spectrum of disciplines, research that has fueled American economic growth for decades.
Brooks Hanson, Deputy Editor for Physical Sciences at Science magazine, introduces the session at the May 3 CFR meeting on the peer review process and its role in competitively awarded research.
Judy Verbeke, Acting Director for the Division of Biological Infrastructure at the National Science Foundation, describes the merit review process at NSF for participants at the May 3, 2011 meeting of the CFR.
Sally A. Amero, Review Policy Officer and Extramural Research Integrity Liaison Officer at the National Institutes of Health, describes the NIH peer review process at the May 3 meeting of the CFR.
A concise review of the history of NIH, particularly as it relates to funding, as well as the current structure and issues facing the agency.
Dear Dr. Burgoon: The Council on Governmental Relations (COGR) is an association of more that 175 research universities and their affiliated academic medical centers and research institutes. COGR concerns itself with the influence of federal regulations, policies, and practices on the performance of research conducted at its member institutions. The Association of American Universities (AAU) is an association of 60 leading public and private U.S. research institutions. AAU focuses on issues important to research intensive universities, such as funding for research, science policy issues, and graduate education.
The Association of American Universities strongly supports the principle that merit-reviewed competition is the best method of ensuring the quality and cost-effectiveness of federally sponsored research. AAU has always expressed concern that congressional or administration earmarking of federal research funds may reduce the capacity of federal agencies to support the most promising research and thereby impair the quality of our national research program.
On January 3, 2007, the President called on the Congress to enact earmark reform, including reducing the number and cost of earmarks by at least half. To provide a transparent baseline from which the cut-in-half goal will be measured, agencies will be required to:
June 14, 2006 Presidents of Research Universities Support the American Competitiveness Initiative Now Being Considered By Congress We, the undersigned members of the Association of American Universities (AAU), support the President's American Competitiveness Initiative and believe that, if funded, it will add significa
One important factor in the success of America’s national research program is that federal funds for university-based research are primarily awarded through peer review, which allocates funding based on informed judgments of the merit of competing research proposals. AAU has long held that such merit-reviewed competition is the best method of ensuring the quality and cost-effectiveness of federally sponsored research.
Dear Representative: We write to urge you to vote against any amendment to the House FY2006 Labor/HHS/Education Appropriations bill (H.R. 3010) that would eliminate funding for specific research grants supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). We understand that such an amendment might be offered by Rep. Randy Neugebauer.
Dear Dr. Schwab: The Association of American Universities (AAU) appreciates this opportunity to offer comments on the Revised Information Quality Bulletin on Peer Review, released by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on April 15. The AAU submitted comments in December 2003 on the Proposed Bulletin as it was originally released.
Dear Dr. Schwab: The Association of American Universities (AAU) and the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC) jointly submit these comments on behalf of this nation’s leading public and private research universities. We join with the OMB in reaffirming the indispensable role of the peer review process in science and academia. Scientific peer review is the foundation upon which the American scientific research enterprise is built. In addition, we fully support the use of peer review in the process of developing effective federal regulatory policy.
View more articles about this topic in our archives
1200 New York Ave, NW, Suite 550 | Washington, DC 20005Phone: 202.408.7500 | Fax: 202.408.8184
Home | About AAU | University Research & Graduate Education | News Room | Budget & Appropriations
Policy Issues | AAU Publications | Members Services | Sitemap | RSS Feeds | Contact | All Content © AAU 2013