Managing BER Scientific Focus Area (SFA)
Programs
At the DOE National Laboratories
Purpose of the SFA Structure
Encourage, facilitate, and effectively manage integrative
and collaborative programs at the DOE National Laboratories to achieve
scientific research and solutions of the highest quality in support of BER strategic
goals.
Initial Setup of
National Laboratory Programs within BER
BER is improving the approach to funding research at the
National Laboratories. Rather than funding individual, single investigator projects,
BER will now fund integrated research programs at the National Laboratories. This
new approach is a recognition that the National Laboratories are structured for
conducting coordinated, team-oriented research in a manner that is distinct from,
but complementary to, research conducted via Financial Assistance (10 CFR Part
605) at other institutions such as Universities or the private sector.
BER’s SFA approach challenges the National Laboratories to build and sustain integrative team-oriented research programs based on their unique scientific capabilities and administrative resources to meet BER strategic goals. The intent is to take advantage of the National Laboratories’ distinctive strengths in conducting collaborative, coordinated and sustained research programs. With this shift National Laboratories will have more direct managerial control and responsibility over the research programs they develop. The National Laboratories will have considerable freedom to evaluate their current research portfolios and budgets to craft holistic, integrated programs that build on the strengths of each National Laboratory to meet BER strategic goals. The research performed within each SFA program must be more than a loose collection of individual projects directed by separate investigators. Rather, SFA programs must be coherent and cohesive programs that reflect coordination and collaboration among individual researchers and teams of investigators, across National Laboratory divisions and among others institutions, when applicable. Additionally, as BER’s strategic goals change, the National Laboratories will be expected to reconfigure programs to meet these changing research needs.
It will be the responsibility of the National Laboratories to craft and sustain an integrated SFA program. It will be the responsibility of BER Program Managers to provide clear goals and strategic guidance, both initial and ongoing, to enable the National Laboratories to build integrated and coherent research programs structured to meet BER strategic goals.
As a first step, and at BER’s discretion, SFA Program plans and SFA Science plans are solicited from National Laboratories that already have a significant funded presence within BER programs. BER will first ask for high-level Program plans (Appendix A) that outline the overall strategic scientific focus, research objective(s) and management structure of the proposed SFA program from each National Laboratory. The Program plan should contain a broad but concise view of the proposed research program and should be no more than 8 pages in length. Program plans are a high-level outline of a larger Science plan that may be submitted subsequently. The Program plan will be reviewed by BER program managers as part of a dialog between BER and the individual National Laboratories on how best to structure SFA programs to meet BER strategic goals. If agreement is reached between BER and a National Laboratory on an acceptable Program plan, the National Laboratory will be invited to submit a longer and more detailed Science plan which will be evaluated by peer review. The Science plan (see Appendix B) is a scientifically detailed version of the Program plan that addresses one of the BER SFAs listed below.
BER Scientific Focus
Areas
· Genomics: GTL Fundamental Science
Genomics: GTL has the mission goal of developing the science, technology, and knowledge base to harness microbial and plant systems for cost-effective renewable energy production, carbon sequestration, and environmental remediation. The Foundational Research activity supports fundamental research and technology development that underpins all microbial and plant research conducted in the Genomics: GTL program overall and in the GTL Bioenergy Research Centers. GTL Foundational Research also develops the robust computational infrastructure needed to understand, predict, and ultimately use the genomic potential, cellular responses, biological regulation, and behaviors of complex biological systems of interest to the DOE mission.
· Genomics: GTL – Biofuels
GTL biofuels research will
contribute towards biotechnology solutions for production of two biofuels:
hydrogen and ethanol. Hydrogen is the ultimate carbon-free energy carrier that
can be converted efficiently to energy in fuel cells with water as the only
chemical by-product. Cellulosic ethanol is a carbon-neutral fuel that can
already be used within today’s energy infrastructure. This activity supports innovative systems
biology research specifically directed towards scientific issues and challenges
unique to biological hydrogen and ethanol production.
· Low Dose Radiation
Low Dose Radiation Research focuses on determining health risks from exposures to low levels of ionizing radiation; information critical to adequately and appropriately protecting individuals, and to making more effective use of our national resources. Information developed in this program will provide a better scientific basis for making decisions with regard to remediating contaminated DOE sites and for determining acceptable levels of human health protection, both for cleanup workers and the public, in the most cost-effective manner.
· Ethical, Legal and Societal Issues (ELSI)
ELSI research focuses on Office of Science issues in bioenergy, synthetic biology, and nanotechnology, including exploration of, and communication of, the societal implications arising from these programs. The ecological and environmental impacts of nanoparticles (including nanotracers) resulting from nanotechnology applied to energy technologies will be studied.
·
Radiochemistry and Instrumentation
Imaging sciences supports fundamental imaging research, maintains core infrastructure for imaging research and development, including innovative imaging technology with respect to new radiochemistry and radiotracer methodologies for precise and dynamic metabolic imaging of biological organisms. This research will provide the capability to visualize plant and microbial metabolic networks and regulatory systems underlying cellular differentiation, specialization, and interactions with the environment.
· Environmental Remediation Sciences Research
Environmental remediation sciences research addresses questions of fundamental environmental remediation science at the interfaces of biology, chemistry, geology, and physics. The research provides the scientific foundation for the solution of key environmental challenges within DOE’s cleanup mission at scales ranging from molecular to the field-scale, including issues of fate and transport of contaminants in the environment; novel strategies for in situ remediation; and long-term monitoring of remediation strategies. The program funds research to: 1) understand the chemical nature of DOE-relevant contaminants; 2) understand the physical, chemical and biological processes that affect contaminant mobility in the subsurface; 3) detect the extent of contamination in the environment; 4) model and predict the mobility of contaminants in the subsurface, and; 5) devise remediation methods to remove or immobilize contaminants in the subsurface.
Climate Change Research:
Funding for BER's Climate Change Research is provided through four SFAs as described below. BER requests that National Laboratories with one or more SFA in Climate Change Research develop a single Climate Change Research Program plan (Appendix A) and a single Climate Change Research Science plan (Appendix B) that demonstrates integration within and across the individual Climate Change Research SFAs that comprise each National Laboratory's portfolio. These single Climate Change Research Program and Science plans should describe the National Laboratory's theme and approach to climate change research as a system. Individual SFA's should be included as parts of integrated research activities within the National Laboratory's overall plan that apply the resources and capabilities of each National Laboratory to Climate Change Research.
In future triennial reviews (Appendix E) BER will conduct a single integrated review of the Climate Change research program at each National Laboratory. For purposes of SFA program development, the Division Director for Climate and Environmental Sciences will be the overall point of contact for National Laboratories with Climate Change Research programs. Technical questions specific to a given SFA should be directed to the BER Program Manager identified for each SFA.
Climate Change Research SFAs:
· Climate Change Forcing
Climate forcing research leads to
understanding and quantification of natural and human-induced forcing and
feedbacks of the climate system and the processes that affect such forcing and
feedbacks, including the role of clouds, water vapor, aerosols, and carbon
cycling. This includes process models and test-bed applications to transfer the
knowledge to the coupled modeling research.
· Climate Change Modeling
Climate change modeling research
leads to the development, testing and application of fully coupled climate and
Earth system models needed to project the likely response of the climate system
to natural and human-induced climate forcing.
· Climate Change Response
Climate change response research leads to the understanding
and ability to predict the response of ecological and human systems to ongoing
and projected future changes in climate and atmospheric composition associated
with energy production.
· Climate Change Mitigation
Climate change mitigation research leads to the development of potential strategies or technologies for modifying or managing terrestrial systems to enhance their carbon sequestration capacity.
This document addresses the setup and management of SFA-based research programs at the National Laboratories. Not all BER-funded research is part of an SFA. BER user facilities and Bioenergy Research Centers are not considered SFAs since they already have well defined processes and criteria for review and funding.
Science plans prepared for BER will be reviewed by a panel of experts. Review criteria and potential outcomes of the review process for Science plans submitted to BER are described in Appendix C. Funding of SFA Science plans is dependent on the results of the peer review process. A timetable for SFA actions and due dates for preparing Program Plans and Science plans are found in the table below.
Oversight of BER National
Laboratory Programs
Under this new funding approach National Laboratories are challenged to craft and sustain science programs of the highest quality that meet BER strategic goals. BER is responsible for providing oversight of National Laboratory management of BER programs and coordinating the Academic and Private Sector components of BER programs with the science being conducted at the National Laboratories. In this oversight role BER will require, at a minimum, formal annual program management and performance reporting for each SFA at a National Laboratory and formal triennial scientific and program management reviews of each SFA at a National Laboratory. The general content of these management reports and the structure of the triennial reviews are outlined below.
Annual SFA Program Management
and Performance Reporting
BER will annually require National Laboratories to provide a report on the status of each SFA program. The intent of the annual reporting is to provide BER with information on SFA program progress and to foster formal communication between the National Laboratories and BER Program Managers on SFA program status and plans. This annual report will provide documentation of program progress, management, budget allocation, communication and program evolution for each SFA at each National Laboratory. The report should be submitted to the identified BER Program Manager for each National Laboratory SFA program. A detailed description of the annual report is provided in Appendix D.
Triennial Scientific
and Program Management Review of BER SFA Programs
Scientific and program management review of SFA programs will be an important element of BER oversight of National Laboratory SFA programs. At a minimum, individual National Laboratory SFA programs will be reviewed by on-site review panels composed of external reviewers once every three years. Local DOE site office personnel will be invited to attend the review. Panelists will review revised Science plans for future work submitted to BER by each National Laboratory SFA program. Panelists also will review progress of SFA research at the National Laboratory and overall program vision as presented by SFA program management and technical staff at the on-site review. Additionally, since a team-oriented approach to science will be a defining feature of National Laboratory research, review panels will evaluate the integration and cohesiveness of the SFA program. BER will rely primarily on the assessment of external reviewers to gauge scientific quality, relevance, cohesiveness, progress and the appropriateness of future directions for the science conducted within the SFA program. BER will review relevance to BER needs. A general structure for the triennial review and review criteria are in Appendix E.
Timing of Triennial Scientific
and Program Management Reviews
Triennial reviews will be scheduled to provide sufficient time for BER to review the results of the reviews and prepare any funding adjustments in time for the next fiscal year.
Triennial Scientific
and Program Management Review Outcomes
The National Laboratories are challenged to develop integrative, scientific programs of the highest quality to meet BER’s strategic goals. The triennial review by external reviewers is the primary mechanism whereby BER will gauge the scientific performance of National Laboratory programs and adjust program funding. Budgetary outcomes resulting from a triennial review include:
1) Increase in program budget
2) Continuation of program within current budget
3) Redirected effort within budget
4) Decrease in budget (up to program elimination)
BER program management decisions regarding adjusted funding levels resulting from triennial reviews will be communicated to the National Laboratories upon notification of the review outcomes to the National Laboratories. The timing of the implementation of adjusted funding levels to an SFA programs is at the discretion of BER.
Outlook for BER Science within National Laboratory SFA
Programs
The BER management and review process is intended to challenge the National Laboratories to craft and sustain integrative science programs of the highest caliber in support of BER strategic goals. By relying on a formal external review process for not only “standing up” National Laboratory programs under this new funding approach but also for managing National Laboratory SFA programs in a consistent manner, BER intends to foster an environment at the National Laboratories that encourages high quality science in an integrative, team-oriented manner. Additionally, with these changes, BER will have a more uniform set of procedures to document scientific progress, review outcomes, and track overall National Laboratory program management. These procedures are key to fostering cohesiveness within BER and improving communication of BER science and accomplishments within SC, DOE, and the larger scientific community.
Appendix A
Scientific
Focus Area (SFA) Program Plan Guidelines
The purpose of this section is to provide general information for developing SFA Program plans for BER programs at the National Laboratories.
Program Plan
The purpose of an
The Program plan will be reviewed by BER program managers as part of a dialog between BER and the individual National Laboratories on how best to structure SFA programs to meet BER strategic goals. If agreement is reached between BER and a National Laboratory on an acceptable Program plan, the National Laboratory will be invited to submit a longer and more detailed Science plan which will describe the research to be performed over the next three years.
Program plans should include the following elements:
1. Title, National Laboratory, Laboratory Research Manager and Technical Co-Managers (if applicable)
2. The BER SFA being addressed
3. Overall research objectives and hypotheses.
4. Overall approach to accomplishing the research objectives and investigating the hypotheses.
a. Proposed program milestones over the next three years.
5. Key personnel involved in the SFA program
6. Organizational structure for the SFA program
7. Proposed management plan to ensure program integration and coordination.
Program plans are essentially white papers describing the overall elements of a proposed SFA research program. National Laboratories that have been asked by BER to prepare Program plans are encouraged to meet with BER Program Managers to discuss these plans and ensure that both parties understand and agree on the essential components of the proposed SFA programs.
Appendix B
Scientific
Focus Area (SFA) Science Plan Guidelines
The purpose of this section is to provide general information for developing SFA Science plans for BER programs at the National Laboratories.
Science Plan
The purpose of an
The Science plan should:
identify the specific BER SFA that is being addressed, describe the SFA program research objectives, and indicate clearly how these objectives are designed to meet BER strategic goals,
define and describe the BER mission-relevant problem(s) that is (are) being addressed under the research objectives and identify critical knowledge gaps,
propose specific hypotheses (science questions) and approaches to resolve the knowledge gaps identified above,
describe datasets, as appropriate, to be utilized to test hypotheses,
emphasize, build on, and extend the Laboratory’s distinguishing capabilities relevant to the SFA,
emphasize and encourage interdisciplinary science, and
achieve synergy through collaboration (e.g., involve specialized expertise from Universities, institutes, industry, and other National Laboratories; and employ unique DOE user facilities).
Additionally, each SFA Science Plan should have clear long-term objective(s) with demonstrable annual milestones for the program over a three-year period. Progress toward the objective(s) should be tracked by the annual milestones.
Science Plan Format
The SFA Science Plan should include the following sections:
A. Abstract (limited to 250 words, must be stand alone and suitable for posting on BER websites, include title, National Laboratory and contact information of Laboratory Research Manager for the SFA and/or Technical Co-Managers [see below])
B. Executive Summary - include the long-term objective(s), the hypotheses (science questions) being tested, the proposed experimental design, and the names of all investigators and their affiliations (Approx. 3 pages, suitable for posting on BER websites)
C. Narrative (up to 40 pages or as specified by the relevant BER program manager)
1. Background and Justification
2. Progress (since the last triennial review – up to 10 pgs. This does not count towards the narrative page limit)
3. Research Plan
4. Management and Team Integration
5. Personnel
6. Facilities and Resources (including capital equipment needs over the next 3 years)
D. Bibliography
E. Budget
F. Budget justification
G. Curriculum vitae (2 pages maximum) for each key investigator.
H. Listing of all proposed external collaborations.
Curriculum vitae should be submitted in a standard format. Inclusion of additional material should be discussed with the relevant BER program manager before the plan is submitted. Items A, B, D, E, F, G and H do not count towards the 40 page limit.
Background and
Justification
This section provides a description of the specific BER strategic goals that will be the focus within the SFA program, the knowledge (or data) gaps that prevent advancement in these areas, and the anticipated impact of scientific advances in these areas on DOE’s mission(s).
Progress
(since the last triennial review)
Labs should provide a concise summary on scientific progress since the last SFA review.
Research Plan
This section will present the overall program objectives, research approach, and expected milestones. This section should describe specific DOE problems and plans to advance basic science in ways that help to resolve those problems. The research plan could be supported by one or more Tasks (depending on the lab and the size of its program). A clear connection should be made between the overall objective(s) of the National Laboratory’s SFA and the supporting Tasks. For the purposes of the Science plan, each Task should be described briefly (emphasizing the role it plays in the overall SFA).
Management and Team Integration
An overview of the organizational structure should be provided. This should include where the SFA program
resides within the National Laboratory organization (e.g. is it within a
department, or shared among departments?) and the leadership structure of the
A staffing and organizational structure chart for the overall SFA should be provided. Each National Laboratory is expected to name a Laboratory Research Manager for each SFA program. In some cases, National Laboratories may also name a Technical Co-Manager; however, the designated Laboratory Research Manager is expected to have overall responsibility for the SFA program. If the National Laboratory proposes co-managed leadership, the responsibilities of and relation between these two positions should be specified.
National Laboratory
Personnel
The National Laboratory should also detail the capabilities of the key
staff involved in the SFA program and/or if additional expertise is necessary
to carry out specific tasks. The National Laboratory should delineate the
anticipated time commitment for all proposed staff (i.e., percent
Facilities and Resources
Each National Laboratory should describe their capability to provide
appropriate types of major analytical instrumentation and facilities to support
the fundamental research activities proposed to be conducted within the Science
plan. Specifically, a description of major analytical and computational
capabilities and the existing physical infrastructure is requested. Particular attention should be given to
unique capabilities that distinguish the National Laboratory (e.g., national
scientific user facilities, specialized computing clusters) and how those
capabilities will be incorporated into the
National Laboratory resources that are associated with this Science plan
also should be described. This could
include, for example, LDRD initiatives, infrastructure rehabilitation/upgrades
to accommodate
Bibliography
It is expected that all Science plans, similar to any science proposal to BER, will be well grounded in the most currently available scientific literature and relevant general knowledge. Pages devoted to listing bibliographic references are exclusive of the narrative page limit.
Budget and
Budget Justification
The
· staff salaries and benefits,
· travel,
· materials and supplies,
· computational costs,
· subcontracts (e.g., universities or National Laboratories)
· indirect costs
Review of Science
Plans
Science plans prepared by National Laboratories will be
submitted to BER for review by an external panel of experts. The criteria used
by panelists to evaluate submitted Science plans are outlined below.
Appendix C
SCIENCE PLAN MERIT REVIEW CRITERIA
Review of BER National Laboratory
Science Plans
National Laboratory Science plans will be evaluated by external panelists using the criteria set forth below. Reviewers should have a clear understanding of the BER SFA being addressed by the Science plan before reviewing the Science plan. Brief descriptions of each SFA are provided in the introductory material of this document. Included within each review criterion listed below are the detailed questions that reviewers should consider during the review.
1.
Does the Science plan
address the identified BER Scientific Focus Area (SFA)?
§
Does the Science plan
identify critical knowledge gaps within the scientific focus area that the
proposed research will address?
§
Will filling these
knowledge gaps make a significant contribution toward meeting the BER goal(s)
of this scientific focus area?
§
Are the science
questions or hypotheses well posed?
§
Will the proposed
research have a significant effect on the scientific discipline and does it
have the potential to make contributions outside the immediate research
topic(s)?
§
Is the proposed
research innovative? Unique to the National Laboratory?
2. Appropriateness of the proposed methods or approaches.
§
Are the proposed
research methods (or approaches) appropriate to answering the science questions?
§
Are there critical
weaknesses in the proposed methods (or approaches)?
§
If applicable, does
the Science plan seek to make use of the advanced/unique capabilities of the National
Laboratory’s user facilities?
3. Management and performance documentation.
§
Is there a sound
management strategy for coordinating the research within the larger SFA
program?
§
Is there a clear
organizational structure? If so, how well does it align with the proposed
research efforts?
§
Are performance indicators
evident in the Science plan that would enable management to communicate the
scientific and budgetary (FTEs, personnel, shifts in funding within the program,
new hires, publications, etc.) status of the program?
4. Competency of the program personnel and adequacy of the
proposed resources
§
Do the program’s key research
personnel have a proven record of scientific research (and research management)
in the disciplines needed for success in this program?
§
Does the program staff
have a proven record of scientific experience and expertise in the research disciplines
required for program success?
§
Does the Science plan
include appropriate external collaborations with University, other National Laboratories,
or private industry researchers?
§
Does the National Laboratory
have the required major instrumentation and/or facilities needed to
successfully carry out the research indentified in the Science plan?
§
If applicable, is there
a plan for recruiting additional scientific and technical personnel?
§
Is there a plan for
scientific and managerial succession?
Are there mechanisms for turnover of staff both to insure “fresh blood”
in the program, but also to alter staffing as research directions evolve over
time?
5. Reasonableness and appropriateness of the proposed
budget
§
Is the proposed budget
(and staff time) consistent with and appropriate for the proposed research?
§
Are there components
of the program where the budget could be modified (increase or decrease) based
on a modification in the scope of research identified in criteria 1 - 2?
6. To what extent does the Science plan demonstrate a
team-oriented, collaborative program that takes advantage of the unique
scientific capabilities and administrative resources
of the National Laboratory?
Criteria 1-5 are largely designed to
evaluate the scientific and technical merit of the
proposed research program. In addition, National Laboratory SFA programs must
be distinguished from large versions of their university counterparts. The National Laboratories have been
challenged to develop integrative research programs
that are greater than the sum of their parts. Please assess whether the Science plan demonstrates a fully integrative
program or simply a collection of individual
projects.
§
Is it evident that
scientific staff within the program communicate and coordinate research results
among each other? Does SFA management facilitate this communication and
coordination?
§
Does the scientific
output of the program appear to be directed towards attaining results that are
greater than the sum of individual research contributions?
§
Does SFA management
proactively manage overall program direction towards an integrated scientific
goal?
§
Do individual PIs
within the program take the initiative to contribute to a larger integrated
scientific goal?
Reviewers will evaluate National Laboratory Science plans and assign the following adjectival and/or numerical rating:
Descriptor Definition
EXCELLENT [9-10] The
proposed Science plan and overall SFA program are very likely to produce
BER-relevant science of the highest quality over the next 3+ years; the plan
addresses key knowledge gaps in the indicated scientific areas and has readily
understandable and scientifically relevant goals, milestones and/or major
research questions; the team members are of the highest caliber of researchers
in the field; the program has a very effective management structure and, highly
motivated and collaborative scientific staff; the program clearly demonstrates
a fully integrated, team-oriented approach towards advancing the proposed
science under the indicated SFA. No significant weaknesses.
VERY GOOD [7-8] The
proposed Science plan and overall SFA program are likely to produce
BER-relevant science of the highest quality over the next 3 years; the plan
addresses key knowledge gaps in the indicated scientific areas and has understandable
and scientifically relevant goals, milestones and/or major research questions;
the team members are high caliber researchers within the field; the program has
an effective management structure and, motivated and collaborative scientific
staff; the program demonstrates a fully integrated, team-oriented approach
towards advancing the proposed science under the indicated SFA. There are a few
notable minor weaknesses but no significant weaknesses.
GOOD [5-6] The
proposed Science plan and overall SFA program may produce BER-relevant science
of the highest quality over the next 3 years; the plan addresses identified
knowledge gaps in the indicated scientific areas, but the significance of the
identified knowledge gaps is questionable; the plan has understandable goals,
milestones and/or major research questions, but again the relevance is
questionable; the team members are quality researchers within the field; the
program has a management structure, but it is not clear how management and the
scientific staff interact; the scientific staff appear motivated and
collaborative, but the research focus of the program appears uncoordinated; the
program is a less than fully integrated, team-oriented approach towards
advancing the proposed science under the indicated SFA. There are several minor
weaknesses and some significant weaknesses.
POOR [0-4] The
proposed Science plan and overall SFA program are of questionable relevance to
BER and therefore may not produce BER-relevant science of the highest quality; the
identified knowledge gaps are questionable and the overall focus is scientifically
lacking in one or more significant areas; the goals and milestones are not
clearly defined; there is little program integration or coordination among the
scientific staff towards advancing the proposed science under the indicated
SFA. There are numerous minor weaknesses and several significant identified
weaknesses in the program.
Merit Review Results and Recommendations
Reviewers will be asked to identify specific areas within the program requiring revision and/or omission and/or added program emphasis. Reviewers will provide detailed comments to justify their recommendation(s). Based on the results of the merit review process BER will either Accept, Accept with Revisions, Partially Accept or Reject the Science plan as follows:
<