Division of Biology and Medicine - Summary of Findings

Page 1

DIVISION OF BIOIDGY AND MEDICINE I. Summary of Findings The Mvision of Biology and Medicine administers the Commission's program of research i n the biological, medical and en vi rom n tal fields, that is, the life sciences. The program i s being supported a t a level of about $6O,OOO,OOO during FY 1962. implemented by 17 "on-site" efforts in the National Iaboratoriee and i d University and other laboratories i n which the facilities are largely AEC owned, and by some 600 "off-site" contracts w i t h some 200 universities and research laboratories. Ihe on-site program accounts f o r about two-thirds of the total program cost; The program is The DEM is responsible f o r planning, developing and directing the t ration of the program is handled directly by the Division; nontechnical administration i s handled by the field offices. I n managing the on-site program, the DBM determines the projects to be pursued - their objectives, scope, and l e v e l of support to be devoted t o each. The laboratory management is looked-to t o provide the detailed planning and day-to-day direction of the work. Control of the on-site program i s primarily through the annual budget management process. devoted t o the on-site program. Roughly one-third of the DBM effort is Management of the off-site program consists in In it iaU y selectprojects from among unsolicited proposals, following the progresa of the work, and annually renewing (or terminating) existing progw i t h a view to continuing support as long as the work remains of interest to the DBM program. administration of the off-site program. "be procedures contain mandatory minimum requirements for internal AEC examination by several reviewing elements establlshed within the DBM; non-AEC review by scientific reviewers and consultants; annual technical reports and contract renewal proposals; visit8 and visit reporte. Strong emphasis is placed on making sound initial selectlam Formal procedures exist for the

Page 2

Review of the f i l e s indicated that these procedures are complied within large measure. Reviewing elements within the DBM are the ProJect Representative, the Program Category Team, which includes representatives of atleast three different DBM Branches, and the Research Committee, which i r composed of the entire rc is nti fic staff. The Research Committee serves as ELXI in s tmnt of the Director for assuring that the off - site program is conducted on a high scientific plane and i s coordinated vith the on-site program: it functions as a forum before which the Project Representatives' recommendations on proposals are debated and submitted for decision by member vote. About two-thirds of the Division effort ie devoted ThcDM staff of about 70 includes 29 who are technically trained and in charge of the program from the technical atandpoint. When the annual financial support f o r FY 1962 l e consideFtd in relation t o the technical staff below the level of the Director and hie Special Assistant, each ms~lis responsible f o r following em average of about $2,260,000 of the program effort. 3. Appraisal of Technical Performance - Off - Site Program a. Clarity with which responsibility for technical appraisal has been assigned. The DBM procedures governing the admlnlsstration of t h e off-site program provide for extensive review of renewal proposals, which include a technical report of past project work, for site visits and reports, and for outside review. While the procedures assure extensive review, . which in practice includes evaluation of past performance, the requirement for appraisal of technical performance is Implicit rather than explicit in these procedures. No specific requirement for appraisal of technical performance or any guidance as t o the nature or intensiveness of such appraisal performance have been issued apart from those implied in the No instructions regarding appraisal of technical b. Principal appraisal devices in use in DBM are: Review of reports. Review of publications. Attendance at scientific meetings, symposia, etc. Other direct contacts .Review by the DBM Research CAt tee. Review by outside scientific reviewera (not reimbursed). &view by consultant8 or a cie nti fic advteory cdt tees.

Page 3

d . Extent to which results of appraisal activity are recorded. Results of reviews of renewal proposals by the Project Representative and Program Category Team are recorded on a standard tion is prepared by the EVoJect Representative following the above reviews. Visit reports are required by DBM procedures. All of the above become a pennanent part of the contract file. While the above records often reflect that some appraisal of technical performance has been formulated by the writer, the comments and reports by and large do not contain clear s@'tements of appraisal results, describe the nature of the appraisal made, or cite the factors o r considerations which led to a particular conclusion. Outside reviewer's comments and recoannendations are submitted i n writing, and often contain forthright appraisals of past work. Except i n special circumstances, no appraisals i n addition to those associated with the renewal review and site visits are d. Relative dependence upon appraisal devices. DEM staff members pointed out that they feel the need of utilizing sll the techniques a t their command i n appraisiag contractor performance, and that it is difficult to rate one device over another since most have their own peculiar merits. However, w e t staff members were able t o single out the devices they must rely on most heavily. While opinions varied considerably most consider review site visits more important. proposal package and is reviewed as an integral part of the Extent to which results of appraisals are reported to higher levels of the chain of command. passed from the Project Representative and Branch Chief level t o the Research Committee, which includes the Assistant Directors of the Division i n its membership, via review-sheets, visit reports, and 200-word project summaries. Copies of visit reports are circulated among the Division staff. mere is no other vehicle or practice by which appraisal information is fomarded t o higher levels of the chain of command. reports and publications as more important: some consider Reports are of particular signifibecause the annual report i s usually a part of the renewal Appraisal information is f. Extent and frequency w i t h whlch appralsal infomation is brought together i n t o an over-all evaluation of contractor performance. In a limited sense, such an evaluation is w3.e a t the annual review of the contract when progress of the work over the entire history of the project is examined in order to p l n a perspective of the rate of progress and the total accomplishment.

Page 4

g. Extent to which criteria and other guides have been developed and putto use. adopted o r issued any guides or criteria for appraisal. A number of Individual staff members have developed or were able to 8%- gest some criteria or guides for technical appraisal. The DBM has neither officially nor informally 4. Appraisal of Technical Performance - On-Site Program Clarity with whlch responsibility for appraisal is assi&ned. There are no formal instructions regarding the appraisal of Principal appraisal devices employed are: Review of reports. Review of publications. budget Justification document submitted annually by AEC contractors. It contains statements of project obJectives, scope, past accomplishments and proposed work with Scientific meetings, symposia, etc. Other direct contacts. Review by outside consultants and scientific advisory committees .Iaboratory Program Mrectors a Meetings .Advisory Committee for Biology and Medicine Reviews. Extent to which appraisal Infomation I s recorded. Except for the requirement for visit reports, there are no requirements f o r the recording of appraisal infomation; and results of reviews of reports, publications and 189's are generally not comments, most do not; few reflect a deliberate attempt a t appraisal of performance during the visit. While some visit reports contain extensive appralsal Relative dependence upon appraisal devices. As In the off-site program, review of reports and publications and site visits are an important p a r t of technical appraisal. However, because the management process, review of the 189's IS also a very import a n t part of the appraisal of past perfoxmance. Extent to which appraisal information is forwarded t o hi@er levels in the chain of command. ?bere is no formal require-t o r vehicle for routine forwarding of appraisal infoxmation to

Page 5

higher levels in the chain of command. i t Is, except In special circ~m6ta,nces, informal and oral. f . Extent and frequency with which appraisal informetion is brought together Into an over-all evaluation o$ contractor performance. The nearest approach to this is.the site - visit - review by D M task forces or the ACBM. To the degree done, There is no DBM requirement for or regular g. Extent to which criteria or other &des have been developed and put to use. The DEN has neither offlclaXly or informally Issued any &des or criteria for appraisal of technical per-

Page 6

The inventory w a s made i n the Division of Biology and Medlcine during the period January 18, 1962, through April 6, 1962. of the Division of Inspection met w i t h the Director, DBM, the Assistant Director for Administration and the Chief of the Program Coordination Branch on January 18, 1962, to explain the nature and the purpose of the study. These discussions were confirmed i n a Division of Inspection memorandum dated January 25, 1962. ALSO, on January 25, 1962, T. Davin and D. Groelsema, briefed the DBM Research Committee on the inventory t o be conducted. I n the course of the study, the inspectors interviewed each of the assistant directors of the division, the branch chiefs, and several of the "working level" scientists. A list of the persons cont a c e d is sham in Appendix A. The investigators also reviewed samples of the DBM files. Some of the proJect files were reviewed rather comp let ely for evidence of technical appraisal BB reflected i n review notes, trip reports, memoranda, etc. These files are listed in Appendix B. A larger sample of the files (all the off-site contracts acted upon from October 1, 1962 - January 31, 1962) w a s reviewed to gather statistical information on the consistency W i t h which DBM edministrative procedures related to technical appraisal are followed. l h i s list of contracts is The Division of Biology and Medicine administers the Canmission's program of research i n the biological, medical and environmental fields, that is, the l i f e sciences. The program has as its objec-. tives: (1) increasing knowledge of the effects of radiation on living systems, (2) utilizing this knowledge i n the control and treatment of radiation exposure, and (3) increasing the beneficial applications of nuclear materials and atomic energy in the l i f e science field. The program i s currently supported a t a level of about $6O,OOO,OOO (FY 1962), and is expected to increase to a level of about $85,000,000 by FY 1965 (DBM program plan of December 1960).About 60$ of the budget is devoted to objective (l), 255 to objective (2), and 1%to objective (3). The research program is implemented by 17 "on-site" programs i n the National Laboratories and i n university and other laboratories in which the facilities are largely AEC owned and by some 600 "off-sfte" contracts with some 200 universities and research laboratories. Ihe on-site program accounts for about two-thirds of the total program

Page 7

cost; the off-site about one-third. The entire effort is coordinated within the Division to serve the objectives of the program. ?he on-rite research proJects a r t generally of specific progrunmstic interest, broad in scope, and of a long term o r qontinulng nature. Many of these projects require teams of researchers working under direct laboratory management, and for this reason these projects are assigned to large laboratories where adequate staff equipment, and full-time effort is available. The on-site contractors aad the FY 1962 level of support for each are listed in Appendix D. The off-site research projects generally are relatively small efforts involving one or two scientists, commd.y university staff members, aided by graduate students or other assistants. The projects are generally limited i n scope and the level of support is comparatively low: many are l e s s than $25,000 annually, and few are over $5O,OOO. Ihe off-site projects are selected from among unsolicited proposals t o supplement the on-site program. Ihe DBM is responsible f o r planning, developing, and directing the biomedical research program. mission and higher level management, the D M sets the objectives of the program, determines its scope, requests the necessary financial support, selects contractors to perfona the research, detennines or approves the programs o r proJects to be carrled out by each contractor, and reviews and evaluates the quality and the progress of the research. Nontechnical administration of both the on-site and the off-site contracts i s handled by the AEC field offices. Subject to the guidance of the Can- ?he Advisory Committee for Biology and Medicine, comprised of ten leading American scientists i n the llfe science field, reviews the program i n medical and biological research and health end recommends t o the conrmission general policies on the program. The Mrector, DBM, serves as liaison representative to the ACBM. A Dm organization chart is shown i n Appendix E. The total division staff is about 70: of these some 29 are technically trained end in charge of the program from the technical standpoint; the remainder are administrative and support personnel. include the Director and his Special Assistant (2), Assistant Directors i n charge of Biologlcal Sciences, Medical and Health' Research, and Radiologlcal physics (3), and Branch Chiefs f o r the Biology, Environmental Sciences, JkdLcal Research, Civil Effecta, Fallout Studies, and Radiological Physics and InstrumentatIan

Page 8

About 70$ of the tcchrAcsl st%ff have doctorate degrees, and most have worked as research scientists i.ri their fields. Most of the staff members are peraane.at employees; a few, particularly i n the Biology Branch, are on leave of absence from research posts and are expected t o retLm after compbting two t o three year tours with ;)EM. A breakdown of the DivisiorL program &r Srsnches i s shown i n Appendix F. When the total program sGpport f o r FY 1$2 is considered i n terms of the stkff below the level of As ' is tant $2,540,000. %is raugss fron: $920,000 per man in the Fallout Studies Branch $0 $5,525,OCO per man io the Medica,$ Research Branch. The Divisioxi average number of off-site contracts per man i s 26.3. However, if the Civil Effects, FalLout Studies, and Radiological Physics Hrzches, whose involvement in the offsite program i s minimal, are excluded, the average number of offsite contracts per man for she three reminirig branches i s 41. Director, the average zumber of program dollars per,t man is In managing the oc-site program, the DE94 determines or approves the …