Experimental Program To Stimulate Competitive Research Research Articles

Efficacy of Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence (CoBRE) grants to build research capacity in underrepresented states.

Federal funding for research has immediate and long-term economic impact. Since federal research funding is regionally concentrated and not geographically distributed, the benefits are not fully realized in some regions of the country. The Established (previously Experimental) Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) programs at several agencies, for example, the National Science Foundation, and the Institutional Development Award (IDeA) program at the National Institutes of Health were created to increase competitiveness for funding in states with historically low levels of federal funding. The Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence (CoBRE) award program is a component of the IDeA program. The CoBRE grants support research core facilities to develop research infrastructure. These grants also support the research projects of junior investigators, under the guidance of mentoring teams of senior investigators, to develop human resources at these institutions. Few studies have assessed the effectiveness of these programs. This study examines the investment and outcomes of the CoBRE grants from 2000 through 2022. The maturation of junior investigators into independently funded principal investigators is comparable to other mentoring programs supported by NIH. The investment in research cores resulted in substantial research productivity, measured by publications. Despite the successes of individual investigators and increased research infrastructure and productivity, the geographic distribution of federal and NIH research dollars has not changed. These results will be informative in consideration of policies designed to enhance the geographic distribution of federal research dollars.

The impact of geographic inequality in federal research funding: A comparative longitudinal study of research and scholarly outputs in EPSCoR versus non-EPSCoR states.

Some states in the U.S. have traditionally received less federal research funding than other states. The National Science Foundation (NSF) created a program in 1979, called the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) to enhance the research competitiveness in such states. While the geographic disparity in federal research funding is well known, the overall impact of federal funding on the research performance of EPSCoR and non-EPSCoR has not been previously studied. In the current study, we compared the combined research productivity of Ph.D. granting institutions in EPSCoR versus the non-EPSCoR states to better understand the scientific impact of federal investments in sponsored research across all states. The research outputs we measured included journal articles, books, conference papers, patents, and citation count in academic literature. Unsurprisingly, results indicated that the non-EPSCoR states received significantly more federal research funding than their EPSCoR counterparts, which correlated with a higher number of faculty members in the non-EPSCoR versus EPSCoR states. Also, in the overall research productivity expressed on a per capita, the non-EPSCoR states fared better than EPSCoR states. However, when the research output was measured based on per $1M investment of federal research funding, EPSCoR states performed significantly better than the non-EPSCoR states in many research productivity indicators, with the notable exception of patents. Together, this study found preliminary evidence that EPSCoR states achieved a high degree of research productivity despite receiving significantly fewer federal research dollars. The limitations and next steps of this study are also discussed.

Undue concentration of research and education: multi-criteria decision approach to assess jurisdiction eligibility for NSF funding

Research and education tend to concentrate in specific geographical areas, while many jurisdictions receive limited federal research funding. This has resulted in reduced opportunity for students as well as limited ability of science to influence solving problems at the jurisdiction level. The National Science Foundation’s Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) was intended to address the “undue concentration of research and education” by providing direct funding to improve research infrastructure, hire researchers, develop outreach, and to enhance local research capacity. Despite many successful outcomes attributed to EPSCoR, the aim and the execution of the program have generated controversy. Decision analytic tools can provide a systematic approach to EPSCoR prioritization that improves transparency and addresses the program’s intent. The wording of NSF’s mission and EPSCoR legislation suggest the intent of maximizing NSF’s benefit to the nation by directly supporting scientific research product across all jurisdictions and by supporting development of competitive scientific capabilities within particular jurisdictions. These components may be quantified via data-driven metrics producing indicators of ultimate benefit. Using illustrative scenarios within a multi-criteria decision model, we explore how such decision models may generate insights and how their guidance compares with current eligibility determinations.

Socio-economic impacts and public value of government-funded research: Lessons from four US National Science Foundation initiatives

Interest in evaluating non-economic social outcomes of science and technology research has risen in policy circles in recent years. The interest in social impacts of research has not yet given rise to a great proliferation of useful, valid techniques for evaluating such impacts. This study presents detailed case studies of four US National Science Foundation (NSF) programs/initiatives to provide a framework for understanding diverse efforts at addressing social impacts, and to suggest some important gaps in our research approaches for assessing socio-economic impacts of research. The four cases studied − the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), the Innovation Corps (I-Corps), the Arizona State University Center for Nanotechnology in Society, and the NSF “Broader Impacts” criteria—were chosen for their diversity in intent and modality but operating within a single agency. The cases are compared based on criteria important for assessing socio-economic outcomes: the initiative’s modality, enabling policy vehicle, benefit guarantor, distribution and appropriability of benefits, specificity of beneficiary, social-economic range, and timing of the benefit stream. The paper concludes with a discussion of the most pressing methodological and theoretical issues that need addressing for greater progress in assessing social impacts.

Linking Wildlife, Water, and Climate

W ater is often in short supply in the arid western United States, and not just for people. Animals in the region can also have a difficult time locating a supply of freshwater. With this in mind, state governments and conservation groups have installed wildlife water developments, or guzzlers, in remote arid wildlife habitat since the middle of the last century. Guzzlers typically have an impermeable roof structure that is designed to intercept precipitation, is approximately 0.6–0.9 m (2–3 ft) off the ground, and is slightly sloped to encourage runoff to f low into a gutter on the downslope side (Fig. 1). Water flows from the guzzler roof structure into a partially buried cistern [~1,200-L (325-gal) capacity], which is open on one end to allow access to wildlife. The structure is surrounded by a barbed wire fence to prevent guzzler access by cattle, wild horses, and burros. In Nevada, in addition to a scarcity of fresh surface water, there is also a scarcity of precipitation data. Nevada has the lowest precipitation gauge density in the contiguous United States. Because of this poor gauge coverage, precipitation and runoff must be estimated for most areas with hydrologic models using limited data. This lack of available observations becomes a problem when modeling precipitation over complex, often mountainous terrain typical of Nevada. Models such as the Parameter-Elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model (PRISM) produce high-resolution, spatially complete estimates of climatological elements for the entire state, but reliability of these estimates depends on the quality and coverage of precipitation measurements. Twelve monitoring stations in the Sheep and Snake Ranges of Nevada have been instrumented to monitor climate data and other environmental parameters as part of a recent $15 million National Science Foundation (NSF) Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) project. However, it may be possible to augment measured climate data at a lower cost per site in the western United States. In a new article in the Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, researchers at the University of Nevada at Reno present findings of a pilot project initiated to explore the feasibility of using guzzlers as climate data collection sites. There are more than 1,600 guzzlers in Nevada (Fig. 2), most installed in remote, midto high-elevation basins that are especially vulnerable to changes in precipitation due to climate change. Two guzzlers in the west-central part of the state were retrofitted with a tipping-bucket-style rain gauge, a probe to measure air temperature, a transducer to measure the depth of water in the guzzler storage tank, and a motionsensing wildlife camera to monitor guzzler usage. observations

Inter-Institutional Partnerships Propel A Successful Collaborative Undergraduate Degree Program In Chemistry

Small private liberal arts colleges are increasingly tuition-dependent and mainly attract students by creating student-centered learning communities. On the other hand, larger universities tend to be trendsetters where its faculty tend to seek intellectual independence and are involved in career focused cutting-edge research. The Institutional Development Awards (IDeA) and Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) are federal-state-university partnerships that builds basic research infrastructure and coax the state-wide higher education institutions to collaborate with each other in order to enhance their competitiveness. As a result in Delaware, Wesley College instituted curricular and operational changes to launch an undergraduate program in biological chemistry where its students take three upper division chemistry courses and can choose to participate in annual summer undergraduate internships at nearby Delaware State University.

Tackling undue concentration of federal research funding: An empirical assessment on NSF's Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR)

This empirical study focuses on NSF's Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) and its effect on a state's share of federal academic science and engineering (S&E) support to higher education institutions. Based on a panel of 50 states in period 1979–2006, the statistical results suggest that EPSCoR may have enhanced research capacity and competitiveness of EPSCoR states as reflected in a significant and positive effect of state's tenure in the program. The small effect of EPSCoR indicates that enhanced and more innovative efforts are needed in order to effectively tackle undue concentration of federal S&E support.

Evaluating the Improved Research Capacity of EPSCoR States: R&D Funding and Collaborative Networks in the NSF EPSCoR Program

AbstractStates vary considerably in their ability to attract federal research and development (R&D) sources. The National Science Foundation (NSF) Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) was created in the late 1970s and was designed to enhance the research capacity of less competitive states in seeking federal research funds. How has EPSCoR improved research capacity in its member states? To date, little evaluation of EPSCoR as a program, or even within individual states, has occurred, and those studies that have been conducted have taken a statewide, macro‐level approach. We argue that a social‐capital‐based approach that addresses capacity development among EPSCoR recipients provides important scientist‐level data that can best address capacity development issues. In this article, we first examine the data of federal academic R&D obligations in order to analyze one of the direct outcomes of capacity building. We conduct a descriptive statistical analysis on the changing share of federal academic R&D obligations for individual states in recent years. Second, using an NSF‐sponsored survey of scientists in the 50 states, we present data on distinctions between scientists in EPSCoR versus non‐EPSCoR states, as well as differences between scientists who have been involved in EPSCoR versus those who have not. From our analysis we find important evidence of capacity development in EPSCoR states. Perhaps most importantly, our results provide an important first step in identifying relevant evaluative issues for EPSCoR.

NSF's Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR): Subsidizing academic research or state budgets?

AbstractThis cross‐state empirical study focuses on the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) and examines its impact on the academic research and development (R&D) expenditures financed by state governments. Based on a panel of 50 states during 1979–2006, the empirical results indicate that EPSCoR, while increasing federal R&D support to EPSCoR states, crowded out financial support for academic research from the governments of EPSCoR states. About one‐third of EPSCoR funds went to subsidize state budgets. The crowd‐out effect calls for some reconsideration of EPSCoR program design in order to maintain or even increase the state government financial support for academic research activities deemed critical to academic competitiveness and economic prospects. © 2009 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.

Grants on the Run

![Figure][1] EPSCoR states CREDIT: ADAPTED FROM ([1][2]) The Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) was designed to help U.S. states with limited facilities improve their research infrastructure in order to make them more competitive for nationwide grants, such as the R01. Twenty-seven states and territories (including Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands) have been designated EPSCoR states ([1][2]). In a recent Letter (“Declines in NIH R01 research grant funding,” 10 October 2008, p. [189][3]), H. G. Mandel and E. S. Vesell presented the current funding statistics for R01 grants. These findings and other changes in policy ([2][4]) demonstrate the difficulty in getting R01 grants funded in the current climate. The existing funding situation encourages investigators from EPSCoR states to take their R01 grants and leave for better institutions because better institutions have the resources to obtain new R01 grants and renew R01 grants. How can institutions in EPSCoR states retain their scientists with R01 grants under these difficult conditions? It may be necessary to offer extremely competitive financial packages to scientists from elsewhere with R01s or to change the promotion and tenure policies. Perhaps scientists who have R01s could receive early promotion and tenure, or the tenure clock could be extended to give scientists more time to obtain an R01. 1. 1.[↵][5] EPSCoR Foundation, “What Is EPSCoR?” ([www.epscorfoundation.org/WhatIsEPSCoR.htm][6]). 2. 2.[↵][7] NIH, “New NIH Policy on Resubmission (Amended) Applications” ( ). [1]: pending:yes [2]: #ref-1 [3]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.322.5899.189a [4]: #ref-2 [5]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1. in text [6]: http://www.epscorfoundation.org/WhatIsEPSCoR.htm [7]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2. in text

An Organized Pre-Entry Pathway to Prepare a Diverse Nursing Workforce

Although many nursing programs are turning away qualified applicants, many are concerned with educating a diverse student population, as well as addressing community workforce needs. Many potential students who express an interest in a nursing career may be underprepared in math and science to enter a rigorous nursing program. This article describes the efforts of faculty at Kaua'i Community College to increase the successful entry of students underqualified in math into the nursing program through an organized pathway. Various learning strategies are presented, as well as lessons learned.

From Best Science Toward Economic Development: The Evolution of NSF’s Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR)

In 1979, under pressure from Congress, the National Science Foundation (NSF) founded the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR). Initially conceived as a means to foster scientific competitiveness in states that had not historically won many federal research dollars, EPSCoR has evolved into a program that fosters science-based economic development, an extension of the best science paradigm on which NSF and EPSCoR were founded. This article traces the evolution of EPSCoR, showing why state governments have had rational incentives to use EPSCoR to serve an economic development agenda, examining how the institutions erected to govern it inadvertently allowed EPSCoR states to incorporate economic development as a motivating force, and documenting the increasing economic development orientation of successful EPSCoR proposals and programs. The article concludes with some observations on the potential trade-offs between best science and economic development and offers some suggestions for further research.

Building a social capital model of research development: the case of the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research

This paper argues that social capital theory, originally developed to explain collective, cooperative behavior, can be applied in understanding how better to use science and technology to advance social and economic objectives of underdeveloped regions. Using the case of the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), broad issues affecting priority setting, knowledge utilization, and program evaluation are examined to shape a revised theory of social capital, EPSCoR, and the use of science as a social and economic development strategy. A ‘scientific and technical human capital’ model for the evaluation of EPSCoR is presented. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Program fosters research in funding-starved states

The congressionally mandated Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) gives little guys a chance to run with the big guys. It spreads research funding more evenly across the U.S. and, if properly executed, increases the number of scientists doing innovative research. Under its version of EPSCoR, the Defense Department this year is awarding $18 million to 32 institutes. The average award is about $284,000 over three years. What is unique about these DOD grants is that these institutes are located in 18 selected states including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. There are actually 19 EPSCoR states, which were originally identified by the National Science Foundation, the first federal agency to have such a program. These targeted states traditionally have received the least amount of federal funding for science and engineering research. DOD's program began in 1991 with approximately $7 million awarded to 18 states. In 1995, funding peaked at about $20 million, and 19 ...

Lessons from the EPSCoR States

The author is director of the Montana EPSCoR program and professor of Plant Pathology at Montana State University, Bozeman, MT. Federal funds for research are presently targeted for reduction. At the same time, the U.S. scientific community is viewed as detached from the people who pay its bills—Congress, state legislators, and, ultimately, the public. These facts make it apparent that scientists need to more directly involve people at all levels of public leadership in the scientific enterprise. The attitude that “someone else will do it” will no longer suffice. If the enterprise is to remain strong, new methods of acquiring public support for science are needed. A little-recognized program called EPSCoR (Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research), begun by the National Science Foundation (NSF) in 1980, has devised a model that may work for the entire country. The program had its beginnings in Congress9s realization that 18 states (some of the nation9s poorest) and Puerto Rico receive only about 4% of the annual federal RD Quantum Research Corporation (also of Bethesda) gathers quantitative information on the programs of each state. Fundamental scientific discoveries have been made under the auspices of EPSCoR projects. Those discoveries are serving the needs of the states, and some have had national and international impacts. Specific examples are Maw Kuen Wu9s participation in the discovery of high-temperature superconductivity while at the University of Alabama and Jack Horner9s remarkable discoveries at Montana State University concerning dinosaur behavior, which helped inspire the story of Jurassic Park and promote a local dinosaur tourism industry. Overall, EPSCoR has had a nationwide impact by increasing the competitiveness of scientists. This is seen most clearly in the fact that since the program9s inception, the EPSCoR states have doubled their share of NSF funding (not including the funds that NSF specifically allocates to support EPSCoR). Each of the seven major federal agencies that grant funds for research (the National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy, Department of Defense, Environmental Protection Agency, NASA, and NSF) has now established its own EPSCoR program (although some are more committed than others). The people involved in EPSCoR seem to have devised a system that is well organized and has strong momentum. Its success is the result of a simple formula: research whose value can be justified to the public, carried out by researchers and organizations that take the time to keep the public informed and involved. Our nation9s scientists need to convince all sectors of the public of the importance of basic research. EPSCoR9s successes can teach some important lessons about how to do so.

NSF Award EPSCoR Grants

The National Science Board, the policymaking body of the National Science Foundation (NSF), has approved the awarding of grants totalling $23.5 million to eight governmental jurisdictions to improve the quality of U.S. science and engineering research. The jurisdictions are Alabama, Kentucky, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, Vermont, and Wyoming. Grants will total between $2.5 and $3 million over 5 years for each jurisdiction.The grants are being made under NSF's Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR). The program is designed to improve the quality of science and engineering, to increase the number of scientists and engineers that are able to compete successfully for federal grants, and to improve the research environment in the participating jurisdictions and institutions.