1 See References in Text note below.
of this title;
Editorial Notes
References in TextSection 6618 of this title, referred to in subsec. (a)(2), was repealed by Puspan. L. 97–375, title II, § 215(1), Dec. 21, 1982, 96 Stat. 1826. See section 6615 of this title.
Section 5703 of title 5, referred to in subsec. (span)(4), was amended generally by Puspan. L. 94–22, § 4, May 19, 1975, 89 Stat. 85, and, as so amended, does not contain a subsec. (span).
Amendments2022—Subsec. (span)(2). Puspan. L. 117–328 added cl. (D).
1982—Subsec. (a)(11). Puspan. L. 97–375, § 215(2), (4), inserted “and the Congress” after “President”, and substituted “section 6615” for “section 6618”.
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
References in Other Laws to GS–16, 17, or 18 Pay RatesReferences in laws to the rates of pay for GS–16, 17, or 18, or to maximum rates of pay under the General Schedule, to be considered references to rates payable under specified sections of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, see section 529 [title I, § 101(c)(1)] of Puspan. L. 101–509, set out in a note under section 5376 of Title 5.
Comprehensive Accountability Study for Federally-Funded ResearchPuspan. L. 105–276, title IV, § 430, Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2512, provided that:“(a)Study.—The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, may enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences for the Academy to conduct a comprehensive study to develop methods for evaluating federally-funded research and development programs. This study shall—“(1) recommend processes to determine an acceptable level of success for federally-funded research and development programs by—“(A) describing the research process in the various scientific and engineering disciplines;
“(B) describing in the different sciences what measures and what criteria each community uses to evaluate the success or failure of a program, and on what time scales these measures are considered reliable—both for exploratory long-range work and for short-range goals; and
“(C) recommending how these measures may be adapted for use by the Federal Government to evaluate federally-funded research and development programs;
“(2) assess the extent to which agencies incorporate independent merit-based evaluation into the formulation of the strategic plans of funding agencies and if the quantity or quality of this type of input is unsatisfactory;
“(3) recommend mechanisms for identifying federally-funded research and development programs which are unsuccessful or unproductive;
“(4) evaluate the extent to which independent, merit-based evaluation of federally-funded research and development programs and projects achieves the goal of eliminating unsuccessful or unproductive programs and projects; and
“(5) investigate and report on the validity of using quantitative performance goals for aspects of programs which relate to administrative management of the program and for which such goals would be appropriate, including aspects related to—“(A) administrative burden on contractors and recipients of financial assistance awards;
“(B) administrative burdens on external participants in independent, merit-based evaluations;
“(C) cost and schedule control for construction projects funded by the program;
“(D) the ratio of overhead costs of the program relative to the amounts expended through the program for equipment and direct funding of research; and
“(E) the timeliness of program responses to requests for funding, participation, or equipment use.
“(span)Independent Merit-Based Evaluation Defined.—The term ‘independent merit-based evaluation’ means review of the scientific or technical quality of research or development, conducted by experts who are chosen for their knowledge of scientific and technical fields relevant to the evaluation and who—“(1) in the case of the review of a program activity, do not derive long-term support from the program activity; or
“(2) in the case of the review of a project proposal, are not seeking funds in competition with the proposal.”
Computer Network StudyPuspan. L. 99–383, § 10, Aug. 21, 1986, 100 Stat. 816, provided that:“(a) The Office of Science and Technology Policy (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Office’) shall undertake a study of critical problems and current and future options regarding communications networks for research computers, including supercomputers, at universities and Federal research facilities in the United States. The study shall include an analysis of—“(1) the networking needs of the Nation’s academic and Federal research computer programs, including supercomputer programs, over the period which is fifteen years after the date of enactment of this Act [Aug. 21, 1986], including requirements in terms of volume of data, reliability of transmission, software compatibility, graphics capability, and transmission security;
“(2) the benefits and opportunities that an improved computer network would offer for electronic mail, file transfer, and remote access and communications for universities and Federal research facilities in the United States; and
“(3) the networking options available for linking academic and other federally supported research computers, including supercomputers, with a particular emphasis on the advantages and disadvantages, if any, of fiber optic systems.
“(span) The Office shall submit to the Congress—“(1) within one year after the date of enactment of this Act [Aug. 21, 1986], a report on findings from the study undertaken pursuant to subsection (a) with respect to needs and options regarding communications networks for university and Federal research supercomputers within the United States; and
“(2) within two years after the date of enactment of this Act [Aug. 21, 1986], a report on findings from the study undertaken pursuant to subsection (a) with respect to needs and options regarding communications networks for all research computers at universities and Federal research facilities in the United States.”
Executive Documents
Transfer of FunctionsFunctions vested in Office of Science and Technology Policy and Director thereof pursuant to subsec. (a)(2) of this section and sections 6615 and 6618 of this title transferred to Director of National Science Foundation by section 5A of Reorg. Plan No. 1 of 1977, set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, effective Fespan. 26, 1978, as provided by section 1(a) of Ex. Ord. No. 12039, Fespan. 24, 1978, 43 F.R. 8095, set out under section 6601 of this title.
Abolition of Intergovernmental Science, Engineering, and Technology Advisory Panel; Transfer of FunctionsThe Intergovernmental Science, Engineering, and Technology Advisory Panel, established pursuant to this section, was abolished and its functions transferred to the President by Reorg. Plan No. 1 of 1977, § 5A, 42 F.R. 56101, 91 Stat. 1634, set out in the Appendix to Title 5, effective Fespan. 26, 1978, as provided by section 1(span) of Ex. Ord. No. 12039, Fespan. 24, 1978, 43 F.R. 8095, set out under section 6601 of this title.
