Advanced

Research

Program B 2001

Advanced

Technology

Program B 2001

Report of Awards

May 2002

Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board

Division of Finance, Campus Planning and Research

P.O. Box 12788

Austin, Texas 78711

Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board

Pamela P. Willeford (Chairman) Austin

Martin Basaldua, M.D. (Vice Chair) Houston

Neal Adams Bedford

Ricardo G. Cigarroa Jr., M.D. Corpus Christi

Kevin P. Eltife Tyler

Jerry Farrington Dallas

Raul B. Fernandez San Antonio

Cathy Obriotti Green San Antonio

Gerry Griffin Hunt

Carey Hobbs Waco

Adair Margo El Paso

Lorraine Perryman Odessa

Hector de J. Ruiz Austin

Robert W. Shepard Harlingen

Windy Sitton Lubbock

Terderma L. Ussery, II Dallas

COORDINATING BOARD MISSION

The mission of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board is to provide the Legislature advice and comprehensive planning capability for higher education, to coordinate the effective delivery of higher education, to administer programs efficiently and to improve higher education for the people of Texas.

COORDINATING BOARD PHILOSOPHY

The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board will promote access to quality higher education across the state with the conviction that access without quality is mediocrity and that quality without access is unacceptable. The Board will be open, ethical, responsive, and committed to public service. The Board will approach its work with a sense of purpose and responsibility to the people of Texas and is committed to the best use of public monies.

Created by the Texas Legislature in 1965, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board works with institutions of higher education, other state agencies, the Legislature and the Governor to ensure that Texans seeking higher education have access to high quality programs. The Board's overall responsibilities include assessing the state of higher education in Texas, making recommendations to the Governor, Legislature and institutions for its enhancement, and establishing policies for the efficient and effective use of the state's higher education resources.

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

Role of the Advisory Committee on Research Programs 2

Solicitation of Research Proposals 3

The Peer Review Process 4

Summary of the 2001 Advanced Research and Advanced Technology Program Awards 6

Texas - Mexico Border Region 6

Biennial Evaluations of the Advanced Research and Advanced

Technology Programs 7

Acknowledgments 7

Appendices

Appendix A: Affiliations of Review Panelists A-1

Appendix B: Proposals Submitted by Research Area B-1

Appendix C: List of Funded Proposals C-1

Appendix D: Funding by Institution D-1

Appendix E: Comparison of Awards in 1997, 1999 and 2001 E-1

Appendix F: Pre-Proposal and Proposal Evaluation Forms F-1

List of Tables

Table 1: Advisory Committee on Research Programs, 2001 2

Table 2: Preliminary Allocations 3

Table 3: 2001 Review Panel Chairs 5

i

Advanced Research Program/Advanced Technology Program

Report of Awards

Introduction

In 1987, the 70th Texas Legislature created the Advanced Research Program (ARP) and the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) as complementary, statewide research programs providing peer-reviewed, competitive grants to Texas college and university researchers. For the 1987-1988 biennium, $60 million was appropriated. Since then, approximately the same amount has been appropriated for the programs for each of the seven subsequent biennia.

The Advanced Research Program is devoted to basic research designed to attract and retain the best students and researchers and help provide the knowledge base needed for innovation. Re-searchers at all public institutions of higher education are eligible to compete.

The Advanced Technology Program is devoted to research with a technological objective and a long-term economic goal, but retains a strong educational component. It is designed to promote the state's economic growth and diversification by increasing the number and quality of scientists and engineers in Texas, enlarging the technology base available to business and industry, creating new products and services, and attracting new industries to Texas. Researchers at all Texas public and independent institutions of higher education are eligible to compete.

In 2001, three types of proposals were considered:

 Advanced Research Program proposals to support basic research in nine areas specified in statute.

 Advanced Technology Program proposals to support applied research in 11 areas specified in statute and one newly created transportation research area.

 ATP Technology Development and Transfer proposals to continue the development and transfer to the private sector of technology created under previous Advanced Research Program or Advanced Technology Program grants.

A separate competition was held for each type of award. Proposals were invited based on peer review of shorter pre-proposals.

The implementation strategy for the ARP/ATP features three key elements:

 Policy guidelines and oversight are provided by the distinguished Texas scientists and engineers who are members of the Coordinating Board's Advisory Committee on Research Programs (ACORP);

 Proposals are solicited in 21 different research areas from faculty members at institutions of higher education in the state; and

 Proposals are peer reviewed by nationally prominent scientific and technological professionals, including industry and government representatives from Texas and throughout the nation and academic scientists from outside Texas. None of the reviewers are associated with or employed by Texas higher education institutions.


This report outlines the procedures followed during the 2001 ARP/ATP proposal solicitation and review process and describes the outcomes of the competitions.

Role of the Advisory Committee on Research Programs

The Coordinating Board's Advisory Committee on Research Programs (ACORP) provides direction and guidance to the programs and ensures their quality. Chaired by Dr. Norman Hackerman, it is composed of 12 eminent Texas scientists and engineers from academe and industry representing a wide range of disciplines (see Table 1). Currently, five members of the National Academy of Science, the National Academy of Engineering, or the Institute of Medicine serve on the Committee.

Table 1

Advisory Committee on Research Programs, 2001

(Membership list through December 31, 2001)

Norman Hackerman (Chair) President Emeritus, Rice University

Keith W. Brown Vice President and General Manager, GeneScreen

Orchid Biosciences, Inc., Dallas

Rinn Cleavelin Chief Operating Officer, SEMATECH

R. Gary Daniels Senior Vice President and General Manager (retired), Motorola

Bonnie J. Dunbar Assistant Director, University Research and

Astronaut, NASA Johnson Space Center

Frank Gerome Partner, STARTech Business Development Center, Richardson

James L. Kinsey D.R. Bullard-Welch Foundation Professor of Science, Rice University

Way Kuo Wisenbaker Chair in Innovation and Associate Vice Chancellor

of Engineering, Texas A&M University

John McKetta Professor Emeritus and Joe C. Walter, Jr. Chair Emeritus

The University of Texas at Austin

Bettie Sue Masters Welch Foundation Professor of Chemistry

The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio

Billy E. Welch Director (retired), Armstrong Laboratory, San Antonio

Jane L. Winer Dean, College of Arts and Sciences, Texas Tech University

The Committee consistently recommends that the Coordinating Board seek proposals from all possible sources within the Texas higher education system and select the very best of these through a fair and open process. ACORP reviews the program announcement, makes a preliminary allocation of funds among disciplines, and reviews the recommendations of the review panels.

ACORP recommended that reviewers place special emphasis on research projects that address environmental and water resource issues of the Texas-Mexico border region, reflecting similar legislative interest in this area.


Solicitation of Research Proposals

ACORP recommended the announcement of proposal solicitation and evaluation in March 2001. The committee reviewed the proposal submission process, recruitment of reviewers, and the peer review process.

ACORP made preliminary budget allocations for the targeted research areas (see Table 2). Exact allocations were to be based upon the quality of proposals within each area.

In February 2001, the Coordinating Board staff conducted a workshop for 35 Sponsored Programs officers to demonstrate a new electronic submission system for pre-proposals and proposals. The Sponsored Programs officers’ response was favorable overall, and their comments and suggestions were invaluable in helping improve development of the electronic system. With this system, investi-gators would create and track the progress of their submissions through the Coordinating Board’s web site.

The Coordinating Board adopted the program announcement proposed by ACORP at its April 2001 meeting. After adoption, the program announcement was available on the Coordinating Board’s web site.

Table 2
Preliminary Allocations
Advanced Research Program
Biological Sciences / $ 7,000,000
Chemistry / 2,200,000
Computer Sciences / 1,800,000
Earth Sciences / 800,000
Engineering / 3,900,000
Materials Science / 1,400,000
Mathematics / 900,000
Physics / 1,300,000
Social and Behavioral Sciences / 600,000
Advanced Technology Program
Aerospace / 1,600,000
Agriculture/Aquaculture/Agricultural Biotechnology / 3,800,000
Biomedicine / 6,900,000
Computer and Information Engineering / 3,500,000
Energy / 3,100,000
Environmental Science and Engineering, Recycling, and Water Resources / 4,200,000
Manufacturing Technology / 3,400,000
Materials Technology / 3,800,000
Medical Biotechnology / 4,000,000
Microelectronics / 2,500,000
Telecommunications / 2,400,000

Transportation

/ 600,000


In Spring 2001, Coordinating Board staff conducted a series of briefings at nine campuses throughout the state, as well as televised briefings transmitted to 26 additional campuses. In addition, over 4,000 copies of the program announcement and 57 copies of a videotaped briefing were distributed to Texas institutions of higher education.

In 2001, a pre-proposal review procedure was used to improve the quality of review and reduce the number of full proposals evaluated by all review panels in the Advanced Research and Advanced Technology Programs.

In 2001, the Advisory Committee on Research Programs recommended an experimental electronic submission system for full proposals submitted to the Aerospace, Computer and Information Engineering, Computer Science, Engineering, Microelectronics, Telecommunications and Transportation research areas.

By June 8, the Board received 3,100 pre-proposals that were filed electronically on the www.arpatp.com web site. Each pre-proposal specified a research area, project title, keywords, estimated budget, and brief discussion of the project’s goals and processes, staff, facilities and resources available, and student education and training opportunities. The pre-proposals were

reviewed electronically and 1,409 were selected for full proposals. By the August 14 deadline,

investigators at 50 institutions had submitted 1,344 full proposals. Of these, 318 were submitted and reviewed electronically.

The electronic submission system for pre-proposals and proposals and the panel review process proved to be capable of operating under adverse conditions that included an internet virus known as the Nimda worm and after effects associated with the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, D.C. The electronic system allowed for rapid transfer, handling, and access to electronically submitted pre-proposals, proposals, and reviews.

The Peer Review Process

To review proposals, 136 experts were organized into 16 panels. The chairs (see Table 3) and panelists were recruited from academe, national laboratories, and U.S. and Texas companies. No panelists were associated with any Texas university. The majority were from outside Texas and had not served previously. A list of reviewer affiliations is provided in Appendix A.

The review criteria for the ARP proposals included the merit and soundness of the proposal, capability of the investigator(s) to perform the necessary research, adequacy of institutional commitment and resources, and potential positive effect on the infrastructure of science and engineering.

In addition to those criteria, the ATP proposals were also evaluated on their prospects for commercialization, leveraging of grant funds to attract external funds, technology transfer, and meaningful industrial collaboration.

Criteria for evaluating ATP Technology Development and Transfer proposals were the technical merit and soundness of the proposal, personnel, and physical resources available to the project, and the technology transfer plan.

The proposal evaluation forms in Appendix F outline the evaluation criteria in more detail.


The Texas Legislature mandates that no more than 70 percent of the funds may be awarded to institutions in The University of Texas System and the Texas A&M System. Adjustments were made by Coordinating Board staff using priorities established by the panels to ensure that limit. To satisfy the 70 percent mandate, the five next-highest ranked proposals from non-UT/A&M system institutions were added to the 361 proposals initially selected by the review panels. Final allocations for the 366 proposals selected for funding were reviewed by ACORP.

Table 3

2001 Review Panel Chairs

Lynda Delph Associate Professor of Biology, Indiana University

Hugh Ellis Professor and Chair, Department of Geography and Environmental Engineering

Johns Hopkins University

Charles Emerson Joseph Leidy Professor and Chair, Cell and Developmental Biology

University of Pennsylvania Medical Center

M. Charles Gilbert Professor of Petrology, University of Oklahoma

Warren Grobman Director, Interconnect and Lithography Software Systems, Motorola

Vasken Hagopian Distinguished Research Professor of Physics, Florida State University

David Hardt Professor, Co-Director, Leaders for Manufacturing Program

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

John Hauser Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering

North Carolina State University

Alan Karr Professor and Director, National Institute of Statistical Sciences

Research Triangle Park

Neil Kestner Professor of Chemistry, Louisiana State University

Michael McNaughton Vice President for Chemistry and Chemical Engineering

Southwest Research Institute

Martin Massengale Director, Center for Grassland Studies, University of Nebraska

Robert Morff Director of Medical Technology, Sentron Medical, Inc., Cincinnati

Felicia Nowak Associate Professor of Biomedical Sciences

Ohio University

Stanley Reynolds Professor and Head, Department of Economics, University of Arizona

Michael Richard Staff Research Chemist, Shell Chemical Company, Houston

9

In October 2001, the Advisory Committee on Research Programs recommended, based on the results of the peer review process, specific projects to the Coordinating Board for funding. The Board approved that recommendation and authorized the Commissioner to make additional awards if additional funds become available.

The Advisory Committee on Research Programs recommended one additional award In January 2002 and five additional awards in April 2002 from funds returned by institutions. One institution declined to accept one of the original awards because it had accepted external funding from another source for the project. The awards were approved by the Commissioner of Higher Education.

Summary of the 2001 Advanced Research and Advanced Technology Program Awards

The $58,873,654 appropriated for these research grant programs, plus an additional $3,185,697 carried forward from the previous ARP/ATP awards, was distributed as recommended by the review panel chairs. A total of 371 proposals received funding B 144 Advanced Research Program proposals, 189 Advanced Technology Program proposals, and 38 Advanced Technology Program Development and Transfer proposals. The average award was $152,480. Two or more higher education institutions collaborated on 33 projects, and 14 of the collaborations included a public institution reporting less than $11 million in total research and development expenditures for Fiscal Year 2000.