UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
September 28, 2001
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
EPA-SAB-EC-COM-01-004
Honorable Christine Todd Whitman
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Subject: Recommendations to Improve Visibility of the Scientific and
Technological Achievement Awards (STAA) Program: an EPA Science
Advisory Board (SAB) Commentary
Dear Governor Whitman:
For nearly two decades, the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) - through its Scientific
and Technological Achievement Awards (STAA) Subcommittee - has reviewed the Agency's
nominations for the scientific and technological achievement awards program. During that time
we have made recommendations that have resulted in hundreds of awards to Agency scientists
across many EPA programs and regions. This program, sponsored and managed by the Office of
Research and Development (ORD), is a crucial component of the Agency's efforts to recognize
and reward the development of sound science to inform decision making. However, in our view,
the Agency could do a much better job of making this important program more visible and
useful.
In this Commentary, we identify our recommendations to improve the visibility and
effectiveness of the STAA program. We have divided our recommendations into four
categories: a) strengths and weaknesses of the program; b) the general quality of the work being
done; c) improvements in the way EPA advertises success; and d) the importance of strong
leadership. Our specific observations and recommendations for each category follow.
1. Strengths and Weaknesses of the Program
On balance, we observe that the current STAA review process works very well and
should be retained. However, we believe that the eleven broad categories1 used to group
nominations should be re-evaluated periodically to determine if the focus of the program or the
priorities of the Agency (or "currency" of topics) have changed. For example, EPA might
Control Systems & Technology (CS), Ecology & Ecosystem Risk Assessment (ER), Health Effects & Health Risk
Assessment (HE), Monitoring & Measurement Methods (MM), Transport & Fate (TF), Review Articles (RA), Risk Management and
Policy Formulation (RM), Integrated Risk Management (IR), Environmental Trends for Drivers of Future Risk (EF), Social Science
Research (SS), and Environmental Education (EE)
-------
benefit from specific consideration of social science, environmental economics, risk
communication, exposure, and other topics as possible award candidates.
a) We recommend that the current two-stage process in assessing the STAA awards
(initial screening by ORD, followed by peer review by the SAB's STAA
Subcommittee) be retained. The face-to-face STAA meeting for final
assessments is absolutely essential as the review discussions cannot be handled
effectively via mail or teleconference.
b) Quality research often takes time to complete, however, the Agency also needs to
stress "currency" of topics in its annual submittal to the STAA Subcommittee.
We recommend that the topics of the nominations submitted by the Agency
reflect major priorities of the Agency and the Administrator whenever possible.
c) Basic research is valuable, but applied research is no less important — we
recommend that both kinds of work be submitted for consideration. Some of the
applied research papers will be seminal works that will be quoted and cited for
many years.
d) Critical review papers (e.g., nominations in the Review Articles category) can be
noteworthy. But they must contain more than just a synthesis of the information.
It is crucial that analysis and interpretation be included as well. We recommend
that the Agency consider adding a new category for major edited works.
e) We observe that the issue of policy is difficult to address, but that the science-
policy interface where EPA lives in its interactions with the Congress, the public
and various stakeholders is of great importance. Research in support of policy
may be a good application, but research in defense of policy decisions that have
been made in advance of the science may not be helpful, and are not very
productive.
2. General Quality of the Work Being Done
In order to maintain scientific credibility, it is crucial that the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency be viewed as a contributor to the advancement of science, especially science
that provides the technical underpinnings for its programs. The appearance of EPA-produced
scientific papers and articles in the peer-reviewed literature is critical and helps establish the
Agency as an important contributor to the scientific literature. Adding a strong, impartial awards
program that reviews the best of these publications and recommends the most significant work
among them for awards is an excellent means of enhancing the value of the work that has been
performed.
a) We are pleased with the overall quality observed in the papers. This is certainly
emphasized by our recommendation for two Level I awards and eleven Level II
awards this year - both representing increases over recent years. Each year, we
typically find the overall quality of the work to be good and recommend more
-------
than a third of the submitted nominations for some level of award. However, in
spite of such good quality work, the Agency has not used the Scientific and
Technological Achievement Awards process as a means of enhancing its
scientific leadership. We recommend that the Agency - through its Science
Policy Council - evaluate how best to use this very useful program to enhance the
way in which EPA's science is perceived on the outside.
b) We recommend that the Agency consider applying a formal awards program
(similar to the STAA program) to the ORD Science to Achieve Results (STAR)
Grants. We believe that it might be useful in the future for STAR grantees to
have more interaction with EPA researchers addressing parallel issues.
3. Advertising Success
It is evident to the SAB that the STAA program does not receive broad acknowledgment
and advertisement among the scientific community outside of EPA and the public in general.
For example, we have not received any feedback from the Agency regarding how awards are
presented and celebrated and how this program is promoted (e.g., in the press, in newsletters, in
the Administrator's speeches) to enhance credibility of science at EPA, nor have we seen
instances of external acknowledgment of the awards.
a) We recommend that the Agency provide consistent feedback to the SAB,
including informing us what is presently done to announce or otherwise
acknowledge the STAA awards. This can be done in writing as a response to our
annual report recommendations, or via an oral briefing at our annual meeting.
b) We recommend that the Agency initiate a press release after the STAA awards
are announced. In addition, information could be posted on the EPA/ORD and
SAB websites, as well as other areas (e.g., professional societies, ESA Bulletin,
SETAC, etc.).
c) We recommend that the Agency target articles in journals and encourage
editorials in journals or newsletters. The STAA Subcommittee is also willing to
participate in this effort.
d) The SAB Executive Committee intends to invite the Level I award winners each
year to present their findings at a public SAB Executive Committee meeting [and
to the extent possible, invite Level II award winners to present posters at the same
meeting]. We encourage the Agency to make arrangements for similar
presentations and posters through the EPA website and other venues.
e) We recommend that the STAA award presentations be elevated to a more visible
level, perhaps by combining them with other Agency-wide award ceremonies.
Although the bulk of the nominations, and hence the eventual award
recommendations are from ORD, the ceremony should be Agency-wide.
-------
4. Strong Leadership
While the importance of this program to the scientists competing for and receiving
awards is very clear, what is less clear is the commitment of Agency leadership to use these
awards and the STAA program as a means to enhance EPA scientific leadership. Buy-in and
support from the Laboratories and Programs is critical; however, strong support and positive
advocacy from the most senior levels of the Agency are critical to the effectiveness of the STAA
program and its ultimate importance to the Agency and the overall scientific community. This
includes strong support from all Assistant and Regional Administrators.
a) The STAA Program needs a strong advocate to remain effective. We recommend
that this be at the Administrator or Deputy Administrator level to ensure support
across all of EPA. Although most of the nominations come from, and the awards
are given to ORD scientists, the STAA program is Agency-wide. Such continued
support by upper management is essential for fostering an atmosphere of
productive and supportive research to the Agency's overall mission.
b) The STAA process is very definitely "Bottom-Up," and this is a good approach to
communicate directly with the scientists and researchers. However, there is a
need to communicate with Agency senior management on the issue of changing
perceptions on topical areas and their "currency." To assist in this, we
recommend that the SAB Executive Committee Chair and the STAA
Subcommittee Chair jointly brief the Deputy Administrator and the AA-ORD
about the awards and the SAB's observations concerning them following the SAB
approval of the Subcommittee report each year.
We are pleased to have participated in this process once again and believe it is
appropriate for the Board to continue this annual review function. We look forward to your
feedback on the issues we have raised in this commentary.
Sincerely,
/Signed/ /Signed/
Dr. William Glaze, Chair Dr. C. H. Ward, Chair
EPA Science Advisory Board Scientific and Technological Achievement
Awards Subcommittee
EPA Science Advisory Board
-------
NOTICE
This report has been written as part of the activities of the EPA Science Advisory Board,
a public advisory group providing extramural scientific information and advice to the
Administrator and other officials of the Environmental Protection Agency. The Board is
structured to provide balanced, expert assessment of scientific matters related to problems facing
the Agency. This report has not been reviewed for approval by the Agency and, hence, the
contents of this report do not necessarily represent the views and policies of the Environmental
Protection Agency, nor of other agencies in the Executive Branch of the Federal government, nor
does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute a recommendation for use.
Distribution and Availability: This EPA Science Advisory Board report is provided to the EPA
Administrator, senior Agency management, appropriate program staff, interested members of the
public, and is posted on the SAB website (www.epa.gov/sab). Information on its availability is
also provided in the SAB' s monthly newsletter (Happenings at the Science Advisory Board).
Additional copies and further information are available from the SAB Staff [US EPA Science
Advisory Board (1400A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; 202-
564-4533].
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA Science Advisory Board
Scientific And Technological Achievement Awards Subcommittee*
CHAIR
Dr. C. Herb Ward, Director, Energy Environmental Systems, Inc., Rice University, Houston, TX
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Dr. William H. Smith, Clifton R. Musser Professor Emeritus of Forest Biology, Yale University, Center
Harbor, NH Also Member: Research Strategies Advisory Committee
CONSULTANTS
Dr. Roger Cochran, Consultant, Department of Pesticide Regulation, California Environmental
Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA
Dr. Richard A. Conway, Environmental Consultant, Charleston, WV
Dr. Deborah Cory-Slechta, Professor and Chair, Department of Environmental Medicine, Medical
School, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY
Dr. Richard Di Giulio, Professor, Levine Science Research Center, Nicholas School of the
Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC
Dr. Allan Legge, President, Biosphere Solutions, Calgary, Alberta, CANADA
Dr. Frederick Pohland, Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA
Dr. Mitchell Small, Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Carnegie Mellon
University, Pittsburgh, PA
Dr. Michael Trehy, Senior Research Specialist, Solutia, Inc., St. Louis, MO
Dr. Judith S. Weis, Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, Rutgers University, Newark, NJ
EPA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD STAFF
Mr. A. Robert Flaak, Designated Federal Officer, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC
Dr. K. Jack Kooyoomjian, Designated Federal Officer, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC
Ms. Mary Winston, Management Assistant, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC
* Members of this SAB Panel consist of
a) SAB Members: Experts appointed by the Administrator to serve on one of the SAB Standing Committees.
b) SAB Consultants: Experts appointed by the SAB Staff Director to a one-year term to serve on ad hoc Panels
formed to address a particular issue.
c) Liaisons: Members of other Federal Advisory Committees who are not Members or Consultants of the Board.
d) Federal Experts: The SAB charter precludes Federal employees from being Members of the Board. "Federal
Experts" are federal employees who have technical knowledge and expertise relevant to the subject matter under
review or study by a particular panel.
11
------- |