Hearing of the Oversight Subcommittee and the Research & Technology Subcommittee of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee - Is NSF Properly Managing Its Rotating Staff

Hearing

The National Science Foundation (NSF) employs thousands of hard-working scientists and staff,
many of whom live in my district. I value the tremendous benefit that the agency has brought to
America and Americans over the past 65 years by supporting a wide range of scientific
discoveries that have improved our understanding of every facet of the world around us.

As with any organization, public or private, problems sometimes emerge. Management
improvements can be made and administrative oversight enhanced. Today's hearing will focus
on the management and oversight of the NSF's "Rotator" program.

The NSF's rotator program, primarily Intergovernmental Personnel Act positions, allows nonfederal
employees from academic institutions and research labs to work at NSF for a temporary
period of up to four years.

The advantage of this program is that it guarantees a continuous infusion of scholars at the
forefront of their fields. This approach to staffing is similar to another program that has long
been viewed as one of the most valuable in the U.S. government: the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency. DARPA also relies on "rotators" to come in and manage research
portfolios focused on innovative, emerging research.

While there are obvious benefits to this program, it is impossible to use such a system without
running some risks. IPA staff are not necessarily trained managers, but fill professional staff
positions. And NSF relies on the IPA program to fill positions far in excess of any other federal
agency. This can cause some problems among the rank and file employees. IPA's also have not
been brought up through the Civil Service ranks with an appreciation of the importance of
avoiding conflicts of interest.

Each year, NSF provides around $7 billion in grant awards and cooperative agreements to
academic institutions. NSF is widely praised for the efficiency of its grants management
system, and widely copied by foreign governments looking to spur creativity and innovation.

However, when employees of grant-receiving institutions come to NSF on temporary assignment
it is important that the Foundation routinely insure that each rotator is properly trained and
monitored to insure they manage their portfolio wisely and in compliance with the law. The
Foundation must take prompt steps to identify potential Conflicts-of-Interest and that rotators
have the proper training to understand their obligations to avoid violating conflict of interest
rules at the agency.

Today, we will hear from the NSF IG about a single rotator who failed to meet obligations for
disclosing conflicts and for taking ethics training. The IG found that the individual was involved
in three grant decisions where inappropriate ties to the grant recipient calls into question the
integrity of the award.

It is hard to determine the degree to which this one failing represents systemic issues with the
way NSF manages IPAs, or whether it is an unfortunate "one-off" failing. I agree with the IG
that this incident points to broader management issues regarding NSF's oversight of the rotator
program and the recommendations contained in their report seem reasonable, and perhaps
obviously overdue. I know NSF has not had much time to evaluate the specific
recommendations, but I believe that where management problems exist they need to be quickly
fixed. Where conflicts-of-interest emerge they need to be removed and rectified. The public has
to have confidence that NSF is managing funds with absolute integrity.

These new recommendations regarding conflicts of interest policies join a standing list of other
IG recommendations on the IPA program that were designed to control costs in those programs.
While NSF has moved to put some of those changes in place, I am disappointed to learn that
those reforms have been on a very, very slow track. Without endorsing any particular
recommendation at this time, NSF should know that I expect its leadership to do more and more
quickly in this area.

I believe the Rotator program as a whole can bring great benefit to NSF and to the federal
government. The program helps to spark fresh and innovative ideas. It fosters collaboration
between the federal government and America's intellectually rich academic community. It
improves the advancement of scientific discoveries and cutting edge technological developments
in a wide range of subjects.

As we strive to promote greater economic efficiencies on the NSF rotator program and endeavor
to enhance the agency's administrative management and oversight of potential Conflicts of
Interest I believe it is important to keep the benefits of the program in mind. One bad case does
not a crisis make and the Committee would be well served to keep this in mind.

I look forward to hearing from our two witnesses both about the issues that have been identified
and the actions that have been taken to correct them.

Thank you very much. With that I yield back.

Source