FACACLASSIC

Note: An Annual Comprehensive Review, as required by §7 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, is conducted each year on committee data entered for the previous fiscal year (referred to as the reporting year). The data for the reporting year is not considered verified until this review is complete and the data is moved to history for an agency/department. See the Data From Previous Years section at the bottom of this page for the committee’s historical, verified data.

Details on agency responses to committee recommendations can be found under the Performance Measures section for each committee in the fields “Agency Feedback” and “Agency Feedback Comment.”

NSF - 1141 - Advisory Panel for Developmental Mechanisms - Agency Authority

GENERAL INFORMATION

Committee Name	Advisory Panel for Developmental Mechanisms	Agency Name	National Science Foundation
Fiscal Year	2001	Committee Number	1141
Original Establishment Date	8/23/1985	Committee Status	Terminated
Actual Termination Date	6/30/2001	Committee URL
Actual Merged Date		Presidential Appointments*	No
New Committee This FY	No	Max Number of Members*	Unlimited
Terminated This FY	Yes	Designated Fed Officer Position Title*	Division Director, IBN
Merged This FY		Designated Federal Officer Prefix	Dr.
Current Charter Date	6/30/1999	Designated Federal Officer First Name*	Frank
Date Of Renewal Charter	6/30/2001	Designated Federal Officer Middle Name	C.
Projected Termination Date	6/30/2001	Designated Federal Officer Last Name*	Greene
Exempt From Renewal*	No	Designated Federal Officer Suffix
Specific Termination Authority		Designated Federal Officer Phone*	292-8420
Establishment Authority*	Agency Authority	Designated Federal Officer Fax*	292-9153
Specific Establishment Authority*	ADM IV-100	Designated Federal Officer Email*
Effective Date Of Authority*	9/30/1992
Exempt From EO 13875 Discretionary Cmte
Committee Type*	Continuing
Presidential*	No
Committee Function*	Grant Review Committee

RECOMMENDATION/JUSTIFICATIONS

Agency Recommendation*	Continue
Legislation to Terminate Required	No
Legislation Status
How does cmte accomplish its purpose?*	The Developmental Mechanisms Review Panel advises in three scientific areas, plant & microbial development, animal development biology, and the evolution of development. In 2001, this panel reviewed a total of 200 competing proposals for research initiatives. The funds expended by the program totalled about 18.0M in FY01; however, this includes supplementary awards to existing awards and awards to symposia not reviewed by the Panel.The primary role of the Panel is to identify those proposals most worthy of funding, in the environment of limited funds. The Panel's recommendations are based solely on scientific merit. In addition to this key role, the Panel also provides service to the program in particular and to the NSF community as a whole by discussing matters of importance to the research community they represent. They advise the NSF regarding current trends in innovative research, format changes in proposal processing, and how the reviewing process can be improved. In meeting with the program officers over a period of three days for each Panel session, they also gain knowledge of the workings of the NSF and an appreciation for the difficulties of the process of balancing funding decisions.
How is membership balanced?*	Membership is based primarily on criteria of outstanding abilities and scientific judgment of the individual panelist. In addition, the program balances the representation on the Panel in terms of the enormous range of systems and techniques that need to be covered to effectively evaluate the proposals coming to Developmental Mechanisms. The group must encompass experts in invertebrate and vertebrate animal systems, plants, and microbes. Consideration is also made to balance the Panel in terms of gender and underrepresented minorities, as well as representation for small colleges and research institutes, along with the large research universities. The 26 panelists that served in 2001 fit in the following categories: researchers studying invertebrate systems, including Drosophila, C.elegans, and marine invertebrates, 12 panelists; and those in vertebrate systems, 5 panelists; and those studying plants or microbes, 9 panelists -- there were 6 women panelists.
How frequent & relevant are cmte mtgs?*	The Developmental Mechanisms Review Panel met twice in FY 01. These meetings correspond to the programs' two target dates a year. The panel is absolutely essential in their role of advising the two program directors regarding the relative merits of the entire group of proposals, a role not possible for mail reviewers to fulfill.
Why advice can't be obtained elsewhere?*	While ad hoc reviews can and do provide a vital function of circumspect and critical expert knowledge in their area, they only evaluate a single proposal at a time, and therefore cannot provide the advice necessary for the program officer to choose between many meritorious applications. The Panel has the charge of placing proposals in funding categories in relation to one another. If funds were not so limiting, and all deserving awards could be funded, the panel's overall perspective might not be necessary.
Why close or partially close meetings?	To review proposals that included information or a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals.
Recommendation Remarks

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Outcome Improvement To Health Or Safety*		Action Reorganize Priorities*
Outcome Trust In Government		Action Reallocate Resources
Outcome Major Policy Changes		Action Issued New Regulations
Outcome Advance In Scientific Research		Action Proposed Legislation
Outcome Effective Grant Making		Action Approved Grants Or Other Payments
Outcome Improved Service Delivery		Action Other
Outcome Increased Customer Satisfaction		Action Comment
Outcome Implement Laws/Reg Requirements		Grants Review*
Outcome Other		Number Of Grants Reviewed
Outcome Comment		Number Of Grants Recommended
Cost Savings*		Dollar Value Of Grants Recommended
Cost Savings Comment		Grants Review Comment
Number Of Recommendations*		Access Contact Designated Fed. Officer*
Number Of Recommendations Comment		Access Agency Website
% of Recs Fully Implemented*		Access Committee Website
% of Recs Fully Implemented Comment		Access GSA FACA Website
% of Recs Partially Implemented*		Access Publications
% of Recs Partially Implemented Comment		Access Other
Agency Feedback*		Access Comment
Agency Feedback Comment*		Narrative Description*

COSTS

1. Payments to Non-Federal Members*	$48,920.00	1. Est Paymnts to Non-Fed Membrs Nxt FY*	$0.00
2. Payments to Federal Members*	$0.00	2. Est. Payments to Fed Members Next FY*	$0.00
3. Payments to Federal Staff*	$14,420.00	3. Estimated Payments to Federal Staff*	$0.00
4. Payments to Consultants*	$0.00	4. Est. Payments to Consultants Next FY*	$0.00
5. Travel Reimb. For Non-Federal Membrs*	$14,406.00	5. Est Travel Reimb Non-Fed Membr nxtFY*	$0.00
6. Travel Reimb. For Federal Members*	$0.00	6. Est Travel Reimb For Fed Members*	$0.00
7. Travel Reimb. For Federal Staff*	$0.00	7. Est. Travel Reimb to Fed Staf Nxt FY*	$0.00
8. Travel Reimb. For Consultants*	$0.00	8. Est Travel Reimb to Consltnts Nxt FY*	$0.00
10. Other Costs	$1,973.00	10. Est. Other Costs Next FY*	$0.00
11. Total Costs	$79,719.00	11. Est. Total Next FY*	$0.00
Date Cost Last Modified		Est. Fed Staff Support Next FY*	0.00
Federal Staff Support (FTE)*	0.18	Est Cost Remarks
Cost Remarks

Interest Areas

No interest areas selected for this committee.

Custom Links

Committee Level Reports