Skip to main content

National Laboratories and Universities Building New Ways to Work Together: Report of a Workshop (2005) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:

Incentives and Structures
Pages 9-14

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 9...
... At the individual investigator level, collaborations are developed to support key proposals or to meet specific capabilities needed for research programs. According to Gerald Stokes, director of the Joint Global Change Research Institute, some DOE programs encourage the participation of university researchers as a competitive factor in some solicitations.
Read the entire page →
From page 10...
... The importance of relationships at higher levels between the institutions was reinforced by presenters and some participants. At Oak Ridge, for example, Wadsworth pointed to the key role that Georgia Tech played in ORNL's successful proposal for a nanoscale science research center.
Read the entire page →
From page 11...
... The problem in sharing human and financial resources between laboratories and universities was attributed to the differences between DOE procurement regulations and the OMB circulars under which universities operate. Research administrators in attendance suggested that an OMB 1The purpose of the NIH Glue Grant Initiative is to make resources available for currently funded scientists to form research teams to tackle complex problems that are of central importance to biomedical science and to the mission of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS)
Read the entire page →
From page 12...
... The problem seems to lie in the two different human resource systems and overhead systems that can operate in universities and national laboratories. It really seems necessary to have high-level formal commitments with universities, not only for joint hiring, but also to enable more collaborative programs and joint institutes, for example.
Read the entire page →
From page 13...
... FINANCING MODELS AND RESOURCE AVAILABILITY Participants raised a number of issues relative to finances and the availability of resources for supporting collaborative activity, some of which were viewed as providing major barriers to collaboration. A major issue is the difference between the two institutions in overhead rates.
Read the entire page →
From page 14...
... Laboratory projects may have more of a 1-2 year time frame for completion, with continuous progress expected and reported on to DOE. Additionally, the large, complex nature of many laboratory projects requires them to be team driven, whereas most universities reward individual (single PI)
Read the entire page →

Key Terms

  • university researchers
  • joint institutes
  • breakout session
  • joint appointments
  • institutional structures

  • jeffrey wadsworth
  • issues relative
  • omb circulars
  • nanoscale science
  • section draws

  • glue grant
  • participants voiced
  • draws heavily
  • joint research
  • primary mission

  • collaborative activity
  • nih glue
  • national labs
  • subcontracting mechanism
  • doe field

  • foreign students
  • university representatives
  • competitive factor
  • strategic collaboration
  • doe procurement

  • doe programs
  • form research
  • contractual mechanisms
  • institutional level
  • funding increasingly


    • This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
    More information on Chapter Skim is available.