Agenda Item: NRSP Review Committee

Presenters: Craig Nessler

 

The NRSP Review Committee met in Washington, DC on June 3-4 to discuss the NRSPs’ budget requests and proposals.  The Review Committee developed the following recommendations for the FY ‘10 NRSP portfolio.  The NRSP-RC had a conference call on August 28 to consider comments received from the regional associations and responses to questions relative to three of the proposals.  The following final recommendations are offered for consideration by the ESS membership.

 

The NRSP-RC also discussed how it could better manage review of proposals for new NRSP’s, including peer reviews and the writing committee’s responses to those reviews.  Revisions to the NRSP Guidelines are proposed to help accomplish this.

 

NRSP Review Committee Recommendations for FY2010:

 

NRSP-1 – Research Planning Using the Current Research Information System (CRIS)

 

Approve FY’10 budet of $346,829.

 

Comments –

·         Renewal proposal next year needs to address future relationship with the new reporting system, REEport.

·         Current project terminates Sep 30, 2010.

 

NRSP-3 – National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP)

 

Approve renewal proposal for ’09 –’14.

 

Approve FY’10 budget of $50,000.

 

Comments –

·         Improve communication of future directions with AES directors

 

NRSP-4 – National Agricultural Program to Clear Pest Control Agents for Minor Uses

 

Approve FY’10 budget of $481,182.

 

Comments –

• Current project terminates Sep 30, 2010.

 

NRSP-6 – Inter-Regional Potato Introduction Project

 

Approve FY’10 budget of $150,000.

 

Comments –

• Current project terminates Sep 30, 2010.

 

NRSP-7 – Minor Use Animal Drugs

 

Approve proposal for ’09 – ’14 with the caveat that MRF funding will be reduced each year by whatever special grant is appropriated for this project up to $325,000.

 

Approve FY’10 budget of $325,000, with caveat that MRF funding will be reduced by whatever special grant amount is appropriated for this project in FY’10 up to $325,000. 

 

Comments –

These recommendations were contingent on receipt of responses to the following questions and incorporation of those responses into a revised proposal.  Click here to see the responses.

·         What is the process for selecting which drugs are tested through NRSP-7?

·         How many drugs are on the waiting list and what is the projected progress over the next 5 years?

·         Is the industry support for this activity only $16,800 as indicated in the budget tables?  If not, please provide more information on industry support.

 

NRSP-8 – National Animal Genome Program

 

Approve FY’10 budget of $500,000.

 

Comments –

·         Next year’s budget request must include justification for each species’ budget, including the purpose (ie salary, travel, supplies, etc) and why the funding is divided equally among species rather than based on priority and need.

• Current project terminates Sep 30, 2013.

 

NRSP_temp161 – National Animal Nutrition Program

 

Defer the decision on this proposal until next year so that a revised proposal may be submitted that addresses the following concerns. 

 

Comments –

The writing committee has responded to the following questions sent to them in June.  Click here to see the responses.

·         Why did NRC stop providing this service? Did they determine if was not needed or used by the industry, or did it become a low budget priority for NRC, or some other reason?

·         What role does ARS have in the proposed activity?

·         Why is the budget split equally between the different activity areas.  What is the justification for this?  What is basic budget for each coordinator and technical group, ie. salaries/wages, travel, supplies, etc?

·         Why is aquaculture and other minor species (small ruminants, horses, etc.) not included?

 

However, it is still unclear what the demand is among university animal scientists and veterinarians for this type of information and how it is critical for supporting research in animal nutrition.  The writing committee is encouraged to incorporate this information into a revised proposal and resubmit it for consideration next year.

 

NRSP_temp201 – The Specialty Crops Regulatory Assistance Program

 

Defer the decision on this proposal until next year so that a revised proposal may be submitted that addresses the following concerns. 

 

Appoint regional Administrative Advisors immediately so that they can be closely involved in the proposal’s revision.

 

Comments –

·         Provide documentation of substantive interest by the specialty crop industry for this type of program focused on obtaining data needed for regulatory submissions.

·         Provide a description of the process by which proposals for data collection will be reviewed and selected. This process should include input from the spectrum of stakeholders; including consumer groups, specialty crop industry, environmental, and other organizations.

·         Include a requirement for matching funds (not just in-kind) from the appropriate specialty crops industry to support collection of regulatory data for specific crops.

·         Simplify the proposed organization and structure to reduce costs associated with administration.

 

Revisions to NRSP Guidelines

 

The following changes in the review process for new NRSP proposals are reflected in the proposed NRSP Guidelines revisions.  Click here to see the entire Guidelines document with proposed changes indicated.

 

• Individuals interested in creating a new NRSP are required encouraged to submit an outline of the proposed NRSP’s objectives, justification, and tentative budget to the NRSP Review Committee for a preliminary review no later than September 1 of the year prior to the proposed start date (ie Sep 1, 2010 for a start date of Oct 1, 2011).  If this review is positive then the following steps should be followed to formally submit a proposal for consideration by the ESS.

 

• Administrative Advisors submit the project proposal and projected five-year budget, and conducts arranges for anat least three external peer reviewser of the proposal.  Peer reviewers should be instructed to use the peer review form shown in Appendix D.  The Administrative Advisors work with the NRSP development committee to revise the proposal and budget based on the peer review comments.

 

• Not later than January 15

Administrative Advisors submit revised proposal and five-year budget, along with peer review comments and the committee’s responses, to the Executive DirectorsNRSP Review Committee Chair via NIMSS.  NRSP Review Committee Chair reviews package for completeness and then forwards it to the Executive Directors.

 

·         A new Peer Review form has been developed and will be included in the Guidelines as Appendix D.  The review form currently in the Guidelines will continue to be used as a guide for review by the regional associations.  Click here to see the proposed new Peer Review form.

 

Action Requested:

 

Approval of the NRSP Review Committee recommendations on FY’10 NRSP budgets, renewal proposals, new proposals, and Guidelines changes