NIFA is USDA’s primary extramural research agency, and, unlike staff of  ARS, who conduct their own research, NIFA staff do not conduct  research. ARS and NIFA Use Agency and Scientific Safeguards to Prevent Duplication of Research Projects in Similar Topic Areas, but Some Shortcomings Exist

ARS and NIFA generally focus on many of the same broad topics, and  the agencies rely on agency-developed safeguards, as well as on the  scientific community’s professional norms, to prevent duplication of  research projects within and between the agencies. Indeed, agency officials and stakeholders could provide no recent  examples of duplication within or between the two agencies, and our  review of 20 randomly selected agency research projects did not identify  duplicative projects. The key safeguards ARS developed to help prevent duplicative  research projects include the following:
National program leaders set research project objectives. National program leaders review project plans. The peer review process used by scientific journals limits the  publication of unnecessarily duplicative research. Some Shortcomings May Limit the Utility of Certain Agency Safeguards

Our review also identified some shortcomings with certain agency  safeguards, which may somewhat limit their usefulness and increase the  potential risk of duplication between or within the two agencies. Three of  these shortcomings limit CRIS’s utility to guard against duplication of  research projects, specifically, (1) ARS data in CRIS are not current;  (2) NIFA directs staff to conduct a CRIS duplication check for what  amounts to two-thirds, but not all, of its competitive grants; and (3) CRIS  searches are not user friendly. ARS project information that is typically at least 6 months out-of-date  when uploaded limits CRIS’s utility as a safeguard to prevent duplication  of research projects and increases the risk of inadvertent project  duplication at the two agencies. After discussing this topic with us,  agency officials said that ARS now expects its staff to send ARS project  information on a quarterly basis to NIFA for uploading. NIFA directs its staff to conduct a CRIS duplication search for certain  projects accounting for about two-thirds of the funding it awarded for  competitive grants over the last decade. The  agency recently convened a task force to study, among other issues,  whether this directive should be extended to other competitive grants. High-Level Collaborative Planning Has Increased, but Agency-Level Collaborative Planning between ARS and NIFA Has Not Been Systematic

Over the past few years, USDA’s Chief Scientist has facilitated increased  collaborative planning within the REE mission area, particularly between  ARS and NIFA, but agency-level collaborative planning between these  two agencies has not been systematic. Specifically, the Chief Scientist  and her staff have led several REE-level planning efforts that, over the  past several years, have brought together staff from the two agencies and  generated key products. Nevertheless, six USDA officials with planning  responsibilities said that collaborative planning between ARS and NIFA  national program leaders has not been systematic for topic areas the  agencies have in common, and 20 officials and stakeholders said that  ARS and NIFA should systematically hold joint planning and stakeholder  input meetings to make the best use of limited agricultural research  resources. USDA, however, has not implemented these  recommendations. By  enhancing collaborative planning for topic areas that ARS and NIFA have  in common, as the animal sciences area has done, the agencies can take  full advantage of their collective knowledge and expertise in setting their  research priorities and determining their roles and responsibilities for  carrying out these priorities. In  addition, some collaborative planning initiated jointly by ARS and NIFA  has occurred across national program areas, such as in the animal  sciences area. For our recommendation that USDA require, as it identifies promising  systems for searching and disseminating research project information,  the appropriate entity to (1) determine whether VIVO or other systems  are more effective or efficient than CRIS in identifying potentially  duplicative research and (2) revise guidance to reflect the best system  and methods for identifying potentially duplicative research projects:  In the written comments, the Chief Scientist stated that, as the  initiatives “mature and provide validated improvements over existing  systems, guidance for use of the best available tools for safeguarding  against duplication” could “enhance this benefit.”
For our recommendation that USDA enhance ARS’s and NIFA’s  collaborative approach across all topic areas they have in common— including holding jointly sponsored meetings with stakeholders—to  help set their research priorities and help them determine their roles  and responsibilities for carrying out these priorities: While USDA did  not expressly agree or disagree with this recommendation, it stated in  its comments that it expects ARS and NIFA to “continue to increase  the number of jointly sponsored planning activities” and that ARS- NIFA joint stakeholder meetings in Plant Sciences and Aquaculture  are already planned for 2013. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our objectives were to examine (1) the topics the Agricultural Research  Agency (ARS) and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA)  focus on and the safeguards they use to prevent duplication of research  projects, along with any shortcomings in those safeguards, and  (2) collaborative planning ARS and NIFA engaged in and how, if at all,  such planning could be enhanced.
Why GAO Did This Study

The USDA's principal research agencies, ARS and NIFA, play a key role in supporting agricultural science, and questions have been raised about the extent to which the two agencies may be performing duplicative research and whether the agencies collaborate in planning research. Research duplication is the inadvertent repetition of research that does not confirm or verify conclusions from prior studies. Collaborative planning involves bringing together research agencies and stakeholders to discuss priorities and roles and responsibilities. In this context, GAO was asked to assess how these agencies ensure the efficient use of their resources for research. This report examines (1) the topics ARS and NIFA focus on and the safeguards the agencies use to prevent duplication of research projects, along with any shortcomings in those safeguards, and (2) collaborative planning ARS and NIFA engaged in and how, if at all, such planning could be enhanced. GAO reviewed USDA safeguards against duplication within and between ARS and NIFA; reviewed 20 randomly selected projects; analyzed information on collaborative planning; and interviewed officials from USDA, universities, and industry.

What GAO Found

The Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) generally focus on many of the same broad topics and rely on agency safeguards, as well as on the scientific community's professional norms, to prevent inadvertent duplication of research projects within and between the agencies. Shortcomings with certain agency safeguards, however, may increase the potential risk of project duplication within or between the two agencies. ARS and NIFA built in their own safeguards to help prevent project duplication, such as (1) panels of independent external scientists who review proposed projects and (2) agency requirements for staff to ensure that proposed work is relevant, including checking the Current Research Information System (CRIS)--USDA's primary system containing project-level information on its ongoing and completed research projects--for potentially duplicative research projects in both agencies. The agencies also rely on professional norms to safeguard against duplication, such as the peer review process used by scientific journals to limit the publication of unnecessarily duplicative research. Indeed, agency officials and stakeholders could not provide recent examples of duplication within or between the two agencies, and GAO's review of 20 randomly selected research projects did not identify duplicative projects. Nevertheless, GAO identified a few shortcomings that somewhat limit the utility of certain agency safeguards. First, information in CRIS about ARS projects was typically at least 6 months out-of-date when uploaded, which undermines CRIS's utility as a safeguard. ARS officials said that the agency now expects staff to provide ARS project information on a quarterly basis, but ARS has not issued guidance about this expectation. Second, NIFA directs staff to conduct a CRIS duplication check for projects that accounted for about two-thirds of the funding it awarded for competitive grants; as a result, about one-third of its competitive grants are not subject to this safeguard against duplication. NIFA recently convened a task force to study, among other issues, whether the directive to check CRIS should be extended to all competitive grants.
USDA's Chief Scientist facilitated high-level collaborative planning, particularly between ARS and NIFA, in recent years, but 20 USDA officials and stakeholders said that agency-level collaborative planning between ARS's and NIFA's national program leaders working in common topic areas could be more systematic to make the best use of limited agricultural research resources. Specifically, the Chief Scientist and her staff led several high-level planning efforts that brought together staff from the two agencies and generated key products, such as a plan that identified USDA's seven goals for implementing its science priorities and the agencies responsible for implementing these goals. Nevertheless, national program leaders at the two agencies generally do not, and are not required to, systematically hold joint meetings for seeking stakeholder input and for setting research priorities. Some systematic collaborative planning, however, has been jointly initiated by ARS and NIFA national program leaders, such as in the animal sciences area. By enhancing collaborative planning across national program areas, as the animal sciences area has, ARS and NIFA can take fuller advantage of their collective knowledge and expertise to help set their research priorities.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends, among other things, that ARS issue guidance that project information be provided to CRIS on a quarterly basis and that ARS and NIFA enhance collaborative planning. USDA generally agreed with GAO's findings, and cited benefits for three of the four recommendations.