A new book from the National Research Council recommends changes in how the federal government evaluates the efficiency of research at EPA and other agencies. Assessing efficiency should be considered only one part of gauging a program's quality, relevance, and effectiveness. The efficiency of research processes and that of investments should be evaluated using different approaches. Investment efficiency should examine whether an agency's R&D portfolio, including the budget, is relevant, of high quality, matches the agency's strategic plan. These evaluations require panels of experts. In contrast, process efficiency should focus on "inputs" (the people, funds, and facilities dedicated to research) and "outputs" (the services, grants, publications, monitoring, and new techniques produced by research), as well as their timelines and should be evaluated using quantitative measures. The committee recommends that the efficiency of EPA's research programs be evaluated according to the same standards used at other agencies. To ensure this, OMB should train and oversee its budget examiners so that the PART questionnaire is implemented consistently and equitably across agencies.

Environmental research has driven landmark improvements that led to the protection of human and ecosystem health. Recognizing the value of knowledge generated by environmental research and the ingenuity within academic and nonprofit institutions, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) created a program known as Science to Achieve Results, or STAR, in 1995. STAR is EPA's primary competitive extramural grants program. A Review of the Environmental Protection Agency's Science to Achieve Results Research Program assesses the program's scientific merit, public benefits, and overall contributions in the context of other relevant research and recommends ways to enhance those aspects of the program. This report also considers the conclusions and recommendations of a prior National Research Council review of the STAR program (2003), the STAR program's research priorities in light of the nation's environmental challenges, and the effects of recent STAR funding trends on obtaining scientific information needed to protect public health and the environment.

Introduction: The government performance and results act, the program assessment rating tool, and the Environmental Protection Agency -- Efficiency metrics used by the Environmental Protection Agency and other federal research and development programs -- Are the efficiency metrics used by the federal research and development programs sufficient and outcome-based? -- A model for evaluating research and development programs -- Findings, principles, and recommendations -- Appendices -- Boxes, figures and tables.

In 1997, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established regulatory standards to address health risks posed by inhaling tiny particles from smoke, vehicle exhaust, and other sources. At the same time, Congress and the EPA began a multimillion dollar research effort to better understand the sources of these airborne particles, the levels of exposure to people, and the ways that these particles cause disease. To provide independent guidance to the EPA, Congress asked the National Research Council to study the relevant issues. The result was a series of four reports on the particulate-matter research program. The first two books offered a conceptual framework for a national research program, identified the 10 most critical research needs, and described the recommended timing and estimated costs of such research. The third volume began the task of assessing initial progress made in implementing the research program. This, the fourth and final volume, gauged research progress made over a 5-year period on each of the 10 research topics. The National Research Council concludes that particulate matter research has led to a better understanding of the health effects caused by tiny airborne particles. However, the EPA, in concert with other agencies, should continue research to reduce further uncertainties and inform long-term decisions.