Full download test bank at ebookmeta.

com

The Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive

Research 1st Edition Institute Of Medicine

For dowload this book click LINK or Button below

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-experimental-
program-to-stimulate-competitive-research-1st-
edition-institute-of-medicine/

OR CLICK BUTTON

DOWLOAD EBOOK

Download More ebooks from https://ebookmeta.com

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

The Air Force Health Study Assets Research Program 1st

Edition Institute Of Medicine

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-air-force-health-study-assets-
research-program-1st-edition-institute-of-medicine/

Periodontitis Advances in Experimental Research

Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology 1373
Julien Santi-Rocca (Editor)

https://ebookmeta.com/product/periodontitis-advances-in-
experimental-research-advances-in-experimental-medicine-and-
biology-1373-julien-santi-rocca-editor/

The Postdoctoral Experience Revisited 1st Edition

Institute Of Medicine

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-postdoctoral-experience-
revisited-1st-edition-institute-of-medicine/

Preventing Intimate Partner Violence in Uganda Kenya

and Tanzania Summary of a Joint Workshop by the
Institute of Medicine the National Research Council and
the Uganda National Academy of Sciences 1st Edition
National Research Council Institute Of Medicine Board
https://ebookmeta.com/product/preventing-intimate-partner-
violence-in-uganda-kenya-and-tanzania-summary-of-a-joint-
On Global Health Forum On Global Violence Prevention
workshop-by-the-institute-of-medicine-the-national-research-
Louise Flavahan
Support for Forensic Science Research Improving the
Scientific Role of the National Institute of Justice
1st Edition And Medicine Engineering National Academies
Of Sciences
https://ebookmeta.com/product/support-for-forensic-science-
research-improving-the-scientific-role-of-the-national-institute-
of-justice-1st-edition-and-medicine-engineering-national-
academies-of-sciences/

Countering the Problem of Falsified and Substandard

Drugs 1st Edition Institute Of Medicine

https://ebookmeta.com/product/countering-the-problem-of-
falsified-and-substandard-drugs-1st-edition-institute-of-
medicine/

Assessing Progress on the Institute of Medicine Report

the Future of Nursing 1st Edition

https://ebookmeta.com/product/assessing-progress-on-the-
institute-of-medicine-report-the-future-of-nursing-1st-edition/

Research on Health Effects of Low Level Ionizing

Radiation Exposure Opportunities for the Armed Forces
Radiobiology Research Institute 1st Edition National
Research Council Institute Of Medicine Nuclear And
Radiation Studies Board Board On The Health Of Select
https://ebookmeta.com/product/research-on-health-effects-of-low-
level-ionizing-radiation-exposure-opportunities-for-the-armed-
Populations Committee On Research Directions In Human
forces-radiobiology-research-institute-1st-edition-national-
Biological Effects Of Low Level Ionizing Radiation
research-council-institute-of-medicine-nucle/

Building and Measuring Community Resilience: Actions

for Communities and the Gulf Research Program 1st
Edition And Medicine Engineering National Academies Of
Sciences
https://ebookmeta.com/product/building-and-measuring-community-
resilience-actions-for-communities-and-the-gulf-research-
program-1st-edition-and-medicine-engineering-national-academies-
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street,
NW Washington, DC 20001
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved
by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose
members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of
Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of
Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report
were chosen for their special competences and with regard for
appropriate balance.
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science
Foundation under Grant No. 1157188 to the National Academy of
Sciences. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations
expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-28828-6
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-28828-2
Additional copies of this report are available for sale from the
National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360,
Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313;
http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2013 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights
reserved.
Printed in the United States of America.
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and
Medicine

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-

perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific
and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science
and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the
authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the
Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal
government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone
is president of the National Academy of Sciences.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964,

under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel
organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its
administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the
National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the
federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also
sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs,
encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior
achievements of engineers. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president of the
National Academy of Engineering.

The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National

Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of
appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters
pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the
responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its
congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government
and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care,
research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the
Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National
Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of
science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering
knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in
accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the
Council has become the principal operating agency of both the
National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of
Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and
the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is
administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of
Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr are chair and
vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.

www.national-academies.org
 COMMITTEE TO EVALUATE EPSCOR AND
SIMILAR FEDERAL AGENCY PROGRAMS
NORINE NOONAN, (Co-Chair) Professor of Biology and Director of
the Advanced Placement Summer Institute, University of South
Florida, St. Petersburg
WILLIAM SPENCER [NAE], (Co-Chair) Chairman Emeritus,
SEMATECH
ROGER BEACHY [NAS], President Emeritus, Donald Danforth Plant
Science Center; Professor of Biology, Washington University in St.
Louis
RICHARD F. CELESTE, President Emeritus, Colorado College
ROBERT DUNCAN, Vice Chancellor for Research, University of
Missouri
IRWIN FELLER, Professor Emeritus, Department of Economics,
Pennsylvania State University
ELISABETH GANTT [NAS], Distinguished University Professor
Emerita, Department of Cell Biology and Molecular Genetics,
University of Maryland
C. JUDSON KING [NAE], Director, Center for Studies in Higher
Education; Professor Emeritus, Department of Chemical
Engineering, University of California, Berkeley
JOHN LINEHAN [NAE], Professor of Biomedical Engineering,
Northwestern University
PERCY A. PIERRE [NAE], Professor of Electrical and Computer
Engineering, Michigan State University
SUBHASH SINGHAL [NAE], Battelle Fellow and Director, Fuel
Cells, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
CHARLES STABEN, Provost, Vice President for Academic Affairs,
and Professor of Biology, University of South Dakota
GEORGE R. STARK [NAS, IOM], Distinguished Scientist, Lerner
Research Institute and Emeritus Professor of Genetics, Case
Western Reserve University
ALBERT H. TEICH, Research Professor of Science, Technology and
International Affairs, Center for International Science and
Technology Policy, George Washington University

Staff
KEVIN FINNERAN, Study Director, Committee on Science,
Engineering, and Public Policy
MARIA LUND DAHLBERG, Research Associate, Committee on
Science, Engineering, and Public Policy
DAVID J. PROCTOR, Research Associate, Committee on Science,
Engineering, and Public Policy (until September 2012)
GAIL GREENFIELD, Senior Program Officer, Board on Higher
Education and the Workforce (until October 2012)
MARION RAMSEY, Administrative Associate, Committee on
Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (until October 2013)

Consultants
DANIEL SCHAFFER, Consultant Writer
RICHARD-DUANE CHAMBERS, Consultant (until April 2013)
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, AND
PUBLIC POLICY
RICHARD N. ZARE [NAS], (Chair), Marguerite Blake Wilbur
Professor, Stanford University
LINDA M. ABRIOLA [NAE], Dean of Engineering, Tufts University
SUSAN ATHEY [NAS], Professor, Graduate School of Business,
Stanford University
MOSES H.W. CHAN [NAS], Evan Pugh Professor of Physics,
Pennsylvania State University
RALPH J. CICERONE [NAS], (ex-officio), President, National
Academy of Sciences
PAUL CITRON [NAE], Vice President (Retired), Technology Policy
and Academic Relations, Medtronic, Inc.
DAVID DANIEL [NAE], President, The University of Texas at Dallas
GORDON R. ENGLAND [NAE], President, E6 Partners LLC
HARVEY V. FINEBERG [IOM], (ex-officio), President, Institute of
Medicine
DIANE E. GRIFFIN [NAS, IOM], Alfred and Jill Sommer Professor,
Chair in Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, Johns Hopkins
Bloomberg School of Public Health
C. D. MOTE, JR. [NAE], (ex-officio), President, National Academy of
Engineering
PERCY A. PIERRE [NAE], Vice President and Professor Emeritus,
Michigan State University
E. ALBERT REECE [IOM], Vice President for Medical Affairs, Bowers
Distinguished Professor and Dean, School of Medicine, University
of Maryland Baltimore
MICHAEL S. TURNER [NAS], Rauner Distinguished Service
Professor, Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics, The University
of Chicago
NANCY S. WEXLER [IOM], Higgins Professor of Neuropsychology,
Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University

Staff
KEVIN FINNERAN, Director
TOM ARRISON, Senior Program Officer
GURU MADHAVAN, Program Officer
NEERAJ GORKHALY, Research Associate
MARIA LUND DAHLBERG, Research Associate
RICHARD-DUANE CHAMBERS, Christine Mirzayan Science &
Technology Policy Graduate Fellow (until December 2012)
MARION RAMSEY, Administrative Associate (until October 2013)
 Acknowledgment of Reviewers

This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals

chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in
accordance with procedures approved by the National Academies’
Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review
is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the
institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to
ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity,
evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review
comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the
integrity of the process.
We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of
this report:
Wendy Baldwin, Population Reference Bureau; Robert Barnhill,
Society for Advancement of Chicanos and Native Americans in
Science; William Brinkman, Princeton University; Frank Calzonetti,
University of Toledo; Steve Kelley, University of Minnesota; Jorge
José, Indiana University; W. Henry Lambright, Syracuse University;
Sally Mason, University of Iowa; Kathie Olsen, Science Works;
Thomas Peterson, University of California; Juan Rogers, Georgia
Institute of Technology; Gary Strobel, Montana State University;
James Turner, Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities; and
Yonghong Wu, University of Illinois.
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many
constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to
endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the
final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report
was overseen by Georgine Pion, Vanderbilt University and Louis
Lanzerotti, New Jersey Institute of Technology. Appointed by the
National Academies, they were responsible for making certain that
an independent examination of this report was carried out in
accordance with institutional procedures and that all review
comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final
content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee
and the institution.
 Preface

“The [NSF] Director shall contract with the National Academy of

Sciences to conduct a study on all Federal agencies that administer
an Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research or a
program similar to the Experimental Program to Stimulate
Competitive Research.”
America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (111th
Congress, 2009–2010, April 22, 2010),
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr5116.

In examining the Experimental Program to Stimulate

Competitive Research (EPSCoR) mission, the committee explored
both the program’s original justification and its evolution and
expansion since 1979. Special attention was given to the assertion
that EPSCoR has increasingly expanded its original mandate
(building research capacity required to compete for federal research
and development funds) to encompass activities designed to bolster
science education, workforce diversity, and economic development.
To better understand current program operations, the
committee examined EPSCoR’s structure at both the agency and
state levels. Beyond collecting information on individual agency
policies, the committee invited 10 representatives from the states to
brief the committee in person and requested information from all the
states.
The committee conducted four meetings. The first was devoted
to testimony from the directors of all the federal agency EPSCoR
programs and the second to testimony from representatives of 10
state EPSCoR programs. The third examined assessment
methodologies and featured presentations by two experts in
evaluation who have done work on the EPSCoR programs. The
fourth focused on the committee’s findings and recommendations.
In reviewing program impacts, the committee examined the
extent to which EPSCoR has affected the success rate of institutions
in attracting research funds, has strengthened the research
infrastructure of participating states, and has improved the prospects
for sustaining gains in research capacity. In those cases where
identifying either appropriate metrics or relevant data proved
challenging, the committee attempted to comment on EPSCoR’s
impact based on the available information.
A detailed evaluation of every agency program in every state
was far beyond the scope of what the committee could accomplish.
Therefore, it focused on assessing the fundamental mission of the
programs and the appropriateness of the approaches being taken to
fulfill this mission.
The report concludes with findings and recommendations that
the committee hopes will offer insights and directions on how
EPSCoR programs can be strengthened and improved as part of a
larger effort to enhance the nation’s overall research enterprise.
 Contents

SUMMARY
Findings and Recommendations

1 MISSION, EVOLUTION, AND CONTEXT

The Origin of EPSCoR
The EPSCoR Compromise
Making EPSCoR Operational
EPSCoR Expansion
EPSCoR’s Evolving Mission
Challenges to the EPSCoR Mission

2 PROGRAM STRUCTURE AND OPERATION

Agency Contrasts
State by State

3 ASSESSMENTS AND OUTCOMES

EPSCoR in the National Context
EPSCoR in the Institutional and State Context
Broader Issues
The Sum of Its Parts

4 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REFERENCES

APPENDIXES
A Agency Profiles
 NSF EPSCoR
NIH IDeA
USDA EPSCoR
DOE EPSCoR
NASA EPSCoR
DEPSCoR
B State Profiles
Science in Place: Alaska’s EPSCoR-IDeA Program
From Strength to Strength: Kansas’s EPSCoR-IDeA Program
Eco-Capacity Building: Montana’s EPSCoR-IDeA Program
Strong Assets and Persistent Poverty: New Mexico’s EPSCoR-
IDeA Program
Building on a Solid Foundation: Rhode Island’s EPSCoR-IDeA
Program
Finding a Niche or Two: South Carolina’s EPSCoR-IDeA
Program
C Statement of Task and Congressional Mandate
D Biographical Sketches of Committee Members
 Summary

Science and engineering talent can be found among young people in

every state,1 and the long-term health of the U.S. research
enterprise depends on providing opportunities for these young
people to develop their talents no matter where they may live or
attend college. Participation in research is an essential component in
science and engineering education.
Consequently, students in all parts of the country must have the
chance to participate in high-quality research, and it is in the
national interest that federal funding be provided to universities in
every state to ensure that these research opportunities are available.
The committee asserts that the nation needs a robust supply of
researchers to keep expanding the frontiers of knowledge, and all
states need citizens capable of understanding and applying new
developments in science and engineering to their work, whether in
industry, health care, education, environmental protection, or other
fields of endeavor critical to the nation’s well-being.
The primary federal programs designed to ensure that all states
are capable of participating in the nation’s research enterprise fall
under the general rubric of the Experimental Program to Stimulate
Competitive Research (EPSCoR). The National Science Foundation
(NSF), Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Agriculture
(USDA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
have active EPSCoR programs. The National Institutes of Health
(NIH) have a related program called Institutional Development
Awards (IDeA).
 In addition to pursuing the original mission of enabling
universities in every state to be able to compete for federal research
funding, EPSCoR programs have over the years added other goals,
such as enhancing innovation to stimulate economic development
and entrepreneurship and expanding the diversity of the science and
engineering workforce. The broadening of the EPSCoR mission has
increased the difficulty of assessing the program’s effectiveness.
Sizable differences in population, geography, history, and culture
present daunting challenges to any effort to attain uniform results
nationwide. The addition of broader social goals to the EPSCoR
mission—as compelling and justified as these broader social goals
may be—dilutes the program’s ability to advance its primary goal of
strengthening research capability and providing research
opportunities for postsecondary students.
The breadth and increasing complexity of the EPSCoR program
objectives have made it difficult to develop a rigorous assessment
system with quantitative metrics to evaluate short-term and, more
important, long-term progress. In addition, neither Congress nor the
agencies have required this type of assessment, so there has been
little incentive to do so.
Nevertheless, there is evidence that the EPSCoR programs have
provided significant benefits to participating states—and thus to the
nation. Under the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010,2
Congress requested that the National Academy of Sciences examine
EPSCoR with funding from NSF. The committee’s charge was to
assess the effectiveness of NSF’s EPSCoR program and similar
programs administered by other the federal agencies, including the
extent to which these programs achieved their respective goals and
states used these awards to improve their science and engineering
research, education, and infrastructure.3
For at least two reasons, the committee could not assess the
effectiveness of EPSCoR with the necessary rigor needed to fully
address Congress’s charge. First, the overall mission of EPSCoR and
its counterparts has broadened over time and to varying degrees,
depending on the respective federal agency. In addition to the
changes in the overall environment for conducting research, this may
have affected the program’s overall progress in achieving its goals.
Second, data of sufficient quality on program operations and
expected outcomes are not currently available and would have
required more time and resources to collect than were at the
Committee’s disposal.
Therefore, the committee focused on better understanding the
extent to which the overall structure and policies have affected the
program’s ability to achieve its overall mission and major goals.
The first EPSCoR program began more than three decades ago
at the National Science Foundation, which is mandated in its
founding legislation not only to promote national excellence in
science but also to avoid its “undue concentration.” When several
members of Congress complained that a small number of states
were receiving a disproportionate share of NSF research funding, the
agency responded by creating its EPSCoR program. It began in 1979
by distributing $1 million among five states with demonstrated
subcompetitive ability to attract National Science Foundation
research and development (R&D) funds to help them develop
strategies to enhance their research competitiveness. NSF
subsequently provided support to implement these strategies for 5
years. The expectation was that when the funding came to an end,
these states would be capable of competing successfully for research
funding from NSF’s general merit-based grant pool. Instead, those
states are still receiving EPSCoR funds, and the program has
expanded to include many more states.
NSF EPSCoR’s annual budget now stands at roughly $150
million, and eligibility for the program has spread across 32
jurisdictions, including 29 states and 3 territories (Puerto Rico,
Guam, and the Virgin Islands). In addition, NIH, DOE, USDA, and
NASA together provide approximately $325 million in funding per
year. The NIH and USDA have different eligibility criteria, and a
slightly different group of states participate in these programs. The
Department of Defense (DOD) and the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) also operated programs for several years, but these
agencies have terminated funding.
 In retrospect, the initial NSF EPSCoR goal seems politically
astute but unrealistic. Several million dollars of funding and 5 years
of effort were clearly not going to transform a state’s research
capacity or make it competitive with other states that had invested
and/or received tens of millions of dollars over decades to build their
research capacities. Indeed, EPSCoR has been in operation for more
than 30 years and, over this period, the program has invested
several billion dollars in capacity-building activities, yet the same 10
states that received the highest level of research funding in 1977 still
top the list. Moreover, more than half of all states now receive
EPSCoR funds, and no state that has participated in the program has
permanently “graduated” from it. Analysis also shows EPSCoR-
eligible states received roughly the same percentage of total federal
research funding in 2012 that they had received in 1979 (see Figure
S-1).
EPSCoR programs and EPSCoR states have devoted
considerable time and resources to building research capacity. Yet,
the states that have been the nation’s traditional leaders have also
invested in their research capacity—deriving considerable funds from
both public and private sources. As a result, historically successful
states continue to do well in competing for research support. It
should also be noted, however, that the EPSCoR states have not lost
ground, and it is clear that virtually all have improved their research
capacity in absolute, if not relative, terms. Nevertheless, because
EPSCoR funding constitutes a relatively small percentage of each
EPSCoR state’s total research funding, the precise role that the
programs have played in this effort is difficult to determine.
Figure S-1. The share of federal academic science and engineering funds received by
EPSCoR states has remained largely the same since the inception of the EPSCoR program.
[SOURCE: NSF Survey of Federal Science and Engineering Support to Universities, Colleges,
and Nonprofit Institutions via WebCASPAR].

The reason for the growth in the number of participating states

is that the criterion for eligibility has been relaxed over time. NSF
EPSCoR permits any state that receives less than a set percentage of
NSF funding to be eligible for the program, and that percentage has
been increased over time. All the other agencies except NIH and
USDA closely follow the NSF lead. NIH initially admitted states where
the success rate of research proposals was less than 20 percent, but
it is now proposing a shift to a system that would admit all states
that fall below the median in total NIH research funding. When total
funding is the criterion for eligibility, state population becomes the
dominant factor in determining a state’s eligibility. NSF admits any
state that receives less than 0.75 percent of its funding. Sixteen
states have less than 0.75 percent of the U.S. population. To lose
their eligibility and graduate from the program, each of these states
would have to receive a percentage of research funding that exceeds
its share of the nation’s population. Indeed, several states have less
than 0.25 percent of the nation’s total population, and it will be
virtually impossible for these states to ever reach 0.75 percent of
total funding.
If one is aiming for equity among all the states, it might
therefore make more sense to look at per capita federal research
spending in each state. Indeed, the ranking of states by per capita
funding differs significantly from the ranking by total funding, and
several current EPSCoR states appear in the top 10 on this list.
Although the committee is not recommending that per capita
research funding be the sole criterion, it does believe that per capita
funding should be a primary consideration.
The committee also believes that a state’s commitment to
research—expressed in visible and concrete terms—should be one of
the main criteria for competitive federal support. Unless a state
invests its own energy and resources in improving its research
capacity, the federal commitment will not have the desired effect of
creating an enduring foundation for excellence. As a result, the
committee recommends that all EPSCoR funding should require
some level of state matching funds and that the level of state
commitment should be a key criterion in awarding competitive
grants.
All decisions about where to invest research resources are
difficult, and all involve trade-offs. For the EPSCoR programs, the
worry is that the agencies are compromising their commitment to
merit review of research proposals. But the trade-off is relatively
modest. Less than $500 million in a total federal academic research
budget of more than $30 billion is devoted to EPSCoR. Determining
its absolute value, however, is inherently difficult. The committee
learned of many individuals from EPSCoR states who have produced
important research results and many institutions in those states that
have graduated successful scientists and engineers.
The committee also found that there has not been a rigorous
quantitative assessment of the EPSCoR programs that would
document their value. The assessment that will have to be done
should include: (1) identifying the data needed to address the
important questions posed by Congress; (2) selecting and executing
an appropriate evaluation design; and (3) collecting, analyzing, and
interpreting the necessary data. Judgments could then be made
regarding the extent to which EPSCoR was efficiently implemented,
how well it achieved its stated goals, and its overall effectiveness in
advancing the ultimate mission of enhancing and broadening
research capacity. Such a study could in no way have been
accomplished within the timeline and resources available to the
committee.
With these caveats and restrictions in mind, the committee has
arrived at the following findings and recommendations.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The committee supports the continuation of programs that support

the proposition stated in the America COMPETES Act:

“The Nation requires the talent, expertise, and research capabilities

of all States in order to prepare sufficient numbers of scientists and
engineers, remain globally competitive and support economic
development.”
America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (111th
Congress, 2009–2010, April 22, 2010),
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr5116.

Findings

• The talent necessary to succeed in science and

engineering resides in all states. Thus, it is in the national
interest for the federal government to support efforts to
develop and utilize this talent to enhance national research
capacity.
• EPSCoR programs are a part of a broader national and
global research enterprise.
• Congressional changes in state eligibility requirements
and congressional mandates to agencies to create
EPSCoR-like programs have resulted in multiple and
 often competing objectives and policy directives by
participating agencies.
oCurrent eligibility criteria have led to more than half the
states being included, blurring the programs’
objectives and reducing the likelihood of their
success.
oPatterns of eligibility do not align well with other
indicators of capacity, such as state population or
number of research-intensive universities. As a
result, outcomes are difficult to assess, especially on
a comparative basis.
• EPSCoR programs have enhanced the nation’s human
capital by strengthening research infrastructure and by
training many future scientists and engineers in states where,
in some cases, training opportunities had been scarce and
largely inadequate prior to the program’s arrival.
• There is some evidence that the EPSCoR programs have
not been a good fit for the mission agencies. For
example, EPA and DOD terminated their EPSCoR programs.
However, the mission agencies are the major source of
engineering research funding and therefore critical to
engineering education.
• State-level commitments to enhancing research
capacity are uneven across the participating states. The
effectiveness of state committees in NSF EPSCoR states is
also uneven.
• There is considerable variation in agency programs, review
processes, and the role and composition of state committees.
Further, the NIH IDeA program does not formally involve the
state committee in its implementation, although informal
interactions do occur.
• The aggregate share of federal R&D to eligible states
has not changed significantly over the course of the
program. There is also considerable variation among states in
their progress toward a more competitive posture. In the
 aggregate, eligible states continue to be less successful in
garnering NSF funding than are other states.
• Nearly all participating states report positive cultural
change in attitudes toward science and engineering as a
consequence, at least in part, of EPSCoR programs. Similarly,
they also report positive organizational, policy, and program
changes that have enhanced their research environment.
Further, there is evidence that research capacity in eligible
states has increased (although not enough in most cases to
change their relative standings). There is anecdotal evidence
that EPSCoR programs have contributed to this result, but the
magnitude of their contribution is difficult to determine.
• The evaluation efforts of the EPSCoR-type programs
leave much to be desired. To date, such efforts have relied
on incomplete and inconsistent assessment of program
designs and on metrics that do not allow for comparisons of
effectiveness.

Recommendations

The committee recommends that the federal government

continue to promote the development of research capacity
in every state so that all citizens across the nation have the
opportunity to acquire the postsecondary education, skills,
and experience they need to pursue productive and
successful careers in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) fields and to contribute fully to the
nation’s research enterprise.

With that in mind, the committee recommends the following actions

to create a more focused program with greater impact.

• EPSCoR programs should concentrate on the programs’

core elements:
oTo enhance research excellence through competitive
processes.
 oTo enhance capacity for postsecondary training in STEM
fields.

• EPSCoR programs should be restructured to combine

beneficial aspects of current programs:
oThe NIH and NSF EPSCoR programs should pursue a
“blended” funding strategy with two tracks:
A competitive-grant track that provides fewer
and larger grants that are evaluated first
for scientific merit and that are intended to
produce focal points of research excellence
and research opportunities for junior as
well as senior faculty.
A smaller-scale, infrastructure investment or
statewide investment track that works with
state committees to ensure that every
state has the capacity to provide advanced
education and research experience.

oDOE, NASA, and USDA should develop strategies to help

meet the mandate laid out in the America
COMPETES Act that all mission agencies support
postsecondary education in STEM disciplines.

• The EPSCoR programs, working through the EPSCoR

Interagency Coordinating Committee (EICC), should
develop and enforce a realistic framework for state
eligibility and graduation from the program:
oThe 0.75 percent criterion fails to account for population
and other critical aspects of research capacity and
competitiveness. New graduation and eligibility
criteria should be developed and implemented that
could consider:
Population.
State commitment.
 Proposal success rates per research-university
faculty member.
Total research funding.
Progress to date and future opportunities for
progress.
Financial need.

• The committee recommends that the agencies,

cooperating through the EICC, reset the guidelines
and that all states must reapply for eligibility after the
expiration of their current EPSCoR grants.

• The proposal review for prospective EPSCoR projects

should be made more rigorous to:
oEnsure that reviews of the scientific merit of the
proposals are conducted by the most highly qualified
panels of experts in the field of study. Scientific merit
should be the first consideration in any assessment
of a proposal’s strength and value. Specifically, all
proposals should be reviewed in a two-step,
sequential process.
First, a review of the proposal’s scientific merit—
a “science score.”
Second, a review of the proposal’s potential
(state, agency, societal) impacts—a
“program score.”
oRequire some level of matching contribution for all
research awards to ensure that the state is involved
and committed to the project.
Sources dedicated as matching funds can be
from the state, the university, the private
sector, or other sources.
• The evaluation process conducted during and after an
EPSCoR project’s implementation should be made
more rigorous by:
 oDeveloping and implementing an effective third-party
evaluation design that is reliable and valid and that is
consistent with other federal evaluation approaches,
such as those developed by the Office of
Management and Budget.

In conclusion, the committee recommends that the newly

refocused federal programs be renamed to better reflect
their mission and to remove “experimental,” which is now a
misnomer.

_________________________
1 In this context, “state” refers to the 50 states of the United States, as well as its
territories. See Box 1-2: Notes on Terminology for more information.
2 America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (111th Congress, 2009–2010, April 22,
2010), http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr5116.
3 The complete statement of task and congressional mandate can be found in Appendix C.
 1
Mission, Evolution, and Context

“…it shall be an objective of the Foundation to strengthen science

and engineering research potential and education at all levels
throughout the United States and avoid undue concentration of such
research and education, respectively…”
National Science Foundation (NSF) Act of 1950 (Pub. L. 507-
81st Congress, as amended)

“It would be clearly understood from the beginning that no support

would be provided beyond five years through this [EPSCoR]
program, as scientists in the funded states should then be able to
compete more successfully for support from NSF and other
agencies.”
Richard C. Atkinson, Director, National Science Foundation,
Memorandum to Members of the Science Board, Subject:
Program Plan for Experimental Program to Stimulate
Competitive Research, January 4, 1978
Under the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010,4
Congress mandated that the U.S. National Academy of Sciences
(NAS), with funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF),
examine the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
Research (EPSCoR). The charge—as defined by Congress and NSF—
required NAS to assess the effectiveness of EPSCoR and similar
federal agency programs, such as the Institutional Development
Awards (IDeA) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), in
improving national research capabilities, promoting an equitable
distribution of research funding, and integrating their efforts with
other initiatives designed to strengthen the nation’s research
capacity (see Box 1-1).5

Box 1-1
Charge in Brief
The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010
requests that the U.S. National Academy of Sciences pursue the
following information concerning the EPSCoR program:
•Delineation of the policies of each federal agency with
respect to the awarding of grants to EPSCoR states.
•Effectiveness of each program toward achieving its respective
goals.
•Recommendations for improvements for each agency to
achieve EPSCoR goals.
•Assessment of the effectiveness of EPSCoR states in using
awards to develop science and engineering research and
education, as well as science and engineering
infrastructure within their states.
•Any other issues that address the effectiveness of EPSCoR as
NAS considers appropriate.

_________________________
 SOURCE: America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (111th Congress, 2009–
2010, April 22, 2010), http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr5116.

In response, the NAS formed a committee to evaluate the

EPSCoR program, which is in fact a group of quite different programs
operating in several federal agencies and serving more than thirty
states and other jurisdictions. Given the complexity of the program,
the first task of the committee was to determine what it could
expect to accomplish with the available time and resources.
To comply with the 2010 America COMPETES Reauthorization
Act and ensure that a full understanding of the programs was
available to the committee from the beginning, the committee held
its first meeting once all the agencies completed a congressionally
mandated summary of its program and then devoted that meeting to
hearing presentations from the directors of all of the active
programs. Learning of the diversity of the programs, their evolution
over time, and the lack of consensus surrounding eligibility and
graduation convinced the committee that it would have to begin by
examining the fundamental mission and structure of the program.
A review of the scholarly literature about EPSCoR revealed a
lack of comprehensive data collection and rigorous evaluation. The
committee realized that it would not be possible to conduct a review
and summary of existing evaluations because there simply is not an
adequate research base to review.6 While recognizing the desirability
of having a detailed assessment of state-level activities, the
committee decided that such an assessment was far beyond what it
could hope to accomplish. However, the committee identified a
number of key areas that could benefit from better data and more
thorough evaluation.

1. Distribution of EPSCoR funds by objective. Testimony from

some EPSCoR participants raised a concern about the
program expanding its mission beyond building research
capacity and thus diluting its effectiveness. (Financial data
 on the allocation of EPSCoR funds for various purposes
within each state is necessary to address these issues.
2. Distribution of EPSCoR funds by institution within each state.
The Committee was unable to obtain financial data on the
distribution of EPSCoR funds among institutions within each
state, or changes in these patterns over time. These data
are needed to determine if the program has been
“captured” by one or two institutions within a state, or
conversely if funding was spread thinly across all
institutions rather than focused on the most successful
programs.
3. Research competitiveness performance of EPSCoR recipients.
The single major test of the impact of the EPSCoR program
on research competitiveness is the longitudinal performance
of the individual faculty or clusters of faculty who receive
EPSCoR support. The Committee saw little evidence that
such data were systematically collected and therefore could
not determine how effective the program was in enhancing
the research capacity of specific individuals or teams.
4. Disaggregated data by state and institution. The only data
available to the committee were state level and institutional
totals. As noted repeatedly in the report, these data cannot
be used to assess the impact of EPSCoR programs on the
recipients and subsequently on the overall research
capacity of the state.
5. Comparative variations across states. All states were able to
provide anecdotal evidence of some benefit from the
program, but there is a need to develop some comparative
outcome measures to determine which state or agency
approaches are most effective so that these best practices
can be shared to enhance overall program effectiveness.
To learn what it could about state activities, the committee
invited EPSCoR officials from ten states to brief the committee
during its second meeting. States were selected to represent large
and small states, physical sciences and biomedical sciences, long-
term and more recent participants, and different regions of the
country. The committee also consulted printed and online
information about other states and information from the
EPSCoR/IDeA Foundation – a non-profit set up to promote the
science and technology research enterprises of EPSCoR and IDeA
eligible states. All of the states provided interesting information
about how they used funds from the various EPSCoR programs and
anecdotal evidence of success, but they did not have readily
available the type and amount of standardized quantitative data that
would make it possible to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of
state efforts.
Given the ambiguity over common factors such as eligibility and
mission between agencies and the scarcity of rigorous data and
scholarly assessment literature, the committee decided early in its
deliberations that it would focus on evaluating core concerns. It
addressed fundamental questions about what the program could
realistically hope to achieve, how it aligned with the larger national
goals of nurturing and enhancing research capacity, and the criteria
for eligibility. Reaching understanding and agreement on these
underlying questions is a prerequisite for developing a coherent
program with achievable goals that could be rigorously evaluated
and improved. The committee recognizes the need for evidence-
based assessment of federal agency program design and
management and of state implementation and believes that such
assessments can be rigorously conducted, but it concluded that such
a detailed assessment was beyond the scope of what it could
accomplish. With this report, the committee aims to establish the
foundation on which such an assessment must be built.
Chapter 1 lays out the historical context in which these
programs arose and evolved and discusses the current state of the
national and international research enterprise. Chapter 2 discusses
some of the core themes in the different agency programs, focusing
on NSF EPSCoR and NIH IDeA, and gives an overview of the
diversity of the states involved. Chapter 3 examines the state of
assessments of the EPSCoR program. Chapter 4 presents the
committee’s finding and recommendations. In addition, Appendix A
provides descriptions of the agency EPSCoR programs, and Appendix
B provides information on a diverse sample of state programs.

THE ORIGIN OF EPSCOR

In the 1950 legislation creating the National Science Foundation

(NSF), Congress called on NSF to pursue strategies and tactics “to
strengthen research and education in science and engineering
throughout the United States and to avoid undue concentration of
such research and education.”7 In 1978 the National Science Board,
which oversees NSF, approved the creation of the Experimental
Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) to further this
mandate and to increase support for states that had received
relatively small shares of NSF funds (see Box 1-2). Over the next
three decades, EPSCoR, which had been devised as an experimental
program that would cease operations after 5 years, would be
implemented by seven federal agencies. Moreover, eligibility would
be broadened to include more than 33 states and territories.

Box 1-2
EPSCoR’s NSF Endorsement
In a 1978 memorandum to the National Science Board, NSF
Director Richard C. Atkinson contended that NSF should continue
to focus its funding activities on rewarding scientific excellence
through a review process dedicated to transparency, competition,
and “recognizable” merit.
However, he also urged the board to launch an
“experimental” program “to stimulate competitively meritorious
research in regions that are not able to compete successfully.” He
observed that “significant national, as well as local, benefits
would be derived from each states’ participation in the national
scientific enterprise.”
 EPSCoR programs have proven to be immensely popular among
their advocates. Today, many university officials claim that EPSCoR
has played a more significant role than any other federal program in
strengthening research capacities, changing their state’s research
culture for the better, and elevating the importance of science as a
fundamental driver of economic growth.

THE EPSCOR COMPROMISE

At the time of its creation, EPSCoR was competing against

several alternative schemes designed to level the research playing
field. Some legislators from states lagging in scientific investment,
for example, proposed a minimum level of research funding for each
state. Others suggested increasing the role of directed spending
(earmarks) in funding science and technology efforts, thereby
exempting certain projects from merit-based review.8
NSF officials were concerned that such funding strategies would
compromise NSF’s long-standing emphasis on scientific excellence,
open competition, transparency and merit. In this sense, EPSCoR
emerged as a defensive measure against actions that were viewed
as more intrusive and disruptive to NSF principles and objectives. In
advocating for EPSCoR, the National Science Board largely sought to
insulate NSF’s research grant program from potential political
interference.

MAKING EPSCOR OPERATIONAL

EPSCoR embraced several principles9 designed to encourage

scientific excellence while fostering greater equity in the distribution
of federal funds. NSF officials, for example, explicitly required that
EPSCoR grant awards be based on a peer-review process. Since
proposal success would be determined, in part, on the applicant’s
ability to clearly articulate research goals and to devise a realistic
plan for achieving the proposal’s objectives, the application process
itself was viewed as a capacity-building exercise.
 Participating states were also required to demonstrate a
commitment to scientific advancement by establishing science and
technology governing committees.10 By guiding the proposal
application process, NSF believed that the governing committees
would help ensure that NSF funding was sensitive to the state’s
overall strategy for research capacity building and that it would be
designed to forge strong links between science and economic
development. In addition, NSF officials required “significant” cost
sharing and called for discontinuing the program in states that failed
to make satisfactory progress toward achieving EPSCoR’s goals.11
For all these reasons, NSF EPSCoR represented an innovative
attempt to use federal-state relationships as a means of building
research capacity in eligible states.

An Experimental Program
Even in the eyes of its strongest advocates, EPSCoR was
considered “experimental” in the sense that it would “test” deeply
held principles in the scientific community.12 For a scientific culture
dedicated to the principles of unfettered competition, it was an open
question whether a program designed to assist less successful
players could produce scientific excellence and increase research
competiveness. EPSCoR’s proponents therefore made the argument
for short-term support to a limited number of states. In the words of
W. Henry Lambright, professor of public administration and political
science at Syracuse University, “EPSCoR was not intended as an
entitlement, but rather as a catalyst.”13 EPSCoR was thus designed
as an initiative that would reinforce the scientific community’s
abiding principle of merit-based competition and not serve as a
substitute for it.
In EPSCoR’s inaugural year, NSF approved planning grants for
seven states, each totaling about $125,000. Five of these states—
Arkansas, Maine, Montana, South Carolina, and West Virginia—were
subsequently recognized as EPSCoR eligible14 and given additional
EPSCoR funding in fiscal year (FY)1980 to begin programmatic
research capacity building activities.

EPSCOR EXPANSION

Expansion of Agency Participation

Since 1979, EPSCoR programs have been introduced in seven
federal agencies (see Figure 1-1). While all of these programs are
intended to improve the scientific capacity and competitiveness of
institutions in eligible states, they are also dedicated to advancing
each agency’s mandate and mission. The Department of Energy
(DOE) EPSCoR program, for example, focuses on materials and
chemical science, geology, high energy and nuclear physics, fusion
energy, and other topics in DOE’s research agenda. The EPSCoR
program in the Department of Agriculture (USDA) seeks to lay the
groundwork for improving agriculture, food, and environmental
science. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Institutional
Development Awards (IDeA) program concentrates on biomedical
research. (See Box 1-3 for notes on terminology used in this report.)

Figure 1-1. Timeline of the introduction of EPSCoR programs. NOTES: EPA and DOD last
year based on last year of funding; DOC Last year based on last grant award made.
[SOURCES: Darrel Woodard, EPA – 2005 (EPA);
http://www.epscorideafoundation.org/about/agency/dod/ (DoD);
http://webharvest.gov/peth04/20041017054756/www.technology.gov/reports/TechPolicy/ep
scot4sbd.pdf (DOC)]
 Box1-3
Notes on Terminology
There are two points that should be made about the
terminology used in this report:
1.The committee was directed by Congress to evaluate
“EPSCoR and EPSCoR-like” programs. However, to avoid
repeating this cumbersome phrase, the committee
decided instead to use the term EPSCoR to refer to the
entire group of programs, including the IDeA program at
NIH. When the report is addressing a specific program,
it refers to NSF EPSCoR, NASA EPSCoR, NIH IDeA, and
so on.
2.The program was created to help states improve their
research capacity, but in the 1990s, congress extended
the program to include Puerto Rico, Guam, and the US
Virgin Islands. The agencies then began referring to
eligible “jurisdictions.” Although technically correct, the
term is likely to confuse someone not familiar with the
structure and jargon of the program. The committee
therefore uses the term states throughout the report
with the understanding that a small amount of funding
goes to the three eligible jurisdictions.
3.The report refers to DOE, NASA, USDA, DOD, and EPA as
“mission agencies.” Although some people consider NIH
to be a mission agency, for the purposes of this report
the committee grouped it with NSF because of its
dominate role in science funding and its board
responsibility for maintaining research capacity in
biomedical fields.

Expansion of Budget
 Funding for EPSCoR has also grown over time (see Figure 1-2).
In FY 2012, EPSCoR’s overall budget surpassed $480 million.
However, this is in comparison to the nation’s $33 billion federal
expenditures on academic research and development (R&D) in FY
2012. At NSF, EPSCoR’s $151 million allocation comprises 2 percent
of the agency’s $7.1 billion FY 2012 operating budget. Even within
the EPSCoR states, the program is relatively small. EPSCoR funds
comprise only about 12 percent of federal research funding received
by the EPSCoR states.

Figure 1-2. EPSCoR budgets have grown significantly since 1979. [SOURCES: NSF S&E
Indicators; 1979: Agency NSF Data Excel File - this is the total amount in planning grants;
other Years: Page 15829, Congressional Record 107th Congress, Volume 147 - Part II]

Expansion of Eligible States

The number of eligible states has also increased over time.
NSF’s EPSCoR program had 31 eligible states in FY 2012. Moreover,
states that have become eligible for EPSCoR in recent years—
including Delaware, Iowa, Missouri, Rhode Island, and Tennessee—
have tended to be larger, wealthier, and more “research proficient”
than earlier EPSCoR states (see Figure 1-3).
 The reason for this growth is largely that the criterion for
eligibility has been relaxed over time. In the beginning, NSF used a
number of criteria in selecting the states that would be eligible for
EPSCoR funding, but Congress mandated a switch to the single and
simple criterion of admitting any state that receives less than a set
percentage of NSF funding. That percentage increased over time,
and the program is now open to any state that receives less than
0.75 percent of NSF funding averaged over a 3-year period.

Figure 1-3. Thirty-six states were eligible for EPSCoR funding from one or more agencies
in FY 2012. [SOURCES: Presentationtree.com (CONUS); Slideshare.com]

All the other agencies except NIH and USDA15 have closely
followed NSF’s lead. NIH originally admitted states where the
success rate of research proposals was less than 20 percent.
However, it is now proposing a shift to a system that would admit all
states that fall below the median in total NIH research funding.
Using total funding as a yardstick raises questions because of
the large differences in state populations. In general, comparisons
among the states often rely on per capita data, because such data
provide metrics that help to standardize comparisons and reveal
differences that matter. For example, when assessing a wide range
of economic issues among states, what is often significant is not
total household income but per capita income. Similarly, when it
comes to public safety issues, what is often most significant is crime
rates per capita, not total crime rates.
The same may well be true when assessing state research
capacity. In fact, the use of total funding as a criterion for eligibility
creates a curious challenge for determining state eligibility in
EPSCoR. Sixteen states and two jurisdictions have less than 0.75
percent of the U.S. population. To lose their eligibility and “graduate”
from the program, each of these states would have to receive a
percentage of research funding that exceeds its share of the nation’s
population. Indeed, several states have less than 0.25 percent of the
nation’s total population, and it will be virtually impossible for these
states to ever reach 0.75 percent of total funding.
If one chose to examine per capita research funding, which
would seem to make more sense if the goal is to achieve equity for
all citizens, the list of states not receiving a proportionate share of
research funding would look very different (Table 1-1). Under this
new requirement, several current EPSCoR states with small
populations would no longer be eligible for the program. On the
other hand, a substantial number of states with large populations
that do not currently participate in the program would be able to do
so. Their total research funding would remain high, but on a per
capita base, they would not be faring well despite their size.

Table 1-1. Ranking States Based on Per Capita Federal Academic

Science and Engineering Support and Assuming 31 EPSCoR
Jurisdictions, EPSCoR Eligibility Changes Dramatically
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 "I'm so glad. I will try harder."

"Don't go to the opposite extreme, my dear, of thinking

that you are to have no opinions at all, but must always
agree with everybody."

She laughed, and asked, "Am I in danger of that?"

"Not at present, I think. But it is a weakness of human

nature to be disposed to rebound from one extreme to
another. Truth lies more generally in the fair road between,
—though it does sometimes include a measure of one or
both extremes."

Thyrza looked up, and said, "I suppose any one living
here would describe the mountain as stern and frowning.
And we at Beckdale would describe it as all soft beauty,—
except just at The Scaur. And both would be true."

"Yes," I said; "but no man would have a fair conception

of the mountain as a whole, unless he had gained at least a
glimpse of both sides,—not to speak of other sides also
which we have not seen yet."

Then we rose and continued our walk. Thyrza seemed

thoughtful still. She observed, after a while, as if carrying
on our talk—

"Don't you think that sometimes people seem to see

only one side of—" she hesitated, lowering her voice
reverently,—"of Christ? I mean, even those who do really
love and obey Him?"

"My dear, ninety-nine hundredths of the errors into

which most of us fall, spring from one-sided views of Him,"
I said. "For He is THE TRUTH. One-sided views of Him are
one-sided views of Truth: and a one-sided view is always a
defective view."

"And isn't there any help—any cure?" she asked.

"Only in Him. He gives us clearer eyesight, and then He

shows Himself more clearly,—if we are willing," I said. "But
a great many people are so well content with what they
already see, as really to care little for seeing farther."

"Sir Keith often says that very much depends on our

willingness," Thyrza observed gravely.

I could not but remember the first time I had seen Sir
Keith. He had put the thought into my head.

We went on to the end of the Pass, the last part of our

way being a sharp descent, till we reached the pretty river
which begins as a streamlet on the central ridge or highest
point of the Pass. There for a while we rested, and there, to
Thyrza's joy, she discovered a fine plant of Parsley fern,
growing half under a sheltering rock. My "find" of last
summer died long ago, as Thyrza then predicted. "But I
shall keep this for my own," she said.

Plenty of time remained yet, when we had passed the

central ridge on our return. Thyrza seemed in no hurry to
reach home. She was in high spirits, no longer disposed to
sit still and meditate. She had repeatedly expressed a wish
to climb the steep hillside lying now to our left: and as we
advanced, the desire came over her more strongly.

"I really do think I must," she said at length. "It is quite

too tempting. And I am as fresh as a lark still. You shall just
sit here, and wait for me."

"Why should I not go too?" I asked.

 "Oh, because you are not so robust as I am: and there
is always the chance of your hurting your knee again. No:
you must sit perfectly still, and be lazy. I know you enjoy
being alone in such a place as this. I dare say I shall not be
long. When I come down, we'll finish off the cake, before
going on."

CHAPTER XXXV.
ENTIRELY VANISHED!

THE SAME—continued.

I WATCHED Thyrza, as she crossed actively the broken

but on the whole level space, between the road and the
steep mountain-sides: and I saw her begin to climb with
easy speed.

It was a temptation to me to join her, even then. I am a

good climber by nature: and an ascent has always a
fascination for me. But I knew that without any such
additional exertion, I should have taxed my powers pretty
severely by the time we reached home. So I followed
Thyrza's advice, and remained quiet, seated on a rock by
the roadside, with my face toward the flowing green slopes.

The deep stillness of the scene impressed me again,

more forcibly than ever. For now I had not a companion. I
was entirely alone. Not even the trickling of water was to be
heard. One solitary dream-like "ba-a-a" sounded, to be
answered by a second. Then silence again. No human being
was in sight, except the figure of Thyrza, growing
momentarily smaller, as she went upward.

Her ascent seemed very slow, as I gazed. I began to

realise how much steeper and loftier those heights were
than we two had imagined.

But Thyrza went on, sometimes pausing, sometimes

turning to right or left, as if choosing her steps. At present
she showed no inclination to come back.

I observed her movements steadily, wondering how

much farther she would go. Her last words had been
—"Perhaps I shall have had enough of it half-way up." She
appeared now to be more than half-way up, but there were
no signs that she had had enough of it. Hardly probable
that she should. If the enthusiasm of climbing had
possession of her, she would scarcely rest content short of
the summit.

The little black figure still rose,—more and more like a

big ant clinging to the wall of a house; or I thought so.

All at once she came to a pause. I judged that she had

mounted somewhere about three-quarters of the height
from my level: but it is very difficult to judge truly, looking
upward. For some minutes she remained perfectly still. I
supposed her to be resting: yet it seemed a curious spot to
choose for a rest.

I was growing rather nervous at her prolonged fixity in

one position, when I distinctly saw her move. She seemed
to crawl a few paces to the right, and there to pause afresh.
At all events, she could start again, when she chose. That
set my mind at ease. It seemed likely that she saw the last
piece to be too much for her powers: and that after a brief
repose she would come down.

"Time enough too," I said aloud; and my voice sounded

strange in the solitude. "This takes longer than I calculated
on. We ought to be getting homeward."

Then, curiously, it flashed into my mind that I had an

unread letter with me. Why not wile away some minutes by
reading it, as I sat there?

I pulled out the black-edged envelope, which was a

good deal crumpled; and noticed the London postmark.
"Not Bath!" I said, with momentary surprise. And one look
at the agitated uneven handwriting showed me that it was
not Ellen Smyth's,—but—Miss Millington's! Strange that I
had not recognised it at first sight; only hers, as I had
known it previously, was neither agitated nor uneven, but
neat and precise to a fault.

Within were two sheets, blotted, blurred, and closely

filled.

Then that which I expected had come at last!—And I

knew it!

I am ashamed to say that I forgot all about Thyrza. I

think I even forgot where I was. Noises were sounding in
my ears, like the distant roar of a great city; and a dread of
what I might find in that letter had possession of me.

For I could see it to be some manner of outpouring; and

I could conjecture what the outpouring might include. I
quailed before the prospect. Suspicion was one thing;
certainty would be another. I believed that I had fully
forgiven Miss Millington. Would the battle have now to be
fought all over again?

With a voiceless prayer, and with a resolute effort, I

took up the sheets, not reading yet, but glancing rapidly at
a sentence here or there. When I reached the end thus, one
short assertion only remained on my mind—

"I was not really sure."

I must have sunk into a dream upon those five words,

and their possible meaning. Then I woke up to the fact that
the letter contained much besides, especially the sad news
of Mrs. Millington's death.

I began again at the beginning, and read the whole

through carefully. It was a sorrowful composition,—bitter,
self-reproachful, miserable in tone. I cannot copy the whole,
and I will not keep the original. A few sentences will be
enough.

"I don't know what kept me from speaking,

that day," she wrote. "For I did really want to
tell you I was sorry; only I could not. I suppose
it was pride. I know I am proud. I did so hate to
take the money; and yet somehow I could not
say no, for I thought it might save my Mother's
life. And it has not. That is the worst of all. I
have gone through that horrible humiliation for
nothing. Mother did seem better for a time, and
of course it was a real comfort to her to be out
of debt, but she failed at last quite suddenly,
and nothing more could be done.

"It was only yesterday that she died.

 "I am writing to you now, because I must. I
dare not put off. I have such a dreadful feeling
that perhaps, if I had spoken out sooner, God
would not have taken my Mother. I dare say
some people would say I am foolish to think
this, but I know better. All these months I have
known I ought to speak, and I have been
struggling against it; and now she is gone, and
I have nobody left except Jeannie. And perhaps
if I do not speak out, she will be taken too. I
don't think I could bear that. She looks ill, and
it terrifies me. I dare say I deserve that, or
anything,—but at all events, I am telling you
the truth now. I wish I had before . . .

"You told me you had forgiven me: but I

never could feel that was real, because if you
had known all, you would not have said so . . .

"I don't know what made me hate you as I

did! I suppose it was partly your being Mrs.
Romilly's friend. And I always thought you could
not endure me: and when you seemed kind, I
felt sure you had an object. I can't make up my
mind how much you really know of things, or
how much I ought to tell you—" and then
followed melancholy particulars, written as it
seemed to me in a half-broken half-bitter spirit,
more because she dreaded not to tell from a
haunting fear of punishment, than because her
will was bowed to do God's will.

No need to copy out these details. Only—I have not

judged her falsely.
 For the Gurglepool trick was hers: and she did set
herself to oppose my authority in every possible way. She
endeavoured systematically to turn the girls against me.
She used the opportunity to look into my private journal,
and she employed afterwards the information so gained,
making it a subject of jesting with the girls, and untruthfully
professing to have learnt it through a friend of hers who
lives in Bath.

Worse even than all this,—not morally worse, for that

could hardly be, but worse in its actual results upon my
happiness,—when Arthur came to Beckdale, to learn if he
had any hope of winning me; which she seems to have
divined as his object; she set herself deliberately, falsely, to
quash his hopes. In a certain brief interview, she gave him
to understand, not by assertion, but by insinuation no whit
less untrue, that I had shown a marked dislike to him.

More still,—when she received her dismissal from Mrs.

Romilly, she took a further step. She sent a brief note to
Arthur to reach him at The Park, briefly warning him as a
friend—a friend!!—that if he wished to consult his own
interests and peace of mind, he would keep out of my way.

"I don't know what he thought of me. I think

I must have been mad,—such a wild thing to
do," she wrote. "He never answered my note or
took any notice of it. But it took effect: and that
was all I cared for. I had my revenge,—and I
wanted nothing else.

"It is of no use to ask if you can possibly ever

forget all this; for I know you can't. I could not
in your place. I will never never be untruthful
again,—but that can't alter what I have done to
 you. It is impossible that you should get over
it."

And at the moment my heart cried out assent to the

impossibility.

For he had come indeed to seek me once: and a second

time we might have met; and twice she had driven him
away.

Then at length I reached the mention of her more

recent letter to Maggie, in which was contained the news of
his engagement.

"I was so glad to have it to tell," she wrote,

"that I would not ask any particulars,—I
wouldn't even try to find out if it was true. I
was not really sure. It was just told as a piece
of gossip, and I knew there might be some
mistake. I was not really sure. But I wrote to
Maggie directly, and I have never heard any
more. I do not even know where Captain Lenox
is now. I think I should have heard if it were not
true, and I am afraid it is. So I can do nothing
at all to undo the past: and that makes me sure
that I must not expect you ever to be friends
with me again. Only for the sake of Jeannie,
and because of my feeling that she will die, if I
do not—I must tell you all."

I had not noticed before those words following the

others,—fearing it was, after all, true.
 It did seem to me too much—too great a wrong! I must
have sat long, half unconscious of my own position, clasping
the letter tightly between both hands. For a while I could
not think,—I could only feel. The knowledge that a year ago
he had still cared, touched me very keenly, with a mingling,
of sweet and bitter. But the "might have been," and the
"was not,"—and the sense of the great life-loss, the
loneliness, the sadness to come,—all through her! How
could I forgive?

The stony hardness broke up at last, and tears fell in a

shower. I have not wept so freely for years, I think. And
when that came to an end, the bitterness seemed gone. I
could once more say,—"His will—not mine."

* * * * * * *

But Thyrza!

It came over me in a flash, vivid as lightning, how long

I had been there. Thyrza ought by this time, surely, to have
reached the lower slopes.

I looked up, running my eyes swiftly over the broad

mountain face, searching from below to above, from right to
left. In vain. No Thyrza was to be seen. I scanned the
frowning beauty of the level summit, and travelled
downward again to the spot where I had noted her last. But
Thyrza had vanished.

CHAPTER XXXVI.
 AND HE—!

THE SAME—continued.

I HAD not looked at my watch when Thyrza left me. A

glance at it now showed the afternoon to be far advanced;
indeed, this I already knew from the slant of the sun's rays.

Blaming myself much for the absorption in my own

affairs, to which I had weakly yielded, I stood up and again
eagerly scanned the green slopes; without result.

Had Thyrza reached the top, and there been taken ill
from over-exertion? Such a thing might happen. Or had she
lost her footing, and rolled downward?

If the latter, I should find her without difficulty lying

below, hidden from where I stood, but not far off. The very
idea brought a cold shiver. That I disregarded, however.
Action of some kind was necessary. Feeling had to wait.

It was not, of course, impossible that Thyrza should

have reached the summit, tempted onward by the
excitement of climbing, and there should have vanished for
a short time before descending. But the fact which startled
me was the length of the time she had been absent. A brief
disappearance would not have been surprising. I could not
understand her remaining away. Thyrza is so thoughtful;
unlike Maggie and Nona; and especially thoughtful about
me. I had said to her laughingly before she went, "Mind, if
anything goes wrong, I shall come after you." She would
remember this; and I knew she did not wish me to attempt
the ascent.
 The search below was soon over. I explored every spot
where she might lie hidden, had she slipped and fallen. She
was not there; neither was she on the slopes. I could see
the broad green expanse, as I stood beneath looking
upwards,—in parts frightfully near the perpendicular. I
began to think I had done foolishly in consenting to let her
go up.

If she did not very soon appear, nothing remained for

me but to follow in her wake. I determined to wait a quarter
of an hour; then, if she had not appeared, to start without
more delay.

The fifteen minutes dragged past slowly. I had made my

way to a low wall, and there I sat, waiting, watch in hand,
in the soundless solitude. Nobody passed along the road. No
human being was visible on the heights. It seemed to me
that they grew steeper and loftier the longer I gazed.

"Time up! I must go!" I said aloud.

I suppose I moved too hastily, stepping down from my

seat on the wall. I had gone there for a clear view. The wall
was formed of large jagged stones, piled loosely together.
One of these stones gave way under my foot, and I came to
the ground with a sharp jar,—standing, but a good deal
shaken,—and when I took a step away from the spot, I was
instantly conscious of a crick in my weaker knee,—it might
be a strain or twist.

For a minute I kept perfectly still, hoping that it would

prove to be nothing. But the first movement showed me
conclusively that my climb was at an end. I might as well
have tried to reach the moon as the summit of the
mountain.
 It was a severe disappointment. If Thyrza had hurt
herself, and were ill or disabled above, she would be
needing me sorely.

Still, it was out of the question that I should go: and the
thought now occurred that I ought at once to return to my
seat on the road. If the dog-cart came to meet us, as it
might do later, I had no business to be out of its direct path.
Besides, Thyrza would know where to find me, or to send a
messenger, if she had found it needful to go round some
other way, rather than attempt the descent.

So very cautiously, and not without a good deal of pain

in the knee, I limped back to my old position.

The hour following seemed very long, very dreary. I do

not know that I have ever felt more weighed down and
altogether sorrowful. I was anxious about Thyrza: and my
own future seemed so grey and wearisome. The letter from
Miss Millington pressed upon me like lead. Could I in heart
and soul forgive her the wrong she had wilfully done to me?

At the end of an hour, or something like an hour, I

looked up,—I had been gazing on the ground,—and the
sunbeams were shining like reddish gold all along the broad
mountain brow, with wonderful beauty. It seemed to me the
gleam of a smile from heaven. The mountain's frown was
lost in that smile.

"I shall find brightness enough in another world, if not

in this," I found myself saying aloud. "One only has to wait
a little while."

The deadly stillness of the Pass was so strange: no

answer coming. And then a soft voice seemed to say, "Miss
Millington?"—as if asking a question.
 "Yes!" I said; and there was a sudden radiance of joy in
my heart, resembling the outside glow. "Yes, I do forgive! I
will write and tell her so."

The shining radiance deepened, without and within. I

had an extraordinary sense of rest,—of willingness to
receive whatever might be sent me. No thought of fear
mingled with the willingness, though I whispered
instinctively, "Does this mean some fresh great trouble?" If
it did, I was willing still. The Presence of my Master would
make all things light.

I almost expected another utterance of the soft voice,

speaking to my heart from without or within—which, I do
not know. I waited—listening.

And no voice spoke. But my eyes fell upon a figure,

descending the great green slope, exactly in front.

"Thyrza!" I cried.

It was not Thyrza. It was a man. I saw him distinctly in

the full sunlight. Had he come to tell me ill news of Thyrza?

I cannot think now why I was not more afraid. I did not
feel afraid, sitting there with clasped hands, gazing upward.
I could follow every movement of the descending figure. He
seemed to be a good climber. That was speedily apparent.
Down and down he came, steadily. Once he leaped a wall,
perhaps to find an easier slope on the other side.

When more than half-way down, he stood still, and

seemed to be looking at something or for somebody. I
waved my handkerchief, and he at once waved his. So I
knew he was coming to me,—though I did not know yet the
full meaning of "he!" Joys, like sorrows, often dawn upon us
step by step.
 The lower portion of the slope was very rapidly got
over; so rapidly that I was afraid he would slip. He took it at
a run, and I saw him spring over some obstacle at the
bottom. After which he marched straightly and swiftly
towards where I sat.

Till then no thought of the truth had come into my

mind. But something in the upright bearing, the slender
frame, the soldierly walk, brought recollections thronging
and made my heart beat fast.

"Absurd," I murmured. "Ridiculous of me to think—But

it is like! I suppose he must be in the army too, whoever he
is."

I do not know how long I fought against the reality,—

how soon I dared to let myself believe it. I only know that I
stood up slowly, and that he came nearer and nearer,—
came fast, with his face turned fixedly towards mine. And
the sunshine outside seemed to be filling my heart again;
only this time it was a more earthly tremulous sunshine,
flickering with every stride he took.

And I forgot all about Miss Millington, all about the news
of Arthur's engagement.

For he was standing close in front of me, his hand

clasping mine, and I was looking up into his face with a
smile of welcome, such as I had not dared to give him that
other time when we met. The lonely Pass seemed all at
once full of life; and every touch of greyness had gone out
of my future.

For the moment that our eyes met, I think each

understood the other; though I only said, "Where is
Thyrza?"
 "Gone home with Sir Keith," he answered.

"Then you have seen her?" I asked.

"Yes," he said, and he explained briefly. Thyrza had

climbed two-thirds of the height; then, pausing to look
below, she had been seized with terror and giddiness, for
the first time in her life, and had very nearly fallen down the
mountain side. By dint of remaining still, and looking
resolutely upward, she had so far recovered herself as to
continue the ascent, reaching the top with great difficulty.

To descend again, however, had proved out of the

question. Every time she approached the edge, dizziness
and dread overpowered her anew. She had waved her
handkerchief and made various signs to me, hoping that I
should understand. Being short-sighted, she could not know
whether I responded, which of course I did not, as I was
then wrapped up in my letter.

Thereafter Thyrza had started off to find another way

round. Her first intention was to go to The Scaur, and to
descend the narrow path which runs down beside the bare
rock: but happily she hit upon a shorter cut to the road by
which we had approached the Pass.

Thyrza knew that Sir Keith had gone to Beckbergh to

meet Arthur: and she knew that the two might possibly
drive to meet us, if our return were at all delayed. I believe
she had rather liked the prospect, and had been not
indisposed to bring it about by delay: though later, when
hurrying alone down the hills, she little expected to be so
fortunate as to meet them at the moment she reached the
road.

However, this really occurred. They pulled up and

sprang down, astonished to see her alone. Thyrza must
have been a good deal shaken by her touch of "vertigo," for
she burst into tears when trying to explain matters,—a
most astonishing event. Thyrza never cries in public, under
any consideration, as a rule. Sir Keith was much troubled,
and very sympathising; and Arthur promptly proposed to go
in search of me, while Sir Keith drove Thyrza home.

Thyrza at first resisted, but she had to yield to Sir

Keith's determination. The general impression was that I
should certainly endeavour to climb the height in search of
Thyrza, when she failed to return,—a well-founded theory,
as proved by circumstances. Arthur resolved, therefore, to
go by the same way that Thyrza had come. He had already
explored these mountains, when staying last year at the
Farm: besides, he is one of those men who are never at a
loss in the wildest country.

So Sir Keith drove off with Thyrza, promising to bring or

send the dog-cart with all speed to meet Arthur and me:
and he made good use of his opportunity, following the
advice I had given.

Arthur meanwhile found his way with all speed to the

brow of the mountain, walking along it till he saw a little
figure seated far below in the road. And as he came down,
he stopped now and again to wave his handkerchief. Twice
in vain: the third time I saw him, and waved mine.

Some of this Arthur told me briefly; much more I have

heard since.

Then, to his concern, he learnt that I had hurt my knee:

and he said how foolish he had been to let the dog-cart go
home first, instead of driving straight to the Pass. And I said
—"Oh no,—I am so glad you did!" For how could I wish
anything to be different? How could I mind waiting?
 Then he said something, speaking a little brokenly,
about having almost made up his mind to leave England for
ever. He had thought of it for months. And he had been to
Glynde again for a night,—he hardly knew why. He had seen
Mrs. Hepburn and Gladys. And something—something
Gladys said or did not say,—something in her look of
reproach, when she spoke of me,—had made him resolve to
try once more.

And in a husky altered voice, he asked—

"Constance, is it true?—Have I been under a great

mistake? Could you be mine now,—after all?"

I have no idea what I said in answer. It matters little

what words one uses at such a moment, or whether one
uses any words at all. He understood me, and I understood
him. It was such wonderful unexpected happiness. All
clouds seemed to have been suddenly swept away from my
whole horizon, leaving only sunshine and a blue sky.

But I think my first impulse was to look up,—to feel that

this joy was indeed my Father's gift to me, and to Arthur.

Life was so changed to both of us, in that one short

hour. Changed, and yet the same. For the same Presence is
with us still, the same Will directing us, the same Love
surrounding us, the same Light beckoning us onward.

Only now we hope to live a life of service to Christ

together,—not apart. And that means earthly as well as
Heavenly sunshine.

When we reached home, we found that Sir Keith and

Thyrza were engaged, to the great satisfaction of
everybody. Thyrza appeared to have quite recovered from
her severe climb. And I wrote at once a few lines of comfort
to Miss Millington, telling her of my new happiness, and of
the Help which might be hers, if only she herself were
willing.

GLADYS HEPBURN'S DIARY.

July 27. Tuesday.—Good news! Good news!

I was dreadfully afraid last week that I might have

blundered. It is so fearfully difficult to know always what is
just the wisest thing to say and do.

Major Lenox made his appearance suddenly. He was

spending a night at the Inn, and he asked if he might come
in to afternoon tea. And when he was here, instead of
keeping off from the subject of Miss Con, he seemed to do
nothing but bring her name up.

Well,—I really thought I ought to say something. I could

not ask Mother's advice; because, of course, I have never
felt free to tell her or any one about Miss Con's distress that
day. It would be a betrayal of confidence.

An opportunity came up in the garden, when nobody

was near for a minute or two. He said something about
Yorkshire, and I spoke of the Romillys; and he answered
me; and I asked him if he knew Miss Millington. He said
"Hardly," in a considering tone; and I said, "Oh, she wrote
us word of your engagement."

I was afraid he would think me blunt and interfering,

but I really did it only for dear Miss Con's sake. He turned
sharp round, and said, "How could she have heard that
ridiculous tale?"

I believe I said, "Was it a tale?"

"Certainly," he said. "No foundation whatever!" And he

looked quite fierce, and tugged at his moustaches.

And I said—not knowing what meant to come next—

"One never can depend on anything from Miss

Millington. She told Maggie—and Maggie told me—and Miss
Conway."

"Miss Conway heard it?" Major Lenox asked.

I said, "Yes!" and I looked straight at him for a moment.

I did not dare to say any more, but I know what I wanted to
say. And somehow it almost seemed to me that he read my
thoughts. Such a curious softened expression came into his
eyes: and his manner was different after that moment.

Nothing more was said by either of us: only next

morning he walked in to say good-bye, and in a casual sort
of way he spoke about "going north."

The very next thing we heard was that he had seen Miss
Con, and that they are engaged. And he has given up all
idea of exchanging into a regiment abroad. Oh it is so good!

Thyrza is engaged too,—actually on the same day, and

to Sir Keith, of all people.

Mother seems not at all surprised, but it is a great

surprise to me. I like Thyrza much better than I used:
because she is more affectionate and less stiff; but I should
not count her the kind of girl to be fallen in love with easily.