Browse Arkansas Code titles and sections
42 U.S.C. § 1862s–1 — Transparency and accountability
Federal law — U.S. Code and appendices · legal_authorities
**(a) Findings**
(1) 11 So in original. Probably should be preceded by introductory text. building the understanding of and confidence in investments in basic research is essential to public support for sustained, predictable Federal funding;
(2) the Foundation has improved transparency and accountability of the outcomes made through the merit review process, but additional transparency into individual grants is valuable in communicating and assuring the public value of federally funded research; and
(3) the Foundation should commit to transparency and accountability and to clear, consistent public communication regarding the national interest for each Foundation-awarded grant and cooperative agreement.
**(b) Guidance**
(1) **In general** — The Director of the Foundation shall issue and periodically update, as appropriate, policy guidance for both Foundation staff and other Foundation merit review process participants on the importance of transparency and accountability to the outcomes made through the merit review process.
(2) **Requirements** — The guidance under paragraph (1) shall require that each public notice of a Foundation-funded research project justify the expenditure of Federal funds by—
(A) describing how the project—
(i) reflects the statutory mission of the Foundation, as established in the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 ([42 U.S.C. 1861](https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title42-section1861&num=0&edition=prelim) et seq.); and
(ii) addresses the Foundation’s intellectual merit and broader impacts criteria; and
(B) clearly identifying the research goals of the project in a manner that can be easily understood by both technical and non-technical audiences.
Source: Supplied U.S. Code snapshot — release unconfirmed · 42 U.S.C. § 1862s–1
Stored review status: release_metadata_unconfirmed. A text match is a research starting point; applicability is not established.
Original supplied file — preserved unchanged
Download original Markdown file
File SHA-256: 77ded9e1653a5c7eb611c47c90a7195eedf93967d8d179bcf14a198dac45eb0c. The original may include catalog metadata, neighboring provisions, or embedded records outside this collection's scope. Search shows only the selected federal record. Historical editions and unverified snapshots are not a statement of current law.
Authority boundary: historical or unconfirmed source not current law verified.
Record provenance
Stable record: federal_law:legal_authorities:record_usc_96cca8cfae5365fe9e158a00
Source file: Laws/federal/codes/united-states-code/title-42/section-1862s1-transparency-and-accountability--fd90de5975.md
Pages: Not recorded – Not recorded
Passage SHA-256: 0dfc9b60acf3109fd9633bdc2e282dbd6373d171cf4ae2be2e3dc213a9623666
Source location: Title 42, Chapter 16, § 1862s–1; chapter-016-national-science-foundation.md
Stored source content
**(a) Findings**
(1) 11 So in original. Probably should be preceded by introductory text. building the understanding of and confidence in investments in basic research is essential to public support for sustained, predictable Federal funding;
(2) the Foundation has improved transparency and accountability of the outcomes made through the merit review process, but additional transparency into individual grants is valuable in communicating and assuring the public value of federally funded research; and
(3) the Foundation should commit to transparency and accountability and to clear, consistent public communication regarding the national interest for each Foundation-awarded grant and cooperative agreement.
**(b) Guidance**
(1) **In general** — The Director of the Foundation shall issue and periodically update, as appropriate, policy guidance for both Foundation staff and other Foundation merit review process participants on the importance of transparency and accountability to the outcomes made through the merit review process.
(2) **Requirements** — The guidance under paragraph (1) shall require that each public notice of a Foundation-funded research project justify the expenditure of Federal funds by—
(A) describing how the project—
(i) reflects the statutory mission of the Foundation, as established in the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 ([42 U.S.C. 1861](https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title42-section1861&num=0&edition=prelim) et seq.); and
(ii) addresses the Foundation’s intellectual merit and broader impacts criteria; and
(B) clearly identifying the research goals of the project in a manner that can be easily understood by both technical and non-technical audiences.
Cross-references
Connections may be documented source relationships, shared citations or nearby passages. Each explains its basis; a connection alone does not establish applicability to your situation.
Federal law — U.S. Code and appendices · legal_authorities
**(a) Sense of Congress** It is the sense of Congress that—
(1) sustained, predictable Federal funding of basic research is essential to United States leadership in science and technology;
(2) the Foundation’s intellectual merit and broader impacts criteria are appropriate for evaluating grant proposals, as concluded by the 2011 National Science Board Task Force on Merit Review;
(3) evaluating proposals on the basis of the Foundation’s intellectual merit and broader impacts criteria should be used to assure that the Foundation’s activities are in the national interest as these reviews can affirm that—
(A) the proposals funded by the Foundation are of high quality and advance scientific knowledge; and
(B) the Foundation’s grants address societal needs through basic research findings or through related activities; and
(4) as evidenced by the Foundation’s contributions to scientific advancement, economic growth, human health, and national security, its peer review and merit review processes have identified and funded scientifically and societally relevant basic research and should be preserved.
**(b) Merit review criteria** The Foundation shall maintain the intellectual merit and broader impacts criteria, among other specific criteria as appropriate, as the basis for evaluating grant proposals in the merit review process.
**(c) Updates** If after January 6, 2017, a change is made to the merit-review process, the Director shall submit a report to the appropriate committees of Congress not later than 30 days after the date of the change.
Source: Supplied U.S. Code snapshot — release unconfirmed · 42 U.S.C. § 1862s
Stored review status: release_metadata_unconfirmed. Explicit cross-reference supplied in source Markdown; currentness and applicability require review.
Federal law — U.S. Code and appendices · legal_authorities
There is established in the executive branch of the Government an independent agency to be known as the National Science Foundation (hereinafter referred to as the “Foundation”). The Foundation shall consist of a National Science Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Board”) and a Director.
Source: Supplied U.S. Code snapshot — release unconfirmed · 42 U.S.C. § 1861
Stored review status: release_metadata_unconfirmed. Explicit cross-reference supplied in source Markdown; currentness and applicability require review.
Federal law — U.S. Code and appendices · legal_authorities
Page 5076
TITLE 42—THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
§ 1861
Sec.
1862t.
Supporting veterans in STEM education and
computer science.
1862u.
NSF support of research on opioid addiction.
1862v.
National Science Foundation research.
1862w.
NSF support of research on impacts of social
media on human trafficking.
1863.
National Science Board.
1864.
Director of Foundation.
1864a.
Deputy Director of the Foundation.
1865.
Executive Committee.
1866.
Divisions within Foundation.
1867.
Repealed.
1868.
Special commissions.
1869.
Scholarships and graduate fellowships.
1869a.
Contracts for precollege science or engineer-
ing curriculum development activities; in-
spection of materials by parent or guardian.
1869b.
Issuance of instructions to grantees of pre-
college curriculum projects.
1869c.
Low-income scholarship program.
1870.
General authority of Foundation.
1870a.
Buy-American requirements.
1871.
Disposition of inventions produced under con-
tracts or other arrangements.
1872.
International cooperation and coordination
with foreign policy.
1872a.
Repealed.
1873.
Employment of personnel.
1873a.
Repealed.
1874.
Security provisions.
1875.
Appropriations.
1875a.
National Science Foundation Nonrecurring
Expenses Fund.
1876 to 1879. Repealed.
1880.
National Medal of Science.
1881.
Award of National Medal of Science.
1881a.
Alan T. Waterman Award.
1881b.
Presidential awards for teaching excellence.
1882.
Information furnished to Congressional com-
mittees.
1883.
Office of Small Business Research and Devel-
opment.
1884.
Repealed.
1885.
Congressional statement of findings and dec-
laration of policy respecting equal opportu-
nities in science and engineering.
1885a.
Women in science and engineering; support of
activit
Source: Supplied 2024 U.S. Code historical extraction · 42 U.S.C. § 1861
Stored review status: historical_2024_not_currentness_verified. The source passage cites 42 U.S.C. § 1861. This identifies an authority to review, not proof of applicability.