Policies and regulations governing US grants and contracts for scientific and medical researchers are evolving at a pace not seen in recent history, catching many African recipients and sub-recipients by surprise in the same way it has tripped up some of the world’s most prominent institutions.
That’s according to William Ferreira, partner and head of global government contracts and higher education at Hogan Lovells, who has worked extensively on federal-award compliance at academic institutions in the US and globally for almost 20 years.
“The US government wants to fund high-quality scientific research,” he said. “Large sums of funding flow into Africa, where the objective is to build research capacity and sustainable infrastructure, particularly in public health.”
The federal government is demanding extraordinary transparency and accountability from beneficiaries of US funds – mainly to protect the integrity of the research that stems from the billions of dollars in funding.
The government wants extensive information and disclosures from all foreign research institutions participating in US-funded projects to avoid potential inappropriate influence or theft of US technology by foreign parties. Much of this attention has been focused on allegations that China has inappropriately interfered with US-funded scientific and medical research projects.
“It’s not lost on US policymakers that the influence of China, and Russia for that matter, on the African continent has grown exponentially in recent years,” Ferreira said. “And that does affect how US agency funders would approach making awards to African institutions.”
There have been several recent high-profile cases of alleged abuse of the US federal awards system involving foreign interests that went undisclosed to US government agencies, or a lack of cooperation by foreign participants. In January, federal investigators found that the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China failed to provide scientific documentation to the US government associated with Wuhan’s participation in a US government-funded research project.
In April, a former Harvard University professor was sentenced for lying to federal investigators about his ties to China’s Thousand Talents Program after receiving millions of dollars in research funding from the U.S. National Institutes of Health. The program, which started around 2008, aims to recruit people with knowledge of foreign technology and intellectual property. US regulators have raised concerns that the program is a vehicle for espionage and intellectual property theft.
Under current funding terms, recipients of US government grants and contracts are not allowed to spend any of that money on equipment from Chinese telecommunications firms, such as Huawei or ZTE.
The US government expects researchers who receive federal support to provide additional disclosures, including information about potential conflicts of interest and commitment where individuals may benefit financially from business relationships or situations where an individual has competing obligations to multiple employers.
Audits and investigations often result from incomplete or untimely disclosures to funding agencies. Issues highlighted range from timecards that haven’t been signed to the failure to report foreign components of a project. Some also include mishandling research misconduct or conflict of interest allegations.
“It's a level of scrutiny that I’ve not experienced in 20 years of working extensively on federal-award compliance at academic sites in the US and globally,” Ferreira said.
As a result, institutions must allocate resources to stay up-to-date with developments across agency policies and guidance and improve their programs to train researchers on issues like appropriate conflict of interest disclosures, cybersecurity, and travel security.
Still, the beneficiaries of the grants, like those in the US and the rest of the world, are responsible for the costs of supporting the compliance function: They don’t get any additional funding for the added burden.
Recipients receive limited funding for the administrative expenses, infrastructure, and personnel they maintain to manage these programs.
He said that many African organisations benefitting from US grants are keen to remain compliant.
“That’s because the research funding is a stable and reliable source of revenue – the US government pays its bills.”
Furthermore, receiving funding from the US government is a competitive process, so to be granted financing is prestigious and a badge of credibility. More and more institutions are learning and appreciating these new and evolving policies that govern their participation in the process, Ferreira of Hogan Lovells said.
“While many African institutions have successfully collaborated with the US for years, dynamics have undeniably shifted,” he added. “These relationships can continue to grow with attention to accountability, transparency, and a healthy appreciation for the modern research compliance environment.”
Get the latest issue of FAnews