| ||||||||||||||||||||
Meeting of the Advisory Committee for Biological Sciences April 25-26, 1996 National Science Foundation Arlington, Virginia 22230 Summary Minutes
Thursday, April 25
Welcome and Approval of Minutes Dr. Mary Clutter, Assistant Director for the Biological Sciences (BIO) informed the BIOAC that an omnibus appropriations bill would be signed this morning, funding NSF for the remainder of FY 1996. The minutes from the November 1995 meeting were unanimously approved by the BIOAC.
Overview of FY 1997 Budget Request
Dr. Clutter also discussed trends in federal discretionary funding,
and non-defense research and development in particular. She discussed
projections for federal discretionary spending through FY 2002.
Dr. Burt Ensley asked Dr. Clutter to comment on why the Academic
Research Infrastructure (ARI) program account has a funding level
of zero in the FY 1997 request. Dr. Clutter noted that this $100M
line consists of two parts: $50M for larger scale instrumentation
and $50M for laboratory renovations. The shared instrumentation
funds will be distributed to the research directorates. It was
decided not to request $50M for laboratory renovations since that
would have an inconsequential impact on an $11B problem.
The BIOAC also discussed the following issues:
In addition, Dr. Cathie Woteki, Department of Agriculture, discussed the implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), which is set to begin in 1999. Discussion with the Deputy Director NSF, Dr. Anne C. Petersen
Dr. Petersen stated that she feels that it is very important for
the scientific community to be aware that the federal budgetary
climate for research is changing and that there will be increased
accountability for the federal research investment. She discussed
how it is essential to develop a post-Cold War rationale for federal
research and development funding, which includes societal as well
as economic benefits.
Dr. Petersen discussed the importance of integrating research
and education to ensure a scientific and technologically literate
public to meet our future workforce needs and maintain US leadership
in science and technology. She noted that NSF must play a role
in promoting this integration and that the Advisory Committees
provide valuable guidance on this.
Dr. Petersen gave an overview of the Recognition Awards for Integrating
Research and Education (RAIRE), NSF's newest initiative to promote
the integration of research and education. She also mentioned
other programs targeted at this need, such as CAREER, GOALI, and
RTGs. She stressed that NSF is planning no dramatic changes to
proposal requirements and that they will take an incremental approach
towards promoting the integration of research and education.
Dr. William Greenough asked how RAIRE awards will be used by the
universities. Dr. Petersen responded that the awards will be given
for past accomplishments and that the recipients will use the
money to publicize and extend these efforts.
Dr. Barbara Webster commented that PBS television programs highlighting
science and research are an excellent example of public education
on the value of science and research and wanted to know if NSF
would continue to support such programs. Dr. Petersen stated that
the Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR) is cutting
the Informal Science Education budget because they feel that these
projects will be taken up by other sources. She also noted that
at the request of our authorization committee, the General Accounting
Office (GAO) is looking at spending at all agencies for public
outreach activities. Dr. Petersen commented that she believes
the ultimate argument will be over the appropriateness of NSF
funding these activities.
The BIOAC also discussed the following issues with Dr. Petersen:
Report on BIO Science Retreat
BIO's Division Directors talked about the four thrust areas and
the needed actions:
Arabidopsis Sequencing
Dr. Brady also reviewed the 1995 progress report on the Arabidopsis
genome. He mentioned as an example of the research completed thus
far the leafy gene which has been transferred from Arabidopsis
to aspen tree tissue cultures. The leafy gene can cause aspen
to flower within 10 months, and this will have great impact on
the hardwood and ornamental forestry industries.
Dr. Brady stated that one of the goals being considered is to
complete most of the sequencing of Arabidopsis by 2002, with some
"fine tuning" for several years thereafter. The BIOAC
and Dr. Brady discussed how much it would cost to complete the sequence
of the Arabidopsis genome (approximately $50 million), how the
money would be spent, and the possibility of industry partnerships.
Dr. Brady noted that the money would probably go to collaborations
among large sequencing centers. He stated that other Federal agencies
and international efforts are included in the program as well.
The BIOAC stressed the importance of continued partnerships and
collaborations. The Analysis of Biological Systems
The BIOAC and Dr. Umminger discussed how well these cross-disciplinary
collaborations are working and how NSF can best explain their
importance to the public, Congress, and the Administration. The
BIOAC also discussed the appropriateness of leveraging funds from
industry and other government agencies for this and other cross-disciplinary
initiatives.
Development of Cross-Disciplinary Enabling Tools
Dr. Pete Magee asked how major biological instruments typically
arise. Dr. Brown stated that many have arisen out of adapting
skills from other disciplines for use in meeting biological needs.
Dr. Gregory Florant asked how NSF would handle funding someone
to develop an instrument, which he or she later makes a profit
from. Dr. Brown noted that NSF's focus is typically outside of
the commercially viable arena. Dr. Edwards added that NSF encourages
patenting. Exploring Microbial Diversity
The BIOAC discussed how this initiative relates to the information
coming out of microbial genome sequencing. Dr. Jackson noted that
it would involve building and sharing databases, and therefore
contribute to and benefit from existing databases, including genomic
ones. The BIOAC also discussed the role of partnerships and international
collaboration in this initiative. Dr. Jackson mentioned that partnerships
with the Department of Energy and the Office of Naval Research
are possible, as well as cross-Directorate partnerships (i.e.,
EHR, GEO).
Several members of the BIOAC felt that these initiatives are exciting
areas of science to promote, but that, except for Arabidopsis,
they need to become more focused and tangible benefits need to
be identified. Afternoon Session Working Lunch- Discussion of New NSF Activities for Integrating
Research and Education Institution Wide Reform Initiative
1. Prepare an increasingly diverse student body (all students
in all institutions) for an information and technology based future
2. Encourage improved learning of science and mathematics by all
students
3. Encourage changes in pedagogy and curriculum content
He stated that the initiative is an opportunity for institutions
to acknowledge that problems exist and address them in a systematic
way. EHR will announce 23 awards within the next 1-2 months, which
will cover a wide breadth of institution types. EHRAC Committee Report on EHR Review of Undergraduate Education
Dr. Watson also discussed the methodology of the review, which
included symposia and a national conference, as well as hearings
at NSF, focus groups, and discussions with NSF research directorates
and other Federal agencies.
The BIOAC discussed the notion of science and engineering as a
core for undergraduate education. Some committee members were
concerned that this may alienate non-science and technology faculty
and students with other interests. They felt that great care needs
to be taken in determining the kind of scientific literacy necessary
for the non-science major in order to build appreciation and basic
understanding. Dr. Judith Ramaley noted that the report should
not just be directed at scientists, but needs to be considered
by all liberal arts faculty in order to develop a more holistic
education. This means that science needs to be seen as a liberal
art rather than a core for education. Reports from BIO AC Workshops The Changing Environment for Biological Sciences- The Changing Environment for Biological Research and Graduate
Education in Universities
The BIOAC discussed whether or not ethnic diversity should be
a factor in these workshop discussions and the importance of increasing
minority representation among faculty as a force driving change.
The Changing Environment for Biological Sciences in our Nation's
Colleges and Universities
Dr. Ramaley asked Dr. Clutter to comment on what she took away
from each workshop. Dr. Clutter said that although the participants varied quite a bit, the same issues kept coming up. In particular, participants
discussed the desire for change and the need for NSF to act as
the catalyst because there are too many barriers to change at
the institutional level.
The committee discussed the impact of potential reductions in
administrative staff at universities, particularly in terms of
research and grant administration.
Dr. Magee noted four themes that developed from the workshops:
1. Reemphasizing balance among the roles of teaching, research
and service for professors
2. Interpretation of science for the public
3. Opportunities outside of research for post-docs and graduate
students to prepare them for careers outside of academe
4. Encouraging collaborative ventures at the national and international
levels
Dr. Fedoroff stated that institutional barriers to change was
a major theme, as well.
Dr. Magee then asked the BIOAC to meet in breakout groups and
requested that they address the following issues:
Issues From Breakout Groups The Changing Environment for Biological Research and Graduate
Education in Universities Breakout Group
This group also discussed the faculty reward system and interdisciplinary
research. They felt that university departments are power groups
and don't encourage interdisciplinary research. Change in this
attitude needs to be encouraged from top levels of administration.
One suggestion for achieving this was to ask the NRC rating committee
to change rating categories to reflect the importance of interdisciplinary
research and quality teaching. They suggested that NSF hold a
workshop with the NRC rating committee to address this issue.
The group also suggested that NSF fund more training grants to
provide graduate students the opportunity to prepare for careers
outside of academe and encourage interdisciplinary research. The Changing Environment for Biological Sciences Breakout Group
This breakout group felt that NSF should be involved in PBS and
NPR programs on science in order to provide better public education
on the importance of science.
They also suggested that NSF address the following questions in
assessing the review process for collaborative proposals:
The breakout group felt that more workshops should be held and that they should represent a range of institutions in order to adequately compare and contrast institution types. The Changing Environment for Biological Sciences in our Nation's
Colleges and Universities Breakout Group
The group felt that small, regional workshops will work best because
they can empower faculty by making them feel that their voice
is being heard. Another advantage to regional workshops is that
they are close enough to participating institutions so that attendees
do not have to fly in order to attend. This will assure a higher
attendance rate and greater cross-section of administration and
faculty. They suggested that BIOAC alumni might organize these
workshops in order to relieve pressure on current members. Each
workshop organizer would write his or her own background paper
so that while all workshops will cover similar themes, each would
have its own flavor.
The group felt that scientific excellence must be redefined to
include education at all levels and service. Again, they felt
that a workshop would be a useful venue for faculty and administration
to respond to this issue. They stated that NSF should include
the integration of research and education as a meaningful part
of the review process.
On the subject of career development for post-docs and graduate
students, the group suggested that NSF provide supplements to
research grants which would include 3 months salary to allow the
recipient to engage in an activity outside of research (i.e.,
business or law courses, internships, etc.).
The group also suggested that a BIOAC web page be established
that includes reports from workshops, minutes, composition of
the BIOAC, and a place for people to respond to issues and questions
from the BIOAC.
The BIOAC discussed what integrating research and education means
and how it has become such a priority. They stressed that NSF
needs to maintain a portfolio of programs that promotes it, for
the Foundation has in the past contributed to the problem of rewarding
faculty just for research and not for education. Friday, April 26
Follow-on Activities for Breakout Groups
The BIOAC also discussed various options to encourage training
outside of research for graduate students and post-docs, including
research training groups, training grants, supplements to research
grants, and leveraging funds from universities to support activities
outside of research. Dr. Fedoroff and Dr. Florant also noted the
importance for NSF to clearly articulate the education component
of its mission. Dr. Fedoroff also suggested funding more than
one PI on a grant so that graduate students can be shared and
therefore get a more interdisciplinary experience.
Members of the BIOAC stressed the need to demonstrate to reviewers
and applicants what integrating research and education means and
the variety of methods that can be employed to achieve it. They
also noted that this needs to be a Foundation wide effort and
requires the cooperation of program officers, as well as demonstrating
to university administration that NSF considers this important.
The BIOAC discussion then turned to BIO's proposed science thrusts.
Dr. Clutter briefly reviewed the FY1997 Authorization markup,
which suggests that NSF may receive less money in 1998 than it
did in 1995.
Arabidopsis in Five- Some of the BIOAC members felt that genome
sequencing is not creative and therefore NSF should focus more
on gene function. Others noted that although sequencing itself
is not creative, the information garnered from it can be used
in very creative ways. They also noted that this is an excellent
opportunity to bring Arabidopsis scientists together to foster
the exchange of ideas and information. Dr. Fedoroff was concerned
that the goal to sequence the genome in five years not overshadow
the research that will develop from sequencing.
Development of Cross-Disciplinary Enabling Tools- Some members
of the BIOAC saw this as an important area, but felt that the
$2 million investment BIO tentatively plans to make is not enough
to make it a priority.
Analysis of Biological Systems- Dr. Fedoroff noted that she is
very excited about this area of biology but was concerned that
there is only a small number of biologists willing to take part
in the integration necessary to do it. She felt that NSF should
promote this initiative, but wait to develop a program announcement
until a critical mass has been achieved. Other members of the
BIOAC expressed similar concerns. Some members felt that a RFP
could catalyze further development of this area.
Exploring Microbial Diversity - The BIOAC felt that this was a
very timely initiative and has the potential to yield tremendous
amounts of important information with implications for bioremediation,
pharmaceutical use, and the changing global environment. Discussion of the Future of Science and Technology Centers
Dr. Edwards also asked the BIOAC to consider the following options:
-NSF-wide competition
Overall, the BIOAC is very supportive of the STC program, particularly
the centers' accomplishments in outreach, integrating research
and education, and collaborative research. They were also impressed
with how well some STCs have been able to leverage their NSF funds
to raise more money.
Some members of the BIOAC are concerned that some centers have
been funded for too long, and suggested shortening the amount
of time a STC is eligible for NSF support.
Dr. Frank Ruddle suggested staggering the competition so that
a new center is started every two years rather than starting several
at one time so that NSF could take advantage of emerging areas
quickly.
Some members of the BIOAC were concerned that the quality of the
projects funded within a STC may not be as good as those funded
directly through NSF programs. This concern grew mostly out of
the fact that some STCs do not utilize a peer review process in
evaluating projects.
Dr. Florant was concerned about the level of ethnic diversity
present in STCs. Dr. Edwards said that NSF is working with the
STCs to increase diversity, but that perhaps we have not made
enough progress so far.
Dr. Fedoroff asked how STCs might keep their outreach activities
going once NSF funding ceases. The technical coordinators for
BIO STCs discussed how each of their STCs would probably address
this issue. Overall, they stated that some outreach programs will
not survive, but that others will in a scaled-down version.
Dr. Judith Ramaley, Dr. Paul Magee, and Dr. Nina Fedoroff will
submit a report on this session to Dr. Clutter and Dr. Edwards. Future Business
Dr. Fedoroff was concerned that the BIOAC should have some sort
of activity at the national level as well. She felt that smaller
workshops raise consciousness on the issues, but one is needed
on a grander scale to effect change. She suggested next year's
NAS convocation as a mechanism to achieve this.
Dr. Clutter noted that several members were rotating off the BIOAC
and thanked them for their service. She asked if any of them would
consider serving another year.
Dr. Clutter requested that all BIOAC members provide suggestions
for new members as soon as possible.
The next BIOAC meeting will be held November 7-8, 1996.
BIO will develop a BIOAC home page to post minutes, meeting agendas,
background papers, workshop reports, comments, and other BIOAC
related information.
Dr. Magee adjourned the meeting at approximately 12:00 p.m. |
Contact the BIO Webmaster |
nsf.gov |
| About NSF | Funding | Publications | News & Media | Search | Site Map | Help | |
The National Science Foundation 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230, USA Tel: 703-292-5111, FIRS: 800-877-8339 | TDD: 800-281-8749 |
Contact
NSF Customize |
Last Modified: Mar 04, '02 |