NSB-99-81 APPROVED MINUTES OPEN SESSION 352nd MEETING NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD National Science Foundation Arlington, Virginia March 25-26, 1999 Members Present: Members Absent: Eamon M. Kelly, Chairman John A. Armstrong* Pamela A. Ferguson Mary K. Gaillard Stanley V. Jaskolski Sanford D. Greenberg Diana S. Natalicio M.R.C. Greenwood Anita K. Jones Jane Lubchenco Eve L. Menger Claudia I. Mitchell-Kernan Vera Rubin Robert M. Solow Bob H. Suzuki Richard Tapia Warren M. Washington John A. White, Jr. Rita R. Colwell, Director NSB Consultants Present NSB Consultant Absent George M. Langford ** Maxine Savitz ** Joseph A. Miller, Jr. ** Robert C. Richardson ** Luis Sequeira ** Chang-Lin Tien ** ______________ *Attended Thursday Only **NSB Nominee pending U.S. Senate confirmation Note: The preliminary minutes of the 352nd meeting were approved by the Board at the 353rd meeting, on May 6, 1999. The National Science Board (NSB) convened in Open Session at 1:35 p.m., on Thursday, March 25, 1999, with Dr. Eamon M. Kelly, Chairman, presiding (Agenda NSB 99-51). In accordance with the Government in the Sunshine Act, this portion of the meeting was open to the public. AGENDA ITEM 7: Minutes, November 1998, February 1999 Meetings The Board APPROVED the Open Session minutes of the November 1998 NSB meeting as amended (NSB-98-210, revised). The minutes of the February 1999 meeting will be on the agenda for approval at the May meeting. AGENDA ITEM 8: Closed Session Agenda Items for May 1999 The Board approved the Closed Session items for the May 1999 Board Meeting (NSB-99-38, Board Book Tab F), attached as Appendix A. AGENDA ITEM 9: Chair's Report or Chairmen's a. Announcement of Member Honors The Chairman congratulated those members upon whom honors had been conferred: Dr. M.R.C. Greenwood, named a member of UNESCO's World Commission on Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology; Dr. Jane Lubchenco, elected to a three-year term as counselor to the president of the National Academy of Sciences; Dr. Diana Natalicio, inducted into the Texas Women's Hall of Fame; and Dr. Richard Tapia, received a 1999 Giants in Science Award from the Quality Education for Minorities Mathematics, Science, and Engineering Network. b. Summary of Board's February Retreat Subjects for discussion at the retreat included strategies and issues dealing with biocomplexity, environmental research and education, and technology and education. Retreat attendees registered concern about the need to raise public awareness about unmet needs and opportunities in science and engineering. Another related topic for discussion was the need to articulate the NSF vision so that the public may better understand and appreciate how science and engineering contribute to the quality of life. The Chairman stated that specific recommendations would be presented at the May meeting. Discussion of committee structure and standing committee charges was deferred until the May meeting. c. Openness of NSB Meetings Dr. Kelly noted that, while much work needs to be accomplished through committees whose meetings are closed to the public, the Board should carefully review items brought to them, and promote and direct as many as possible to open sessions. d. NSB Committees The Chairman reported that the Audit and Oversight, Education and Human Resources, and Programs and Plans committees are functioning with a full complement of members (new committee lists attached at Appendix B). Recognizing that some committees are more popular than others, Dr. Kelly noted that members would be rotated among the committees to accommodate interests, experience and expertise. Dr. Kelly discharged the following committees, expressing thanks to the respective chairpersons and members: (1) EHR Task Force on Mathematics and Science Achievement with Dr. Mary K. Gaillard, Chair, and members Drs. Mitchell-Kernan, Rubin, and Tapia; (2) Committee on NSB Nominees Class of 2006, Dr. Eve Menger, Chair, and members Drs. Armstrong, Greenwood, and Washington; and (3) 1999 Vannevar Bush Award Committee, Dr. MRC Greenwood, Chair, and members Drs. Jones, Tapia, and Washington. The Chairman discussed briefly two Task Forces that had their first meetings: The Task Force on International Issues in Science and Engineering, chaired by Dr. Diana Natalicio; and the Committee on Strategic Science and Engineering Policy Issues, chaired by Dr. Kelly. Dr. Kelly also mentioned establishing a new committee on communications to foster public awareness. The membership will be announced at a later date. AGENDA ITEM 10: Director's Report a. General Announcements Dr. Colwell announced that Dr. Kelly, NSB Chairman, had received an award from the U.N.'s International Council for Caring Communities (ICCC). The Director also noted that Dr. Judith Sunley, Assistant to the Director for Science Policy and Planning, would be detailed to the Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP) to work with Dr. Neal Lane, Assistant to the President for Science & Technology, to revitalize the partnership between the Federal government and universities. b. Congressional Update Both Drs. Kelly and Colwell testified on March 4 before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on VA-HUD and Independent Agencies, which focused on the FY 2000 budget request. White House discussions centered on the IT2 Initiative, and ranged in scope from data access issues involved in revisions to the OMB Circular A-110 to math and science education. Dr. Colwell reported that the hearings went well. On March 23, Drs. Kelly and Colwell joined the President's Science Adviser in their annual hearing before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee. Again much discussion centered around the IT2 initiatives and the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCOR), designed to increase participation in NSF's research and education enterprise throughout the country. While much interest and enthusiasm were evident, Dr. Colwell reminded the Board of the appropriators' funding constraints for FY 2000, with a $20 billion reduction in new spending for domestic discretionary programs anticipated. The House Basic Research Subcommittee held a hearing on March 16 about the Administration's IT2 initiative. The House Science Committee met on March 17 to discuss math and science education, and Dr. Rubin represented the NSB. These hearings also went well. Dr. Colwell reported that on March 24 Mr. Lawrence Rudolph, the NSF general counsel, represented the NSF in a hearing of the House Basic Research Subcommittee. The subcommittee is considering a bill that repeals the FY 1998 Supplemental Appropriations Act provision that gave the NSF authority and direction to spend approximately $60 million on the Next Generation Internet and related networking activities. The Director asked Mr. Rudolph to comment on the hearing. Mr. Rudolph noted that the main issue raised was whether the funds allocated to NSF were collected as a tax, fee, or some type of program income generated out of the research activity of the NSF awardees. Mr. Rudolph reported to the Subcommittee that nearly all the monies that Congress had directed NSF to spend had been obligated and that therefore, if a repeal were passed, the lawsuit relating to these funds would require the NSF to find the means to refund the $60 million to the individuals who paid it. Dr. Colwell next discussed the House Science Committee legislation that was being considered on March 25. A bill to authorize the Interagency Earthquake Hazard Reduction Act is of interest to the NSF Engineering and Geosciences Directorates. Dr. Colwell noted that the last week of April is the National Science and Technology Week. During that time NSF will have its annual budget hearing before the House Basic Research Subcommittee. Representative Dick Smith, the newly appointed Chair, recently toured the Foundation and was favorably impressed by NSF and its many activities. Finally, nominations for several Board members and for the NSF Deputy Director, Dr. Joseph Bordogna, are before the Senate, and confirmation is expected next month. c. National Science and Technology Week and NSF 50th Anniversary Activities April 25 through May 1 marks National Science and Technology Week (NSTW). "Find Out Why"-the topic for NSF's poster-is the theme for all of NSF science and engineering outreach activities. Dr. Colwell cited the many activities to be held in conjunction with NSTW: events at museums, technology centers, schools and other institutions; programs on Capitol Hill; media attention; and the NSTW web site. Dr. Colwell also mentioned the many activities being coordinated for the NSF 50th anniversary celebration. Partners in these efforts include the White House Millennium Council, PARADE magazine, ABC-TV, Disney Animation and Discover magazine. These activities promise to be exciting, engaging, and informative for a variety of audiences. d. Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science, Engineering and Technology Development This is a new commission, headed by NSF, with other Federal agencies as cooperative partners. Dr. Colwell stated the commission's purpose is to seek work force diversity. The first meeting will take place on April 14, at NSF. AGENDA ITEM 11: Program Approval Dr. Kelly called on Dr. Bob Suzuki, Chair, Education & Human Resources Committee to present an overview of the Computer Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Scholarships Program (NSB 99-54, Board Book Tab G) that was recommended for Board approval by the Committee. Dr. Suzuki explained that the program's funds are derived from fees collected from companies sponsoring as many as 300,000 individuals who enter the U.S. to take high technology jobs. Nearly $500 million in income is projected over the next three years. The program will allow NSF to establish a $2,500-a-year scholarship for low-income students. He explained that, if successful, this program will provide a continuing source of funding for NSF in the areas of computer science, engineering, and mathematics education. Grants under the program would be awarded to institutions, rather than individuals. The program would be announced by May 1, with proposals due by August 1, and awards scheduled for January of 2000. Board Discussion Responding to questions from members, Dr. Suzuki noted the reason individuals were being brought in from abroad is to compensate for shortages in these areas. He further clarified that there will be 80 two-year grants awarded; approximately 40 per year that can be awarded by each institution, with a total of around 100 grants to institutions over the three-year period. Dr. Suzuki stated that not only those institutions with large numbers of students would qualify, but also those with smaller student bodies yet with large percentages of low-income students. The program, he noted, would apply mostly to undergraduates, although community college students and doctoral candidates would also be eligible. The Board APPROVED the establishment of the Computer Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Scholarship (CSEMS) Program, and authorized the Director to take final action on grants, contracts, and other arrangements, except where such actions require Board approval under existing policy guidelines. AGENDA ITEM 12: May NSB Meeting Dr. Kelly noted that the May 1999 NSB meeting will include the election of two Executive Committee members. He reminded members that Drs. Mitchell-Kernan and Washington were elected to serve the second year of unexpired terms vacated by former members who had completed their terms on the Board and both are eligible for reelection. Dr. Kelly further noted that Board members will be sent a copy of the NSB protocol on elections and the nomination process will begin in April. AGENDA ITEM 13: NSB Calendar After explaining the rationale for the way the calendar is structured, Dr. Kelly noted that there will be five regular meetings, one of which could be optional, scheduled in the year 2000. He referred to the handouts which listed meetings in September 1999, November 1999, a retreat and policy meeting in January 2000, followed by a March and May meeting. Dr. Kelly noted that the NSB 50th anniversary meeting scheduled for December 2000 would take place in lieu of the usual November meeting. He further explained that the plans called for Wednesday-Thursday meetings, since Fridays are less well attended than the other days. Dr. Kelly reminded the Board that the meeting schedule presented was tentative and a survey of everyone's calendar would be made to determine precise dates that would accommodate maximum participation. A firm calendar would be presented at the May meeting for final approval. AGENDA ITEM 14: Committee Reports a. Director's Report on Merit Review Dr. Kelly noted that this report would be presented later, as part of the Audit and Oversight (A&O) presentation. He asked that Dr. Menger, Acting Chair, A&O Committee, deliver the report. b. Audit and Oversight (A&O) Dr. Eve Menger, Chair, announced that a formal presentation on the proposed revisions for NSF cost-sharing policy would be delivered before the full Board at the May meeting for its approval. Reporting on the NSF financial audit, Dr. Menger noted that NSF received a clean, unqualified audit. She noted that the audit coordinating committee will serve as an example of best practice for other Federal agencies. She briefly discussed Dr. Sunley's update on NSF's efforts to meet various reporting requirements for the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and noted that a more detailed discussion would be entertained at the May A&O Committee meeting. Dr. Menger also mentioned Dr. Sunley's update on the status of the Federal research misconduct policy draft, which NSF finds acceptable. The current draft would be released for public comment in the Federal Register this spring. The committee received an update by NSF staff on Fastlane. Improvements were being developed in the proposal submission area and in implementation of the on-line project reporting system. Drs. Nathaniel Pitts and Albert Bridgewater of the Office of Integrative Activities (OIA) made a presentation merit review system, providing the statistics of grant and proposal success rates. A study of the impact of the new merit review criteria is still underway. Findings will be presented at a later meeting. Also to be presented at a future meeting is the Government Accounting Office (GAO) cross-agencies comparison of different merit review practices. The committee meeting concluded with a brief description of the functions of the Office of the Inspector General, to enlighten the many new members of A&O. Dr. Kelly commented that the initiatives dealing with review of cost-sharing principles would be favorably received in the academic community. He also remarked favorably on the progress of financial recording and financial statements and audit. Dr. Kelly called on Dr. Colwell to comment. She noted that the cost-sharing policy was discussed with the Chairs of the NSF Advisory Committees, and that their comments would be finalized and presented at the May meeting. Dr. Bordogna commenting on the issue of faculty salary support explained that this issue had not yet been resolved because of its complexity and that discussion on the issue would therefore continue. c. Committee on Programs and Plans (CPP) Dr. John Armstrong, Chair, Committee on Programs and Plans asked that the Board approve the resolution proposed by the Task Force on Polar Issues commending the U.S. Navy and Antarctic Development Squadron 6 for their 44 years of support in the Antarctic, and thanking them for their devotion and dedication in providing air transport and logistics operations in the region. The Board discussed the magnitude of efforts performed by the Navy over the last five decades. Dr. Colwell promised to arrange an appropriate ceremony to convey the NSB's appreciation for the group's dedication. The Board unanimously APPROVED the following resolution. BE IT RESOLVED THAT: On the occasion of completion of forty years of support to the Nation's Antarctic Science Program: The National Science Board commends and extends its gratitude and thanks to the men and women of United States Navy Antarctic Development Squadron 6, without whose devotion and dedication to its mission of providing air transport and logistics operations, the unprecedented scientific achievement which we have witnessed during the last five decades, would not have been possible. Dr. Armstrong reported briefly that the morning's session provided an informative discussion about the infrastructure planning and management issues. He mentioned that the discussions included the changing nature of the sort of infrastructure projects NSF has been called upon to support. He noted staff from the Geosciences Directorate had presented interesting plans for the ocean drilling program, with international collaboration on a new, high-tech, deep-sea drilling ship facility. Task Force on Environment (TFE) Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Chair, TFE, noted that the Task Force continues to prepare a comprehensive report on environmental research and education, while soliciting input from a variety of communities regarding unmet needs. The vehicles for input had been organized and each yielded tremendous interest in environmental issues, such as: public hearings in Portland, Oregon on January 14; a public NSB symposium at the Getty Center in Los Angeles on February 17-18; a public town hall meeting at NSF on March 8; and written and electronic (via a specially designed web site) testimony. Dr. Lubchenco extended thanks to Dr. Penelope Firth, Program Director, Ecological Studies Cluster, Division of Environmental Biology, Biological Sciences Directorate, and Executive Secretary of TFE. Task Force on Polar Issues Dr. Warren Washington, Chair, Task Force on Polar Issues, stated that the construction of the South Pole station is on schedule and within budget. d. Committee on Education and Human Resources (EHR) Dr. Bob Suzuki, Chair, EHR, noted that there had been a presentation on the NSF graduate teaching fellows and K-12 education, which is being funded for $7.5 million. Dr. Suzuki mentioned the three public hearings that had been held regarding informal education, K-12 reform, and on making science, mathematics, engineering and technology (SMET) education in K-16 and beyond seamless. A report has been drafted and will present the findings, themes, lessons learned, and policy implications derived from those hearings. A revised draft will be reviewed at the next committee meeting and subsequently will be shared with the Board. Dr. Suzuki reported on a strategic framework for the EHR Committee to guide the committee over the next five years. The major policies to be considered include: (1) systemic reform of K-16 education; (2) research on K-12 undergraduate and graduate SMET education; (3) impact of diversity on K-12 education and on higher education; and (4) public literacy and understanding of science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Subcommittee on Science and Engineering Indicators Dr. Mitchell-Kernan, Chair, EHR Subcommittee on Science an Engineering Indicators, stated that a schedule for the Science and Indicators 2000 volume was underway. A new historical chapter would be available in May and other chapters would be ready between May and September for review. Each chapter would be reviewed by five or six external peers, and some members of the committee would act as lead reviewers. Dr. Mitchell-Kernan invited members of the Board to review chapters that would suit their interests. The list of peer reviewers will be presented at the next subcommittee meeting. She reported that the committee had discussed a review protocol for the volume. Dr. Mitchell-Kernan reported that Dr. Jean Griffith, Director, Science Resources Studies Division, Social, Behavorial, and Economics Sciences (SBE) Directorate, had made a presentation on long-range planning for Indicators. Dr. Griffith had discussed several areas: (1) A small grants program for improving approaches to indicator development and presentation, developing new science and technology indicators, and improving understanding of the science and technology enterprise in the US and globally; (2) a review of the indicator-related research project being funded in FY 1999; and (3) a plan for workshops and seminars that aim to improve indicators both domestically and internationally. Task Force on Mathematics and Science Achievement (TIMSS) Dr. Bob Suzuki, Chair, EHR Committee, noted that a final report is being prepared for distribution to school districts across the country. He extended his thanks to Dr. Luther Williams, Assistant Director, EHR Directorate and to Dr. Daryl Chubin, Senior Staff Associate, NSB and Executive Secretary to the Task Force, for their excellent work on the Task Force. Task Force on NSB 50th Anniversary Dr. Vera Rubin, Chair, Task Force on NSB 50th Anniversary, reported that, since a scholarly historical memoir of the Board could not be completed by the year 2000, the decision was made to prepare two historical documents. The first, to be contracted out after a competitive proposal was awarded, would be a scholarly 300-page manuscript about the history of the Board. This would take a considerable amount of time and would not be released before 2000. The second publication would be for a wider audience, and would be presented in an informative, popular, soft-cover format. Dr. Rubin next discussed the Board meeting scheduled for December 12-13, 2000. The celebration will be set for the 12th, regardless of whether the White House visit can be arranged for that day. Details regarding the place of the celebration and the form of the afternoon symposium will be worked out within the next several weeks. Task Force on International Issues In the absence of Dr. Diana Natalicio, Task Force Chair, Dr. Kelly reported on the Task Force meeting. The International Task Force focused on reviewing and approving the charge, as distributed. Task Force members agreed that a comprehensive review was needed of the Federal framework for international science and engineering activities. A workplan to implement the charge will be reported out by the Task Force at the May meeting. e. Ad Hoc Committee on Strategic Science and Engineering Policy Issues Dr. Kelly noted that the Committee on Strategic Policy Issues has been reconstituted and extends the work that culminated in the publication of the NSB working paper on Government Funding of Scientific Research (NSB-97-186). He further reported that the committee recognized that the Administration and Congress were supportive of the Board and the Foundation for studying methodologies in establishing budget and research priorities. Attendees agreed that a more rational process needs to be adopted for setting research and R&D budget priorities. Members discussed and approved the charge to the committee (NSB-99-56, attached at Appendix C). They noted the need to draw upon NSF expertise to identify individuals for participation in workshops and to guide the committee's efforts. Committee members concluded that a set of principles to guide the process, along with a draft work plan would be developed for the May meeting. f. Board Discussion of NSF Merit Review Process Responding to an invitation to comment by Dr. Kelly, Board members raised questions regarding the National Science Foundation's Merit Review System Fiscal Year 1998 report (NSB-99-28 Board Book Tab H). Dr. Bordogna noted the number of proposals received the use of a combination of review panels and mail reviews. Dr. Nathaniel Pitts, Director, Office of Integrative Activities (OIA), noted a decrease in proposals in the last year, compared to the prior five years. Reasons for the decrease, he surmised, were the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) changes, an increase in funding available to grantees from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and a decline in the number of proposals to the Biological Sciences Directorate. A question was raised about whether the decline in the biological sciences proposals could be attributed to the average award size. Dr. Colwell noted her impression that the size of award was a significant factor. She stated that the median award is $62,000 at NSF while the average NIH grant is $250,000 (excluding overhead). NSF awards do include overhead number. Many members agreed that NSF funds were inadequate, especially for a nation that needs to be a leader in science and technology in the 21st century number. Dr. Suzuki suggested that there be a stronger collaboration between research universities and teaching institutions so that the expertise in the latter area be cultivated. Dr. Bordogna commented that the significance of the Merit Review report is that it is mostly static, with no noticeable trends. Dr. Langford noted a new trend in the declining number of proposals to NSF. Dr. Gaillard also noted a subtle change occurring because the figures do not account for cost-of-living increases number. Dr. Jones noted another change over the past five years whereby currently 80% of the awards are made via a panel. She questioned the adequacy of such panels and suggested that perhaps Program Officers should be more empowered in making the award selections. Some members concurred that panels are not the best tools for selecting the most deserving candidates, especially for innovative research. Dr. Menger observed the lower success rate of the younger investigators, 25%, in comparison with the NSF average of 33% number. Dr. Mitchell-Kernan noted that the report does not reflect how meritorious the proposals are that NSF is funding. She felt the Board would be better served if the form, functions, and indicators shown in the report were examined further. It was concluded that further examination of these issues is needed. Members agreed with the need to increase funding dramatically, through partnerships and through outreach to pursuade both the public and Congress of NSF needs. Dr. Kelly concluded the discussion, noting that it was useful. Options include first, trying to work hard to increase the amount of resources coming to the Foundation, and, second, to be analytical and creative in trying to extend resources. Dr. Kelly thanked the members for an interesting discussion about long-range considerations that need strategic planning for how the Foundation allocates resources. He stated that these issues would be considered by the Board's Executive Committee, and then presented to the full Board in the near future. AGENDA ITEM 15: NSB Strategic Planning and Budget a. Strategic Plan Dr. Kelly called on the Director to introduce the NSF strategic planning and budget discussion. Dr. Colwell began with a comparison between NSF and NIH grants, noting that NIH makes approximately 20,500 R01 grants, with an average duration of four years. Turning attention to strategic planning, Dr. Colwell referred to the slide depicting the timeline for the NSF process. The emphasis at this meeting, she noted, would be on planning. Feeding into the planning process are a number of factors: initial meetings of the Committee on Strategic Science and Engineering Policy Issues; the Task Force on International Issues in Science and Engineering; the EHR Committee planning activities; the TIMSS Task Force Report; and the Environmental Task Force. Dr. Colwell outlined the discussion for the Strategic Plan, noting the FY 2000 budget priorities would be Information Technology, Biocomplexity and the Environment, and Education, all of which are cross-directorate activities. Dr. Colwell discussed developing a complete, integrated NSF Strategic Plan, aligned with the current GPRA strategic plan and the National Scinece Board Strategic Plan. Key points in the plan would include vision, mission core, strategic goals, key strategies, key areas for action for the next five years, critical factors for success, and next steps. Board Discussion Dr. Langford asked that the term "exploration" be included on the list rather than "discovery," suggesting that the term would be more dramatic and meaningful to the public. Dr. Armstrong stated that the goal statement of the NSF should be concise and succinct, capturing the connection between the leadership in science and national benefits. He further added that the statement should be outcome rather than process oriented. Dr. Tien suggested that a great deal be made of the NSF 50th anniversary to engage the public and to use the occasion to sharpen the NSF mission and vision. Emphasis should also be placed on the NSF as the most influential institution in the world for basic scientific research. Dr. Suzuki raised another theme: to talk about developing an even more robust infrastructure for science and technology in the U.S. b. Budget The Chairman called on Mr. Joseph Kull, Director, Office of Budget, Finance & Awards Management. Mr. Kull drew members attention to the long-range planning material that they had received. He explained that his presentation would focus on the Research Project Support area of the budget, which represented almost $2 billion; research projects in terms of true, competitive research grants vs. centers, instrumentation, conferences; and research grant proposals by principal investigators (PI). Mr. Kull noted that the success rate for new investigators has dropped. Board Discussion Responding to questions from Board members concerning the definition of "new" investigators, and whether those who switched fields were so designated, Dr. Bordogna explained that "new" investigators are identified by social security number and, therefore, could be better tracked. A discussion followed about the merits of those people who move to other fields, who contribute as much as the young investigators and bring a wealth of experience, adding to their productivity. Mr. Kull noted that those who are in the system longest have the highest success rates for funding. He pointed out, however, that one of the sharpest drops occurs in the 35-year and older age bracket. He noted the need to examine division-level data for an explanation of this drop. Mr. Kull emphasized that consistency over time within divisions and with variation among disciplines reflect the differences in nature of the disciplines which generate different levels of proposals, different-sized proposals, etc. Dr. Armstrong raised the question of how these data are relevant to the strategic goals. Dr. Colwell pointed out that the relevant goal is the utilization of our human resources. Dr. Lubchenco condensed the issues at hand, saying that one issue is, given the current resources available, is the system that we have for allocation of those resources the most appropriate? The other issue is what are the feedbacks in the system to determine what discourages people from staying in science and doing the science. That is, does the level of resources preclude doing the new kinds of science, and is this the outcome we want? Dr. Kelly observed that the discussion should be a foundation for looking at these data analytically in the future. He concluded that a system whose principal investigators spend most of their time writing proposals takes them out of classrooms, mentoring, and research. The meeting was recessed at 5:45 p.m. ********* Friday, March 26, 1999 Dr. Eamon M. Kelly, Chairman, reconvened the Open Session. AGENDA ITEM 15 (Continued): NSB Strategic Planning and Budget The Chairman turned the meeting over to Dr. Colwell, Director, who called upon each of the Directorates to discuss their respective directions and opportunities. a. Biological Sciences Directorate (BIO) Dr. Mary Clutter, Assistant Director, BIO, began the presentation with a discussion of the new biological revolution that encompasses biotechnology and information technologies. Most of biology, she noted, is no longer hypothesis-driven, but data-driven. Because of the wealth of information available in databases, ranging from molecular biology through ecosystems, experiment time may be compressed, leading to quicker discovery of new principles. Also, she explained, since electronic communications are so widespread, there is virtually no limit on boundaries for scientific collaboration. She next discussed this technological revolution in terms of the plant genome project. The sophisticated state of technology now enables the establishment of a network of sites equipped with state-of-the-art genomics instrumentation. Dr. Clutter registered her desire to establish such a network of sites to study all levels-from molecules to ecosystems-and link these. The network would be able to predict the dynamics of species distribution and the movement of invasive species. It would benefit a multitude of areas, especially getting many institutions involved, including K-12 students. Dr. Clutter cited the Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) Network as a current example. Responding to a question, she noted that these LTERs exist as "virtual" centers, which do not require resident staff, except the university students who reside at the central location. Another opportunity Dr. Clutter discussed was the Total Plant Genomics Project, which she referred to as the "2010 project." The goal by year 2010 is to determine the functions of the 20,000 to 25,000 genes that exist in Arabidopsis, the model plant. She noted that the project was already ahead of schedule, and continued by presenting specifics about the interactions among genes. Dr. Clutter explained that once these genes are completely understood, many exciting advances could be made, such as crop improvement. b. Engineering Directorate (ENG) Dr. Eugene Wong, Assistant Director, ENG, stated that engineering is a discipline-oriented profession, divided into civil, mechanical, electrical, and traditional disciplines. These disciplines, in the past, emphasized skills and expertise, and practice over discovery and innovation. This approach has been an impediment to progress and to identifying new opportunities. He suggested finding a means to traverse the disciplinary boundaries and provide a framework that addresses national needs in terms of the economy, the environment, health, and education. Dr. Wong noted that microelectronics, information technology, and biotechnology are transcendent technologies. He suggested that NSF examine the existing, discipline-oriented organization; dimensional technologies previously cited; modalities of support within both the Engineering Directorate and the Foundation as a whole; and the dynamics of technology development. Dr. Wong next reported on a series of exploratory initiatives and noted that future attention should be focused on some of them. 1. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) that connects nationwide up to 30 facilities involving earthquake engineering. This project was progressing well, with continuing support from both the engineering community and Congress. 2. XYZ-on-a-Chip, a project dealing with propagating microelectronics into new and diverse areas. This elicited 350 proposals in less than 90 days. 3. Scalable Enterprise Systems, a new project looking at the economics of production systems through application software for the manufacturing sector. 4. A collaborative wireless project, which promises a tether-free world where there is true mobility. The focus should be directed to bringing access to remote and inaccessible regions. 5. Nanoscale engineering, which is an exciting area where direct connections can be seen between chemical sequences, chemical compositions, physical shape, and function. Dr. Wong next stated that future attention should be focused on (1) the service industry, which is a growing area, that cuts across the Directorates and could serve areas such as transport, finance, healthcare, education, and government; and (2) environmental engineering. No longer viewed as an offshoot of construction engineering, this area now encompasses information technology, molecular biology, and the nano area of sensing systems. Board Discussion Dr. Wong asserted his intention to pursue collaborations with organizations outside of NSF. New initiatives represent 10 percent of the Engineering budget. He noted further that approximately 10 percent of the Engineering budget is for education, which should be increased because of the rapid rate at which technology is moving. With regard to questions on how the Directorate determines which areas of research NSF should fund and which should be funded by industry, Dr. Wong noted that industry focused mainly on applied research, while NSF looked at a combination of both applied and basic. Members encouraged Dr. Wong to move faster on the service industry intiatives. c. Office of Polar Programs (OPP), Office of the Director Dr. Karl Erb, Director, OPP, stated that the Polar Programs Office studies phenomena that have a global impact; examines unique science problems; or looks at things for which Polar regions provide a unique platform. He mentioned OPP is intrinsically multi- and inter-disciplinary. He discussed the Antarctic continent's effect on global change due to the enormous reflective power of ice and its effect on energy flux. This could provide an important contribution to global climate modeling. To address this, Dr. Erb announced OPP's interest in starting an extension of the Southern Oceans global ships. This effort would require extensive coordinated science that involves biologists, oceanographers, modelers, etc. Dr. Erb cited the SHEBA Project as providing the know-how needed to deal with the Antarctic initiative. With SHEBA, he noted, NSF was the lead agency in which a Canadian icebreaker was frozen and allowed to drift in the Arctic Ocean over the course of a year, providing the ability to model global climate change. Dr. Erb discussed two projects in the Antarctic. (1) ecosystems that thrive in the harsh environment provided by Lake Bonnie in the Antarctica, and (2) Lake Vostok. He expressed the need for developing drilling techniques that could penetrate the thick ice without contaminating it, and subsequently studying samples of life found there. Dr. Erb noted that in the Arctic area, which is inhabited, economies are very sensitive to change and any environmental change has a drastic effect on the way the inhabitants live. It is therefore important to understand and predict such changes. As a final example of what OPP does, Dr. Erb cited a recent award made to the Rural College of Alaska, which will provide satellite communications among six rural colleges that are accessible only by airplane. In summing up, Dr. Erb noted the inability to get to research sites on a year-round basis. This can be helped by increased electronic connectivity and the development of instruments that can take measurements remotely. He also noted the development of connectivity within major facilities provides further partnerships within the discipline-based Directorates of NSF. d. Computer Information Sciences and Engineering Directorate (CISE) Dr. Ruzena Bajcsy, Assistant Director, CISE, explained that, in addition to being a useful science, computer science is a serious science dealing with information, how it is encoded (representation) and what then is done with the information (manipulation). The future will require more abstraction of knowledge, a greater compact representation, and focus on the interaction between machines and humans. The goals of IT2 include: better software design and building to enable predictable and guaranteed performance; increased understanding of network behavior in light of their (networks) increased numbers; further development of supporting software, operating systems, and programming languages to address high-end computing; and greater understanding of the social, ethical, and legal, economic, and personnel consequences of new technologies. Dr. Bajcsy expressed concern over the funding disproportion between infrastructure ($70 million) and research spending ($10 million). Another area of concern relates to the decline of baccalaureates awarded in computer science. She noted with regard to women students that undergraduates tend to go on to graduate programs if they receive mentoring. Board Discussion There was expressed concern about the perception by the computer science community that NSF views computer science as a support activity rather than a research activity. This, Dr. Bajcsy acknowledged, was an area they are looking into, and asserted that CISE would continue to communicate with the community. Dr. Bajcsy said she would be prepared to talk on this subject at the May Board meeting. Dr. Jones expressed her views that NSF must step up to the long-term, high-risk science of information and computation and, secondly, that the U.S. must continue its leadership in information technology R&D, which gives our scientists an advantage. e. Mathematical & Physical Sciences Directorate (MPS) Dr. Robert Eisenstein, Assistant Director, MPS, discussed the opportunities for growth in the MPS Directorate. He began by explaining what the Directorate does in terms of its objectives: to support research in fundamental mathematics; in origins of the universe; in the quantum realm; in molecular connections; and in discovery science, i.e., education and outreach programs to the public. Among the new and existing opportunities, Dr. Eisenstein included the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, which leads the world in radio astronomy; Gemini, a twin, 8-meter telescope project in Hawaii and in Chile; Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO), which probes the universe by looking at gravitational radiation emanating from the collision of supernovas; AMANDA, supported largely by OPP, as the world's first neutrino telescope; the Millimeter Array, which will study the formation of planets, stars, and galaxies in the radio wavelength at millimeter scales; the Pierre Auger Project, which will search for the highest energy cosmic rays that people have observed; and the Large Hadron Collider, which will be searching for new laws of physics. He highlighted the importance MPS places on people; its longstanding interest in undergraduate curriculum development; its successful Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers Program; the Mathematics Institute Competition; and support for a cross-disciplinary institute to study the fundamentals of information theory and how it connects across disciplines. Board Discussion Responding to a question on leveraging NSF funds for facilities, Dr. Eisenstein noted that the Directorate does not have a lot of avenues for support from industry, but does have alliances with other nations as well as partner agencies in the U.S. government. Dr. Tapia commented on the need to remember that "small science," which is not dependent on large facilities, can also make significant contributions. f. Social, Behavioral and Economics Sciences (SBE) Dr. William Butz, Director for the Division of Social and Economic Research, SBE, made the presentation in the absence of Dr. Bennett Bertenthal, Assistant Director, SBE. He emphasized the common elements of the three sciences: (1) Definitional, which is the study of what we think and do as human beings; documenting, understanding and predicting under what circumstances we think and act; and documenting, understanding and predicting the consequences of what we think and how those consequences are maintained. (2) Situational which functions like cottage industries with cottage industry results. (3) Transformational focusing on what NSF can do now to transform all of these sciences together. NSF can produce support and money to facilitate this transformation. Reviewing three grants that came to an end this year exemplified the transformation element: (1) an archeology grant looking at the teeth of a prehuman; (2) a study conducted in Sicily by political scientists and cultural anthropologists, examining the effect of breaking up the Mafia style of social and political organization; and (3) a project performed in collaboration with the Engineering Directorate, studying the steel finishing lines of 21 American and 3 Japanese steel companies. Returning to the point of these sciences functioning as cottage industries, Dr. Butz stated that, generally, social, behavioral and economic science are done in stand-alone facilities. Most of the proposals funded by the Directorate are rarely from more than two or three people. Also, he noted, that there was little electronic sharing of findings. The result is the slow transmission of ideas, data, and methods; years-long publication lags; and little reanalysis or replication. Looking toward the future, Dr. Butz pointed to changes that are occurring as a result of web-based technologies that are increasing electronic publication, systematic web-based co-laboratories, and web-based data facilities that are bringing data together. Two international workshops have already taken place to look at this phenomenon. g. Geosciences Directorate (GEO) Dr. Robert Corell, Assistant Director, GEO, presented the Directorate's opportunities and concerns in the earth-related sciences. He discussed the challenge in finding a comprehensive connection among the wide range of component parts of the earth (atmosphere, biosphere, geosphere, and the human sphere). Looking to the future, Dr. Corell noted his belief that hydrologic cycles would dominate. Other issues the Directorate would be dealing with included: natural hazards; planetary scale processes relating to carbon cycles; energetics processes; the Global Seismic Network; solar interterrestrial interactions; and biotic interactions. With respect to technology, he noted that the Directorate, along with its Advisory Committee, has decided to participate proactively in educational issues. He discussed the establishment of an international eight-satellite system, and noted NSF's partnership with Taiwan, and other Federal science agencies. Dr. Corell concluded by emphasizing that technology is a fundamental part of the Directorate. Responding to comments from Board members on a possible relationship of NSF with the intelligence community in light of advances in hyperspectral imaging, and on data exchange and privatization issues, Dr. Corell reported that the directorate is looking at large data sets to exchange, but recognizes the importance of security issues in this area. h. Education and Human Resources Directorate (EHR) Dr. Luther S. Williams, Assistant Director, EHR, framed his presentation with three statements: 1. During the 1990s, NSF has expanded and diversified its science, mathematics, engineering, technology education portfolio by addressing all sectors - K-12, technical education, the undergraduate sector, graduate education, postdoctoral, and institutional programs. 2. This diverse portfolio seeks to serve all students through a variety of modes with Systemic Initiatives. Dr. Williams noted that roughly 70 percent of what EHR does is not a regular part of NSB deliberations. 3. EHR has spent considerable time thinking about approaches that would make the systemic initiatives more productive. Among the major focuses are: (a) Research and to improve fundamental knowledge that underlies learning, readiness for reading and mathematics (pre-K); K-3 learning in reading and mathematics. (b) Systemic approaches in the urban and rural sectors. Through Urban Initiatives, EHR has pioneered how to bring learning technologies to K-12 sites in terms of math and science learning. (c) Partnerships whereby K-12 and the higher education sector collaborate. (d) Support of two-year college programs that deal with manufacturing technology, biotechnology, and information technology. Dr. Williams noted that the responsibility will belong to the higher education sector, which would be tasked to develop strong math and science pedagogy and content. He next talked about the digital library that would be distributed nationwide. This, he noted, is currently being prototyped. It is a national resource that would deliver peer-reviewed, quality educational materials for mathematics, science, engineering, technology, and learning for K-16. Dr. Williams introduced the possibility for NSF to have a program that provided incentives and promoted the engagement in lower division undergraduate instruction of scientists and mathematics engineering faculty. He noted that it is important to maintain NSF's prestigious individual portable fellowship program. He also urged the Board to think through the implications of the complex interdisciplinary research niches about which other Directorates spoke. Finally, he stated that NSF should continue to invest in graduate students to serve as teachers in K-12. Board Discussion A two-fold question was raised whether NSF should be proactive or reactive in the shortage of information technology workers, and what action NSF is taking. Dr. Colwell responded that this is a major part of the information technology activity, with $10 million directed toward the social computer interaction and workforce issues. She also noted that the NSF budget must not be viewed as discrete entities, but in terms of activities throughout the Foundation. Responding to a question about NSF's role in making information technology in K-12 education more even among the school districts, Dr. Williams explained that within two years a majority of the schools would be connected. The challenge, he noted, was that the technology must be available. Dr. Solow pointed out that, when the program succeeds, there would be a K-12 population enthusiastic and well-trained in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology and questioned whether Government was addressing education in non-scientific subjects. Dr. Williams responded that no NSF program explicitly deals with other disciplines, but also asserted that NSF's most successful systemic initiatives also produce positive impacts on reading competency. Responding to a final question about the digital library, Dr. Williams noted that the delivery system is being prototyped. AGENDA ITEM 16: Other Business There was no other business and the Open Session was adjourned at 12:05 p.m., to reconvene immediately in Closed Session. Susan E. Fannoney Staff Assistant Attachments Appendix A: Closed Session Items, May 1999 Appendix B: Standing Committee Membership lists Appendix C: NSB-99-56 Appendix A to NSB-99-81 Record of Discussion 352nd Meeting National Science Board March 25-26, 1999 The Chairman presented a list of items to be considered in Closed Session at the May 1999 meeting (NSB-99-38). A proposed resolution and a certification from the General Counsel regarding closing these portions of the meeting were also distributed. The Board adopted the proposed resolution as follows: The Board DETERMINED that the following portions of the meeting of the National Science Board (NSB) scheduled for May 5-7, 1999 shall be closed to the public: 1. That portion in which minutes of the closed sessions of earlier meetings will be discussed. An open meeting on that portion would be likely to compromise information and discussions properly held confidential under the Board's resolutions authorizing the closed sessions. 2. Those portions having to do with discussions regarding nominees for appointment as National Science Board (NSB) members and National Science Foundation (NSF) staff, or with specific staffing or personnel actions. An open meeting on these subjects would be likely to constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 3. Those portions having to do with future budgets not yet submitted by the President to the Congress. 4. Those portions having to do with pending proposals and proposed awards for specific grants, contracts, or other arrangements. An open meeting on those portions would be likely to disclose personal information and constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. It would also be likely to disclose research plans and other related information that are trade secrets, and commercial or financial information obtained from a person that are privileged or confidential. An open meeting would also prematurely disclose the position of the NSF on the proposals in question before final negotiations and any determination by the Director to make the awards and so would be likely to frustrate significantly the implementation of the proposed Foundation action. Susan E. Fannoney Staff Assistant OS-03:99:1