NSB-01-174
October 15, 2001
MEMORANDUM TO NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD MEMBERS
SUBJECT: Preliminary Report of October 10,
11, 2001 Meeting
The major actions of the Board at its 365th meeting on October 10, 11,
2001, are summarized for the information of those members and consultants
absent and as a reminder to those present.
1. Board Actions
- a. The Board approved a resolution (NSB-01-167,
attached) on the importance of the Merit Review Criterion on "Broader
Impacts."
- b. The Board confirmed the dates of the March, 2002 meeting;
Wednesday and Thursday, March 13 and 14. The Board Office will
poll members at a later time about possible dates for an annual
retreat.
- c. The Board approved a resolution (NSB-01-177,
attached) transmitting Science and Engineering Indicators -
2002 to the White House.
- d. The Board approved the report Federal
Research Resources: A Process for Setting Priorities (NSB-01-156)
for printing and distribution.
- e. The Board approved a resolution (NSB-01-180,
attached) affirming its priorities for the MRE account.
- f. The Chairman established a Committee on the 2002 Vannevar
Bush Award, Chaired by Dr. Langford, with members Drs. Rossmann,
Rubin and Savitz.
2. NSB Committees
(Committee summaries are provided by executive secretaries.)
b. Executive Committee (EC)
The Executive Committee received a congressional and budget update from
the Director, and endorsed retention of the March 13-14, 2002 dates for
the March NSB meeting. The Executive Committee will meet in the intervening
time from November 2001 to March 2002, as needed. The committee also heard
a report from the NSB Chair on the establishment of a new Vannevar Bush
committee.
c. Audit & Oversight (A&O)
Regular
Dr. Colwell discussed NSF's efforts to develop an action plan addressing
the top ten "Management Challenges" that face the agency. She
also noted NSF's role in helping to address concerns emerging out of September
11's events. Mr. Hastings provided an update on the steps completed and
underway on the Gemini Audit Corrective Action Plan. Dr. Colwell noted
the scientific success of the Gemini Telescopes.
Supervisory
The received an update on the status of an investigation and two recently
initiated audits. The committee also received copies of recent IG testimony.
d. Programs and Plans (CPP)
The Committee on Programs and Plans, with the Committee on Education
and Human Resources invited, discussed the Foundation's two merit review
criteria. NSF staff reported on actions taken after implementation of
the two new criteria in FY 1998, and on continued plans to raise awareness
of the broader impacts criterion. The committee suggested edits to draft
language in the Grants Proposal Guide to clarify that one or more of the
descriptive sub elements must be addressed (not necessarily all of them.)
The committee also noted possible difficulties associated with proposal
page limits, as an issue to be addressed by NSF management.
CPP heard reports on management and oversight of the Large Hadron Collider
from Dr. Marvin Goldberg, NSF Program Director and Dr. William Willis,
Project Manager for the U.S. ATLAS collaboration. Potential funding difficulties
at CERN were also noted.
The committee discussed setting priorities for MRE projects, with Dr.
Anita Jones participating by telephone to report points brought forward
from the Committee on Strategy and Budget (CSB). Members agreed to hold
further discussion in November with the CSB on the process and timing
for Board review and approval of MRE projects. The CPP recommended to
the full Board a resolution stating that the Board's highest MRE priorities
presented in the budget are ALMA Phase II, EarthScope and NEON (listed
alphabetically.)
The committee received a brief update on ongoing discussions within the
Gemini project regarding plans for partners to assume the Chilean share
of the project, apart from the observing share that Chile maintains as
the host country. The committee also heard an update on activities related
to the NSB Environment Report, describing results of the FY 2001 competition
for Biocomplexity in the Environment (BE), topical areas for BE in FY
2002, plans for a meeting of BE awardees, and activities of the Advisory
Committee on Environmental Research and Education.
The committee heard a brief summary of the recent NSF workshop on best
practices for large facility projects management and oversight, and the
Infrastructure Task Force and the Polar Issues Subcommittee reported on
their meetings
e. CPP Subcommittee on Polar Issues (PI)
The subcommittee received an update from Office of Polar Programs staff
on several items including: Election of Tom Pyle as Chairman of the intergovernmental
Arctic Ocean Sciences Board; the working group of SEARCH (Study of Environmental
Arctic Change) recommendations for interagency research activities for
the next 5 - 10 years; Dr. Erb's recent meeting with the Assistant Secretary
of the Air Force regarding DOD support for the Antarctic program; the
beginning of the Antarctic season ceremonies in New Zealand; submission
of a budget request to OMB to cover new security standards and requirements;
information on a report on additional costs to South Pole Modernization
and operations from last year that will be submitted to the NSB in November;
and a readiness review of the ICECUBE project. The subcommittee was informed
that plans for another communication satellite have been put on hold.
f. CPP Task Force on S&E Infrastructure (INF)
The task force agreed to develop a first draft report by the March 2002
Board meeting, and to submit its final report to the NSB between May and
August 2002. The November INF meeting will be devoted to obtaining additional
information and testimony needed to write the first draft. Possible presenters
at the November meeting are Dan Atkins, Chair of the Advisory Committee
for Cyber-infrastructure; representatives from OMB; and representatives
from other science-oriented agencies, such as DOE and NASA.
The task force also approved a draft Table of Contents for the report,
subject to increased emphasis in several areas, such as international
partnerships; education and human resources; management and oversight;
and instrumentation research and development. In addition, INF members
reviewed an analysis of directorate infrastructure reports and additional
data on infrastructure funding. It was agreed that NSF should ask the
directorates to update and clarify the information in their reports.
g. Education and Human Resources (EHR)
The EHR Committee was briefed on the current plans and activities of
NSF's Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering (CEOSE)
by Dr. Suzanne Brainard of the University of Washington and Dr. Willie
Pearson, Jr. of Georgia Tech, the chair and vice-chair of CEOSE, respectively.
Dr. Brainard reviewed the recommendations from the 2000 CEOSE report and
discussed the need to ensure that appropriate measures are employed to
evaluate activities and that new activities are guided by research results.
Dr. Judith Ramaley and Dr. Norman Fortenberry gave an overview of NSF's
current programs and activities in support of diversity and areas that
are in need of more attention. Dr. Ramaley reported she has established
an internal NSF Diversity Working Group, consisting of staff members from
all the directorates, to look at diversity issues from an NSF-wide perspective.
The committee asked to be briefed in more detail on NSF's diversity activities,
including assessments of their efficacy, at future meetings.
The committee reviewed the latest draft of the report "The Road
to Excellence: The National Science Foundation's Leadership in K-16 Science,
Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology Education." There was
considerable discussion about the scope and structure of the report in
keeping with the intent to have it serve as guidance for the EHR Committee
rather than developing it into a policy statement. The document should
be completed before the November meeting.
The Committee also heard reports from the Indicators Subcommittee and
the Task Force on National Workforce Policies for Science and Engineering
and approved Indicators 2002 for publication. Finally, Dr. Ramaley
gave a brief update on the status of the Math and Science Partnerships
Initiative, including pending legislation and NSF's current planning for
this activity.
h. EHR Subcommittee on Science and Engineering
Indicators (SEI)
Mr. Rolf Lehming briefed the subcommittee on federal agency comments
received on the Orange Book and the chapter authors' responses to them.
The subcommittee reviewed the draft NSB resolution concerning publication
of Science and Engineering Indicators-2002 and recommended final
approval of the Orange Book to the full Board. Mr. Lehming mentioned the
delay in getting data released from the National Center for Education
Statistics for inclusion in Indicators-2002. The subcommittee agreed
that a statement will be included in the printed document explaining that
the data will be released at a later date, and providing a URL where readers
will be able to find the full analysis and tabulations when the data are
released.
Mr. Lehming updated the subcommittee on the feasibility of including a
chapter on the environment in Science and Engineering Indicators-2004.
Subcommittee members supported the proposed plan and suggested that
SRS contact Board members and relevant federal agencies for input.
Dr. Cehelsky led a discussion on a possible companion piece for Indicators-2002,
recapping the discussion on this topic at the August meeting. The
subcommittee concurred with Dr. Richardson's suggestion that the topic
should be Science in Support of National Security.
Dr. Tapia will consult with subcommittee members and staff in the next
week to discuss the feasibility of producing the companion piece considering
time and date constraints.
Dr. Tapia mentioned the letter received from Dr. Greenwood regarding
the need to focus attention on the science and mathematics teacher workforce,
especially issues of teacher preparation. SRS is addressing some of these
comments and suggestions in Indicators-2002 and will do more in
Indicators-2004.
i. EHR Subcommittee on National Workforce Policies
for S&E (NWP)
The Task Force discussed the draft Report Framework, which was extensively
revised after the August meeting. The draft draws heavily on Science
and Engineering Indicators - 2002 as the data source behind its findings,
and in that regard will be a policy piece building on the 2002 Indicators.
Data show a growing U.S. reliance on foreign-born students and workers,
concurrent with a failure to develop sufficient domestic human resources
in science and engineering relative to many competitor countries and relative
to demand for workers by U.S. employers. Thus, the task force agreed on
the keystone finding that for the United States to maintain a fundamentally
strong position in science and engineering in the future, we must develop
our domestic human resources at a greater level than is currently being
accomplished.
The task force discussed the challenges the U.S. faces in order to enhance
the domestic workforce in science and engineering. Members will continue
working toward a report that offers specific recommendations.
j. Task Force on International Issues in S&E
(ISE)
The meeting focused on review of the consolidated final report. Dr. Natalicio
reminded participants that during the September 21st teleconference
task force members agreed that the report must recognize the events of
September 11. Therefore, a short stand-alone section was added that points
out that, although the report's recommendations remain unchanged, given
the events of September 11 the implementation of these recommendations
is even more compelling.
The task force agreed that the report needs only a few minor revisions
before it is ready for distribution. Participants also agreed that current
circumstances increase the urgency of finalizing and distributing the
report. Once the minor revisions are made, the draft will be distributed
simultaneously to the full Board and to the participants in the task force's
deliberations. Comments will be requested before the November NSB meeting
so a revised version of the document, incorporating comments from Board
members and others, will be available for full Board discussion and final
approval at the November meeting.
k. Committee on Strategic S&E Policy Issues
(SPI)
The Committee approved recommendation of its final report, Federal
Research Resources: A Process for Setting Priorities (NSB 01-156),
to the full Board for approval, and discussed next steps for distribution
of the report.
l. Committee on Strategy and Budget (CSB)
Dr. Warren Washington, on behalf of Dr. Anita Jones, Chair of the CSB,
reported that the committee discussed what the committee's annual cycle
should be in order to 1) evaluate strategic budget issues, 2) propose
guidance on NSB priorities, and 3) evaluate the NSF budget in terms of
its support for NSB strategies. In collaboration with the Committee on
Programs and Plans, the committee discussed possible changes in the policies
and procedures used by NSB in approving new large facility projects. NSF
staff provided an update on the status of two surveys being conducted
to assess the adequacy of funding and duration of support provided under
NSF research grants. NSF's Deputy Director provided an overview of the
dynamics of NSF's core activities and related priority areas. The committee
was briefed by NSF's Director on the status of NSF's FY2002 and FY2003
budget submissions.
________________
Marta Cehelsky
Executive Officer
Attachment 1: NSB-01-167
Attachment 2: NSB-01-177
Attachment 3: NSB-01-180
Attachment 1 to NSB-01-174
NSB-01-167
October 12, 2001
RESOLUTION APPROVED BY THE
NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD
AT ITS 365TH MEETING ON OCTOBER 11, 2001
The Board approved the following resolution
on Merit Review Criteria.
Competitive merit review underlies the National Science Foundation's
decision-making process for funding research and education projects. Two
general merit review criteria, implemented in FY 1998 following recommendations
of a National Science Board Task Force, address the intellectual merit
and the broader impacts of a proposed activity. The use of both merit
review criteria, throughout the merit review process, promotes investments
in the best ideas coupled with attention to wider benefits for the science
and engineering enterprise, and for society. Such investments support
the Foundation's strategic vision for enabling the Nation's future through
discovery, learning and innovation.
Therefore, be it RESOLVED that the National Science Board affirms the
significance of both the intellectual merit and the broader impacts
of projects supported by NSF, and endorses actions to raise awareness
of the importance of both merit review criteria. These actions should
include wide dissemination of generic examples of activities that address
the broader impacts criterion, and amendments to policies and procedures
for proposers, reviewers and NSF Program Managers on the use of both
criteria in the proposal and award process.
Attachment 2 to NSB-01-174
NSB 01-177
RESOLUTION APPROVED BY THE
NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD
AT ITS 365TH MEETING, OCTOBER 10-11, 2001
CONCERNING PUBLICATION OF THE
NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD (NSB)
SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INDICATORS-2002 REPORT
WHEREAS the Board, has reviewed the draft of the NSB Science and Engineering
Indicators-2002 Report
Now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that the National Science Board
APPROVES the publication of the report;
AUTHORIZES that the report be rendered to the President for submission
to Congress; and
AUTHORIZES the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Science and Engineering
Indicators of the Committee on Education and Human Resources and the
Chairman of the Board, jointly, to approve such further reasonable modifications
to the report as may be deemed necessary or desirable in view of review
comments such as those of the Office of Science and Technology Policy,
the Office of Management and Budget, and other Federal agencies as well
as any additional comments by Board members or the addition of new or
updated data and information.
Attachment 3 to NSB-01-174
NSB-01-180
RESOLUTION ON MRE PRIORITIES
APPROVED BY THE NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD
AT IT'S 365TH MEETING, ON OCTOBER 11, 2001
The Board's highest MRE priorities presented in the budget are ALMA Phase II, EarthScope, and NEON. |