NSB-01-202
November 16, 2001
MEMORANDUM TO NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD MEMBERS
SUBJECT: Preliminary Report of the November
14, 15, 2001 NSB Meeting
The major actions of the Board at its 366th meeting on November 14, 15,
are summarized for the information of those members absent and as a reminder
to those present.
1. Board Actions
- a. With its resolution NSB-01-207 the Board approved NSB-01-204,
a statement on Guidelines for Setting Priority for Major Research
Facilities (Attached).
- b. To ensure continuity when some members leave the Board in
May, 2002, the Chairman named Vice-Chairs to three standing committees:
Dr. Ferguson to Vice-Chair, A&O; Dr. Washington to Vice-Chair,
CPP; and Dr. Natalicio to Vice-Chair, EHR.
- c. The Board approved the report, Toward a More Effective
U.S. Role in International Science and Engineering (NSB-01-187),
for printing and distribution, subject to final editorial changes
by the Board Chair and the Chair of the Task Force on International
S&E Issues.
- d. The Board approved the NSF Management Response to the Inspector
General's Semiannual report.
- e. The Board approved selections for the 2002 Public Service
Award, as recommended by the selection committee. The awardees
will be notified by the NSB Chairman.
2. Awards
The Board approved the following awards:
GEOSCIENCES
Division of Atmospheric Sciences
The Acquisition and Integration of a Mid-size
High-Altitude Jet (HIAPER)
University Corporation for Atmospheric
Research (UCAR)
|
Amount not to exceed
$81,500,000
48 months
|
MATHEMATICAL AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES
Division of Astronomical Sciences
Authorization of the Expanded Very Large
Array (EVLA)
Associated Universities, Inc. (AUI)
|
$58,983,000
This authorization will
not change thecurrent
duration or total
spending authority of
the current award to
Associated Universities, Inc.
|
3. NSB Committees
(Committee summaries are provided by executive secretaries.)
a. Executive Committee (EC)
The Executive Committee heard reports from the Director on the status
of the NSF budget and on actions being taken by NSF on security matters
in the aftermath of September 11. The committee agreed to schedule a teleconference
meeting in January 2002.
b. Audit & Oversight (A&O)
Regular
The Deputy Director, Dr. Bordogna, discussed the President's Management
Council and Mr. David Radzanowski of OMB came as an invited guest to discuss
the President's Management Agenda scorecard process. Dr. Boesz presented
the OIG Semiannual Report and Dr. Bordogna provided the proposed NSF Management
Response and shared copies of the NSB Chair's draft transmittal letter.
The committee voted to recommend that the full Board approve the management
response for transmittal to Congress. Mr. Cooley provided reports on the
recent Business and Operations Advisory meeting and about addressing cost
sharing risks. The committee also heard about various aspects of accountability
reporting for FY2001, including: the Federal Managers Financial Integrity
Act (FMFIA) and work on FY2001 Management Challenges, the Government Performance
and Results Act (GPRA) Performance Report and the FY 2001 Financial Statements
and EDP Audit preliminary results.
Supervisory
The committee discussed the results of an audit that was requested by
Congress. The OIG presented its Performance Plan and Annual Audit Plan
for FY 2002 and discussed a pilot project to locate a few auditors in
a satellite office in Denver. The Committee also discussed holding a conference
call before the next NSB meeting in March to discuss the OIG's Management
Challenges Letter, which will be submitted in February 2002.
c. Programs and Plans (CPP)
The Committee on Programs and Plans heard reports on the management and
oversight of the international Gemini telescopes project presented by
Dr. Wayne Van Citters, NSF Astronomy Division Director; Mr. J. M. Oschmann,
Jr., Gemini Project Manager; and Dr. C. M. Mountain, Gemini Observatory
Director.
CPP considered two proposed awards and recommended approval to the full
Board: The Acquisition and Integration of a Mid-Size High Altitude Jet
(University Corporation for Atmospheric Research) and Authorization of
the Expanded Very Large Array (EVLA) (Associated Universities, Inc.).
There was a presentation to the Committee on the recent NAS/NRC Report
"U.S. Astronomy and Astrophysics: Managing an Integrated Program."
The report was prepared at the Administration's request to assess federal
support of astronomical sciences and the roles of NASA and NSF. The presentation
summarized recommendations in the report and the responses developed by
NSF and NASA.
The Chair of the Committee on Strategy and Budget led a discussion of
guidelines for setting priorities for major research facilities. CPP also
heard updates on the ongoing recompetition of NOAO management, and on
the work of the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI).
The Polar Issues Subcommittee reported on its meeting and CPP was provided
with a presentation on the status of the South Pole Station Modernization
(SPSM) Project. There was a brief discussion of the IceCube and ALMA projects
in the context of recent Congressional action appropriating funds for
construction. The Infrastructure Task Force also reported on its meeting.
d. CPP Subcommittee on Polar Issues (PI)
The subcommittee met Dr. Robert Wharton, who has joined OPP as Executive
Officer; learned that the NSF Office of General Counsel is working on
regulatory protection of meteorites in the Antarctic; and was given details
of the FY02 OPP budget.
The subcommittee was briefed on recent activities of the Oversight Council
for the International Arctic Research Center (IARC) at the University
of Alaska, Fairbanks and on a recent site visit to that facility; an information
item was presented regarding a change in scope and final cost-to-completion
for the South Pole Station Modernization project; and the subcommittee
heard a readiness review of the Neutrino detector project.
e. CPP Task Force on S&E Infrastructure (INF)
The Task Force heard testimony from the following outside visitors:
- Mr. David Radzanowski, Science and Space Branch, Office of
Management and Budget
- Dr. Harley Thronson, Director of Technology, Office of Space
Science, NASA
- Dr. Robin Staffin, Office of Science, Department of Energy
- Dr. Dan Atkins, University of Michigan and Chair of the NSF
Advisory Committee for Cyber-infrastructure
The Task Force decided to invite representatives from the Department
of Defense and the National Institutes of Health to the next INF
meeting.
In closed session, the Task Force discussed recommendations for the INF
report. In order to produce a draft report by the March 2002 meeting,
the Task Force decided to first develop a set of draft findings and recommendations.
This will be done through email and teleconferencing.
f. Education and Human Resources (EHR)
The Committee reviewed the latest draft of "The Road to Excellence:
A Policy Framework for Sustained Leadership in K-16 Science, Mathematics,
Engineering, and Technology Education" (NSB/EHR-01-7). This document
articulates the principles the EHR Committee will use to consider policies
and programs that pertain to the NSF K-16 niche. With some minor modifications,
the Committee approved the report and intends to use it as an internal
working document.
Dr. Ramaley briefed the Committee on the recent EHR Advisory Committee
meeting, and discussed ways in which the EHR Advisory Committee might
interact with the NSB/EHR Committee
Dr. Lee Zia, Program Director in the Division of Undergraduate Education,
gave a progress report on the National Science, Mathematics, Engineering,
and Technology Education Digital Library activities. The project is now
in its second phase, focused on development and implementation of key
technical and organizational infrastructure. Phase II will focus on development
of user services, access services, and collections.
Dr. Ramaley briefed the Committee on NSF's Math and Science Partnership
(MSP) effort. She noted that implementation of the program will be consistent
with NSF's research-based approaches and reported that legislation for
related Department of Education activities is still pending. Dr. Ramaley
outlined some of the challenges involved in implementing this program.
The EHR Committee plans to review the program via a teleconference early
next month. Dr. Ramaley also discussed several Congressional mandates
that accompanied the FY02 Appropriation with implications for current
programs and MSP.
Dr. Norman Fortenberry briefed the committee on NSF's diversity efforts.
An internal working group with representatives from all the directorates
is compiling data and carrying out analyses of NSF's external diversity
programs and internal human resource base. A report is being developed
that will document their findings and will provide input for development
of future policy guidance. Mr. Lawrence Rudolph, NSF General Counsel,
joined the meeting and briefed the group on diversity program approaches
at NIH.
Committee members expressed an interest in hearing more about other NSF
Directorates' diversity activities and asked that briefings be arranged
at future meetings.
The committee then held a brief executive session.
g. EHR Subcommittee on Science and Engineering
Indicators (SEI)
Mr. Rolf Lehming led a discussion of a draft September 11 statement for
possible inclusion as a text box in Science and Engineering Indicators-2002.
After much discussion the subcommittee recommended that the message be
incorporated in the Indicators transmittal letter from Dr. Kelly to the
President. Ms. Jean Pomeroy, Senior Policy Analyst, NSB Office, briefed
the subcommittee on Washington's response to September 11. There was agreement
that a Board statement is desirable, but that further discussions are
needed to develop the specifics.
The subcommittee approved the Indicators-2002 acknowledgements statement
and proposed text regarding excluded analyses in the K-12 chapter from
the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Dr. Tapia recommended
and Dr. Kelly concurred with final approval of the Orange Book. Mr. William
Noxon, OLPA, updated the subcommittee on current plans for the rollout
of Indicators 2002. In the current environment, he said, the relevance
of key messages is particularly important and international and workforce
themes will be key.
Dr. Robert Bell, SRS, updated the subcommittee on progress made thus
far on the ongoing exploration of the feasibility and advisability of
including a chapter on the environment in Science and Engineering Indicators-2004.
h. EHR Subcommittee on National Workforce Policies
for S&E (NWP)
The three-hour meeting of the Task Force on National Workforce Policies
for Science and Engineering focused on the framework for its report. The
meeting began by gathering input from the NSF Assistant Directors -- their
insights both on the framework and on competencies needed for the future
advancement of science and engineering. Discussions explored the benefits
to the country of greater participation in science and engineering by
domestic students and workers, as well as the contributions of foreign
students and immigrant scientists and engineers.
Members discussed the international character of science and engineering,
noting that the NWP report can draw upon the upcoming report of the NSB
Task Force on International Issues in Science and Engineering to set the
international context. Discussion also focused on the role of teachers,
parents and community members to improve student achievement at the precollege
level, in order to keep the door of opportunity open for all the nation's
students.
i. Committee on Strategy and Budget (CSB)
The committee discussed its role in the development of NSF budget requests.
The committee has focused initial attention on the strategic issues of
award size and duration, and the support of the NSF core budget in relation
to support of new budget initiatives and priorities. In addition to these
issues, the committee decided to focus on four other strategic issues:
graduate student and postdoctoral stipends; the environment; behavioral
and social sciences, and research infrastructure.
The committee discussed NSB policies and procedures for approving new
large facility projects, and the adequacy of NSF budget requests for such
new research facilities. The committee, in conjunction with the Committee
on Programs and Plans, developed guidelines for setting priority for major
research facilities that were recommended to the full Board.
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. In connection with the committee's deliberations
on the relationship between core programs and budget initiatives, NSF
staff briefed the committee on the positive influence that NSF's Information
Technology Research priority area has had across the Foundation and on
the development of the core programs in NSF's Computer and Information
Science and Engineering Directorate
j. Task Force on International Issues in S&E
(ISE)
The task force discussed comments received on the consolidated final
report and responses to those comments. The task force received mostly
positive comments from more than a dozen individuals. Almost all of the
changes made were editorial in nature. The task force agreed to distribute
to the full Board a separate Executive Summary containing all final changes,
for immediate release. They also agreed to recommend the full report to
the Board for final approval, subject to additional comments received
from Board members by November 26th, for final approval by
the task force Chair and NSB Chair.
In addition, the task force heard a presentation by Dr. Edward Murdy
of the Division of International Programs on an Information Item: Furthering
U.S. Interests and Leadership in ICSU-the International Council for Science.
________________
Marta Cehelsky
Executive Officer
Attachment 1: NSB-01-207
Attachment 2: NSB-01-204
Attachment 1 to NSB-01-202
NSB-01- 207
November 15, 2001
NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD
RESOLUTION ON
GUIDELINES FOR SETTING PRIORITY FOR
MAJOR RESEARCH FACILITIES
RESOLVED, that as recommended by the NSB Committee on Strategy and Budget
and the NSB Committee on Programs and Plans, the National Science Board
APPROVES the statement of Guidelines for Setting Priority for Major Research
Facilities, NSB-01-204. The Board will evaluate these guidelines over
time.
Attachment 2 to NSB-01-202
NSB 01-204
November 15, 2001
National Science Board
Guidelines for
Setting Priority for Major Research Facilities
The advancement of research and education in all fields of science and
engineering depends - at some times - on equipment that permits observation
and experimentation. Therefore, the National Science Foundation (NSF)
funds such equipment. It also funds the research necessary to advance
the engineering of next generation instruments that may enable entirely
new and improved modalities of observation and experimentation.
Some of the equipment that enables the advancement of research is large,
complex, and costly. The term facility is used to describe such
equipment, because typically the equipment requires special sites or buildings
to house it and a dedicated staff to effectively maintain and use the
equipment. Multiple experimental researchers working in related disciplines
share the use of such large facilities.
From time to time, a consensus arises within a research community that
a particular new facility is required to advance the state of knowledge
in the field. Such a consensus matures through broad community discussion.
Through that discussion, a consortium sometimes arises from the community
to take the responsibility to build and operate the facility for the good
of the entire community. In all cases there are clearly stated research
questions that only the unique, envisioned facility could help answer.
The National Science Board approves all large facility projects, as directed
by the NSF Act of 1950 and based on the Board's revised delegation of
authority to the Director (NSB-99-198, Appendix B, "Delegation of
Authority," 335 NSB Meeting, November 18, 1999). When considering
a facility project for approval, the Board reviews the need for such a
facility, the research that will be enabled, readiness of plans for construction
and operation, construction budget estimates, and operations budget estimates.
Construction of many facilities is funded through the NSF Major Research
Equipment and Facilities Construction account.
Due to cost, not all facilities can be built at the time that their need
is determined and plans are in order for construction. Some priority order
on facility construction projects must be set.
The guidelines observed by the Board in approving such major facility
projects and in approving the NSF budget submission are:
- Once project construction commences, highest priority is given
to moving a project forward through multiple years of construction
in a cost-effective way, as determined by sound engineering and
as long as progress is appropriate. It is most cost-effective
to complete initiated projects in a timely way, rather than to
commence new projects at the cost of stretching out in-progress
construction.
- New candidate projects will be considered from the point of
view of broadly serving the many disciplines supported by NSF.
- Multiple projects for a single discipline, or for closely related
disciplines, will be ordered based on a judgment of the contribution
that they will make toward the advancement of research in those
related fields. Community judgment on this matter is considered.
- Projects will be authorized close to the time that funding
requests are expected to be made.
- International and interagency commitments are considered in
setting priorities among projects.
The above are guidelines. Each facility consideration involves many complex
issues. The Board will consider all relevant matters, and could deviate
from these guidelines, given sound reasons to do so.
|