<DOC>
[110th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:34012.wais]
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
REAUTHORIZATION: PART I AND PART II
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND
SCIENCE EDUCATION
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
----------
MARCH 20, 2007
and
MARCH 29, 2007
----------
Serial No. 110-13
and
Serial No. 110-19
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION REAUTHORIZATIONthe following is for the
title page (inside)
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
REAUTHORIZATION: PART I AND PART II
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND
SCIENCE EDUCATION
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 20, 2007
and
MARCH 29, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-13
and
Serial No. 110-19
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
34-012 WASHINGTON : 2007
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
MARK UDALL, Colorado LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
DAVID WU, Oregon DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington KEN CALVERT, California
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
NICK LAMPSON, Texas FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
JERRY MCNERNEY, California W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania JO BONNER, Alabama
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon TOM FEENEY, Florida
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
MICHAEL M. HONDA, California BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
JIM MATHESON, Utah DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
BARON P. HILL, Indiana ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
------
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education
HON. BRIAN BAIRD, Washington, Chairman
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
JERRY MCNERNEY, California FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
BART GORDON, Tennessee
RALPH M. HALL, Texas
JIM WILSON Subcommittee Staff Director
DAHLIA SOKOLOV Democratic Professional Staff Member
MELE WILLIAMS Republican Professional Staff Member
MEGHAN HOUSEWRIGHT Research Assistant
C O N T E N T S
March 20, 2007
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Brian Baird, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Research and Science Education, Committee on Science and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 12
Written Statement............................................ 14
Statement by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers, Minority Ranking
Member, Subcommittee on Research and Science Education,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 15
Written Statement............................................ 16
Prepared Statement by Representative Russ Carnahan, Member,
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, Committee on
Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.......... 16
Prepared Statement by Representative Brian P. Bilbray, Member,
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, Committee on
Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.......... 17
Witnesses:
Dr. Arden L. Bement, Director, National Science Foundation
Oral Statement............................................... 19
Written Statement............................................ 20
Biography.................................................... 23
Dr. Steven C. Beering, Chairman, National Science Board
Oral Statement............................................... 24
Written Statement............................................ 27
Biography.................................................... 40
Discussion....................................................... 41
Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Arden L. Bement, Director, National Science Foundation....... 60
Dr. Steven C. Beering, Chairman, National Science Board.......... 68
C O N T E N T S
March 29, 2007
Page
Witness List..................................................... 72
Hearing Charter.................................................. 73
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Brian Baird, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Research and Science Education, Committee on Science and
Technology, U.S. House of Representatives...................... 79
Written Statement............................................ 80
Statement by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Research and Science Education,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 80
Written Statement............................................ 81
Prepared Statement by Representative Russ Carnahan, Member,
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, Committee on
Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.......... 82
Witnesses:
Dr. Phyllis M. Wise, Provost, University of Washington, Seattle
Oral Statement............................................... 83
Written Statement............................................ 85
Biography.................................................... 93
Dr. Catherine T. Hunt, President, American Chemical Society
Oral Statement............................................... 93
Written Statement............................................ 96
Biography.................................................... 101
Dr. Margaret F. Ford, President, Houston Community College
System, Northeast
Oral Statement............................................... 102
Written Statement............................................ 104
Biography.................................................... 112
Dr. Carlos A. Meriles, Assistant Professor of Physics, The City
College of New York, CUNY
Oral Statement............................................... 113
Written Statement............................................ 115
Biography.................................................... 116
Dr. Jeffrey J. Welser, Director of the Nanoelectronics Research
Initiative, Semiconductor Research Corporation
Oral Statement............................................... 117
Written Statement............................................ 119
Biography.................................................... 128
Discussion....................................................... 128
Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Phyllis M. Wise, Provost, University of Washington, Seattle.. 142
Dr. Catherine T. Hunt, President, American Chemical Society...... 144
Dr. Margaret F. Ford, President, Houston Community College
System, Northeast.............................................. 145
Dr. Carlos A. Meriles, Assistant Professor of Physics, The City
College of New York, CUNY...................................... 146
Dr. Jeffrey J. Welser, Director of the Nanoelectronics Research
Initiative, Semiconductor Research Corporation................. 148
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION REAUTHORIZATION: PART I
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2007
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Research and Science Education,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:35 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brian
Baird [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
hearing charter
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
National Science Foundation
Reauthorization: Part I
tuesday, march 20, 2007
10:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
1. Purpose
On Tuesday, March 20, 2007, the Subcommittee on Research and
Science Education of the House Committee on Science and Technology will
hold a hearing to receive testimony from the Director of the National
Science Foundation (NSF) and the Chair of the National Science Board
(NSB) regarding pending legislation to reauthorize core activities,
amend administrative laws and set new policy directions for NSF.
2. Witnesses
Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director of the National Science Foundation.
Dr. Steven C. Beering, Chairman of the National Science Board.
3. Overarching Questions
<bullet> What are the budget, administrative and policy issues
that should be addressed through a 2007 NSF reauthorization
bill?
<bullet> What is the appropriate balance between funding for
interdisciplinary and disciplinary research? What are the best
mechanisms for soliciting and funding interdisciplinary
proposals? Is NSF doing a sufficient job of publicizing
opportunities for funding in interdisciplinary research?
<bullet> The average success rate across the directorates is
significantly lower for new investigators than for
investigators previously funded by NSF. What can NSF do to
narrow that gap? In particular, what funding mechanisms make
the most sense without undermining the merit-review process,
and what additional steps can NSF take to nurture young
investigators?
<bullet> NSF, unlike the mission agencies, is a mainly
proposal-driven agency. However, there are significant issues
of concern to our nation--competitiveness, security, energy--
that can be addressed, at least in part, through technology
enabled by solutions or answers to known scientific challenges
and questions. What is the appropriate role for NSF in such
research motivated by national needs? In fostering industry/
university partnerships? Is this a valid application of
Criterion 2 of NSF's merit review process?
4. Brief Overview
<bullet> NSF currently has a budget of $5.9 billion and is the
funding source for approximately 20 percent of all federally
supported basic research conducted by America's colleges and
universities. In many fields such as mathematics, computer
science and the social sciences, NSF is the major source of
federal backing.
<bullet> NSF also has a mission to achieve excellence in U.S.
science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM)
education at all levels and in all settings (both formal and
informal) in order to support the development of a diverse and
well-prepared STEM workforce and a well-informed citizenry.
<bullet> NSF is a proposal-driven (bottom-up) agency that
operates almost exclusively by competitive merit-review.
Reviewers are asked to evaluate proposals based on two
criteria: What is the intellectual merit of the proposed
activity; and what are the broader impacts of the proposed
activity?
<bullet> Breakthroughs in science and technology that will
have a near to mid-term impact on society are increasingly
requiring interdisciplinary teams of scientists and engineers
willing and able to cross their traditional disciplinary
boundaries. NSF has begun to react to the pressure from the
community to re-evaluate its role in interdisciplinary research
and education, but has not yet articulated a coherent path
forward.
<bullet> New investigators have a 17 percent funding success
rate, compared to a 28 percent success rate for prior
investigators and an overall rate of 23 percent. The CAREER
grant program was established explicitly to help find and fund
outstanding young investigators, but CAREER awards differ from
standard NSF awards in size, duration and evaluation criteria.
<bullet> The National Science Board recently eliminated cost-
sharing for NSF awards, but certain award types are
particularly suitable for industry or university cost-sharing.
In addition, there are examples of industries eager to partner
with universities to help fund the science to keep U.S.
companies competitive and/or to solve particular technological
challenges. The current policy appears to present an obstacle
to NSF leveraging private dollars to conduct research in areas
of national need.
5. Background
The National Science Foundation was established by Congress in
1950. The agency's mission is unique among the Federal Government's
scientific research agencies in that it is to support science and
engineering across all disciplines. NSF currently funds research and
education activities at more than 2,000 universities, colleges, K-12
schools, businesses, and other research institutions throughout the
United States. Virtually all of this support is provided through
competitive, peer-reviewed grants and cooperative agreements. Although
NSF's research and development (R&D) budget accounts for only about
three percent of all federally funded R&D, the role of NSF in promoting
fundamental research is vital to the Nation's scientific enterprise, as
NSF provides approximately 20 percent of the federal support for basic
research conducted at academic institutions. In many fields such as
mathematics, computer science and the social sciences, NSF is the major
source of federal backing.
The Foundation is administrated by a Director, who is appointed by
the President and confirmed by the Senate and is responsible for the
overall operations of the agency. The Foundation is overseen by the
National Science Board, a body of 24 eminent scientists who are
appointed by the President (with confirmation by the Senate) to serve
six-year terms. Terms may be renewed but no member of the Board can
serve more than 12 consecutive years. The role of the Board, as set
forth in the ``National Science Foundation Act of 1950,'' is to
establish the policies of the Foundation, provide oversight of its
programs and activities, and approve its strategic directions and
budgets.
NSF Budget by Functional Activities--The NSF budget can be divided
into four general categories:
<bullet> Research project support funded through the Research
and Related Activities (R&RA) account, which supports cutting-
edge research;
<bullet> Facilities, funded through the Major Research
Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) account, which
supports large, multi-user research facilities;
<bullet> Education and training, funded through the Education
and Human Resources (EHR) account, which supports math and
science education programs at the K-12, undergraduate,
graduate, and postdoctoral levels, including programs to
broaden participation in math and science; and
<bullet> Administration, which supports Agency Operations and
Award Management (AOAM) and the Office of the Inspector General
(IG) at NSF.
NSF is funded at $5.92 billion in fiscal year (FY) 2007, and the FY
2008 request is for $6.43 billion. Of that, $5.13 billion would be
available for R&RA and $750 million for EHR. Under the President's
American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), funding for NSF, in
particular for the research budget, would double in ten years
(beginning with the FY 2007 budget)--a seven percent increase per year.
(A detailed overview of the FY 2008 NSF budget request is attached.)
6. Budget Issues
Major Research Instrumentation
Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) is a funding line within R&RA
to provide for the acquisition and development of mid-size instruments,
ranging from $100,000 to $2.0 million. Presumably in response to a
recent National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report\1\ on this topic, NSF
proposed raising the cap to $4.0 million in the FY 2008 request. The
Committee is considering raising the cap even further to $20 million to
better capture the full range of mid-size instruments required to
advance scientific knowledge. Specifically, the NAS panel recommended
that ``NSF should expand its MRI program so that it includes Advanced
Research Instrumentation and Facilities whose capital costs are greater
than $2 million but that are not appropriate for NSF's Major Research
Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) account, which handles
facilities that cost hundreds of millions of dollars.'' Typically the
threshold for MREFC projects is 10 percent of the proposing
directorate's budget, but most projects total much more. Given that the
smallest research directorate has a budget of $200 million, a $4
million cap may be insufficient to meet this recommendation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities, Committee on
Advanced Research Instrumentation, National Academies Press, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding pre-construction activities for major facilities
The MREFC budget funds the construction of large research
facilities, such as telescopes and research ships. Congressional
Appropriators required that funding for all pre-construction
activities, including detailed design and costing work, come from the
sponsoring research division rather than being available, at least in
part, from the MREFC budget. All maintenance and operation (M&O) costs
are also the responsibility of the sponsoring division. Unfortunately,
because of the perennial trade-off between research and facilities,
there is a long history of research divisions cutting corners on the
pre-construction work, thereby underestimating or failing to minimize
construction costs and/or M&O costs. It is not just a matter of
inefficient use of resources--the scope of the science enabled by the
facilities is sometimes scaled back in the face of escalating costs.
The Committee is considering directing the Board to evaluate the
appropriateness and trade-offs of the current policy for funding of
pre-construction activities and report to Congress on their findings.
Education
While the President's ACI proposes to double research budgets, the
education budget at NSF is seeing much smaller increases. By NSF's own
accounting, overall funding for K-12 programs in the FY 2008 request
falls by nine percent from the FY 2007 CR level. The Math and Science
Partnerships (MSP) Program, and the Noyce Teacher Scholarship program,
both of which address needs in K-12 education, would be level funded.
The Course, Curriculum and Laboratory Improvement program, which is the
core program in the Division of Undergraduate Education, is slowly
decreasing in funding. (On the other hand, the STEM talent expansion
program--a program to recruit undergraduates to STEM fields--would
increase by 12-17 percent, depending on how NSF ends up distributing
its FY 2007 EHR budget.) Such cuts or modest increases in funding are
coming at a time when one report after another decries the state of K-
12 STEM education, and U.S. industry is starting to raise concerns
about the appropriateness of old paradigms in undergraduate education
to major new developments in scientific understanding and practice.
7. Policies for Research Funding
Interdisciplinary research
``Training individuals who are conversant in ideas and languages of
other fields is central to the continued march of scientific progress
in the 21st century.'' \2\ NSF, like all federal research agencies, is
already funding interdisciplinary research. There are several cross-
directorate and in some cases multi-agency programs, including: Cyber-
enabled Discovery and Research (a new program for FY 2008),
Cyberinfrastructure, Networking and Information Technology R&D (NITRD),
and the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), to name a few. The
majority of NSF-funded Centers are also staffed by multi-disciplinary
teams of scientists, engineers and educators. In addition, individual
directorates have their own interdisciplinary and multi-disciplinary
coordinating activities. For example, the Mathematical and Physical
Sciences Directorate has a separate Office of Multi-disciplinary
Activities, which facilitates, coordinates and co-funds multi-
disciplinary and interdisciplinary activities between divisions, but
does not directly manage any grants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Robert Day, CEO of the Keck Foundation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no standard definition for the term ``interdisciplinary
research.'' Furthermore, there is no standard delineation between
interdisciplinary, multi-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary. In 2004,
the NAS Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy issued a
report on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. After reviewing the
wide range of definitions in use, the NAS report panel settled on the
following: ``Interdisciplinary research is a mode of research by teams
or individuals that integrates information, data, techniques, tools,
perspectives, concepts and/or theories from two or more disciplines or
bodies of specialized knowledge to advance fundamental understanding or
to solve problems whose solutions are beyond the scope of a single
discipline or area of research practice.'' The panel distinguished
between multi-disciplinary and interdisciplinary as follows: Multi-
disciplinary teams join together to work on common problems, but may
split apart unchanged when the work is done, while interdisciplinary
teams may end up forging a new research field or discipline.
The issue of facilitating interdisciplinary research and pushing
the frontiers of 21st Century science without compromising the
potential for advances in disciplinary research or educating a
generation of scientists and engineers without depth of knowledge in
any single field is a complex and controversial one. Nevertheless, it
is an issue at the forefront of the scientific enterprise and one that
NSF and the rest of the scientific enterprise is struggling with.
Outside of the standing cross-directorate programs listed
previously, most of the directorates process unsolicited
interdisciplinary proposals from the bottom-up. This is a largely ad
hoc process by which individual program officers receive proposals that
they identify as interdisciplinary, decide to approach the program
officer(s) in the appropriate division(s) relevant to the proposal, and
work as a team to manage the review process, including putting together
a review panel compromised of experts from all of the relevant fields.
In some cases, instead of co-equal proposal managers, there may be a
``principal'' program officer with the others serving as advisors.
There is no standard policy for handling interdisciplinary proposals
across NSF. Whether or not it makes sense to institute a Foundation-
wide policy rather than leaving the details to the heads of the
directorates, NSF should be more clear in general about how they will
balance interdisciplinary and disciplinary research moving forward, and
they need to make clear to the scientific community how unsolicited
interdisciplinary proposals are handled.
Young investigators
In the National Science Board's 2005 report on the NSF merit review
process, they found that new investigators have a 17 percent funding
success rate, compared to a 28 percent success rate for prior
investigators and an overall rate of 23 percent. The Board identified
the new versus prior investigator gap to be the ``major gap'' in
success rates, while other demographic subgroups--in particular, women
and minorities--were right at or even above the Foundation average.
The CAREER grant program was established explicitly to help find
and fund outstanding young investigators, but CAREER awards differ from
standard NSF awards in size, duration and evaluation criteria. In
particular, there is an emphasis on the integration of research and
education, which is not a required evaluation criterion for standard
NSF research grants. The minimum CAREER award size is $400,000 for a
five-year period. NSF-wide, the average annualized award amount for
research grants in FY 2005 was $143,600, and the average duration is
three years (range: one to five years).
Small Grants for Exploratory Research (SGER) awards were
established in 1990 for small-scale grants awarded at the discretion of
the program officers and without formal external review. NSF made 387
SGER awards in FY 2005 for a total of $27 million, and with an average
size of $70,000. SGER awards are made, among other things, for
preliminary work on untested ideas, and ventures into emerging research
and potentially transformative ideas. Providing new investigators with
seed money to make their proposals more competitive, for example with
SGER funds, is one possible mechanism to help narrow the gap in success
rates. Program officers may also be encouraged to take an active role
in mentoring new investigators through the proposal and review process.
High-risk research
There is another potential benefit to NSF taking a more active role
in supporting new investigators. Young investigators, on average, are
more likely to take risks in their research than more established
researchers. They don't yet have a base from which to build
incrementally, they don't yet have a large cadre of graduate students,
post-docs and other lab personnel to support, and perhaps they are more
willing and able by nature to think outside the box and take risks.
The National Science Board has called for a Foundation-wide
transformative research initiative. The Board defines transformative
research as ``research driven by ideas that stand a reasonable chance
of radically challenging our understanding of an important existing
scientific or engineering concept or leading to the creation of a new
paradigm or field of science or engineering. Such research is also
characterized by its challenge to current understanding or its pathway
to new frontiers.'' It is not clear what such an initiative would look
like or how it would be carried out, but there is general agreement in
the community that merit review panels are conservative by nature and
that more effort needs to be made to fund high-risk research. Putting
more effort into supporting young investigators is just one approach to
addressing this need.
Research for national needs and industry partnerships
NSF, unlike the mission agencies, is a mainly proposal-driven
agency. Some solicitations are narrowly defined by agency officials to
address research needs they have identified, in particular in the
context of government-wide initiatives such as NITRD and NNI, but the
majority of directorate solicitations are broad in nature. The program
officers rely on the scientific community itself to identify the most
pressing or interesting research questions--hence the term ``proposal-
driven.''
The mission-driven agencies, on the other hand, solicit mostly
proposals that address specific challenges and questions identified by
agency officials to address national needs. In the case of the
Department of Energy (DOE), for example, agency officials work with
industry to identify research priorities based on industry's and the
government's outlook for energy demand and energy technology
development, taking into account such factors as environmental and
health impacts as well as geopolitics and security. Recently, the
Office of Science at DOE began to formalize this process through a
series of workshops with the full range of stakeholders to identify
basic research needs for solar, hydrogen, nuclear, etc. In short, the
mission and goals are narrowly identified from the top and the basic
research needs are subsequently identified by the scientist community
within those constraints.
NITRD, NNI and other such government-wide initiatives also focus on
significant issues of concern to our nation--competitiveness, security,
energy--that can be addressed, at least in part, through technology
enabled by solutions or answers to known scientific challenges and
questions. While NSF participates in and often leads these big
initiatives, the Foundation rarely engages industry in identifying or
supporting its own internal research priorities. There are some notable
exceptions--the Engineering Research Centers, for example. And there
are cases in which industry has stepped in uninvited and offered to
supplement specific research grants because those forward-thinking
industry leaders understand the importance of basic research to their
own competitiveness.
Reporting of research results
The NSF Inspector General conducted a survey regarding NSF
constituent interest in reporting of research results. The various
constituent groups were overwhelmingly interested in NSF posting
publication citations and brief summaries of research results on their
public website, as other federal research agencies already do. The
Committee would like to see the Director take the necessary steps to
make this happen.
Cost-sharing
The Board recently decided to abolish cost-sharing for NSF research
grants. They did so for two main reasons: to prevent NSF program
officers from effectively forcing cost-sharing on universities by
reducing funding amounts for successful grants but not reducing the
scope of work; and to address the Inspector General's concern that NSF
was not doing an adequate job of tracking whether proposed cost sharing
actually materialized. However, this new policy raises concerns for
some specific types of NSF programs, such as Engineering Research
Centers (ERC's), which have always had substantial industry cost-
sharing and the MRI program, for which university cost-sharing is not
inappropriate. The Committee is considering: 1) exempting MRI
explicitly; and 2) tasking the Board to examine the impacts of its
ruling more broadly, in particular the impacts on programs that involve
industry partnerships. (See discussion of industry partnerships above.)
8. Administrative Issues
Oversight role of the National Science Board
The National Science Foundation Act of 1950 created a Director to
carry out the formulation of programs in conformance with the policies
of the Foundation, and a National Science Board to establish the
policies of the Foundation. While the role of the Board is considered
by most to be both a policy-making and an oversight role, the word
``oversight'' never appears in statute. This lack of precision in
existing statute has at times resulted in unproductive tension between
the Board and the Director. The Committee is considering legislative
language to more explicitly delineate the respective roles of the
Director and the Board.
Board role in setting priorities for major research facilities
When proposals are submitted for major research facilities (i.e.
facilities large enough to make it into the MREFC budget), the National
Science Board, in the current process, is consulted after the
conceptual design stage but gives its formal approval for the project
only after the detailed design is complete. At that point the project
may become an explicit part of the NSF's budget. As an oversight body,
the Board should be involved in setting priorities for major facilities
at an earlier stage in the process because of the long-term budget
consequences, not just for construction costs but also for maintenance
and operations costs.
APPENDIX
OVERVIEW OF FY 2008 NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION BUDGET
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is the primary source of
federal funding for non-medical basic research conducted at colleges
and universities and serves as a catalyst for science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education reform at all levels. NSF
is one of the research agencies that the President, in his 2006 State
of the Union Address, proposed to double over ten years as part of the
American Competitive Initiative (ACI). The FY 2007 budget request,
which called for a $439 million (7.9 percent) increase over the FY 2006
budget, was the first to reflect the ACI. The FY 2008 request maintains
that general trend with a $409 million (6.8 percent) increase over the
FY 2007 request, although the increases are not distributed evenly.
The FY 2007 CR would fund NSF at $5,916 million, a $335 million
(6.0 percent) increase from FY 2006, but a $105 million (1.7 percent)
decrease from last year's request. Specifically, the CR appropriates
$4,666 million for the Research and Related Activities (R&RA) account,
and remains silent on the rest of the NSF accounts, signaling a
continuation of FY 2006 funding levels for those accounts.\3\ The FY
2008 request of $6,429 million is $848 million (15.2 percent) greater
than FY 2006 spending and $513 million (8.7 percent) greater than FY
2007 spending under the CR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In the FY 2008 NSF budget presentation, the Experimental
Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) is moved from the
Education account to the R&RA account. This change is reflected in the
comparisons and budget table for the prior years. The FY 2007 CR
provided funding for the components of R&RA included in the FY 2007 NSF
request, which did not include EPSCoR. The amount shown here for R&RA
under the FY 2007 CR has been increased by the EPSCoR funding for FY
2006 ($98.7 million) and the amount under Education and Human Resources
(EHR) has been similarly reduced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research and Related Activities (R&RA)
Scientific research programs and research facilities (which
comprise the R&RA account) receive a $367 million (7.7 percent)
increase from FY 2007. The increases for scientific research are spread
fairly evenly among all fields NSF supports. The largest percentage
increases are for the math and physical sciences, computer sciences,
and engineering directorates. The two directorates that receive
percentage increases below the total R&RA increase are the (non-
medical) biological sciences and the social, behavioral and economic
sciences.
NSF's contribution to the multi-agency National Nanotechnology
Initiative increases by $17 million (4.5 percent), including $3 million
more in support of research on the environmental, health and safety
(EHS) aspects of nanotechnology. In particular, support is requested
for a new, multi-disciplinary center to conduct EHS research and
provide the science needed to inform the development of regulations.
The FY 2008 budget also requests support for two new research
initiatives, including $52 million for an NSF-wide program (known as
CDI) to develop the computational tools and knowledge necessary to
handle data-rich, highly complex systems and phenomena, such as the
flow of information over the Internet, or major storms, and $17 million
for a multi-agency program for understanding ocean dynamics,
forecasting ocean events, and managing ocean resources. The CDI
funding, in combination with the $47 million in increased funding for
cyberinfrastructure, provide the $90 million (10 percent) increase in
the NSF contribution to the coordinated, interagency research
initiative in information technology (known as NITRD).
The award cap for the funding of mid-size research instrumentation
under the Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) program is raised from
$2.0 to $4.0 million, in response to a 2005 recommendation by the
National Academy of Sciences. The total funding level for the MRI
program is increased by $26 million (29.5 percent) to $114 million.
Since FY 2006, under a Memorandum of Agreement, NSF has been
responsible for reimbursing the U.S. Coast Guard for the costs of the
icebreakers that support scientific research in the polar regions. The
FY 2007 CR explicitly requires NSF to continue honoring this agreement.
The request for FY 2008 is $57 million, the same as it was for FY 2007.
NSF also purchases back-up ice-breaking services on the open market at
a cost of approximately $8 million per year.
Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC)
The MREFC activity funds the construction of large research
facilities, such as telescopes and research ships. Funding for the
operation and management of these major user facilities is included in
the R&RA budget.
The FY 2008 request provides an increase of $54 million (28.2
percent) for MREFC, which will allow for continuation of support for
six construction projects and one new start. The new project, which is
funded at $33 million in the first year, will provide for an upgrade to
increase the sensitivity of an earth-based observatory for the study of
gravitational waves.
Three new projects proposed under last year's request are currently
on hold due to funding uncertainties. Under the CR funding levels, NSF
would be able to proceed on schedule with the two smaller projects (the
National Ecological Observatory Network and Ocean Observatories
Initiative), but would have only $6 million of the $56 million
requested for the Alaska Region Research Vessel (ARRV). [report due
March 15- might have approval by then]
Education and Human Resources (EHR)
EHR funds most of NSF's activities that support K-12 STEM education
and the majority of activities that support undergraduate STEM
education. EHR also funds most of NSF's graduate fellowship and
traineeship programs.
The FY 2008 EHR budget request is $751 million, a $34 million (4.8
percent) increase from the FY 2007 request and a $53 million (7.5
percent) increase from the FY 2007 CR level (FY 2006 appropriation
level). Most of this proposed funding increase goes to increases in
graduate research fellowships (+ $11.2 million) and in activities to
broaden participation in STEM fields (+ $28.6 million). NSF has also
launched a concerted effort to evaluate program effectiveness across
EHR, and in particular, for its STEM education programs and projects.
For K-12 education programs, the budget request is a good news/bad
news story. After proposing in the past two budgets to eliminate the
Math and Science Partnership (MSP), this year's request would provide
level funding at the FY 2007 request of $46 million, which is still $17
million less than FY 2006 spending.\4\ Since there have been very few
new starts during the past two years, the requested funding level will
provide $30 million for new starts in FY 2008. However, overall funding
for K-12 programs in the FY 2008 request falls by nine percent from the
FY 2007 CR level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ It remains unclear how FY 2007 actual spending for MSP will be
affected by the CR, since the FY 2007 request, in this case, was much
lower than FY 2006 spending. However, it is likely that NSF will be
guided by their FY 2007 request in making this decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Operations and Award Management
This NSF account, previously called Salaries and Expenses, funds
the internal operations of NSF. The FY 2008 request provides an
increase of $39 million (15.7 percent) above the FY 2007 CR.
NSF is facing the challenge of expanding its workforce to
accommodate the demands created by the growing research budgets. H.J.
Res. 20 would delay many planned new-hires in addition to planned
upgrades of the electronic system used to receive and process grant
applications. Most of the $39 million increase for agency operations
and award management in the FY 2008 budget request are slated for these
two needs.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Chairman Baird. This hearing will come to order.
I want to welcome our distinguished guests and visitors
here to the first of two Research and Science Education
Subcommittee Hearings dedicated to the development of
legislation to reauthorize programs at the National Science
Foundation.
Today, we will hear from the distinguished Director of the
National Science Foundation and the Chair of the National
Science Board. Next week, we will hear from a diverse panel of
outside witnesses who will weigh in on some of the broader
issues we hope to address through this legislation, including
support for young investigators, NSF's important role in
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
education, the industry's role in supporting basic research and
the future of interdisciplinary research.
As part of our hearing today, I hope we will look at the
issue of young investigators. In fiscal year 2006, new
investigators achieved an 18 percent funding success rate
compared to a returning investigative success rate of 30
percent and an overall agency rate of 25 percent. I know that
NSF is making it a priority to narrow this gap and that it
supports outstanding, young investigators through the very
prestigious CAREER grants program. However, I also believe that
more can be done to nurture and support new researchers and
that we need to be creative in figuring out ways to keep
bright, young researchers in the pipeline. For this reason, the
Committee is considering creating a new pilot program of seed
grants to new investigators to give them an opportunity to
strengthen their proposals before resubmitting them through the
merit review process.
Another topic of particular interest to us today is
industry's role in funding basic research. There are leaders in
the high-tech industry that understand that their future
depends, in large part, on the scientific advances made by
researchers in university labs across the country.
Unfortunately, however, many in industry fail to see, or
ignore, the potential for university-industry partnerships to
further their own success and competitiveness. NSF can play a
significant role in changing attitudes and fostering
partnerships by providing incentives to both university
researchers and private sector officials to bridge this divide
and encourage participation and research.
This committee is also quite concerned about the slow
growth, and in some cases, shrinking budget of STEM education
programs at NSF. Chairman Gordon has introduced legislation to
strengthen and broaden existing K-12 STEM education programs at
NSF, in particular, Noyce Teacher Scholarship program, the Math
and Science Partnership, and the STEM Talent Expansion Program.
Today, I would like to spend time discussing STEM's--or NSF's
role in STEM education, including technological training at
two-year colleges through the Advanced Technological Education
Program. And I might interject, also, that I am very grateful
for Dr. Cora Marrett visiting my district last week and meeting
with a number of educational leaders throughout the spectrum.
Dr. Marrett, it was a pleasure to have you out there, and I am
glad you managed to get home in spite of the travel
difficulties.
Today, I also hope that we will explore the concept of
interdisciplinary research. The frontiers of 21st century
science are very much dominated by what most would consider to
be interdisciplinary research, research conducted by teams of
scientists that integrate information, data, methods,
perspectives, and theories from two or more bodies of
specialized knowledge to advance fundamental understanding or
solve problems beyond the scope of a single discipline. Without
compromising the strength of the individual discipline or the
ability of the lone scientists to make great advances on narrow
topics within his or her own field, we need to also make sure
that interdisciplinary proposals get a fair hearing. NSF has
shown a great leadership on this issue, but I believe there are
ways to better define this process and look forward to ongoing
discussions with the agency and the community on ways to go
about this.
I should add that many of these issues that we must deal
with in the context of NSF reauthorization are issues that the
greater community is also grappling with, however, because NSF
funds 20 percent of basic research at U.S. colleges and
universities across all science and engineering disciplines and
because NSF continues to be at the forefront of the ever-
evolving scientific enterprise, they are issues of particular
importance to me, to this subcommittee, and to the NSF.
In addition to some of these broad issues, we will also
take a look today at some specific budget and administrative
issues at the Foundation, some of which are long-standing
issues of concern and others of which have been brought to the
attention of the Committee more recently.
I want to note that this committee supports the
Administration's proposal to double funding for basic science
research over a 10-year period, and the authorization levels
that we will propose are aligned with the Administration's
plans. However, I also want to suggest that we can't afford to
keep playing this game of increasing funding for one set of
disciplines while decreasing or flat-lining funding of others.
We will continue to advocate for increased fundings for basic
and applied research across the board, but we need help from
the entire scientific community in justifying such increases to
the rest of our colleagues in Congress and to the American
taxpayer as well.
We must also recognize that these are tight budget times.
We can't simply throw money at science because we want to. We
need to maintain diligence in ensuring that the research we
fund is of top quality, that federally-funded researchers are
held to the highest standards of ethical conduct of research,
and that we are thoughtful in setting priorities for research
funding.
Finally, I want to be clear that the process for developing
NSF reauthorization bill is to be open, transparent, and
responsive to all concerned parties, both within and outside
the government.
I welcome your suggestions and encourage you to be in touch
with me with your thoughts or ideas, and that is the broad,
you, not just our witnesses today, but others that are here in
the audience or in the scientific community. We welcome their
feedback and their suggestions.
Dr. Bement, Dr. Beering, thank you for being here with us
today. I look forward to hearing your testimony, to receiving
your input and guidance as we develop this NSF reauthorization
legislation, and thank you both for your leadership on the
Foundation and the Board.
And I now yield to my colleague, Ranking Member Ehlers, for
his opening remarks.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Baird follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Brian Baird
Good morning. I want to welcome you to the first of two Research
and Science Education Subcommittee hearings dedicated to the
development of legislation to reauthorize programs at the National
Science Foundation.
Today, we will hear from the distinguished Director of the National
Science Foundation and the Chair of the National Science Board.
Next week, we will hear from a diverse panel of outside witnesses
who will weigh in on some of the broader issues we hope to address
through this legislation--including support for young investigators,
NSF's important role in science, technology, engineering and
mathematics (STEM) education, the industry's role in supporting basic
research, and the future of interdisciplinary research.
In fiscal year 2006, new investigators achieved an 18 percent
funding success rate, compared to a returning investigator success rate
of 30 percent and an overall Agency rate of 25 percent. I know that NSF
is making it a priority to narrow this gap, and that it supports
outstanding young investigators through the very prestigious CAREER
grants program. However, I believe that more can be done to nurture and
support new researchers and that we need to be creative in figuring out
ways to keep bright young researchers in the pipeline. For this reason,
the Committee is considering creating a pilot program of seed grants to
new investigators to give them an opportunity to strengthen their
proposals before resubmitting them through the merit review process.
Another topic of particular interest to me is industry's role in
funding basic research. There are some leaders in high-tech industries
that understand that their future depends in large part on the
scientific advances made by researchers in university labs across the
country. Unfortunately, however, most in industry fail to see, or
ignore, the potential for university-industry partnerships to further
their own success and competitiveness. NSF can play a significant role
in changing attitudes and fostering partnerships, by providing
incentives to both university researchers and private sector officials
to bridge this divide and encourage industry participation in research.
This subcommittee is also very concerned about the slow growth, and
in some cases shrinking, budgets of STEM education programs at NSF.
Chairman Gordon introduced legislation to strengthen and broaden
existing K-12 STEM education programs at NSF, in particular the Noyce
Teacher Scholarship program, the Math and Science Partnerships and the
STEM Talent Expansion program. Today, I would like to spend time
discussing NSF's role in STEM education, including technical training
at two-year colleges through the Advanced Technological Education
program.
Today, I also hope that we will explore the concept of
interdisciplinary research. The frontiers of 21st Century science are
very much dominated by what most would consider to be interdisciplinary
research--that is, research conducted by teams of scientists that
integrate information, data, methods, perspectives and theories from
two or more bodies of specialized knowledge to advance fundamental
understanding or solve problems beyond the scope of a single
discipline. Without compromising the strength of the individual
disciplines or the ability of the lone scientist to make great advances
on narrow topics within his or her own field, we need to make sure that
interdisciplinary proposals get a fair hearing. NSF has shown great
leadership on this issue, but I believe that there are probably ways to
better define this process. I look forward to ongoing discussions with
the Agency and the community on ways to go about this.
I should add that many of these issues and others that we must deal
with in the context of the NSF reauthorization bill are issues that the
greater scientific community is also grappling. However, because NSF
funds 20 percent of the basic research conducted at U.S. colleges and
universities, across all science and engineering disciplines, and
continues to be at the forefront of the ever-evolving scientific
enterprise, they are issues of particular importance to me, to this
subcommittee, and to NSF.
In addition to some of these broad issues, we will also take a look
today at some specific budget and administrative issues at the
Foundation--some of which are longstanding issues of concern, and
others of which have been brought to the attention of the Committee
more recently.
I want to note that this Committee supports the Administration's
proposal to double funding for basic physical science research over a
ten-year period, and the authorization levels that we will propose for
NSF are aligned with the Administration's plans. However, I also want
to suggest that we can't afford to keep playing this game of increasing
funding for one set of disciplines while decreasing or flat-lining
funding for others. We will continue to advocate for increases in
funding for basic and applied research across the board, but we need
help from the entire scientific community in justifying such increases
to the rest of our colleagues in Congress.
We must also recognize that these are tight budget times. We can't
just throw money at science because we want to. We need to maintain due
diligence in ensuring that the research we fund is of top quality, that
federally-funded researchers are held to the highest standards for
ethical conduct of research, and that we are thoughtful in setting
priorities for research funding.
Finally, before I close, I want to be clear that I want the process
of developing the NSF reauthorization bill to be open, transparent and
responsive to all concerned parties both within and outside of
government. I welcome your suggestions, and encourage you to be in
touch with me with your thoughts or ideas.
Dr. Bement and Dr. Beering, thank you for being here today. I look
forward to hearing your testimony today and to receiving your input and
guidance us as we develop this NSF reauthorization legislation.
And I now yield to my colleague, Ranking Member Ehlers for his
opening remarks.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, gentlemen, for being here, representing one
of the finest institutions of the Federal Government, and,
perhaps, the finest.
You will find this to be a friendly committee, I am sure,
certainly more friendly than much of the rest of the Congress,
not that anyone dislikes you, but they all say they like you
but don't provide money for you. We will continue to try to do
what we can to not only like you but provide money for you.
I am pleased to participate in the Research and Science
Education Subcommittee's first hearing of this Congress to
address the reauthorization of the National Science Foundation.
The goals of reauthorization are to improve the functioning of
an agency known for both high-caliber research output and
internal efficiency, which makes our job somewhat more
challenging than trying to improve upon an agency with glaring
shortcomings.
Finding areas in need of improvement can be best achieved
from hearing from expert witnesses, like those before us today
and the NSF consumers who will testify at the end of the month
in a second hearing. When finding areas for strengthening and
improvement, I believe we must remain cognizant of the
uniqueness of the National Science Foundation. What goes for
other agencies may not necessarily apply to NSF.
I know the Committee is interested in exploring some of the
relationships the National Science Foundation has established
with industry, and I am keenly interested in encouraging these
relationships while maintaining the quality of NSF fundamental
research.
As current researchers know, potential applications are
important but should not dictate research design exclusively.
Chairman Baird and I share concerns in several areas of
NSF, including maintaining the integrity and capacity of the
peer-review process, managing increasingly interdisciplinary
research portfolios, and educating our future workforce in all
STEM-related jobs, not just those historically identified as
science and engineering careers.
Finally, I look forward to hearing about the NSF's
preparations for future funding increases that this committee
has worked tirelessly to authorize and ultimately see supported
through the appropriations process.
And I certainly also share the Chairman's concern about the
young scientists and certainly encouraging them so that they
can get their feet in the door, begin their tenure track before
they lose their position for lack of funding of their research.
I thank Dr. Bement and Dr. Beering for being here today,
and I look forward to your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Vernon J. Ehlers
I am pleased to participate in the Research and Science Education
Subcommittee's first hearing of this Congress to address the
reauthorization of the National Science Foundation. The goals of
reauthorization are to improve the functioning of an agency known for
both high-caliber research output and internal efficiency, which makes
our job somewhat more challenging than trying to improve upon an agency
with glaring shortcomings. Finding areas in need of improvement can be
best-achieved by hearing from expert witnesses like those before us
today, and the NSF consumers who will testify at the end of the month
in a second hearing.
In finding areas for strengthening and improvement, I believe we
must remain cognizant of the uniqueness of the National Science
Foundation. What goes for other agencies may not necessarily apply to
NSF. I know the Committee is interested in exploring some of the
relationships NSF has established with industry, and I am keenly
interested in encouraging those relationships while maintaining the
quality of NSF fundamental research. As current researchers know,
potential applications are important but should not dictate research
design exclusively.
Chairman Baird and I share concerns in several areas of NSF,
including maintaining the integrity and capacity of the peer review
process; managing increasingly interdisciplinary research portfolios;
and educating our future workforce in all STEM-related jobs, not just
those historically identified as science and engineering careers.
Finally, I look forward to hearing about NSF's preparations for future
funding increases that this Committee has worked tirelessly to
authorize and, ultimately, see supported through the appropriations
process.
I thank Dr. Bement and Dr. Beering for being here today and look
forward to their testimony.
Chairman Baird. If there are other Members who wish to
submit additional opening statements, your statements will be
added to the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carnahan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Russ Carnahan
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding the first hearing on the
National Science Foundation (NSF) Reauthorization.
NSF holds a tremendously vital national role, funding research and
education activities at more than 2,000 universities, colleges, K-12
schools, businesses and other research institutions across the U.S. The
mission of NSF, which is to support science and engineering across all
disciplines, is on impressive display in my home congressional district
including the St. Louis region.
St. Louis houses nearly half of the NSF award recipients in the
state of Missouri. I am proud of the great STEM work being done in our
area, specifically at the NSF-funded Danforth Plant Science Center, St.
Louis University, St. Louis Science Center, University of Missouri at
St. Louis, Washington University and Washington University School of
Medicine. I look forward to continued growth in the important field of
STEM research.
Thank you for being here today, Drs. Bement and Beering. I look
forward to hearing your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bilbray follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Brian P. Bilbray
Dear Chairman Baird and Ranking Member Ehlers:
Thank you both very much for holding this hearing to review the
National Science Foundation (NSF). This agency is a key component of
America's quest to be the world leader in scientific innovation. I look
forward to hearing from NSF Director Arden Bement and National Science
Board (NSB) Chairman Dr. Steven Beering.
Today, the United States is the world superpower when it comes to
scientific innovation and talent. Our great nation leads the rest of
the world in high expectation entrepreneurship and research and
development spending. The United States is the location of the world's
high technology manufacturing output. However, as Tom Friedman,
distinguished author of The World Is Flat notes, globalization has
``accidentally made Beijing, Bangalore and Bethesda next door
neighbors.'' Other nations are beginning to imitate the U.S. research
enterprise success and if we rest on our laurels, we will soon be
playing catch-up in the race to develop the latest innovative products,
which will generate wealth and create domestic security.
For more than 50 years, the National Science Foundation has been
the premier federal agency in support of basic research. Every year,
NSF supports nearly 35,000 awards supporting a wide spectrum of those
seeking to understand our most complex scientific mysteries. From the
teacher working to generate interest in the next great generation of
scientists to the university researcher seeking to advance organ
transplantation by studying frog physiological processes in freezing
weather, NSF is a diamond in the Federal Government crown.
As we continue into the 21st century, it will be imperative for our
nation to recognize the unique value that interdisciplinary research
plays. No longer can we ignore the relationship that the unique parts
of the scientific enterprise have in producing breakthroughs. Today,
biomedical innovation is increasingly taking place at the intersection
of traditional health sciences like biology and fields such as
computational science and engineering. But we are seeing a startling
trend of newly minted grads that lack the technical skills to carry out
applied research in the areas that straddle engineering, math and
computers. For your information, I am attaching a Business Week article
highlighting this problem. If we are truly going to be competitive in
this global economy our scientists must learn to work together and form
collaborations. The Committee has recognized this importance by tasking
the National Science Board with evaluating the current and potential
role of NSF in supporting interdisciplinary research. I look forward to
reading the NSB's report to Congress.
I am pleased to see that the Act before us addresses the three
pillars of innovation: funding, talent and infrastructure. The current
bill authorizes on average an eight percent increase for NSF for the
next three years, provides $94 million for vital math science
partnerships and $44 million for STEM (Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics) talent programs. Our nation deserves the
best opportunity at a healthy existence and this legislation could be
the start in providing that.
I look forward to working with the National Science Foundation and
my colleagues on this panel to pass an effective reauthorization bill
which will enhance an already outstanding agency.
Article appearing in Business Week
NOVEMBER 6, 2006
SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Biotech's Beef
By Nichola Saminather
Companies say grad schools aren't stressing what students require
in the real world.
The U.S. is the mecca of biotech. Most top companies in the field
are based here. Government research budgets in biology are immense and
growing. Universities compete to attract great professors. Students
flock to their courses. And once they're armed with graduate degrees,
they can count on landing a job in the industry.
Or can they? In recent months biotech outfits have begun to
complain that job applicants coming out of U.S. universities lack the
know-how companies seek. Left unresolved, the troubles could stifle
growth in this booming sector, valued at $48 billion last year by
consultant Ernst & Young. The knowledge deficiencies could also force
biotech companies to move more of their operations overseas, say
executives and recruiters.
The problem is a disconnect between what universities are teaching
and what biotech wants. ``The focus of academia is getting basic and
theoretical knowledge in place,'' says E. Dale Sevier, a director at
the California State University Program for Education & Research in
Biotechnology. ``The skills needed to be successful in the industry are
just not taught in universities.''
There are several weaknesses. First, recent grads lack the
technical knowledge to carry out applied research in areas that
straddle engineering, math, and computers. Second, job candidates have
little awareness of what the Food & Drug Administration is looking for
when it considers whether or not to approve a drug. Recent grads simply
aren't familiar with issues such as quality control and regulatory
affairs. Academic programs ``don't train students to function in
today's small-R, large-D environment,'' says Stephen Dahms, President
and CEO of the Alfred E. Mann Foundation for Biomedical Engineering.
The California State University biotech program tried to identify
what companies want from new hires in a 2000 report. Close to the top
of the list are familiarity with FDA compliance, experience in clinical
trial design, and quality control. All require knowledge of computing,
statistics, and database management--pretty low priorities for most
academic biotech programs.
As it happens, these are common credentials for foreign researchers
in the U.S. who hold temporary work papers known as H-1B visas. U.S.
Citizenship & Immigration Services reports that 3.6 percent of all H-1B
visas for 2003, a total of 7,119, went to employees in scientific
research and development. Some 80 percent of them have graduate degrees
from U.S. universities, Dahms says, but ``there's something special
about the prior exposure of foreign nationals. They have a more applied
R&D perspective.'' Of course, there are smart U.S.-born candidates with
good math and computer skills. But they're rarely fluent in both math
and life sciences.
Invitrogen Corp. (IVGN ), a biotech company in Carlsbad, Calif.,
currently employs about 75 H-1B visa holders in a workforce of 5,000,
and it needs more. The company hired 1,000 people last year and will
raise that to 1,400 this year. But with H-1B quotas filling up earlier
every year, Invitrogen has chosen to do more drug development in Japan,
China, and India. It may also open facilities in Korea and Singapore,
says Rodney Moses, Invitrogen's Vice-President of Talent Acquisition.
Compensation in China and India is lower than in the U.S., but that's
not what motivates the move offshore, says Moses. ``If the talent is
located in Singapore, it's just easier for us to go there.''
U.S. colleges take the problem seriously. State university systems
in California, Wisconsin, and elsewhere are adding more industry-
oriented classes. California State has crafted a curriculum that
includes chemistry, engineering, and computer science. A new biotech
program at the University of Wisconsin's Stout campus offers statistics
and technical writing. Students must also work full-time at a biotech
company during the summer or for a semester.
Industry buys into this idea. Invitrogen is sponsoring occupational
summer camps for high school students, hoping to nudge them into taking
more science and math courses. Many other companies are setting up
intern and apprentice programs to identify promising students and
prepare them for a post-academic career. After all, the goal in
industry isn't just to raise interesting questions, as in academia.
It's to find the answers.
Chairman Baird. At this time, I would like to introduce our
two witnesses.
Dr. Arden Bement is Director of the National Science
Foundation. He became the Director in 2004 after having served
more than two years as Director of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology. Dr. Steven Beering is the Chair of
the National Science Board. He has served on the Board since
2002, and was elected Chairman in 2006. Before retiring in
2000, he served for 17 years as President of Purdue University
in Indiana.
As our witnesses both know well, spoken testimony is
limited to five minutes each, after which Members of the
Committee will have five minutes each to ask questions. And we
will start with Dr. Bement.
Again, thank you, gentlemen, both for being here.
STATEMENT OF DR. ARDEN L. BEMENT, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SCIENCE
FOUNDATION
Dr. Bement. Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and
Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify before you today.
You have raised a number of important issues in your
invitation letter and I commend you both for taking an active
role in promoting a discussion of these questions.
Before I address some of your specific questions, I want to
let you know how much I appreciate your strong statements of
support for our fiscal year 2008 budget request. As you know,
the request will provide an 8.7 percent increase over the
continuing resolution. Funding at this level will keep NSF on
the course set by the President's American Competitiveness
Initiative to drive innovation and sharpen America's
competitive edge.
Let me move on to the specific issues you have raised.
The first is in regard to NSF's efforts to nurture young
investigators.
We take this responsibility very seriously and address it
in a variety of ways.
Our signature Faculty Early Career Development Program,
called CAREER, is our most prestigious award in support of the
early career-development of young investigators. Successful
applicants must effectively integrate research and education
within the context of their organization's mission. NSF
provides 400 new CAREER awards annually, each for a duration of
five years, to some of the best and brightest young researchers
in the country. Each year, NSF nominates the most meritorious
new CAREER awardees for the Presidential Early Career Awards
for Scientists and Engineers, called PECASE. This presidential
award is the Nation's highest honor bestowed on scientists and
engineers beginning their careers.
NSF also engages in a variety of outreach efforts to
support and nurture young investigators. Our NSF Days program
provides workshops to assist investigators in understanding the
process of submitting proposals to NSF. Over the past five
years, we have sponsored 40 workshops that have attracted
nearly 6,000 participants.
Additional outreach efforts pair NSF program officers with
researchers whose proposals had been declined in an effort to
improve proposals for subsequent resubmission.
The effectiveness of these efforts is shown by the fact
that the share of grants to new investigators has remained
stable at about 28 percent over the past decade, although the
overall success rate has declined from around 30 percent to 21
percent. In that same period, the proportion of grantees
receiving an award within seven years of their last degree has
also remained stable at about 74 percent.
Let me quickly move on to the matter of an appropriate
balance between interdisciplinary and disciplinary research.
Support for interdisciplinary research is a priority for
the NSF because it presents a tremendous opportunity for
innovation. Finding the proper balance results from discussions
with the National Science Board and through feedback from our
many stakeholders.
NSF's Centers and the priority areas outlined in our budget
also serve as catalysts for generating interdisciplinary
proposals.
We continually make a strong effort to communicate our
interest in supporting interdisciplinary research. The
flexibility of NSF's merit review process allows program
officers to use multiple approaches to meet the challenge of
reviewing interdisciplinary proposals. In some cases, mail
reviews are used to provide deep expertise on various aspects
of proposals. Panel reviews are often used to integrate reviews
from different disciplinary perspectives and to provide a
broader interdisciplinary overview.
Recognizing interdisciplinary proposals poses little
difficulty, especially when they are submitted in response to a
specific solicitation. FastLane, our electronic grant
application process, also gives PIs an opportunity to select
multiple programs to consider their proposal.
In fiscal year 2004, the National Science Board initiated a
Task Force on Transformative Research, and a planning document
generated by this task force is currently under review. A key
concern of this effort is stimulating interdisciplinarity, that
is, transformative research while maintaining the balance with
disciplinary research. Ultimately, this issue can only be
addressed through continuous feedback between NSF and the
scientific community. Maintaining this balance is central to
our role as stewards of the U.S. scientific and engineering
enterprise.
Let me move on to the matter of how NSF focuses attention
to research issues of national importance.
To meet the research challenges that rise to national
significance, NSF relies on input from many sources: reports
from the National Academies, R&D guidance as presented by the
OSTP/OMB priorities memo and the National Science Board,
Presidential priorities, such as the American Competitiveness
Initiative, Congressional interests, and our extensive
interaction with the research community. NSF research
priorities are evaluated on a continuous basis by our Advisory
Committees, Committees of Visitors, scientific conferences,
strategic plans, and so forth.
By funding collaborative grants and cooperative agreements,
NSF can foster partnerships with academia and industry,
potentially expediting the transition of basic research to
products. NSF Center programs engage directly in encouraging
industry and university partnerships. But perhaps NSF's most
effective partnership with industry is our support of
undergraduate and graduate students who enter the private
sector armed with the latest understanding of advances in
science and engineering fields.
Mr. Chairman, the issues you have raised in this hearing
are of profound importance, not only to NSF, but to the Nation.
They are not easy matters, nor do they lend themselves to
simplistic or formulaic solutions, but I look forward to
working with you on these issues and would be pleased to answer
any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Bement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Arden L. Bement, Jr.
Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, thank you for the
opportunity to testify before the Research and Science Education
Subcommittee today. You have raised a number of important issues in
your invitation letter and I commend you both for taking an active role
in promoting a discussion of these questions.
The first issue you raise is in regard to NSF's efforts to nurture
young investigators. Encouraging new investigators to become effective
contributors to the science and engineering workforce is a critical
goal for the National Science Foundation. Supporting young
investigators is something that NSF takes seriously and it is an issue
that we are addressing in a variety of ways.
Attracting new researchers is a key part of our Learning investment
priority, articulated in the NSF's new strategic plan. The Strategic
Plan also calls for expanding efforts to broaden participation in all
NSF activities and programs. This year NSF is developing a plan to
target such opportunities. Assessing the impact of NSF efforts to
nurture young investigators, especially at the interfaces between K-12
and university education, two-year and four-year colleges, and
technical and other higher education settings will be an important part
of the broadening participation plan.
An ongoing program at NSF that supports young investigators is our
signature Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) Program. This is an
NSF-wide activity that offers our most prestigious awards in support of
the early career-development of young investigators. Successful
applicants must effectively integrate research and education within the
context of their organization's mission. The longer awards provided
through CAREER offer new Principal Investigators (PIs) stability as
they build their academic careers. NSF provides 400 CAREER awards
annually, each for a duration of five years, to some of the best and
brightest graduate students in the country.
Moreover, each year from among these outstanding CAREER awardees,
NSF selects nominees for the Presidential Early Career Awards for
Scientists and Engineers (PECASE). This Presidential Award is the
highest honor bestowed by the U.S. Government on scientists and
engineers who are beginning their careers. It is awarded both for
excellence in research and for demonstrated leadership and service in
their community.
NSF also engages in a variety of outreach efforts intended to
assist and nurture young investigators. Our NSF Days program serves to
assist investigators in understanding the process of submitting
proposals to NSF through workshops that provide an introduction to and
overview of NSF, its mission, priorities, budget, and its proposal and
merit review process. In the five years that we've had the current
configuration of NSF Days we have sponsored 40 workshops that have
attracted nearly 6,000 participants. Additional outreach efforts
typically pair NSF program officers with researchers whose proposals
have been declined in an effort to improve proposals for subsequent re-
submission. This is helpful for young investigators as it is the
exception rather than the rule that a proposal is accepted by NSF the
first time it is submitted. These activities serve to improve the
funding rates of young investigators.
The effectiveness of these efforts is shown by the fact that we've
maintained the funding rates of young investigators. The current NSF
success rate is 21 percent for research grants--a decline from the 30
percent success rate of the late 1990s--however, the percentage of
awards made to new investigators as a share of the NSF portfolio has
remained stable at 27 percent in 1997 and 28 percent in 2006. Also, the
length of time between the year of an investigator's last degree and
the year of an investigator's first research grant from NSF in 1997 and
2006 has remained stable. In 1997, 73 percent of new Principal
Investigators receiving their first NSF award were within seven years
of their last degree and in 2007 the comparable figure was 74 percent.
Still, we continually strive for improvement, and we believe that
the variety of programs in place to foster young investigators will
continue to increase the pool of successful young investigators
involved in the U.S. science and engineering enterprise.
A second item raised in your invitation letter concerned the
appropriate balance between interdisciplinary and disciplinary
research. The current scientific era is characterized by
interdisciplinary research with much of the promise of future work
occurring at the interstices between traditional scientific
disciplines.
Support for interdisciplinary research is a priority for the
National Science Foundation and presents a tremendous opportunity for
innovation. And yet the nature of scientific research is changing so
rapidly that much of what is today considered disciplinary research
would previously have been considered interdisciplinary in nature.
The issue of a balanced portfolio is a pivotal one for NSF. We must
continue to push the frontiers through interdisciplinary,
transformative research and foster advancements within the scientific
and engineering disciplines that serve as a platform for such
advancement. We must also balance between individual and small group
research grants, infrastructure awards, center awards, and other types
of grants and agreements. Approximately 40 percent of awards go to
proposals with two or more PIs, a figure that has more than doubled in
the past 20 years. The NSF portfolio is balanced through negotiations
between NSF and the National Science Board, through feedback with our
many stakeholders--including Congress, the National Academies, OSTP,
other research agencies, the research communities--and through the
merit review process itself.
NSF's Centers and Priority Areas, as outlined in our budget, serve
as catalysts for generating interdisciplinary proposals. These efforts
are effective strategic means to cultivate interdisciplinary areas of
research. By growing these new avenues of research the participating
disciplines are transformed and re-defined.
We have made a deliberate effort to communicate to various
scientific communities our interest in supporting interdisciplinary
research. Upcoming solicitations are strategically mentioned at all
town hall meetings, conferences, workshops, and symposia and we
regularly inform the community of interdisciplinary opportunities
through Dear Colleague letters.
The use of co-reviews addresses one of the greater challenges that
interdisciplinary research proposals present, which is that these
proposals frequently require a greater range of expertise among the
reviewers than disciplinary proposals. The flexibility of NSF's merit
review process allows the program officers to use multiple approaches
to meet this challenge for both solicited and unsolicited
interdisciplinary proposals. The program officers will often work
collaboratively, sharing their expertise to identify the right
reviewers and to assess the reviewers' input. In some cases, mail
reviews can be used to provide deeper expertise on various aspects of
the proposal. Panel reviews are often used to integrate reviews from
different disciplinary perspectives, and provide a broader
interdisciplinary overview.
Recognizing which proposals are interdisciplinary poses little
difficulty, especially when they are submitted in response to a
specific solicitation. As for the unsolicited interdisciplinary
research proposals, FastLane gives PIs an opportunity to select
multiple programs as potential units to consider the proposal. Program
officers take note when multiple programs are listed, and will evaluate
if the interdisciplinary nature of the proposal is such that co-reviews
by more than one program are warranted. Even if the PI does not choose
multiple programs for review, program officers can recognize
interdisciplinary proposals, and will bring these proposals to the
attention of their colleagues in the appropriate programs. Co-reviews
can be arranged between the relevant program officers on a case-by-case
basis or on a larger scale if appropriate. For example, in the last few
years program officers in BIO and MPS have recognized the increasing
interdisciplinary nature of the research being proposed by new
investigators and have coordinated the co-review of CAREER proposals
that lie at the interface of the biological and physical sciences.
In 2004, the National Science Board initiated a Task Force on
Transformative Research. A planning document generated by this task
force is currently under review. A key concern of this effort is
stimulating interdisciplinary, transformative research while
maintaining the balance with disciplinary research. One aspect of the
NSF internal task group on the Impact of Proposals and Award Management
Mechanisms (IPAMM) study is taking a closer look at transformative
research. Ultimately, this issue can only be addressed through
continuous feedback between NSF and the scientific community, and it is
an issue that is central to our role as stewards of the U.S. scientific
and engineering enterprise.
Let me move on to the matter of how NSF focuses attention to
research issues of national importance. NSF is committed to fostering
the fundamental research that delivers new knowledge to meet national
needs and to improve the quality of life for all Americans. To meet the
challenges of concern to our nation, NSF research activities are
determined in accordance with guidance from several sources. These
include reports from the National Academy of Sciences, R&D guidance as
presented by the OSTP/OMB priorities memo, Presidential priorities such
as the American Competitiveness Initiative, congressional interests,
and the research community. NSF research priorities are evaluated on a
continuous basis through such activities as Advisory Committees,
Committees of Visitors, scientific conferences, strategic plans, etc.
The priorities that emerge reflect the current needs of the Nation and
are updated and represented annually in the Budget Requests to
Congress.
Through funding collaborative grants and cooperative agreements,
NSF can foster partnerships with academia and industry, potentially
expediting the transition of basic research to ``products.'' Several
NSF programs are directly related to encouraging industry and
university partnerships such as Small Business Innovative Research/
Small Business Technology Transfer Research; Partnerships for
Innovation and many of our Centers programs (e.g., Engineering Research
Centers; Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers; Science and
Technology Centers; Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers;
and Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers). NSF's most effective
partnership with industry is accomplished through training
undergraduate and graduate students who in turn enter the private
sector with advanced skills in science and engineering fields.
NSF's Broader Impacts criterion requires each proposal to address
the question ``What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?''
This is an excellent way of determining whether proposals meet the
mission of NSF, and therefore meets the needs of the Nation.
Considerations embedded in this criterion reflect the need to promote
teaching and training among all citizens.
Mr. Chairman, the issues you have raised in this hearing are of
profound importance, not only to NSF, but to the Nation. They are not
easy matters, nor do they lend themselves to simplistic or formulaic
solutions. I commend you for making these matters the topic of your
first hearing as Chairman and I look forward to responding to any
questions the Members of the Committee may have.
Biography for Arden L. Bement, Jr.
Arden L. Bement, Jr., became Director of the National Science
Foundation on November 24, 2004. He had been Acting Director since
February 22, 2004.
He joined NSF from the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, where he had been director since Dec. 7, 2001. As head of
NIST, he oversaw an agency with an annual budget of about $773 million
and an on-site research and administrative staff of about 3,000,
complemented by a NIST-sponsored network of 2,000 locally managed
manufacturing and business specialists serving smaller manufacturers
across the United States. Prior to his appointment as NIST Director,
Bement served as the David A. Ross Distinguished Professor of Nuclear
Engineering and head of the School of Nuclear Engineering at Purdue
University. He has held appointments at Purdue University in the
schools of Nuclear Engineering, Materials Engineering, and Electrical
and Computer Engineering, as well as a courtesy appointment in the
Krannert School of Management. He was Director of the Midwest
Superconductivity Consortium and the Consortium for the Intelligent
Management of the Electrical Power Grid.
Bement came to the position as NIST director having previously
served as head of that agency's Visiting Committee on Advanced
Technology, the agency's primary private-sector policy adviser; as head
of the advisory committee for NIST's Advanced Technology Program; and
on the Board of Overseers for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality
Award.
Along with his NIST advisory roles, Bement served as a member of
the U.S. National Science Board from 1989 to 1995. The board guides NSF
activities and also serves as a policy advisory body to the President
and Congress. As NSF Director, Bement now serves as an ex officio
member of the NSB.
He currently serves as a member of the U.S. National Commission for
UNESCO and serves as the Vice-Chair of the Commission's Natural
Sciences and Engineering Committee.
Bement joined the Purdue faculty in 1992 after a 39-year career in
industry, government, and academia. These positions included: Vice
President of Technical Resources and of Science and Technology for TRW
Inc. (1980-1992); Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Research and
Engineering (1979-1980); Director, Office of Materials Science, DARPA
(1976-1979); Professor of Nuclear Materials, MIT (1970-1976); Manager,
Fuels and Materials Department and the Metallurgy Research Department,
Battelle Northwest Laboratories (1965-1970); and Senior Research
Associate, General Electric Co. (1954-1965).
He has been a Director of Keithley Instruments Inc. and the Lord
Corp. and was a member of the Science and Technology Advisory Committee
for the Howmet Corp. (a division of ALCOA).
Bement holds an engineer of metallurgy degree from the Colorado
School of Mines, a Master's degree in metallurgical engineering from
the University of Idaho, a doctorate degree in metallurgical
engineering from the University of Michigan, an honorary doctorate
degree in engineering from Cleveland State University, an honorary
doctorate degree in science from Case Western Reserve University, an
honorary doctorate degree in engineering from the Colorado School of
Mines, and a Chinese Academy of Sciences Graduate School Honorary
Professorship. He is a member of the U.S. National Academy of
Engineering and a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Dr. Bement. And I am painfully
aware that for something as complicated as NSF and the related
Board, a five-minute introductory statement is not nearly
enough, but please rest assured we will give you plenty of time
through the Q&A to elaborate on some of the very, very salient
points you made.
Dr. Bement. Thank you.
Chairman Baird. Dr. Beering.
STATEMENT OF DR. STEVEN C. BEERING, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL SCIENCE
BOARD
Dr. Beering. Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and
Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to
appear before you. I am the President Emeritus of Purdue
University, and I am privileged to be here with Arden Bement,
with whom I have worked for the past 15 years, both at Purdue
and at the National Science Foundation.
This is my first time to testify before you as Chairman of
the National Science Board, a position to which I was elected
in May 2006, and I am, indeed, honored to be with you.
Congress established the National Science Board in 1950 and
gave it dual responsibilities: to guide the activities of and
establish the policies for the National Science Foundation, and
to serve as an independent advisory body to the President and
the Congress on national policy issues related to science and
engineering research and education.
On behalf of the entire Board and the widespread and
diverse research and education communities that we all serve, I
thank the Members of this subcommittee for your long-term
support of a broad portfolio of investments in science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics research and
education. Your continuing bipartisan commitment to excellence
in U.S. science and engineering research and education has
ensured that the United States remains the leader in global
innovation and discovery.
My complete written testimony has already been submitted to
you for the record.
Let me now briefly address the questions Chairman Baird
raised in his letter of March 7.
First, what can NSF do to nurture young investigators and
to improve their funding rates? This was a major and ongoing
concern for the Board. In our December 2003 report to Congress
that responded to Section 22 of the last NSF Authorization Act,
we identified the need of an additional $1 billion over the
five-year period of 2002 to 2007 to fund more grants generally
and $200 million to fund an expansion of the institutions of
higher education participating in NSF activities, including
funding for start-up awards to new Ph.D.s at those
institutions.
New Ph.D.s just starting their academic careers, no matter
how excellent their academic record, are less likely to be
employed by top-tier institutions and more likely to start
their careers in primarily teaching situations. Expanding
research in these institutions, therefore, opens doors for new
Ph.D.s to build careers in research.
We also support the expansion of the NSF CAREER Faculty
Early Career and similar programs coupled with general
expansion of funding for basic research, also called for by the
American Competitiveness Initiative and the National Academies'
report ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.''
The NSF authorization of 2002 included a welcome authority
to double the budget over a five-year period to nearly $10
billion in 2007. The actual 2007 budget of approximately $6
billion represents a significant gap with the 2002
authorization. The American Competitiveness Initiative again
calls for a doubling of the NSF budget over a 10-year period.
We would respectfully suggest that the time to implement these
admirable authorizations and initiatives has never been more
urgent than now.
Your second series of questions regarding NSF funding for
interdisciplinary research focused on the appropriate balance
between funding for interdisciplinary and disciplinary
research, best mechanisms for soliciting and funding
interdisciplinary research proposals, and the sufficiency of
publicizing interdisciplinary research funding opportunities at
NSF. This is another area to which NSF and the Board have given
considerable attention of resources. Nonetheless, there remains
substantial issues to assure that interdisciplinary research is
not disadvantaged in the highly-competitive NSF merit review
system or in the academic sector by structural impediments.
NSF has taken a number of steps over a long period of time
to ensure that the level of investment and mechanisms of
support address structural roadblocks to funding
interdisciplinary research. For example, NSF supports nearly
100 centers in part to provide greater opportunities for, and
encourage, interdisciplinary research. The most recent Board
guidance to NSF on balance between centers and individual
investigator awards establishes a six to eight percent of the
R&RA budget as an appropriate level to support centers.
With respect to publicizing opportunities for
interdisciplinary research, I should point out that most
research proposals submitted to NSF are unsolicited, and that
is a good thing for the health of U.S. research. To a great
extent, this enables the research community to self-identify
and establish a balance between disciplinary and
interdisciplinary work on the basis of opportunities for
discovery and the quality of the research proposals submitted.
However, it is also important to ensure that researchers are
knowledgeable about all NSF funding opportunities and the
process for obtaining that funding, and further, that the
review process is fair and results in the best use of scarce
funding to fund cutting-edge research.
You also asked about the NSF role in research driven by
national needs and fostering university-industry partnerships
and the application of Criterion 2, which encourages
partnerships of the NSF merit review process with regard to
national needs.
NSF's mission is defined in the NSF Act in terms of
national needs, and such needs, both broadly and narrowly
defined, have always shaped the portfolio of our investments.
The Board established Criterion 2 of the merit review system in
part to enhance partnerships, potential benefits to society,
and contributions to innovation. Further, NSF has long
participated in interagency R&D priorities, most recently
including the National Nanotechnology Initiative, Climate
Change Science program, Networking and Information Technology
R&D, and Homeland Security.
Moreover, NSF Center programs often explicitly require
partnering with industry. In addition, NSF funds small business
innovation research and cross-agency and cross-sectoral
research programs in such areas as earthquake science and
engineering and research in the Polar Regions.
The Board has also recently published a report recommending
a new national Hurricane Research Initiative that cuts across
fields of science, suggests a co-lead role for NSF and NOAA,
and includes a number of additional agencies as major players.
Your final question concerns NSF's priorities in K-16
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, so-called
STEM education, and how the current budget reflects those
priorities, especially NSF's role in undergraduate education.
The Board has been especially concerned with this major
area of NSF's responsibility: education in science, technology,
engineering, and math. Education is the core mission of NSF.
Even while U.S. student performance in mathematics and science
is declining relatively as assessed internationally, changing
the workforce requirements means that new workers will need
ever more sophisticated skills in STEM disciplines.
Following a request from Congress, the Board established a
new advisory commission on 21st century education in science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics in March of 2006,
comprising a wide range of eminent experts, representing the
broad scope of interests in U.S. STEM education. We have
charged that commission to examine and advise us on the role of
NSF in both pre-college and undergraduate education as part of
its activities. Moreover, the Board is expecting shortly to
receive the report of our Education and Human Resources
Committee on Engineering Education Reform primarily at the
undergraduate level.
We expect that, following our Board meeting next week, when
we will receive advice from our STEM education commission, and
over the next few months with the work of the Board's Education
and Human Resources Committee evaluating assessments of NSF
education programs, we will develop new guidance to the
Foundation on its priorities for education programs at the
undergraduate and pre-college levels.
Following our Board meeting next week, we would welcome the
opportunity to meet with individual Members of your Committee,
and others in the Congress and the Administration, to discuss
the Board's national action plan for addressing our nation's
STEM education needs.
The federal investment in the Nation's science and
technology is a necessity for our future prosperity and
security. To quote a recent editorial by Microsoft founder,
Bill Gates, in the Washington Post, ``If the United States is
to remain a global economic leader, we must foster an
environment that enables the new generation to dream up
innovations.'' As other nations ramp up their investment of the
infrastructure for research and innovation, we cannot be
complacent.
I have just returned this past week from the European
Union's Congress, and I am absolutely impressed and astounded
at the progress of those 27 nations. We must sustain the
advantages that we have gained through continued wise, adequate
federal support for our science and engineering research and
education enterprise. The National Science Foundation is a key
asset to our nation, having proven itself effective in
stimulating discovery and innovation for now over half a
century, working in partnership with the research and higher
education communities.
The Board is committed to working with you to assure that
limited federal funding resources are optimally invested
through the National Science Foundation to sustain U.S.
leadership in science and technology.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Beering follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steven C. Beering
Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and Members of the
Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you. I am
Steven Beering, President Emeritus of Purdue University, West
Lafayette, Indiana and Chairman of the National Science Board (Board).
This is my first time testifying before you as Chairman of the Board, a
position to which I was elected in May 2006. I am honored to represent
the National Science Board before you today.
Since the Board last testified before this subcommittee, there have
been many changes--both in Congress and on the Board. Nine of our 24
Board Members rotated off the Board in 2006 and nine new Board Members
have been appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Board
members are selected so as to broadly represent the leadership of U.S.
science and engineering research and education.
In addition to my being elected as the new Board Chairman, the
Board also elected a new Vice-Chairman, Dr. Kathryn Sullivan, Director,
Batelle Center for Mathematics and Science Education Policy, John Glenn
School of Public Affairs, Ohio State University, Columbus. I have
appointed Dr. Kenneth Ford, Director and Chief Executive Officer,
Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, Florida, to lead our
Committee on Programs and Plans; Dr. Dan Arvizu, Director and Chief
Executive of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Colorado,
as Chairman of our Committee on Audit and Oversight; Dr. Ray Bowen,
President Emeritus of Texas A&M University to lead our Committee on
Strategy and Budget; and Dr. Elizabeth Hoffman, Executive Vice
President and Provost Iowa State University, Ames, as Chairman for the
Committee on Education and Human Resources.
Congress established the National Science Board in 1950 and gave it
dual responsibilities:
<bullet> Oversee the activities of, and establish the policies
for, the National Science Foundation (the Foundation, NSF); and
<bullet> Serve as an independent advisory body to the
President and the Congress on national policy issues related to
science and engineering (S&E) research and education.
On behalf of the entire Board and the widespread and diverse
research and education communities that we all serve, I thank the
Members of this subcommittee for your long-term commitment to a broad
portfolio of investments in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) research and education. While it is critical that
our nation significantly increase our support for this portfolio, it is
also important that these investments be diverse and balanced. The
Board greatly appreciates long-term Congressional support of the Board,
the Foundation, and their programs and activities. Your continuing
bipartisan commitment to excellence in U.S. science and engineering
research and education has ensured that the U.S. remains a world leader
in the global innovation and discovery enterprise. As you all are well
aware, continued investment is required for the U.S. to maintain a
global leadership position in science and technology.
I will turn now to answer the specifics questions you presented to
me, Mr. Chairman, in your letter of March 7, 2007. Following these
responses, I will provide a brief overview of Board activities over the
last year, forecast activities for the coming year, and then provide
you with some specific issues you may wish to consider for inclusion in
the re-authorization language.
QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN BAIRD
Your questions focus on a number of challenging issues that are
subject to continual consideration and discussion by the Board, as they
are central to fulfilling NSF's mission in research and education under
the NSF Act of 1950 (as amended). That mission is to promote the
progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and
welfare; and to secure the national defense.
QUESTION 1: What can NSF do to nurture young investigators and to
improve their funding rates?
The Board has consistently expressed our concern that research
funding nurture new researchers and sustain excellent researchers
throughout their careers. For instance, a National Science Board
policy, endorsed in 1977 and amended in 1984, requests that the NSF
Director submit an annual report on the NSF merit review process. This
report allows us to monitor the funding rates for new principal
investigators (PIs) annually. The FY 2006 Report on the NSF Merit
Review Process [(NSB-07-22) http://www.nsf.ogv/nsb/documents/2007/
merit<INF>-</INF>review.pdf, available March 30, 2007] indicates that
18,061 proposals were received from new PIs during FY 2006, of which 18
percent were funded. New PIs are defined as those who have not
previously been awarded an NSF grant, and are generally regarded as
professionally ``young'' investigators (less than five years from
attaining degree). Grant proposal success rate overall is 25 percent,
with a 30 percent rate for PIs who received prior awards (prior PIs).
The funding rate of new PIs has been two-thirds or less of prior PIs,
since 1999. Additional funding for Research and Related Activities
(R&RA) under the 2008 request is welcome, to the extent that it can
increase the funding rate for grants, so that these gifted new
researchers will not become discouraged and leave their careers in
research.
As directed by Congress in Section 22 of the Foundation's 2002
Authorization Act, the Board prepared a report, Fulfilling the Promise
[(NSB-03-151) www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2003/nsb03151], to outline how
additional funding would be spent in the event the NSF budget were
doubled over a five-year period. This report also identifies the need
for $1 billion over the five-year period to fund more grants, and $0.2
billion to expand the institutions of higher education participating in
NSF activities, including funding for start-up awards to new Ph.D.s.
The Board supports expansion of the NSF CAREER (faculty early career,
www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm<INF>-</INF>summ.jsp?pims<INF>-</INF>id=5262)
program, as long as such expansion is funded through additional
appropriations, so as not to undercut the Board priority for NSF to
also increase the size and duration of awards and increasing funding
for novel ideas and approaches.
The Board applauds the recommendations for research in the American
Competitiveness Act, reflecting the National Academies report, Rising
Above the Gathering Storm (www.nap.edu/
catalog.php?record<INF>-</INF>id=11463), to increase federal investment
in long-term basic research by 10 percent each year over the next seven
years; and to double the NSF budget in 10 years. We also strongly
supported the existing congressionally authorized doubling of the NSF
budget to approximately $10 billion over the five-year period FY 2003
to FY 2007, under the 2002 NSF Authorization. Nevertheless, current
funding for NSF falls well short of authorized levels. We would
respectfully suggest that the time to implement these admirable
authorizations and initiatives through actual appropriations has never
been more urgent than now.
We further applaud the additional support appropriated in recent
years to physical sciences, engineering, mathematics and computer
sciences, which were identified for attention in the Board's 2003
report, The Science and Engineering Workforce/Realizing America's
Potential [(NSB-03-69) www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2003/nsb0369.pdf].
However we caution that increased funding for one area should not be at
the expense of other parts of the NSF portfolio that also offer
expanding opportunities for discovery, such as the biological sciences
at NSF, which have been funded now for a decade below the level of
increase of the portfolio as a whole.
QUESTION 2: What is the appropriate balance between funding for
interdisciplinary and disciplinary research? What are the best
mechanisms for soliciting and funding interdisciplinary research
proposals? Is NSF doing a sufficient job of publicizing opportunities
for funding of interdisciplinary proposals?
The Board has a long-standing commitment to support for
interdisciplinary research. In a 1988 report, Report of the National
Science Board Committee on Centers and Individual Investigator Awards
(NSB-88-35) the Board noted that the use of centers was increasing
because centers epitomize the growing complexity, cost, and
organization of modern research. The rationale for support for centers
was based in large part on their interdisciplinary nature to exploit
opportunities in science where the complexity of the research problem
can benefit from the sustained interaction among disciplines and/or
sub-disciplines, and to stimulate new directions and styles of inquiry
in research including collaborative, cross disciplinary, and
interdisciplinary approaches.
In the early 1990s, the Board sponsored a review, with the National
Academies' Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable, of
emerging stresses in the university community [Stresses on Research and
Education at Colleges and Universities: Institutional and Sponsoring
Agency Responses (July 1994)]. Interdisciplinary research was
identified as a key issue. Among the concerns were a greater difficulty
in assembling and sustaining interdisciplinary teams and the perceived
reduced probability for success due to the likelihood that reviewers of
an interdisciplinary proposal would not be expert in all areas covered,
and therefore be unlikely to rate fairly an interdisciplinary proposal.
Understanding the important role of individual investigator grants
to the U.S. basic research enterprise, and that these types of grants
are vital sources of interdisciplinary research, the Board issued
guidance (NSB-05-166, Appendix C to NSB-05-166) in December 2005 to NSF
on the relative balance of funding for centers, stating that ``NSF's
investment in centers should be reported as both a percentage of the
R&RA account and as a percentage of the total NSF budget, with the
range of support for NSF centers being six to eight percent of R&RA.
However it is important to consider that the relative balance of
funding for principal investigators, large facilities, and centers will
vary considerably across disciplines.''
The Foundation funded nearly a hundred centers in FY 2006. These
centers allow groups of scientists and engineers to address broad
scientific and engineering challenges that are of interest to the
general public, and to encourage innovation. They are typically
interdisciplinary in character and provide opportunities for partnering
across institutions, agencies and sectors, and internationally. In
addition to centers, the Foundation supports a number of cross
disciplinary priority areas that include collaborations across
disciplines and agencies to address national research and development
(R&D) priorities--currently in nanotechnology, climate change science,
networking and information technology, and homeland security.
NSF also supports interdisciplinary proposals through less formal
means through collaborations across programs and directorates within
the agency. When program officers present their portfolio of proposed
awards for review, they must explain what makes the projects exciting,
high risk and/or multi-disciplinary. Identifying the most innovative
proposals is an explicit part of program officers' responsibilities.
Several mechanisms are built into the oversight process to ensure that
multi-disciplinary proposals are on a fair footing with other proposals
in the merit review process, including each program's Committee of
Visitors (COV) and NSF's Advisory Committee for GPRA Performance
Assessment (AC/GPA).
It is important for the merit review process generally, and for
interdisciplinary or multi-disciplinary proposals in particular, that
the process employed for merit review be clearly explained and
understood, both by reviewers and program officers and by applicants.
Identifying the most innovative and multi-disciplinary proposals is an
explicit program officer responsibility, but these concepts are
difficult to define for the proposal review context. In response to
concerns about the uncertainty of what constitutes ``multi-
disciplinary,'' NSF is now collecting explanations of projects that
program officers identify as multi-disciplinary. Clarity in these
identifications should result in an improved ability to communicate
with the research communities, which should result in more effective
outreach.
A large share of NSF proposals is unsolicited. This factor is
important in allowing the community to provide grass roots input to
identify the most promising areas for discovery, whether disciplinary
or interdisciplinary in nature. The correct ``balance'' at any one time
would be difficult to fix in advance. For example, the provision of a
new instrument for science or a new discovery that shifts a traditional
paradigm would be likely to stimulate new ideas and proposals within
the affected scientific research areas. Perhaps subsequent proposals
stimulated by this new impetus would be either interdisciplinary or
disciplinary proposals, depending on the nature of the change, which
might affect the balance between meritorious interdisciplinary and
disciplinary proposals received by particular programs for
consideration. In short, the right balance at any time is determined by
the opportunities for discovery and the quality of the proposals
submitted.
The Board has requested that NSF conduct a review of the impacts of
NSF proposal and award management mechanisms. With the information
provided from this review, the Board will be better positioned to
provide guidance and establish appropriate policy for NSF program
portfolio balance across disciplines, to include interdisciplinary
research.
QUESTION 4: NSF, unlike the mission oriented science agencies, is a
mainly proposal-driven agency. However, there are significant issues of
concern to our nation--competitiveness, security, energy--that can be
addressed, at least in part, through technology enabled by solutions or
answers to known scientific challenges and questions.
What is the appropriate role for NSF in such research
driven by national needs? In fostering industry/university
partnerships? Is this a valid application of Criterion 2 of NSF's merit
review process?
The Foundation was established to serve national needs including
promoting the progress of science, advancing the national health,
prosperity, and welfare, securing the national defense, and other
purposes. National needs, both broadly and more narrowly defined, have
always shaped the portfolio of NSF investments, and these investments
should continue to address our nation's needs as they evolve. Criterion
2 includes enhancements to partnerships, and potential benefits to
society, and therefore includes contributions to innovation. Although
NSF does not directly support technology development or deployment, the
research it funds is driven by important national needs, and indeed NSF
participates in interagency R&D priorities including the National
Nanotechnology Initiative, Climate Change Science Program, Networking
and Information Technology R&D, and Homeland Security for the last
several years.
One example of NSF participation in cross agency activities to
benefit society is membership in the National Science and Technology
Council's Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction (SDR) and of the
legislatively-created National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
(NEHRP). NSF's principal contribution to NEHRP is the George E. Brown,
Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES), an impressive
collection of 15 large-scale experimental sites that feature advanced
tools linked to a centralized data pool and earthquake simulation
software, all of which is bridged together by the high-speed Internet2.
One of the NEES sites is the O.H. Hinsdale Wave Research Laboratory
at Oregon State University, which the Board recently visited. Research
from Hinsdale and the other NEES facilities will help to advance our
understanding and improve seismic performance of civil infrastructure
in the U.S. and around the world and will lead to the design of
buildings and development of building construction techniques to reduce
the potential for damage to structures from tsunamis and other
earthquake-related disasters.
Recently, the National Science Board issued its report Hurricane
Warning: The Critical Need for a National Hurricane Research Initiative
[(NSB-06-115) www.nsf.gov/nsb/committees/hurricane/initiative.pdf],
recommending the role of NSF and operational agencies like NOAA, NIST,
NASA, USDA, and the Navy in the creation of a substantial new federal
science and engineering enterprise for benefiting society. This
enterprise would undertake a focused, sustained, and multi-agency
initiative to improve our understanding of, and ability to predict,
mitigate, and respond to, the impacts of hurricanes on the population,
the built-infrastructure, and the natural environment.
Another example of meeting national needs is the Foundation's
involvement with energy research as a partner in the President's
hydrogen fuel initiative through membership in the Interagency Hydrogen
and Fuel Cell Technical Task Force. Related to this is the NSF's Energy
for Sustainability Program, which will fund basic research and
engineering of hydrogen and other alternative fuel systems, and the
U.S. Climate Change Technology Program to develop the basic
understanding that will facilitate the development of new and advanced
technologies to address climate change.
NSF advances national competitiveness through its many educational
programs from the grade school to post graduate levels, and by
providing essential research infrastructure through its four multi-user
Federally-Funded Research and Development Centers, the construction of
Major Research Equipment and Facilities, and through its eight Centers
programs. The National Science Board's ``Science and Engineering
Indicators'' and the NSF's surveys and reports provide statistics
reflecting the condition of important components of U.S. and global
science and technology, and provide information to track national
competitiveness in science and engineering and to inform future
programs to further promote competitiveness.
NSF also helps to promote innovation through individual
researchers. For example, Phase I recipients of the Foundation's Small
Business Innovation Research Awards (SBIR) are invited to participate
in NSF-sponsored business development programs. These programs help our
awardees understand the issues associated with technology development
and deployment that may be outside the experience of research
scientists. NSF has found that these programs significantly increase
the quality of commercialization plans and as a result the success rate
of advancing to Phase II SBIR funding. Eleven federal agencies fund
research through an SBIR program, but NSF is the only one to offer the
entrepreneurial training to Phase I funding recipients.
While technology development and deployment are not the direct
objectives of the National Science Foundation, the data show our
grantees have been successful in combining NSF support with funding
from industry and other federal agencies and their own ingenuity to
develop useful inventions. For example, 272 United States Patents were
granted in 2006 that have acknowledged funding from the National
Science Foundation. Analysis of these patents also reveals how NSF
funding helps to further the research of the `mission' agencies.
Research for over 44 percent of NSF-related patents in 2006 were co-
sponsored by one or more of the `mission' agencies, including USDA,
NIH, NASA, and the Departments of Defense, Education, and Energy. In
addition, researchers filed 379 U.S. Patent applications in 2005 for
inventions sponsored, at least in part, by NSF. For each the past three
calendar years, NSF awardees have disclosed over 1000 inventions. In
fact, the ``iEdison.gov'' database reports NSF is consistently one of
the top two federal agencies in terms of the number of inventions
disclosed by researchers it supports.
Moreover, since CY 2004, NSF has directly funded fundamental
research to enhance homeland security. In FY 2006, NSF funding in this
area was $342 million and it has requested $375 million in FY 2008, to
fund research in such areas as information security, understanding
vulnerabilities and strengthening U.S. critical infrastructure, and
automated understanding of language.
QUESTION 5: What are NSF's priorities in K-16 science, technology,
engineering and mathematics (STEM) education? How does the current
budget reflect those priorities? In particular, what is NSF's role in
supporting undergraduate STEM education?
The Board has been especially concerned with a major area of NSF
responsibility--education in science, technology, engineering and
mathematics (STEM). Education is a core mission of NSF, which not only
includes advanced education in connection with funded research, but
also responsibility for promoting quality math and science education as
intertwining objectives at all levels of education across the United
States. NSF's highly competitive peer-review process is second to none
for openly and objectively identifying, reviewing, selecting, funding
and providing stewardship for the very best STEM proposals and programs
in research and education.
The Board has a long-term concern with the condition of STEM
education at all levels of the system. Nearly a quarter century ago,
the National Science Board's Commission on Pre-college Education in
Mathematics, Science and Technology assessed the state of U.S. pre-
college education in the subject fields and found it wanting. At the
same time, in 1983 the U.S. Department of Education's National
Commission on Excellence in Education published the report, A Nation At
Risk (www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html). This document stated: ``By
the year 2000, U.S. students will be the first in the world in
mathematics and science achievement,'' expressing alarm on the ``rising
tide of mediocrity [in education] that threatens our very future as a
Nation and a people.'' Despite these two reports--A Nation At Risk
sounding the alarm and the Board's Commission report recommending
solutions--and many others since then, we continue to slip further
behind. Not only are they not first, but by the time they reach their
senior year, even the most advanced U.S. students perform at or near
the bottom on international assessments. There is now an even more
pressing need to build a new foundation for U.S. STEM education.
The Board has explored in a number of policy reports how the
Foundation and other components of the STEM education system in this
country can be more effective. Even while U.S. student relative
performance in mathematics and science is declining on international
assessments, changing workforce requirements mean that new workers will
need ever more sophisticated skills in STEM disciplines. This emerging
workforce, consisting of degreed and highly skilled technical workers,
will need to begin developing their mathematical and science skills
early in their educational career. In addition, the rapid advances in
technology in all fields mean that even those students who do not
pursue professional occupations in technological fields will also
require solid foundations in science and math in order to be productive
and capable members of our nation's society.
As some of you know, the Board established a second Commission on
STEM education--the Commission on 21st Century Education in Science,
Technology, Engineering and Mathematics in March 2006, comprising a
wide range of eminent experts representing the broad scope of interests
in U.S. STEM education (www.nsf.gov/nsb/edu<INF>-</INF>com). We have
held a number of hearings across the country--both in the process of
considering the charge to such a Commission, and subsequently during
several meetings of the new Commission. Science and Technology
Committee Chairman Gordon and Vice Chairman Lipinski, and several other
Members of the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education--Ranking
Member Ehlers and Congresswoman Johnson, and other Members of Congress,
including Speaker Pelosi, Congressman Mark Udall, Congressman Wolf and
Congressman Culberson, as well as former Science Committee Chairman
Boehlert, have attended one of these hearings or otherwise contributed
their insights to this process. We look forward to receiving the draft
action plan to reform U.S. STEM education from the Commission for
discussion at the March 2007 National Science Board meeting. The plan
will include STEM education from pre-K through college and beyond, and
specific recommendations on the NSF role in STEM education reform at
all levels.
The Board has expressed our support for the NSF role in improving
the linkage between the K-12 and higher education systems both in the
charge to our Commission on 21st Century Education in STEM, and in our
2004 Statement in Support of the NSF Mathematics and Science
Partnerships (MSPs) (www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2004/
nsb<INF>-</INF>msp<INF>-</INF>statement2.pdf) funded through the NSF
Education and Human Resources budget. We are pleased that the MSP
experiments are beginning to show early positive results. In part, the
NSF MSP Program provides for the collaboration between pre-college and
college to promote excellence in teaching and learning, therefore
facilitating the transitions for students from kindergarten through the
baccalaureate in STEM disciplines. The added benefit for our nation is
those students who do not choose STEM careers become the informed
scientifically literate voting citizens we need for the 21st Century.
Recent assessment data on MSP projects indicate this program has been
effective in increasing student performance at all levels assessed--
elementary, middle and high school (http://www.nsf.gov/news), and
promoting collaboration between pre-college and higher education.
Therefore, we are pleased that the NSF budget request for FY 2008 will
permit funding of new starts in the NSF/MSP program. However, it is
again incumbent on the Board to note that the FY 2008 request for NSF
EHR remains approximately 10 percent below the FY 2004 level (not
corrected for inflation) of funding for this portfolio.
The vertical integration of STEM education from pre-kindergarten
through graduate school has also been one of the primary foci of the
Board's Commission, and we expect to receive valuable guidance from
their report on how the Foundation can contribute to such vertical
integration in its programs at the undergraduate, pre-college and
advanced levels of STEM education. The Board also has been undertaking,
through its Committee on Education and Human Resources, an examination
of the NSF EHR Directorate's programs with respect to evaluation
procedures and results over the last year. The Board feels strongly
that NSF EHR programs not only must be effective in relatively short-
term evaluations of their success in achieving desired outcomes of
individual programs, but that, in combination, these programs must be
effective in addressing U.S. long-term needs to retain its essential
global advantage in S&E human resources. We have submitted an initial
report on our review to Congress at the request of Congressman Rush
Holt, and we will be continuing to apprise you about that review as we
take into account the recommendations of the Board's STEM Education
Commission, the report of the Academic Competitiveness Council, and the
plans for the NSF EHR Directorate under its new leadership.
OVERVIEW OF NSB ACTIVITIES DURING THE LAST YEAR
Now I would like to update you on National Science Board activities
over the last year and some of our priorities for the coming year in
both a) NSF policy-setting and oversight, and b) advising the President
and Congress, our dual responsibilities.
NSF Oversight and Policy Direction
During the last year, the Board accomplished a great deal in terms
of its mission to provide oversight and policy direction to the
Foundation, including: reviewed and endorsed the OIG Semi-annual
Reports to Congress and approved NSF management responses; approved the
NSF FY 2008 Budget Submission for transmittal to OMB; approved the
Foundation's annual Merit Review Report; and provided review and
decisions on major awards or proposal funding requests, including
awards totaling $616 million. These awards will support advanced
research, science education, and public understanding of critical
issues facing our nation. The Board also approved a new strategic plan
for NSF Investing in America's Future: Strategic Plan FY 2006-2011
[(NSF-06-48) www.nsf.gov/publications/
pub<INF>-</INF>summ.jsp?ods<INF>-</INF>key=nsf0648], based on the
National Science Board 2020 Vision for the National Science Foundation
report [(NSB-05-142) www.nsf.gov/pubs/2006/nsb05142/nsb05142.pdf] to
Congress. In addition, the Board accepted the Foundation's 2007
Facility Plan (NSF-07-22) and the Plan was released in conjunction with
the President's budget in February 2007. The Facility Plan was mandated
by a joint management report of the Foundation and the Board, Setting
Priorities for Large Research Projects Supported by the National
Science Foundation [(NSB-05-77) www.nsf.gov/pubs/2005/nsb0577/
index.jsp].
The Board has just released our draft report, Enhancing Support of
Transformative Research at the National Science Foundation (http://
www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2007/tr<INF>-</INF>draft.pdf) for public
comment and review. The Board states in this draft report that we
believe it is unreasonable to expect that small adjustments to NSF's
existing programs and processes will overcome the perception among much
of the external scientific community that iconoclastic ideas are not
welcome at NSF. System-wide changes for this purpose are also
inappropriate. As noted in the Report of the National Science Board on
the National Science Foundation's Merit Review System (NSB-05-119)
www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2005/0930/merit<INF>-</INF>review.pdf], NSF's
current merit-review system is functioning effectively to support the
excellent innovative research that is significantly advancing the
frontiers of knowledge and the goals of our nation. Nonetheless, our
nation cannot afford to miss opportunities, discoveries, and new
frontiers that can result from bold, unfettered exploration and freedom
of thought that challenges our current understanding of natural
processes. The NSF cannot allow the perception by any of the Nation's
scientists that it does not welcome or support innovative ideas and
potentially transformative research. Public support of and careful
investment in paradigm-challenging ideas are critical not only to
continued economic growth, but also to the future welfare of our
nation. In this draft report, therefore, the Board recommends that NSF
develop a distinct, Foundation-wide Transformative Research Initiative
distinguishable by its potential impact on prevailing paradigms and by
the potential to create new fields of science, to develop new
technologies, and to open new frontiers. Foundation management will
report back to the Board at its August 2007 meeting on its preliminary
plan for a simple and transparent process for instituting the
Transformative Research Initiative that encourages maximum
participation by the community.
In a constrained budget environment, achieving the reasonable
balance of award size, and duration, and proposal success rate at the
Foundation is an important concern of the Board. We have held several
discussions with Foundation management about this issue and are
anticipating a comprehensive report later this year that will inform us
in establishing appropriate policy guidelines.
A very high priority for the Board has been our continuing work
with the NSF Management and the Office of Inspector General to resolve
the correction of the existing reportable conditions that have been
longstanding in NSF annual audits. We have reviewed the draft
Corrective Action Plan for Reportable Conditions in the FY 2006
Financial Statement Audit and are confident that we can quickly and
effectively resolve outstanding issues. NSF management will report to
the Board at our March meeting on the status of their efforts to
resolve the reportable conditions, as well as efforts to enhance NSF's
business model practices and develop a strategic personnel workforce
plan for the 21st. Century.
Advice to the President and Congress
The Board has undertaken a wide range of activities this year, in
our broader role as an independent advisory body to the President and
the Congress on national policy issues related to science and
engineering (S&E) research and education.
<bullet> The Board completed a series of public hearings, in
response to a Congressional request that the Board consider
reconstituting its 1982 Commission on Pre-college Education in
Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology, and in March
2006 approved the establishment of the new Commission on 21st
Century Education in STEM, due to present its draft report to
the Board in March 2007;
<bullet> The Board published and disseminated an important
report, HURRICANE WARNING: The Critical Need for a National
Hurricane Research Initiative (NSB-06-115). The report presents
an agenda for action that will provide urgently needed
hurricane science and engineering research and education that
engages relevant agencies across the Federal Government;
involves industry, academia, and other levels of government;
establishes highly focused priorities; strengthens disciplinary
research; creates multi-disciplinary frameworks; and stimulates
the efficient transfer of research outcomes to operational
practice.
<bullet> The Board responded to a request from Senator John
McCain to examine existing policies of federal science agencies
concerning the suppression and distortion of research findings
of scientists employed by federal agencies and the impact these
actions could have on quality and credibility of future
government-sponsored scientific research results. Our central
recommendation was that an overarching set of principles for
the communication of scientific information by government
scientists, policy-makers, and managers should be developed and
issued by the Administration to serve as the umbrella under
which each agency would develop its specific policies and
procedures.
<bullet> The Board responded to a request from Congressman
Rush Holt for a summary of its review of the evaluations and
impacts of the programs of the National Science Foundation's
Education and Human Resources Directorate's programs in January
2007. We will be providing a more thorough report later in
2007.
<bullet> Exercising the Board's obligation to inform and
advise on critical issues, the Board sent a letter to
congressional leadership on February 13, 2007, expressing its
full endorsement and appreciation for the FY 2007 Congressional
Joint Budget Resolution funding level increase of the FY 2006
level for the NSF Research and Related Activities account, and
encouraging congressional approval of a similar budget increase
for the NSF Education and Human Resources account.
<bullet> The Board published and disseminated its statutory
biennial report, Science and Engineering Indicators 2006 (NSB-
06-01) http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06 and also prepared
and disseminated a Board policy statement Companion Piece to
Indicators 2006, America's Pressing Challenge--Building a
Stronger Foundation [(NSB-06-02) http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/
nsb0602], February 2006;
<bullet> Board Members provided comments to Congressman Bart
Gordon on his bill, ``10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds Science
and Math Scholarship Act'' in February 2006.
Further, the Board provided testimony to congressional hearings in
2006, and responded to other specific questions and inquiries from
Members of Congress and their staffs.
Improved Outreach and Communication by the Board
The Board continues to increase and improve our direct outreach and
communication with Congress, other federal agencies, various interest
groups and the external science and engineering research and education
community.
For example, the Board sponsored:
<bullet> Five public meetings of the Commission on 21st
Century Education in Science, Mathematics and Technology (See
Commission Webpage at http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/
edu<INF>-</INF>com)
<bullet> A second and third pre-commission hearing in January
and March 2006 in Boulder, Colorado and Los Angeles,
California, respectively, seeking input from a cross section of
stakeholders in U.S. STEM education on the value of
establishing a new STEM Commission to address this topic for
the Board a second time (See: http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/
edu<INF>-</INF>com/hearings.htm)
<bullet> A third public workshop on Transformative Research
(May 16, 2006 http://nsf.gov/nsb/committees/
tskfrcetrans<INF>-</INF>cmt.htm);
<bullet> A second public workshop on engineering education
reform, including leading deans of engineering, Moving Forward
to Improve Engineering Education (http://nsf.gov/nsb/
eng<INF>-</INF>edu/start.htm), at the Georgia Institute of
Technology in November 2006;
<bullet> A public ``rollout'' event for the Hurricane Science
and Engineering report, Hurricane Warning: The Critical Need
for a National Hurricane Research Agenda (www.nsf.gov/nsb/
committees/hurricane/advisory.pdf) in the U.S. Capitol Building
in September 2006, with the participation by Senators Mel
Martinez and Bill Nelson of Florida, and Senator David Vitter
of Louisiana.
<bullet> Two public presentations on Capitol Hill on Science
and Engineering Indicators 2006 (NSB 06-02) and its companion
piece, America's Pressing Challenge--Building a Stronger
Foundation (NSB 06-02), February 23, 2006 to the media and
general public and April 6, 2006 to the House R&D and STEM
Caucuses;
<bullet> A presentation to Colorado State legislators at the
invitation of the American Electronics Association on both
Science and Engineering Indicators 2006 and the recently
completed hearings to consider establishing a new National
Science Board Commission on STEM Education for the 21st
Century, March 23, 2006;
<bullet> Two presentations to the National Science Teachers
Association (NSTA) in April in Anaheim, California, on Science
and Engineering Indicators 2006 and its companion piece,
America's Pressing Challenge--Building a Stronger Foundation
(NSB 06-02); and
<bullet> National Science Board informational booths at the
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
meeting in February in St. Louis, Missouri, the National
Science Teachers Association (NSTA) meeting in Anaheim,
California in April, and Sigma Xi--the Research Society meeting
in Detroit, Michigan in November.
In an effort to facilitate more openness of Board meetings in
accord with the Sunshine Act, we expanded our practices for:
<bullet> providing public notice of all our meetings on a
dedicated NSB Meeting Notice Web site, as a supplement to the
kinds of notices regularly published in the Federal Register;
<bullet> continuing to treat teleconferences of the Board,
Board Committees, subcommittees and task forces as `meetings,'
subject to the requirements of the Government in the Sunshine
Act;
<bullet> providing much more information to the public in a
more timely manner regarding meeting discussions and decisions;
and
<bullet> expanding efforts to encourage public comment during
the development of Board publications.
FY 2008 NSB BUDGET
The Board has much to do over the next year. Perhaps one of the
most important actions is to oversee the implementation of the new NSF
Strategic Plan, which addresses the broad priorities established in the
Board's 2020 Vision for the Foundation. We will be looking to provide
policy direction to the Foundation with respect to recommendations of
the newly released Hurricane Research and Transformative Research
reports. Both involve broad, multi-disciplinary questions on the broad
frontiers of science and engineering and across the portfolios of NSF's
science, engineering and education directorates.
Our Task Force on International Science Partnerships will complete
its international meetings in 2007, and we expect to be providing
specific guidance to NSF and broader advice on the role of the Federal
Government in supporting international S&E partnerships. Our ad hoc
Task Group on Engineering Education is poised to present us with
recommendations that will impact university engineering programs and
the future engineering workforce, reflecting the input from two
important workshops, incorporating the ideas of engineers, faculty,
administrators, and employers in developing guidance for engineering
education for the 21st Century that reflects the increasing diversity
of the U.S. workforce and growing challenges for engineering from
globalization of both science and technology and the engineering
workforce. We will be continuing our review of program evaluations and
impact in the NSF Education and Human Resources Directorate.
Over the next year, the Board expects to complete our development
of a national action plan for 21st Century Education in Science,
Technology, Engineering and Mathematics by making a formal report to
the Congress. While many of these recommendations will be at a national
system level, a number will focus specifically on the role NSF can and
should play in supporting the development of an adequate and diverse
science and engineering workforce. The Board will also continue to
review and approve NSF's actions for creating major NSF programs and
funding, and expects new efforts to be implemented regarding
enhancement of NSF support for potentially transformative research as a
result of new Board guidance.
Several endeavors that the Board expects to formally complete by
the end of FY 2007 will require significant follow-up outreach efforts
by the Board in FY 2008 to ensure the desired impacts are realized. For
example, lessons learned by the Board's experience with its 1982 STEM
Education Commission report and the 2001 report on the role of the
Federal Government in supporting international science, have provided
clear and strong lessons on the importance of the Board undertaking
significant follow-up efforts to ensure action based on our reports.
While the Board's Commission on 21st Century Education in Science,
Technology, Engineering and Mathematics will complete its work later
this year, it is clear that much follow-up outreach by the Board will
be required throughout FY 2008 to ensure the work of the Commission has
the highest possible impact. Likewise, the Board's Task Force on
International S&E partnerships will complete its work at the end of FY
2007, but will require significant follow-up by the Board in FY 2008.
The Board will be producing a new summary volume to our biennial
S&E Indicators report in FY 2008 that will require significant new
effort on the part of the Board. In addition, the Board will continue
to review and approve NSF's actions for creating major new programs and
funding large projects in FY 2008, as well as dealing with evolving NSF
policy issues. Experience has demonstrated that the Board will receive
a number of requests from Congress asking that the Board examine and
report quickly on a wide range of national policy topics related to S&E
research and education. The Board welcomes such Congressional and
Administration requests, and will itself continue to identify high
priority topics focused specifically on NSF, or more broadly on
national S&E policy issues that it feels it should examine in FY 2008.
By statute the Board is authorized five professional positions and
other clerical staff as necessary. The full impact of increasing the
number of professional positions to the statutory level will occur in
FY 2008 with increased attention to addressing new skill requirements.
However, the results of a strategic restructuring of the Board Office
management and operations over the last three years has led to more
efficient use of appropriated resources while retaining the ability to
support an active Board agenda.
ISSUES TO CONSIDER AS PART OF NSF RE-AUTHORIZATION LEGISLATION
[Our Board Office Director will be available to work closely with
your Subcommittee staff to assist with development of specific
legislative text to enact any of the Board's following suggestions for
modification to the NSF Re-authorization Act.]
A 2020 Vision for NSF
In September 2006, the National Science Board approved a new
Strategic Plan for the National Science Foundation for FY 2006-2011,
Investing In America's Future [(NSF 06-48) www.nsf.gov/publications/
pub<INF>-</INF>summ.jsp?ods<INF>-</INF>key=nsf0648], articulating
strategic outcome goals of discovery, learning, research
infrastructure, and stewardship, and investment priorities in order to
accomplish these goals. These reflect the National Science Board's 2020
Vision for NSF [(NSB-05-142) www.nsf.gov/publications/
pub<INF>-</INF>summ.jsp?ods<INF>-</INF>key=nsb05142], published in
December 2005, establishing specific broad priorities for the National
Science Foundation to:
<bullet> Drive the cutting edge of fundamental and
transformative research;
<bullet> Tap the talents of all our citizens, particularly
those belonging to groups that are under-represented in the
science and research enterprise, and continue to attract
foreign students and scientists to the U.S.;
<bullet> Develop and test new approaches to teaching science
to elementary and secondary school students and catalyze
partnerships among schools, museums, aquariums, and
universities to put these techniques into effective practice;
<bullet> Provide the bright minds in our research institutions
with the tools and instruments needed to probe the frontiers of
knowledge and develop ideas that can transform our
understanding of the world; and
<bullet> Maintain the financial and talent resources to be an
effective agent for excellence in the critical national
enterprises of learning, discovery, and innovation.
The Board would encourage Congress to factor the priorities of the
Board's 2020 Vision for NSF into consideration as you prepare the NSF
Re-authorization Act.
Address and examine potential impacts of a doubling of the NSF budget
In December 2003, and in direct response to congressional guidance
in Section 22 of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of
2002 (Pub. L. 107-368, 42 U.S.C. 1862n note), the National Science
Board prepared a report, Fulfilling the Promise [(NSB-03-151)
www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2003/nsb03151/coverlink.pdf], to address and
examine the Foundation's budgetary and programmatic growth provided for
by the Act, and to outline how additional funding would be spent in the
event the NSF budget were doubled. Given recent Administration and
Congressional statements and actions related to future doubling of the
NSF budget, Congress may wish to consider including legislative
language as part of the NSF Re-Authorization Act to request the Board
to prepare a report to Congress that would provide:
(1) recommendations on how the increased funding should be
utilized;
(2) an examination of the projected impact that the budgetary
increases will have on the Nation's scientific and
technological workforce;
(3) a description of new or expanded programs that will enable
institutions of higher education to expand their participation
in Foundation-funded activities;
(4) an estimate of the national scientific and technological
research infrastructure needed to adequately support the
Foundation's increased funding and additional programs;
(5) a description of the impact the budgetary increases
provided under this Act will have on the size and duration of
grants awarded by the Foundation, and
(6) a description of the impact the budgetary increase
provided under this Act will have on the potential to create
new fields of science, to develop new technologies and to open
new frontiers.
Clear statement on the critical role of NSF in pre-K-12 STEM Education
Education is a core mission of the National Science Foundation
(NSF). NSF not only promotes research, but also shares in the
responsibility for promoting quality science, technology, engineering
and math (STEM) education as intertwining objectives at all levels of
education across the United States. NSF's highly competitive peer-
review process is second to none for openly and objectively
identifying, reviewing, selecting, funding and providing stewardship
for the very best STEM proposals and programs in research and
education.
As part of our role in providing oversight and guidance to the EHR
programs, the Board is assessing how well NSF supports the overall S&E
education and training outcomes needed by the U.S. in a changing global
environment for science and technology. This on-going review is an
important action toward achieving the Board's 2020 Vision for the
National Science Foundation, submitted to Congress in December 2005,
which states a near-term goal to ``. . .critically evaluate current
education investments and develop new strategies to increase their
impact on the quality of STEM education.'' Reflecting our conviction of
the importance of the EHR Directorate programs for the Nation, the
Board has issued a number of STEM education policy reports recently,
including its 2004 statement ``In Support of the Math and Science
Partnership Program at the National Science Foundation'' (NSB-04-42)
that articulates the Board's strong commitment to that NSF EHR
Directorate program and its companion piece to Science and Engineering
Indicators 2006, America's Pressing Challenge--Building a Stronger
Foundation (NSB 06-02).
The Board feels strongly that NSF EHR programs not only must be
effective in relatively short-term evaluations of their success in
achieving desired outcomes of individual programs, but that, in
combination, these programs must be effective in addressing U.S. long-
term needs to retain its essential global advantage in S&E human
resources. The NSF must help the U.S. sustain its world leadership in
science and technology. Four examples of the many exemplary NSF
education programs are: the Math and Science Partnership (MSP), the
Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation (LSAMP), Information
Technology Experiences for Students and Teachers (ITEST) Program and
the Robert Noyce Scholarship Program.
The Board will be continuing our review of NSF EHR program
evaluations and results, and the use of findings to enhance EHR
programs against the background of growing national needs for skills
and knowledge, and the growing international competition for talent and
technological leadership. We are deeply concerned that, although the
U.S. must continue to attract and welcome the best international STEM
talent, we can no longer depend on the global market as we have in the
past for the skills and innovative talent needed in our labor force. We
are convinced of the central role NSF EHR programs can and must play in
preparing our citizens with the knowledge and skills needed for our
nation to remain a global leader in science and technology. We are
committed to ensuring that NSF EHR programs and portfolio serve our
society effectively in that role.
NSF education programs provide for the collaboration between pre-
college and college to promote excellence in teaching and learning,
therefore facilitating the transitions for students from kindergarten
through the baccalaureate in STEM disciplines. The added benefit for
our nation is those students who do not choose STEM careers become the
informed scientifically literate voting citizens we need for the 21st
Century.
NSF has the mandate, depth of experience, and well-established
relationships to build the partnerships for excellence in STEM
education. The Board, therefore, strongly urges that NSF education
programs be sustained and expanded over the long-term as an essential
component of a coordinated federal effort to promote national
excellence in STEM education. Congress may wish to address this issue
as part of the legislative language in an NSF re-authorization act.
Role of the Board in approving NSF actions
Current Board policy for NSF (NSF Proposal and Award manual, NSF
manual #10, December 31, 2005) requires Board approval for the
following NSF actions:
(1) Large Awards. Proposed awards where the average annual
award amount is one percent or more of the awarding Directorate
or Office's prior year current plan.
(2) New Programs. Board approval is required for new Programs
that: (1) represent a substantial investment of Program
resources (threshold defined as the total annualized awards to
be made by the proposed Program exceed three percent of the
awarding Directorate's or Office's prior year current plan); or
(2) involve sensitive political or policy issues; or (3) are to
be funded as an ongoing Foundation-wide activity.
(3) Major Construction Projects. Board approval is required
when the resulting cost is expected to exceed the percentage
threshold for Board award approval.
(4) Awards Involving Policy Issues or Unusual Sensitivity.
Board interests may include the establishment of new centers,
institutes, or facilities; potential for rapid growth in
funding or special budgetary initiatives; research community or
political sensitivity; previous expression of Board concern; or
items otherwise identified by the Director or Assistant
Directors.
(5) Requests for Proposals (RFPs). RFPs expected to result in
contracts exceeding the Board approval thresholds. Release of
these RFPs to potential contractors must be approved by the
Board.
(6) Waivers. Requests for exemption from Board review and
approval of a continuing project or logistics support
arrangement may be requested in routine cases where there are
no significant issues or policy implications.
We feel this Board policy has worked fairly well and is at an
appropriate macro-level of oversight and policy-setting without having
the Board become overly engaged with NSF management and operations.
However, Congress previously expressed its desire for the Board to be
directly involved with approval of congressional budget requests,
priority-setting, and award granting of projects in the NSF Major
Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) account. In
response to Section 14 of the 2002 Authorization Act (42 U.S.C.
1862n), the Board worked with the Foundation to produce a joint report
that clearly describes the process by which priorities are set for
selecting and funding large research facilities, Setting Priorities for
Large Research Facilities Supported by the National Science Foundation,
(NSB-05-77). The Board would welcome any additional guidance the
Congress may wish to provide regarding this process.
Role of the Board as Oversight Body for NSF and Advisory Body to
Congress and the President
From time to time questions have been raised regarding the Board
role as an oversight body for the Foundation. While countless
congressional budget and authorization report language, and written
communications from both Republican and Democratic members of both
authorizing and appropriating committees of Congress over many years
have made clear the intent for the Board to serve as the oversight body
of the Foundation, NSF authorization legislation does not explicitly
state the Board's oversight role. Congress may wish to specifically
address this issue to help avoid future debates on this topic that can,
at best, be distracting for the Board, NSF Management, and the
Congress. In a similar vein, Congress may also consider making more
explicit in new authorization legislation the independent advisory role
of the Board directly to both the Congress and the President on
national policy issues related to science and engineering research and
education.
Sunshine Act Audit of the Board
Audits conducted by the Office of Inspector General over the past
three years have found that the National Science Board has been in
compliance with the requirements of the Government in the Sunshine Act
(Sunshine Act). The audit requirement stems from situations prior to
2003 in which the Board did not provide public access to sessions of
its committees, task forces, or other working groups. In response,
Congress added language to the NSF Authorization Act of 2002 explicitly
subjecting session of the Board's subdivisions to the Sunshine Act.
Congress further directed NSF's Inspector General to conduct annual
audits of Board compliance with the Sunshine Act and to report audit
results to specified congressional committees. Four annual audits have
been completed and none has resulted in any significant finding of non-
compliance. Extending the audit cycle to three years (and appropriately
extending the associated document retention requirements) recognizes
this fact, yet provides an efficient and regular check on the Board's
continued adherence to the Sunshine Act's requirements. Congress may
consider modifying the NSF re-authorization to increase the time period
for audits of the National Science Board's compliance with the
Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b and 42 U.S.C. 1862n-
5) from every year to every three years.
Board Budget and Operations
As a result of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of
2002, the National Science Board was, for the first time, given a
separate budget line account in the overall Foundation appropriation.
That measure served to increase the Board Office's independence and
flexibility in meeting the operating and policy research needs of the
Board and Board Office, such as those related to conducting workshops,
issuing contracts, travel, training, etc. Increasing the availability
of Board appropriated funds beyond a single fiscal year, by providing
for a two-year period of availability for the Board's appropriations
under ``Authorization of Appropriations'' (Section 5 in the 2002
Authorization Act), will provide the Board with an added degree of
flexibility and, in turn, with full authority for the independent use
of its resources through the Board Office. Congress may wish to
consider this change in the NSF re-authorization as a further step in
ensuring that the Board has flexible and independent resources to
fulfill both its oversight and policy-setting role for the NSF and its
role as an independent body of advisors to the Congress and the
President on national policy issues related to science and engineering
research and education.
At the urging of Congress, in FY 2003 the Board began examining
options for augmenting its professional staffing levels. As an initial
step in this process, in August 2003 the Board appointed a new
Executive Officer of the Board, who also serves as the Board Office
Director. At the direction of the Congress and with full concurrence of
the Board, our Executive Officer reports directly to the Chairman of
the Board and has been delegated responsibility for the hiring and
supervision of all Board Office staff and oversight of all Board Office
operations. The Board is very pleased with this arrangement. Essential
to the conduct of Board business is a small and independent core of
full-time senior policy, clerical, and operations staff. In addition to
the Board Office's essential and independent core resources and
capabilities, temporary contractual advisory and assistance services
continue to be critical to support production of Board reports and
supplement the Board Office staff's general research and administration
services to the Board. These external services provide the Board and
its Office with the flexibility to respond independently, accurately,
and quickly to requests from Congress and the President, and to address
issues raised by the Board itself. The Board would significantly
benefit from modifications to the NSF re-authorization Act that would
allow our Board Office to implement funding arrangements to
periodically supplement our policy staff with technical and
professional personnel on leave of absence from academic, industrial,
or research institutions for a limited term. Congress may consider
modifying Section 1863 (g), 1873 (a) (3) and other appropriate sections
of Title 42 of the U.S. Code in this re-authorization to allow the
Board to directly enter into these arrangements.
Include NSF under the Program Fraud and Civil Remedies Act (PFCRA)
Congress passed and the President signed PFCRA in 1986 to provide
the executive departments, the military, federal establishments covered
by the Inspector General (IG) Act at the time of its enactment, and the
United States Postal Service with a mechanism to recover losses of less
than $150,000 resulting from false claims and statements of less than
$150,000, which may not otherwise be prosecuted. The Office of
Inspector General (OIG) at NSF, however, (along with other ``designated
federal entities'') was created after a 1988 amendment to the IG Act.
As a result, NSF was not included in the 1986 PFCRA legislation. PFCRA
has not been subsequently amended to include agencies, such as NSF,
that were provided with OIGs in the 1988 amendments.
Except for NSF, every major agency that funds scientific and
engineering research and education, including the National Institutes
of Health, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Department of
Energy, and Environmental Protection Agency, are authorized to recover
funds and assess penalties under PFCRA. NSF, too, needs to have all
available means to take effective action whenever grant funds intended
for scientific and engineering research and education are used
fraudulently. The NSF Director, the Inspector General, and the National
Science Board, all support amending PFCRA to include NSF within its
jurisdiction.
Because many NSF-funded projects are relatively small in dollar
amounts, PFCRA's mechanisms are well suited for resolving disputes
between the Foundation and its grantees or contractors concerning
fraudulent claims. Currently, the Foundation's principal legal recourse
is to recommend that the Department of Justice attempt to recover
misused funds through civil prosecution under the False Claims Act (31
U.S.C. 3730). In general, such actions are most practical when the
sums involved are very large. Under PFCRA, NSF would be able to impose
monetary penalties instead of, or in addition to, debarring or
suspending erring individuals and organizations. Congress may wish to
consider providing the Foundation with valuable flexibility in
protecting the integrity of its programs by creating a section in the
Reauthorization Act amending PFCRA to include NSF. This will authorize
the agency to recover funds and assess penalties under PFCRA's
provisions.
CLOSING REMARKS
This is a challenging time for federal S&E research and education
budgets and the organizations and individuals that rely on federal
support. For over 50 years the Federal Government has sustained a
continual, visionary investment in the U.S. research and education
enterprise in the expectation that such investment would benefit all
Americans. That federal effort has expanded the horizon of scientific
discovery and engineering achievements far and wide, leading to the
realization of enormous benefits to the Nation's prosperity and
security.
We know the expanding frontiers of knowledge offer enormous
opportunities for research and innovation. We also know that the
education of all our citizens in the fundamentals of math, science and
engineering must continue to be enhanced, and more American citizens
must pursue science and engineering studies and careers if the U.S. is
to remain eminent in critical science and technology disciplines. As
other nations ramp up their investment in the infrastructure for S&E
research and innovation, we cannot be complacent.
Even in a time of budget constraints, we cannot ignore the Nation's
growing dependence on innovation for economic prosperity and the ever-
improving quality of life Americans have come to expect. We also must
be attentive to the crucial role of federal investment in science and
engineering research and education, especially fundamental research
that is not cost effective for private industry to pursue, and the
contributions of federal support to research in universities and
colleges to preparing our most advanced students for their future
careers. The Board recognizes that competing priorities may impose
fiscal constraints that limit the Foundation's, and so the Nation's,
aspirations. In weighing these competing priorities, we ask you to keep
in mind that in our changing global environment, investments in our
national science and technology capabilities--talent, knowledge, and
physical infrastructure--are not luxuries but essential to our nation's
long-term prosperity and security. We therefore urge that the Congress
take the long view in its annual budget deliberations for funding and
re-authorizing U.S. science and engineering research and education
through the National Science Foundation.
Biography for Steven C. Beering
Chairman, National Science Board
Medicine and Higher Education
B.S., University of Pittsburgh, 1954
M.D., University of Pittsburgh, 1958
Steven C. Beering received B.S. and M.D. degrees and an honorary
Doctor of Science degree from the University of Pittsburgh. Before
becoming President of Purdue in 1983, he served for a decade as Dean of
Medicine and Director of the Indiana University Medical Center. He
holds appointments as Professor of Medicine at Indiana University and
Professor of Pharmacology at Purdue University. He retired from the
Purdue presidency in 2000.
He served on active duty with the USAF Medical Corps from May 1957
to June 1969, achieving the rank of Lieutenant Colonel.
Beering has held numerous national offices, including the
chairmanship of the Association of American Medical Colleges and the
Association of American Universities. He is a former regent of the
National Library of Medicine.
He is also a Fellow of the American College of Physicians and the
Royal Society of Medicine, a member of Phi Beta Kappa, the Institute of
Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, and the Indiana Academy.
He serves on a number of national and corporate boards, including
NiSource Inc., Central Indiana Corporate Partnership, Inc., Community
Foundation of Northern Indiana, CID Corporation, and Marquis Who's Who.
He is a Trustee of the University of Pittsburgh, and the Universities
Research Association, and is Director Emeritus of the Purdue Research
Foundation.
Beering was appointed to the National Science Board in 2002,
reappointed in 2004, and elected Chairman in 2006.
Discussion
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Dr. Beering.
I will take you up on the offer to get together to discuss
the STEM education study you have come up with. And Dr. Ehlers
and I and other Members of the Committee, who are interested, I
am sure will find the time to do that, as it is of critical
importance.
I also see, present in our audience, a number of the ADs
for the various science directorates we met with last week.
Good to see all of you folks. Thanks for being here and for
your work, and also, staff from the Science Board as well. We
appreciate the work of the staff.
At this point, we will open up our first round of
questions. The Chair would recommend--recognize himself for
five minutes.
And related to the issue of staff that I just raised, one
of my first questions would be, as we talk about the idea of
possibly doubling the budget, which I hope we will do over the
next several years, that will carry with it some administrative
needs, including workforce, infrastructure, and travel. If we
just expand the number of research grants but we don't expand
the infrastructure necessary to manage those grants, it seems
to be that we will be in some trouble.
I open up to either of you to address that issue and any
thoughts you have about how it needs to be addressed.
Dr. Bement. Yes, thank you.
And thank you for calling attention to an item that is
absolutely critical to the quality of our work.
Many of the opportunities that the Foundation faces right
now that has to do with mentoring young investigators, that has
to do with post-award and pre-award oversight activities as
well as maintaining quality of our merit review process is
dependent entirely on our program officers and program
directors.
At this present time, they are chronically overworked. I
worry that they may not be picking up the transformative
research opportunities for a lack of time to really dig into
some of the good proposals that they are getting.
That has to be rectified, but in addition to that, we need
to maintain our investments in productivity-enhancing tools,
both electronic and otherwise, that takes some of the workload
off our staff.
And travel is important, because you can't do post-award
oversight unless you can get out and visit the investigators,
either at meetings when they congregate or at their home
research laboratories.
All of these taken together, plus issues of cybersecurity,
modernizing our information technology within the Foundation,
fall under our Agency Operations and Award Management budget
line. And I would urge, in reauthorization, that that be
included as a major priority, and I would also very much
welcome your advocacy to be sure that we get full funding this
year in our 2008 request.
Chairman Baird. I appreciate that. I think, you know,
oftentimes when the appropriation season comes around and we
look for offsets, we tend to say, ``Well, we will go after the
administrative line,'' but the administrative personnel are
necessary to make the system work, and not only just the
personnel, but as you say, the travel, the equipment, the
resources. And it is just not responsible or realistic to say
we are going to plus-up one side and not give the resources to
sustain that. So we will make that a priority.
Dr. Bement. Thank you.
Chairman Baird. Secondly, I am intrigued by the process,
and it is a discussion that would probably extend well beyond
today, but the process by which the Board and the Foundation
determine where the resources will go and what percentage of
the dollars, and what total amount of dollars will go to one
directorate versus another or one enterprise within a
directorate versus another.
Let me throw out a thought that occurred to me the other
day.
What I understand, but I think when you look at, say, the
big supercolliders and giant telescopes, a tremendous amount of
monies go into those, and they are expensive installations. But
as I look at some of the greatest national challenges we are
going to face in the next several decades, I would say if you--
one would be the war on terror and the national security issue.
A second would be, clearly, energy. A third would be rising
health care costs, et cetera.
As I look at those, a portion of those will be addressed by
the traditional physical, biological, and other sciences. But
behavior, human behavior, is going to have a great deal to do.
In fact, if we wanted to truly address our energy crisis in the
most immediate way possible, it would not be through cellulosic
ethanol, or, for God's sake, nuclear fusion, which is a little
ways off, to say the least. It would be by everybody driving
less and carpooling and using mass transit. And if we did that,
we could cut energy consumption by 10 percent.
I raise that to ask, do we need some grand challenges in
the social sciences or grand social challenges to which we
would apply the social sciences, in addition to the other
sciences, and how might that be considered by the Foundation or
the Board in the coming years?
Dr. Bement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that question.
There is no question, but the human component in all our
research is increasing because of the increasing complexity of
the research. Now you mentioned interdisciplinarity. In many of
our interdisciplinary programs, the social sciences are social
scientists are full partners. Grand challenges are important,
because the cost of doing research in the social sciences is
going up because of the increasing complexity and size of
databases and the kind of research that they need to do in
trying to analyze those type of data with advanced cyber
infrastructure.
So I fully agree that we do have to give appropriate
emphasis to the social sciences. We have to integrate them with
all our other major programs, and the grand challenge idea is a
good one.
Chairman Baird. Thank you.
My time has expired.
I yield to Mr. Ehlers.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, Dr. Beering, you made some comments about
what you would like to see in the reauthorization language. Dr.
Bement, I am wondering if there is anything specific you would
like to request as we reauthorize, other than saying you want
all the money and no control, but----
Dr. Bement. Well, obviously, flexibility is important, and
for lack of a prescriptive language, that would be very
helpful.
I think the most important need I have already discussed,
as far as our Agency Operations Award Management account. I
think that deserves special notice in the reauthorization bill.
A very minor element: we do have the Waterman Award, which
honors the first Director of the Foundation, and each year, we
try to select one from many disciplines and many outstanding
candidates. I continually get a request from the excellent
committee we have that goes through the screening process, and
has a very difficult time, but this may be the time to increase
it to three. So I would put that before the Committee as a
component of the bill.
Mr. Ehlers. Well, let me ask both of you. You have seen
draft language of what is being proposed. Are there any parts
that you particularly like, and more importantly, any parts you
don't like?
Dr. Bement. The answer is yes.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you.
Could you be a little more specific?
Dr. Bement. Well, I have got a large number of notes that I
would like to present for the record, but clearly, under the
Major Research Instrumentation section, which is Section 3,
part D, we have just increased the ceiling to $4 million, and
we have also increased the funding in the 2008 request to $114
million. We don't know yet what the skew will be of that
distribution and who we may be disadvantaging in the lower cost
instrumentation across our constituency and especially in some
of the minority-serving institutions and other institutions. My
recommendation there is to increase the ceiling step-wise as we
increase the budget, rather than to raise the ceiling so high
that one or two awards would greatly disadvantage a larger
number of applicants for important equipment.
I think Section 5 is a good section. As far as
interdisciplinary research, we have already addressed that, and
there is always more that we can do, but invariably, it deals
with the nature of the science question that needs to be
addressed and how the community responds to that.
So as a bottom-up organization, we really can't define all
of the opportunities for interdisciplinarity, but we certainly
encourage it. We have been at this now for 25 years, and
finally, the universities are getting religion and have begun
to produce the silos a little bit. So in our unsolicited
proposals, we are seeing an increasing fraction, and now it is
up to anywhere from 40 to, perhaps, 50 percent. There are
multiple PIs, and many of those are interdisciplinary, but they
are unsolicited.
And I could go on. There is much more in here.
Mr. Ehlers. Well, we would certainly appreciate having that
for the record.
Dr. Beering, any comments you wish to make?
Dr. Beering. Yes. We addressed that issue and others in my
written testimony, starting on page 14, and we also addressed
it in a previous hearing on March the 20th.
And let me comment specifically on your Section 6 on new
investigators.
We are struggling with how we can get transformative
research front and center in our endeavors, and I think this
new section here is going to be helpful in that regard.
And then Section 11 on STEM education is very vital. I
expect that our STEM education report is going to recommend
some specific action plans, one of which is to increase the
length of the school year. As you compare ourselves with Asia
and Europe, it is astounding how much more time their students
spent in class and formal instruction than ours do and some of
the requirements they have for science and language, which we
do not have.
So I would highlight those two items as extremely helpful.
Mr. Ehlers. Dr. Bement.
Dr. Bement. Let me bring up one other section that I think
is critically important, and that is Section 12 on cost
sharing.
Let me first emphasize that we accept cost sharing. In
fact, we encourage it, we just don't require it. And the reason
we don't require it is that there are many institutions and
many investigators that can't get a cost-sharer, especially,
again, among minority-serving institutions, for example. To put
it in as a requirement disadvantages them from even being able
to submit a proposal, and I think that is wrong. I think we
should continue to encourage cost sharing, but we should not
mandate it.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, both.
I see my time has expired.
Chairman Baird. Thank you.
Dr. Bartlett.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you very much. I appreciate, very much,
you being here.
I have two issues I would like to pursue.
One is the huge problem that we face in this country in two
dialogues, major dialogues that we are having in agreement of
the facts. It is very difficult to have an intelligent
conversation if you can't agree on the facts. Of course, we are
all privileged to have our own interpretations, but we
shouldn't have our own facts.
The two areas that I am thinking of, one of them is climate
change and global warming. And to whom should we turn? Your
organizations are certainly among those. To whom should we turn
as an honest broker so that we can have some agreed-upon facts
for this discussion?
Dr. Bement. Well, Dr. Bartlett, it is good that you brought
up that question, because I just came from Dartmouth University
where we had all the arctic nations come together and discuss
that for about three days.
The evidence is clear. There is climate change. There is
global warming. There are anthropobenic effects. We need to
understand the extent of those types of effects. The trends are
not looking good. In fact, they may not be linear. In fact, I
suspect they are not linear. They can become autocatalytic over
time, so you just can't take what has happened in the past and
project it very comfortably into the future.
I think it is a global problem that will require global
approaches to research and global approaches to mitigation.
Mr. Bartlett. To whom do we turn for some agreement on what
the facts are so that we can have an intelligent conversation?
Another area that is very important is the energy area and peak
oil. And if, in fact, we have reached, as many people believe
we have, the maximum capability of the Earth for producing oil
from conventional sources, then we, in the United States
particularly, in the world in general, faces a very uncertain
future.
Dr. Bement. Well, I would recommend you turn to the
National Science Foundation. First of all, we don't fetter any
of our staff or any of our grantees in taking an open stance on
any issue. In fact, we have requirements in our grant manual
that requires open sharing and open publication and open
discussion of issues. So that goes on all the time. And
certainly, we would welcome any questions you have on any of
those issues. And certainly, working with the National Science
Board, that is an ideal place to raise some of those issues.
Mr. Bartlett. As an example of one of the areas, and you
mentioned the cellulosic ethanol, there is now a lot of hype
about cellulosic ethanol. A speech was given by Hyman Rickover,
50 years ago the 15th day of this May, to a group of physicians
in St. Paul, Minnesota. And in that, he noted that the time
would come when we needed--when we would have to change from
fossil fuels to renewables and that there would then be a
tension between food and energy, and we have seen that tension
in corn ethanol. We produce relatively trifling amounts of
ethanol from corn, but we doubled the price of corn, and
tortillas have gone up so that poor Mexicans can hardly afford
to buy them. And our dairy industry is dying now because of the
increased price of corn.
So now, we are turning to cellulosic ethanol, but Hyman
Rickover also noted that there was going to be a tension
between energy and soil fertility. What is the potential for
cellulosic ethanol? To whom should we turn for a rational
analysis to this, because now there is a lot of what I think is
irrational exuberance over this?
Dr. Bement. First of all, I worked with Admiral Rickover in
the Pentagon, and I--some years back, and I had an opportunity
to see how his mind works, so it doesn't surprise me a bit that
he was 20 years or 30 years ahead of his time.
Cellulosic ethanol is an opportunity for the future. There
is a lot of research going on at the present time to determine
how to break cellulose, as well as lignin, for that matter, and
to do it economically through better enzymes and through better
bacteria strains to convert cellulose to starch to alcohol.
I think the hidden challenge is water. This nation is going
to be challenged for water supply, and you can't produce
ethanol without water. And so the idea that you can go into the
grasslands and suddenly set up huge factories to produce
cellulosic ethanol or even corn-derived, fermented alcohol, I
think, is a little bit too optimistic unless you can figure out
how to pipe water to the production facilities. My feeling is
that Michigan is probably in a very good position, as compared
with, say, South Dakota.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Baird. Dr. McNerney.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Ehlers.
I want to commend the Board. I spent my career--I am a new
Member of Congress, and I spent my career in the research and
development area, and I have always been impressed with the
National Science Foundation, the sorts of projects that are
funded, how efficiently they work, and so on. So I think it is
a very good operation. I am proud to be on the Committee
overseeing that operation.
Now I have a couple of questions.
My first question is a structural issue.
What, specifically, is being done to award--in the merit
review process, to award new researchers as opposed to
researchers with a track record of publications? And in that
process, how can we make sure that we are being fair to the
more seasoned researchers?
Dr. Bement. Well, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, we
take a look at what I would call market share, which is a
surrogate for competition, competitiveness. And when we see
that new researchers are garnering about 28 percent of the
awards, that is good, in itself, but it has been stable over a
time when the success rate has gone down, which means that we
are now in a more competitive time than we were maybe six or
seven years ago. But at the same time, we have been able to
sustain that market share for younger investigators.
The one thing that I have tried to do is to put more
emphasis on unsolicited grants, because it is usually
unsolicited grants where young investigators get their start.
They build their research teams, and they have a bright idea,
perhaps an extension of their dissertation, but perhaps not.
And I can report that when I came into the Foundation, the
percentage of research grants that were unsolicited was at 71
percent, which means that 29 percent were solicited. Today, the
unsolicited grants are up to 80 percent, and the solicited
grants are at 20 percent, which indicates we are skewing the
opportunity for these types of, you know, grant proposals from
young investigators.
The other thing is that every young investigator has to go
through a learning curve. When they first come to a university,
they have got to set up a research group. They have got to
equip a laboratory, and then they have to figure out what the
first graduate student is going to work on. And then usually
the first two or three proposals don't make it. So they need
feedback, and they need encouragement, and they need mentoring
in getting up that learning curve. And our program officers are
absolutely masters at providing that type of guidance and that
type of feedback. But again, I go back to my earlier point.
They are very much overworked, and the more opportunity we give
them, the better they can do their job.
Mr. McNerney. Okay. I have an unrelated question.
I did--I am struggling through the report ``Rising Above
the Gathering Storm.'' In the--it is a disturbing report, and I
agree with the conclusions.
Now our subcommittee was informed that only two of the
eight division directors and deputy division directors in the
NSF education directorate are filled by temporary employees,
and the other six positions are vacant. Now I am glad to see
Dr. Marrett in the audience, but has that situation changed or
is there something that we need to take steps on in that
regard?
Dr. Bement. Well, the reason the situation has changed is
because Dr. Marrett is on board, and she is looking to fill in
those positions and to develop her own team. But let me ask if
she wants to add anything. Those positions will be filled very
shortly.
Mr. McNerney. Okay. All right. Thank you.
I yield back.
Chairman Baird. We have been joined by the Ranking Member
of the Full Committee, Mr. Hall from Texas.
Mr. Hall. I yield my time at this time. I thank you.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Mr. Hall.
Dr. Lipinski.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Earlier, Ranking Member Ehlers had mentioned his great
esteem that he holds for NSF, and I certainly will concur with
that. And it is good to see, Dr. Bement and Dr. Beering, both
of you here today. And I will always hold NSF especially in
high esteem, as I always say to you, because I have applied for
one NSF grant in my life, and I received it, so I am always
very happy with NSF. And that was as a--that was a dissertation
improvement grant, and so I am especially attuned to the
importance of nurturing young investigators.
But what I want to ask about here, going down to a lower
level in terms of school level, I am pleased to see that the
President's American Competitiveness Initiative proposes
doubling the research budgets, but the education budget is
getting a much smaller increase, and we continue to see the
latest NAEP results, problems that high school students are
having, 40 percent scoring below basic math level. But we are
not seeing the increases or we are seeing decreases in the
funding for education at NSF.
Now how is NSF going to accomplish the goal of reversing
these trends and educating more, bringing up the education
level of science, math, STEM education in general with these
under-fundings in these crucial areas?
Dr. Bement. Well, let me say, Congressman, that education
is fairly one of our highest priorities, if not the highest,
and we work closely with the Board on this issue. You ask about
national needs and whether the Science Foundation is addressing
national needs. I can't think of a more important national need
at the present time than education. And here I am talking about
K to post-doctorate; continuity all up the learning ladder.
Our focus is pretty much in three areas. Clearly, one is to
produce more STEM-educated teachers and also to upgrade the
content proficiency of existing teachers, so teacher
preparation and in-service training are critically important.
The second major priority is to fill up the pipeline to
encourage students through better instruction, through more
excitement in the classroom, through more activity-based
learning, through better integration of informal education with
formal education so that science museums, members of the media,
and even communities can be engaged.
Mr. Lipinski. I appreciate all that, but are you concerned
that in the proposed budget there is not enough funding for
education and that, perhaps, NSF is, in some ways, being
squeezed out of the K-12 education sector?
Dr. Bement. Well, I think that is turning around. We do
have the opportunity in 2008 in our Math and Science
Partnership to award $30 million worth of new grants, and I
think that came about as the result of the evaluation of that
program to show that it was very effective in increasing both
math and science proficiency. So we hope that sent a different
slope at the present time, a positive slope instead of a
negative slope.
You know, any other programs that we have targeted because
of their effectiveness. Some deal with undergraduate education,
but the GK-12 program, which is a program that makes possible
graduate students going into the classroom in K-12 classes to
serve as a resource base in teaching math and science, working
with the teachers, working with the students, and that has
turned out to be one of our most effective programs by
providing that role model in the classroom.
Some of these programs were not plussed-up in 2008, because
they are still undergoing evaluation, and at the time the
budget was being put together, we had the mandate from Congress
that we establish the American Competitiveness Council. And the
sense of Congress was that programs shouldn't be substantially
increased unless they had been shown to be effective through
third-party or rigid evaluation.
Some of the programs that were flat-funded are undergoing
evaluation in 2008. Some will be completed in 2007, so my full
expectation is that we will continue to push on these programs
and try and plus them up in the future budget cycles.
But your point is well taken. We just have to continue
pushing on the NSF role in education.
Mr. Lipinski. If the Chairman will indulge me for another
30 seconds, I just want to say I am looking forward to the
National Science Board's STEM education proposal that will be
coming out.
And I am also interested, and maybe I will follow up later,
about what is going on in terms of NSF with nanotechnology and
the National Nanotechnology Initiative, what NSF is doing and
also about the Interagency Hydrogen and Fuel Cells technical
Task Force, what is going on with that. But I will yield back
right now.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Dr. Lipinski.
Mr. Hall is prepared to ask some questions at this point.
Mr. Hall. Yes. Thank you. And I am sorry to be late. Most
of us--all of us, I guess, have other committees that require a
lot of our time, and I didn't know what questions had been
asked, Mr. Chairman, but you are very capable of handling this,
and I appreciate you and appreciate the things in your
background.
And Dr. Ehlers, of course, is one we go to, and he is
really the champion of the National Science Board and folks
that are taking the leadership there.
I wanted to ask Dr. Beering and Dr. Bement, I guess either
one of you, most of the K-12 education fund in the President's
American Competitiveness Initiative is for programs at the
Department of Education, and our Committee has a few bills
before it that speak to K-12 education at the NSF, particularly
H.R. 524, which was a partnership for access to the
laboratories science bill, and H.R. 362, the 10,000 Teachers,
10 Million Minds Math and Science Scholarship Act. Now I guess
I would ask you to comment on those bills, if you would, in
post-hearing questions.
But for now--I will ask that later. But what other role
should NSF have with regard to the competitiveness agenda and
the K-12 STEM education? Dr. Beering, do you want to go first?
Dr. Beering. I will defer to----
Mr. Hall. Or do you want to go second?
Dr. Beering. I will defer to my colleague, yes.
Mr. Hall. All right.
Dr. Bement. Thank you, Mr. Hall, for that question. It is a
very important question.
The funding provided to the National Science Foundation for
education amounts to one-tenth of one percent of the total
funding that goes into education, the K-12 education. So it is
a very precious resource. And that resource needs to continue
to be focused on research and development, because there is
very little funding that is available for research and
development in education to develop better methods, better
instruction materials, better teacher training, and so forth.
And that means that at the end of our process, as we get
into advanced development, we will be able to show that these
programs are effective, have an impact, can be scaled, can be
transferred, and are sustainable. Those are the principle
objectives of many of our programs. It requires effective
partnerships with the states, with the school boards, and with
other entities in order to hand that off and carry it into
implementation. That is what we spend a lot of time in our
programs doing, is establishing partnerships, the Math and
Science Partnership program is a clear example, in order to
carry those new methods and best practices into implementation.
And that will continue to be our approach.
The one thing that would really drain our resources is if
we--in any bill, we are asked to really take on the
implementation role, because that is more than we could
possibly handle with any foreseeable resource that we could be
assigned.
So I would urge the Committee to pay attention to some
focus on education, research and development, and appropriate
resources for the research and development in these bills.
Mr. Hall. Do you care to add to that?
Dr. Beering. When we come forward with our STEM Commission
recommendations, I wouldn't be surprised if you will hear that
one of the most important changes that is necessary for America
is revision of our attitude and commitment at the family and
community level. As I have traveled around the country and the
world in this regard, I am struck by the fact that we send our
kids off to school and forget them there, and the families and
the communities are perfectly happy with that arrangement. We
are going to have to re-evaluate that. That won't cost any
money, but it will certainly wrench the way we look at things.
Mr. Hall. Those are two good answers. I like those: it
doesn't cost any money and it does more.
I have one other question I want to ask Dr. Bement.
I don't think the Committee plans to hold a separate
hearing for the NSF fiscal year 2008 budget, so if you would
oblige me, just for a moment, to ask a few questions related to
that.
The fiscal year 2007 joint budget resolution is favorable
to NSF's research and related activities. This may have been
asked. If it has--however, most of your other programs remain
at the fiscal year 2006 levels. What impact will this have on
the agency? And have you asked that, Dr. Ehlers?
Dr. Bement. Well, it is a very good question.
Obviously, we are very grateful and very excited about the
increase in the Research and Related account budget. That will
allow us to go forward with a number of new initiatives.
The two areas that are still problematic for us is the EHR
budget, which you have indicated. If we look at the increase
from 2006 to 2008, there is a fairly healthy increase in much
of the EHR budget, but it would have been very gratifying if we
could have gotten some attention in the continuing resolution
for EHR.
The other part that is strained, at the moment, is that we
have all of this wonderful money in our research account, but
we didn't get any money in our Agency Operations and Award
Management account. So we are already starting from a situation
where we have an extreme overload on our program officers.
We've only exacerbated that. That is both the good and the bad
part of it.
Mr. Hall. I thank you. And I think Dr. Ehlers has already
inquired about the industry partnerships, the parts of the
language you like and don't like and the drafting
recommendations.
I yield back my time, and I thank you.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Mr. Hall.
We will have another round, if the witnesses are available
for a few more minutes.
Great, then as per the custom, we will continue to go back
and forth between both sides.
Just a very quick thing, I don't want to take too much time
with it, but Dr. Bement commented earlier about NSF's policy to
allow but not require cost sharing.
Dr. Beering, is the Board consistent with that perspective,
that the allowance of cost sharing is supported by the Board?
Dr. Beering. Yes, indeed.
Chairman Baird. Okay. That is good to hear, because I think
it is important, I fully believe. Industry, which is coming to
us through ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' and a host of
other studies is pointing out that we need a well-educated
workforce and scientists. And I think it is important that they
play a participatory role in that process. And I want to make
it possible--make sure we make it possible for them to do so.
And indeed, while I wouldn't require it, I would encourage. I
think Dr. Bement's point is well taken that not everyone can
obtain such a cooperation or co-funding, but to the extent that
someone can help bring that to the table, I think there is a
nice synergy possible, and it should be allowed.
A question I have--that occurs to me, as I have talked to
some of the discipline-based scientists in some of the
universities, is--can we use the NSF grant process for research
to facilitate the educational enterprise and the educational
enterprise of two levels, one educating more scientists per se,
but also educating more science educators. And it seems to me
there is potential for either competitiveness or
complementariness between grants. And let me give the example:
If we award a large research grant to an individual, does that
possibly insulate them? Depending on how we structure the
grant, does it possibly insulate them from the activity of
actually training new scientists or training science educators?
Or are there ways we can structure grants to incentivize those
who educate to directly involve themselves in the education of
scientists? I talked to one scientist who said, ``You want us
to start making sure we educate enough scientists? Tie our
grants to it.'' He knew where his bread was buttered.
And I would be--I welcome your thoughts about that.
Dr. Bement. Well, I am absolutely floored that that
question came up, because in our Criterion 2 for our grants,
``other impacts,'' that, clearly, is an area of focus. And we
not only encourage it, but we expect it. Not only that, but we
also require accountability. So it is not just reporting on the
good science that was done under scientific merit. It is also
important that they report on how they fulfilled their promise
in Criterion 2, as far as education is concerned.
The other thing that I would mention is that a good bit of
our education and research on education is really carried out
by our research directors. It is not done just in EHR. In fact,
there is a very close partnership, mutually leveraging
education, that can be supported by the research directors in
bringing new content knowledge into not only undergraduate
education, but also K-12 education.
So we need to do a better job in our website to make sure
the community really does understand that.
Chairman Baird. Well, if two identical grants were to
arrive at the desk of the reviewers, with the sole difference
between them that one places explicit and greater emphasis on
utilizing a portion of the grant to educate new scientists and
to coordinate with the Science Education Act, that would be
looked on more favorably, conceivably, if every--all other----
Dr. Bement. Well, there is the question of whether we would
give preference in Criterion 2 for education or for industry-
coupling and so forth.
The one thing that we have to be very cautious about is
that we don't use ``other impacts'' as a trump against
scientific merit, because the scientific merit has to be there,
and it has to be solid, otherwise, we begin to tarnish our gold
standard of merit review.
But those things are all taken into account by our panels
and the chances are pretty high that they will be considered.
Chairman Baird. We have yet to address issues of--in any
detail today, of encouraging and supporting researchers of
diverse backgrounds, and particularly ethnic diversity or
economic opportunities and also gender issues.
I would appreciate either of you commenting briefly on that
in what remaining time I have left.
Dr. Bement. Well, broadening participation has been a high
priority in the Foundation since I have come. It is in our
priority list. It is in our strategic plan. It is up front in
all of our research directorates and research offices. They
take that very seriously. In fact, if you look at the total
investment across the Foundation, with broadening
participation, about a quarter to a third of that is funded
through the research directorates and research offices in a
variety of ways. And of course, that only provides internal
leverage to be able to do more than we are currently doing.
So I am pretty proud about the wide variety of programs
that we have that are dedicated to broadening participation and
the way that we can integrate those to get more impact and more
leverage.
Chairman Baird. Dr. Beering, do you care to comment on
that?
Dr. Beering. I would certainly agree with that. I am
reminded of an experience I had while I was Dean of the medical
school at Indiana. The accrediting commission came by and said,
``Why don't you appoint a woman plastic surgeon?'' And I looked
around, at the time, and there weren't any. And we have
certainly fixed that issue, and it was by way of first finding
out there was a problem and then paying attention to it in the
way that Dr. Bement has described.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Dr. Beering.
Dr. Ehlers.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, just a comment.
Several years ago, several of us in the Republican majority
were successful in getting a bill through the Congress to
double the NSF funding in five years, and that eventually led
to the present doubling plan, doubling in 10 years.
Many of the problems we discussed here would be solved by
having some additional funding. So in my mind, five years is
better than 10 years. So let me challenge the new majority to
try to go back to the bill we passed. And I encourage you to do
whatever you can to meet that standard.
The other comment, we talked a bit about the young
scientists versus the older scientists. Let us take just a
broader view of that. Years ago, I know that Europe was very
concerned about the brain drain of scientists moving to the
United States. I am starting to discern a brain drain the other
way because of a lack of adequate funding here and increasing
funding in other countries. We have actually lost ground
compared to other countries, several other countries, for
rapidly increasing their research funding.
I personally know a scientist who moved to Europe recently.
He was tired of struggling with annual grant requests and
thought it would be wonderful to have a lifetime appointment
with a guarantee of research funding.
That is our competition. And so I just wanted to mention
there is that aspect of it.
Another one, we make a great deal about peer review in the
United States, and I think it is excellent, but it is also very
important to have peers. And I talked to a young scientist
recently who is not at all happy, because--and it was not just
young scientists versus older scientists, but this person had a
very good new approach, was being recognized in the field for
that, applied for an NSF grant, and was appalled at some of the
comments by some of the so-called peers who reviewed it in
which the comments indicated a basic misunderstanding of the
science involved, obviously, who were not familiar with it. He
was even more discouraged when he contacted the person in
charge of that directorate and talked to him and found out he
also did not understand.
So I think a major chore is not just worrying about young
scientists getting it, but recognizing that many times the
young scientists have new ideas that, if someone has not been
active in the research field for a few years, may have passed
them by.
So it is a multi-faceted problem. It is not just young
versus old.
Dr. Bement. Yes.
Mr. Ehlers. And I think you could make a good argument for
dramatically increasing the funding for young scientists, but
also we have to have a good peer review.
Dr. Bement. Even though there wasn't a question there, I do
have some opinions on those remarks.
First of all, in our peer-review process, inasmuch as we
are emphasizing frontier research, we do try to include younger
scientists who are pretty well recognized, because they know
where the frontier is and they know what is important at the
frontier and where the important research is being done. And
that has been a very positive contribution in our panels and
even our individual reviews.
But we do have due process within the Foundation where
investigators who have been declined, can challenge the
decline. And that goes through several steps of review all of
the way up to the Deputy Director. So there are ways in which
someone who feels that they haven't had an adequate peer review
can get the attention of the Foundation.
Mr. Ehlers. I hope you also recognize that the reluctance
of a new researcher about doing that and alienating the
leadership of the NSF.
Dr. Bement. I do, indeed.
Chairman Baird. How often is that actually done, Doctor,
that someone appeals a--especially successfully appeals a----
Dr. Bement. Well, it is not very frequent. As the Deputy
Director indicated, she has only had one appeal that came up to
her level as a final appeal step, and it wasn't worthy of
consideration, so it was denied.
Chairman Baird. Dr. McNerney.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
As we have sort of been talking this morning, education is
one of the issues that challenges our country in terms of
science and technology. And I think it is--a lot of it is a
cultural issue. Many of the young people don't look at science
as a profession nor engineering as a profession that appeals to
them. Is there anything that can be done within the National
Science Foundation to sort of change that perception or attack
the cultural issue that we are facing in terms of attracting
young people into this profession?
Dr. Bement. Absolutely, there is, Congressman.
The focus right now is introducing science earlier in
elementary school, perhaps third to fifth grade, and even
engineering, for that matter, because that is hands-on, and
that can excite children toward science and engineering and
give them some early understanding about what these fields are
all about.
The other thing that we can effectively do is try and work
at the interfaces between primary and secondary education,
secondary education and community colleges, and with
institutions of higher learning, universities and colleges. And
this is the continuity I was talking about, because,
oftentimes, a child will have a wonderful experience in
elementary school and transition to a secondary school that may
be a troubled school that may not have very adequate teaching
talent in STEM education, and then it suddenly dissipates, it
is a turn-off. And the same thing between high school and
college. So there needs to be more effective attention given to
reducing the barriers and coupling preparation with expectation
and entrance requirements at universities so we don't lose
people from those pathways as they move through the system. And
that is where a lot of our effort is focused.
Mr. McNerney. Well, in my district, there are some
economically-disadvantaged areas, and I see a lot of young
people that aren't engaged in the process. And what I would
suggest is that we find a way to make the science more
glamorous looking or engineering more appealing, because that
is what it is going to take. We are going to have to go across
those barriers to get people involved, to make children
understand not only the practicality but also the beauty of
science. And so that is my recommendation.
Dr. Bement. No, you are absolutely right. This is where the
business community can come in, because we know that even in
some troubled areas where the business community is not only
committed but actually engaged, and where they can provide
release time for their scientists and engineers to work with
the public schools, that makes a difference.
Also, again, coupling informal with formal education can be
a way of exciting young minds to what science is all about, and
that is a very effective program. In fact, as I go to public
schools, I ask the young children, do they know about the
National Science Foundation. Only a few hands go up. But when I
mention some of the television programs that we sponsor, almost
all of the hands go up, which makes me feel very good.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Baird. Dr. Bartlett.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you very much.
The Chairman noted the relatively large contributions to
energy that conservation could make, like buying a more
efficient car or carpooling as compared to hard-run
contributions of additional energy from alterative sources,
which reminded me of a very interesting graph that on the
ordinate has satisfaction with life, how good you feel about
your life. And on the abscissa is per capita energy use. And if
you can imagine that little graph in your mind's eye, we are
way up at the upper right. This one person in 22 using a fourth
of all the energy in the world, and there are 150-some
countries, and they polled each of these countries how good
they felt about their life, and they put a little spot on the
graph. And not too surprisingly, way down on the left side of
the graph, you have to have some meaningful amount of energy
before you could feel good about your life. But that curve
rises very steeply there. And after rising very steeply there,
it then approaches something of an asymptote that gets a little
bit beyond where we are. But there are 27 countries in the
world who use less energy than we, some of them less than half
as much energy as we use, who feel better about their station
in life than we feel.
And I mention this because as big as the challenges are in
the hard science areas, I think the biggest challenges for the
future are going to be in the soft science areas. We are just
going to have to get used to, as a world, and particularly in
this country, living with less energy. And that is going to be
a real challenge in the soft science areas. Now I come from the
hard sciences in my personal training, but I recognize that in
the future, we are going to have really big challenges in the
soft sciences. Is this a role that the National Science
Foundation plays or do we need to look for another entity for
leadership here?
Dr. Bement. No, Dr. Bartlett. It is a role that we are
playing, and we pay a lot of attention to it.
I might indicate that we do have energy initiatives in
hydrogen and fuel cell technology and advanced combustion,
other means of conservation, including renewable fuels. And of
course, these are proposals that are sent to us by top-ranked
scientists who are really looking at the frontier of these
fields and looking way, way ahead into the future.
But your point of bringing in the human factors associated
with energy production and energy use and also satisfaction are
very important components. I think one of the reasons why we
are probably energy hogs, but not as well satisfied as we would
like to be, is because of differences in productivity but also
the fact that we work ourselves to death compared with other
nations where their lifestyles are considerably different.
That is a very rich area for social science and for
understanding human factors.
Mr. Bartlett. I am glad you mentioned hydrogen and fuel
cells in the same breath, because, as you know, and I suspect
not everybody knows, hydrogen is not an energy source. It is
simply a convenient way to carry energy from one place to
another. And of course, when you burn it, you get only water,
which is not very polluting, but if we are really going to
exploit the potential of hydrogen, it has to be with a fuel
cell, doesn't it, because----
Dr. Bement. Yes.
Mr. Bartlett. This is a great candidate for a fuel cell,
and in a fuel cell, you get at least twice the efficiencies you
get in a reciprocating engine. Just burning hydrogen in a
reciprocating engine doesn't make much sense.
Dr. Bement. Well, you put your finger on it, and you are
absolutely right. You have to look at net energy used, which
means that you have to take into account the energy used in the
production of hydrogen. And if you are going to use energy, a
fair amount of energy, especially thermal energy or electrical
energy in electrolysis, for producing hydrogen, you had better
darn well get it back with a higher-efficiency engine.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Baird. Dr. Bartlett, as always, insightful
questions, and I appreciate that, as often comes from Members
of this committee.
One final question, and then we will adjourn.
I am very interested in the role of technical education and
particularly sciences in the role of technical education.
As I have talked to a number of our major employers back
home, yes, they need top-flight scientists to do the high-
technology engineering and research, but they also need folks
who can just work in a high-technology environment, do such
things as basic math, averages, scatter plots, the kind of
things that, unfortunately, oftentimes, our high school
graduates can't do.
Could you, either of you, talk briefly about the technical
education aspects of NSF and what you see as the future of
that?
Dr. Bement. I am going to address it in a way that Dr.
Beering can also address it, because, coming from Purdue, I am
familiar with the outstanding technology program that they
have.
Oftentimes, when we compare ourselves with China and India,
we talk about the large number of engineers they produce and
compare it with the number of engineers we produce. But
oftentimes, we don't include technicians and technician
training in the equation. And yet, if you look at what those
people do, our technicians are fulfilling jobs in the workplace
very much like the engineers in other countries are fulfilling.
So we ought to pay attention to that.
Through our Advanced Technological Education program, our
ATE program, we have developed partnerships with industry. In
about 90 percent of our ATE programs, community colleges work
in cooperation with the private sector. And the reason why
those partnerships are critically important is that the private
sector has the jobs. They know what skill requirements they are
going to need, not only today, but in the future. So those
industry leaders are the ideal people, and their engineering
staffs, to help structure the curricula for these community
colleges. In all of their evaluations, we are finding that that
is one of the most effective programs we have in the NSF, not
only in training top technical talent, but taking away the
excuse, in the private sector, that ``we have to go abroad
because we can't find the technical talent we need here in the
United States.'' I would like to see us get rid of that through
more investment in our ATE program.
Chairman Baird. Dr. Beering, any comments?
Dr. Beering. Yes, we are going to speak to that with our
engineering and also STEM task forces very shortly. And I would
second what Dr. Bement has said. The concern about the Chinese
engineers, for example, is that we haven't identified who these
people really are, and they are mostly technologists rather
than engineers in the sense that we employ that term. So the
differences are not as dramatic as they appear on the surface.
Another problem we have, anticipating what you will hear
from our STEM group, is that we do not welcome working
professionals into the educational system. There are licensure
problems and cultural blocks, and we need to do that. There are
lots of retirees, for example, that would be delighted to come
into the educational curriculum work, and I hope that we can
get that done.
Chairman Baird. I note, for example--I appreciate that, Dr.
Beering. Neither Dr. Ehlers nor I would be certified to be able
to teach in our respective disciplines at the high school
level----
Dr. Beering. Right.
Chairman Baird.--and interestingly enough, on the
vocational front, I know that some top-flight welders, folks
who have worked their whole life in welding and know it inside
and out, couldn't teach--couldn't get a teaching certificate. I
think we ought to look at that.
I thank our witnesses. Are there other comments or
questions from the panel?
If not, then, before we bring the hearing to close, I want
to thank our witnesses for their outstanding work and for
testifying before our subcommittee. This has, indeed, been a
highly educational experience for us. And our witnesses have
given us a lot to consider as we proceed with developing and
marking up legislation to authorize programs at the National
Science Foundation.
If there is no objection, the record will remain open for
additional statements from the Members and for answers to any
follow-up questions the Committee may ask of the witnesses.
Without objection, so ordered.
The hearing is now adjourned. Thank you, again.
[Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Arden L. Bement, Director, National Science Foundation
Questions submitted by Chairman Brian Baird
Industry Internships and Partnerships
Q1. In the IGERT program, students may do industrial internships. What
percentage do intern in the private sector? What other programs besides
GOALI promote or allow industry internships?
A1. Approximately 22 percent of students who have participated in the
Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT) program
have reported that they have done research with industrial scientists
in the United States. NSF has a large number of programs that promote
and encourage industry/academic partnerships which provide student
exposure to industry, without formal internship components. Examples of
such programs are the Partnerships for Innovation (PFI), the Industry/
University Cooperative Research Centers (I/UCRC), and the Information
Technology Experiences for Students and Teachers (ITEST). NSF supports
a number of programs that sponsor formal graduate and undergraduate
internships with a focus on industry. For example, the Engineering
Research Centers (ERC) supported by the Directorate for Engineering
(ENG) requires that each ERC form a partnership with industry.
Industrial personnel work closely with the faculty and students
providing guidance on industrial interests in research, sponsoring
fellowships and internships for students to carry out research on site
in industry. The Mathematical and Physical Sciences Directorate (MPS)
also has several notable programs that connect students with the
private sector. For instance, the Research in Industrial Projects
(RIPS) Program allows high-achieving undergraduate students to work in
teams on real-world research projects proposed by a sponsor from
industry or a national lab. The Statistical and Applied Mathematical
Sciences Institute (SAMSI), the Institute for Mathematics and Its
Applications (IMA), and the Mathematical Biosciences Institute have
programs that foster industry/academia partnerships which offer student
internship opportunities, quite relevant to the American
Competitiveness Initiative (ACI). The Education and Human Resources
Directorate (EHR) also supports programs that promote industry/academic
exchange. An example includes the Advanced Technological Education
(ATE) program which focuses on the education of technicians for high-
technology fields through activities such as student internships in
industry.
Q2. Does NSF have any officials designated as ``liaisons'' to industry
to facilitate NSF/industry partnerships outside of formalized program
structures. Does such contact occur through divisions sponsoring formal
industry-partnership programs such as the Centers? Or is all of the
contact made by the grantees themselves?
A2. Forging partnerships with industry is important to NSF. It helps
expedite the transition between basic and applied research; strengthens
the economy; and encourages innovation and productivity. While
discussions and interactions with industry occur at events such as
conferences, symposia, and workshops, the majority of NSF-sponsored
partnerships develop through formal programs that encourage
collaboration among academia, industry, and government. Several NSF
programs are focused on partnering with industry. These programs
include the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business
Technology Transfer (SBIR/STTR), the Partnerships for Innovation (PFI),
the Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry (GOALI), and
the Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers (I/UCRC) programs.
The Engineering Research Centers (ERC) program requires each ERC to
form a partnership with industry through a membership agreement. In
addition, the ERC Program requires that each ERC have a staff person
designated as an Industrial Liaison Officer to facilitate the
interaction between industry and the faculty and students and work with
industry to speed technology transfer. To enable innovative research
and education projects of national importance that require a center-
mode of support, the Science and Technology Centers: Integrative
Partnership (STC) Program encourages partnerships among academic
institutions, national laboratories, industrial organizations, and/or
other public/private entities. STC partnerships build intellectual and
physical infrastructures that weave together the creation, integration,
and transfer of new knowledge. To support this effort, the STC Program
requires that each Center establish an External Advisory Board which
must include industry representatives and designate a staff person who
is responsible for knowledge transfer activities. Moreover, the STC
Program includes representatives from industry as members of review and
site visit teams. In addition, several other NSF programs, such as the
Math and Science Partnership, have an industry-related component
designed to promote public/private partnerships.
In addition to NSF's formal programs, NSF is making a strategic
effort to improve communications and develop relationships with a broad
spectrum of companies from multi-national firms to start-ups. The goal
is to exchange facts and information in order to meet the challenges of
the future and to form cross-sector partnerships. We have organized NSF
corporate days, special speaking engagements, individual meetings and
luncheons.
Cost sharing policy
Q3. Please clarify the Foundation's interpretation of the Board's
ruling on cost sharing.
Q3a. How has the Foundation's new policy (as defined by its
interpretation of the Board ruling) been communicated to program
officers?
A3a. Thank you for the opportunity to provide a clarification of the
implementation of NSF's cost sharing policy. Since issuance of the NSF
Cost Sharing Policy in 1999, this issue has continued to be widely
discussed by the community, as well as within NSF and the National
Science Board (NSB). Cost sharing was most recently addressed formally
at the NSB's 382nd meeting in October, 2004, when the Board approved a
revision to the Foundation's policy on cost sharing to eliminate NSF
program-specific cost sharing requirements. The following highlights
the essential elements of this Policy, as implemented by NSF:
<bullet> No NSF program solicitation may mandate a
programmatic cost sharing requirement.
<bullet> There is no expectation by the Foundation that any
proposal submitted for funding will include a cost sharing
component. If a proposer voluntarily includes cost sharing on
Line M of the proposal budget, it is solely at the discretion
of the proposing institution and will not be a factor in the
Foundation's decision to make an award. However, once cost
sharing is proposed on Line M, and accepted by the Foundation,
the commitment of funds becomes legally binding and is subject
to audit.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ If proposed, the estimated value of any in-kind contributions
should be included on Line M. An explanation of the source, nature,
amount and availability of any proposed cost sharing also must be
provided in the budget justification. Section .23 of OMB Circular A-110
describes criteria and procedures for the allowability of cash and in-
kind contributions in satisfying cost sharing and matching
requirements.
<bullet> NSF program officers must follow the NSF Proposal &
Award Policies & Procedures Guide guidance which states that
they may discuss with principal investigators the ``bottom
line'' award amount, but may not [re] negotiate or impose cost
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
sharing or other institutional commitments.
<bullet> Any reduction of 10 percent or more from the total
award amount proposed should be accompanied by a corresponding
reduction in the scope of the project.
<bullet> Cost sharing commitments contained in awards made
prior to implementation of the revised cost sharing policy
remain unchanged.
<bullet> Failure to provide the level of cost sharing
reflected in the approved budget may result in termination of
the NSF award, disallowance of costs and/or refund of award
funds to NSF by the awardee.
The new cost sharing policy was originally communicated in October
2004 by issuance of initial implementation guidance (www.nsf.gov/pubs/
policydocs/cspolicy1004.pdf). This was disseminated widely both
externally as well as internally to NSF program staff. Since that time,
this policy change has been presented internally to NSF staff at
various training sessions, including the set of program management
seminars provided 4-5 times per year, and has been a component of our
external outreach presentations. In addition, NSF appropriations no
longer contain a statutory (one percent) cost sharing requirement;
therefore, statutory cost sharing is eliminated effective with awards
made on or after June 1, 2007. Further guidance on the elimination of
program-specific cost sharing and removal of the statutory (one
percent) cost sharing requirement is provided in the recently issued
NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide, which may be accessed
at: www.nsf.gov/publications/
pub<INF>-</INF>summ.jsp?ods<INF>-</INF>key=nsf07140
Q3b. Do you have any reason to believe that the new cost-sharing
policy has not been uniformly implemented across the Foundation?
A3b. In March 2007, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) recommended
that NSF program officers carefully review cost sharing information
provided by awardees. NSF Senior management has implemented staff
training that emphasizes the importance of reviewing cost sharing
documentation.
Q3c. Are you still considering modifications to the new policy or has
it been finalized?
A3c. At the March 2007 meeting of the National Science Board, the
Committee on Strategy & Budget instituted an ad hoc working group to
consider the impacts of the new policy (including any unanticipated
consequences of the decision to eliminate programmatic cost sharing.)
In addition, the Engineering Directorate is conducting a pilot with the
Engineering Research Centers program solicitation. This solicitation
does not impose a cost sharing requirement, but rather, requires that a
partnership be demonstrated in the proposal. The results of this pilot
and the findings of the working group will be presented at a future NSB
meeting.
While there are no current plans to alter the NSF cost sharing
policy, further deliberations may occur as a result of the activities
noted above.
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Engaging industry
Q1. Beyond the government wide initiatives in which NSF participates
and the Engineering Research Centers, please give us examples of ways
NSF engages industry to help identify and support its own internal
research priorities.
A1. NSF routinely includes representatives of industry on its advisory
committees. Industry representatives also serve as ad hoc reviewers.
Currently two members of the National Science Board are from industry.
NSF also has a number of initiatives with strong industry components.
Involvement is more proscribed in some programs than others, but in
general, the Foundation values and encourages industry collaboration
wherever appropriate. Whether formal or informal, such engagement
clearly informs NSF priorities. Here are a range of examples:
(1) Partnerships for Innovation (PFI)--
www.nsf.gov/funding/
pgm<INF>-</INF>summ.jsp?pims<INF>-</INF>id=5261&from=fund
The goals of the PFI program are to: 1) stimulate the
transformation of knowledge created by the research and education
enterprise into innovations that create new wealth; build strong local,
regional, and national economies; and improve the national well-being;
2) broaden the participation of all academic institutions and all
citizens in NSF activities to meet the workforce needs of the national
innovation enterprise; and 3) catalyze or enhance infrastructure
necessary to foster and sustain innovation in the long-term. In order
to pursue these goals, this program supports partnerships among
academe, the private sector, and State/local/Federal Government that
explore new approaches to support and sustain innovation.
(2) Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers (I/UCRCs)--
www.nsf.gov/funding/
pgm<INF>-</INF>summ.jsp?pims<INF>-</INF>id=5501&from=fund
The I/UCRCs program develops long-term partnerships among industry,
academe, and government. The centers are catalyzed by a small
investment from NSF and are primarily supported by industry center
members. Each center is established to conduct research that is of
interest to both the industry and the center.
(3) Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry (GOALI)--
www.nsf.gov/pubs/1998/nsf98142/nsf98142.htm
The GOALI initiative aims to synergize university-industry
partnerships by making funds available to support an eclectic mix of
industry-university links. Special interest is focused on opportunities
for: (1) faculty, postdoctoral fellows, and students to conduct
research and gain experience with production processes in an industrial
setting, (2) industrial scientists and engineers to bring industry's
perspective and integrative skills to academe, and (3)
interdisciplinary university/industry teams to conduct long-term
projects. This initiative targets high-risk/high-gain research.
(4) Shared Cyberinfrastructure--
NOTE: The Council on Competitiveness conducted a study ``Partnering
for Prosperity'' June 2006, on behalf of NSF, to evaluate the
experiences of industrial/commercial user organizations of high
performance computing (HPC) resources at supercomputing centers
receiving NSF funding. Forty companies participated in the study
involving the supercomputing centers listed below. The study concluded
that the partnership between the NSF Centers and the U.S. businesses
``. . .clearly has been successful.'' A hardcopy of the report is
available from the Office of Cyberinfrastructure.
<bullet> The National Center for Supercomputing Applications
(NCSA) has maintained collaborative relationships with a broad
set of industry partners for over 20 years through its Private
Sector Program (PSP). At present, PSP partners include Abaqus,
ACNielson, Boeing, Caterpillar, Deere, Dell, Eclipse Energy
Inc., ExxonMobil, IBM, Innerlink, JPMorgan, Microsoft,
Motorola, Research Triangle Institute and State Farm. As part
of the program, partnerships support the operation of a large
scale, heavily used HPC system for industrial users that has
been upgraded in 2007. In addition, there are numerous
sponsored applied research activities funded by the private
sector partners. Firms fund activities to ensure they remain
fully aware of developments in technologies which are one-to-
five years out, as well as fund projects directed to the
application of technologies with immediate or near-immediate
benefits to the sponsoring firm.
<bullet> The San Diego Supercomputer Center (SDSC) engages
with approximately 24 industrial partners in a variety of ways,
but the most prominent ones are in regard to hardware,
software, sponsored research, and research collaborations.
<bullet> The Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center (PSC) maintains
collaborative research Technology Partnerships with many
leading companies involved in High Performance Computing,
including Cray, Intel, CFS, Seagate, and Panassas. Previously,
PSC worked with several leaders in HPC including Compaq(HP),
Thinking Machines, IBM and StorageTek. PSC also has a Corporate
Affiliates program, designed to provide its industrial partners
with expertise and services to enhance and support their
technical computing capabilities.
(5) Computing Community Consortium (CCC)--
www.nsf.gov/funding/
pgm<INF>-</INF>summ.jsp?pims<INF>-</INF>id=13658&org=CISE&from=home
The Directorate for Computer and Information Science and
Engineering (CISE) will support this consortium as a community proxy
for facilitating the conceptualization and design of promising
infrastructure-intensive projects identified by the computing research
community to address compelling scientific ``grand challenges'' in
computing. The consortium is expected to be broad-based with members
from higher education as well as other private and public sector
organizations, including industry.
(6) Mathematical Sciences Research Institutes--
www.nsf.gov/funding/
pgm<INF>-</INF>summ.jsp?pims<INF>-</INF>id=5685&org=DMS
Mathematical Sciences Institutes stimulate research in all of the
mathematical sciences through thematic and residential programs,
workshops, and access to distinctive resources. Each of the seven
institutes offers visiting opportunities for researchers in various
stages of their careers. Among them, one can find specific programs for
industrial postdocs, summer programs involving graduate students with
problems from industry, and discovery-based experiences with industry
for undergraduates.
(7) Cyber Defense Testbed for Experimental Research (DETER)--
www.isi.edu/deter/index.html
DETER provides academic, government, and industrial scientists a
safe environment to contain, model, and analyze malicious attacks--
especially those that might result in catastrophic damage to public
networks supporting critical infrastructure. Overall, approximately 30
percent of testbed users come from private industry ranging from small
technology start up companies to large government contractors and
private research labs. Industry partners include Juniper Networks Inc.,
Hewlett Packard, Sun Microsystems, Dell, Intel and NTT.
(8) Portia--Sensitive Information in a Wired World--
www.nsf.gov/dir/index.jsp?org=CISE; http://crypto.stanford.edu/portia/
The Portia project has developed new methods for the detection and
prevention of Phishing attacks, an identity attack to which millions of
U.S. users succumb every year. Mozilla provides software and
professional staff, including technical support in the form of resident
scientists at Stanford.
(9) Trustworthy Cyber Infrastructure for the Power Grid--
www.iti.uiuc.edu/TCIP.html
The project's goal is to improve the security of the power grid.
The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), the research organization
that supports the electric power industry, is a major contributor to
the project.
(10) Materials Centers--
www.nsf.gov/funding/
pgm<INF>-</INF>summ.jsp?pims<INF>-</INF>id=5295&from=fund
Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers (MRSECs) support
shared experimental facilities, provide support to stimulate emerging
areas of materials research, and have strong links to industry and
other sectors. Involvement in MRSEC activities by industrial scientists
and engineers benefits those organizations in ways such as providing
access to the latest scientific discoveries and the joint design of
research programs to address issues of mutual interest.
(11) Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers (NSEC)--
www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/nano
Research at the nanoscale aims to advance the development of the
ultra-small technology that will transform electronics, materials,
medicine, environmental science, and many other fields. The centers
provide coherence and a long-term outlook to U.S. nanotechnology
research and education. The centers have strong partnerships with
industry, national laboratories, and international centers of
excellence.
(12) Science and Technology Centers (STC)--
www.nsf.gov/od/oia/programs/stc/
NSF's STC Integrative Partnerships Program supports discovery and
innovation in the integrated conduct of research, education, and
knowledge transfer. STCs foster partnerships that build a new
collaborative culture among researchers and educators at all levels in
academia, industry, government laboratories, and other organizations.
STCs have an impressive record of research accomplishments, including
timely transfer of knowledge and technology from the laboratory to
industry and other sectors.
(13) Science of Learning Centers (SLC)--
www.nsf.gov/funding/
pgm<INF>-</INF>summ.jsp?pims<INF>-</INF>id=5567&from=fund
SLCs are built around a unifying research focus and incorporate a
diverse, multi-disciplinary environment involving appropriate
partnerships with academia, industry, international partners, all
levels of education, and other public and private entities.
Questions for the submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski
K-12 education
Q1. While I'm pleased to see the President's American Competitiveness
Initiative proposes doubling research budgets, the education budget at
NSF is seeing much smaller increases. This greatly worries me,
especially when just last month the National Assessment of Educational
Progress released results which found that nearly 40 percent of high
school students scored below the basic level in math. Overall funding
for K-12 programs in the FY08 request falls by nine percent from the
FY07 CR level. The Math and Science Partnerships Program, and the Noyce
Teacher Scholarship program, both of which address critical needs in K-
12 education, would be level funded. In addition, the Course,
Curriculum and Laboratory Improvement program, which is the core
program in the Division of Undergraduate Education, is slowly
decreasing in funding.
You state that ``encouraging new investigators to become effective
contributors to the science and engineering workforce is a critical
goal for the NSF.'' Can you elaborate on how NSF hopes to accomplish
this goal and reverse the downward trends we're witnessing when the
budget request continues to under fund this crucial area?
A1. The FY 2008 funding request for NSF's K-12 programs (the Robert
Noyce Scholarship Program, the Discovery Research K-12 program, and the
Math and Science Partnership programs) increases from the FY 2007 level
by about $10.0 million or 6.5 percent. The FY 2008 request for the
Course, Curriculum and Laboratory Improvement program is level to the
FY 2007 amount at $37.50 million.
NSF is encouraging new investigators to become effective
contributors in several ways:
<bullet> Promoting the use of discovery-based learning, which
is becoming an integral feature of these K-12 programs,
transforming education research and practice.
<bullet> Increasing access to interactive data sets,
simulations, and up-to-date research results, as well as the
opportunity to interact with researchers, in K-12 classrooms
and in complementary informal science education venues.
Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
education at all levels continues to benefit from information,
communications, and other new technologies, with their
potential for more engaging and inclusive learning and
discovery.
<bullet> Developing alternative and diverse approaches to
excellence in education and mentoring to build strong
foundations and foster innovation to improve K-12 teaching,
learning, and evaluation in STEM.
National Nanotechnology Initiative
Q2. NSF's contribution to the multi-agency National Nanotechnology
Initiative (NNI) is increased in this request by $ 7 million (4.5
percent), including $3 million more in support of research on the
environmental, health and safety (El-IS) aspects of nanotechnology.
This field holds great promise; it is certainly one of the most rapidly
developing, dynamic areas of current scientific research and commercial
development. I believe it is critical that we expand our research into
the potential risks while the field is still in its relative infancy.
Can you elaborate on what NSF is doing as it relates to
nanotechnology research?
A2. NSF supports fundamental research, infrastructure, and education in
all areas of nanoscale science and engineering (NSE), excluding
research involving clinical testing. The NSE activities are guided by
long-term objectives which may be used by industry, the community, and
other agencies. NSF supports over 3,000 active awards and 24 large
centers and trains over 10,000 students and teachers each year. The
modes of support include single investigator, multi-disciplinary team,
center, and network awards.
NSF's contribution to the multi-agency National Nanotechnology
Initiative (NNI) encompasses the systematic understanding,
organization, manipulation, and control of matter at the atomic,
molecular, and supramolecular levels in the size range of one to 100
nanometers. NSF contributes to the goals and seven program-component
areas (PCAs) outlined in the NNI Strategic Plan:
(1) Fundamental nanoscale phenomena and processes.
The FY 2008 Request includes $142.67 million for fundamental
research and education connecting quantum and other nanoscale phenomena
predictively across length and time scales with the macro properties of
materials. Emphasis will be on: novel phenomena, quantum control, and
basic engineering processes, biosystems at the nanoscale, converging
science and engineering at the nanoscale, and multi-scale, multi-
phenomena theory, modeling, and simulation at the nanoscale.
(2) Nanomaterials.
The FY 2008 Request includes $60.19 million for discovery of novel
nanoscale and nanostructured materials, and improving the comprehensive
understanding of the properties of nanomaterials (ranging across length
scales and including interface interactions). Research on the
discovery, understanding, and control of materials at the nanoscale
will be critical to the development and success of innovative
technologies, including communications, catalysts, energy, health care,
and manufacturing.
(3) Nanoscale devices and systems.
The FY 2008 Request includes $51.10 million for R&D that applies
the principles of nanoscale science and engineering to create novel, or
to improve existing, devices and systems. A special focus will be on
nanomanufacturing of active nanostructures and nanosystems.
Nanoelectonics beyond silicon nanotechnology and complementary metal-
oxide superconductors (CMOS) research will explore ultimate limits to
scaling of features and alternative physical principles for devices
employed in sensing, storage, communication, and computation. Another
focus will be on nano-informatics for better communication and
nanosystem design. It includes defining the ontology of terms,
interconnecting databases, using specific informatics tools, and
connecting to bioinformatics.
(4) Instrumentation research for nanotechnology.
The FY 2008 Request includes $14.50 million for R&D to create new
tools needed to advance nanotechnology research and commercialization,
including next-generation instrumentation for characterization,
measurement, synthesis, and design of materials, structures, devices,
and systems. A special challenge is developing tools for measuring and
restructuring matter with atomic precision, for time resolution of
chemical reactions, and for domains of biological and engineering
relevance.
(5) Nanomanufacturing.
The FY 2008 Request includes $26.90 million to support new concepts
for high rate synthesis and processing of nanostructures,
nanostructured catalysts, fabrication methods for devices, and
assembling them into nanosystems and then into larger scale structures
of relevance in industry and in the medical field. R&D is aimed at
enabling scaled-up, reliable, cost effective manufacturing of nanoscale
materials, structures, devices, and systems.
(6) Major research facilities and instrumentation acquisition.
The FY 2008 Request includes $31.62 million for establishment of
user facilities, acquisition of major instrumentation, and other
activities that develop, support, or enhance the scientific
infrastructure for the conduct of nanoscale science, engineering, and
technology research and development. It also supports ongoing
operations of the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network
(NNIN), Network for Computational Nanotechnology (NCN) and National
Network for Nanomanufacturing. The investment will support facilities
for 16 ongoing Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers (NSEC).
(7) Societal Dimensions.
The FY 2008 Request includes $62.92 million, an increase of $3.90
million over FY 2007, for various research and other activities that
address the broad implications of nanotechnology for society, including
benefits and risks, such as:
<bullet> Research directed at environmental, health, and
safety impacts of nanotechnology development and basic research
supporting risk assessment of such impacts ($28.75 million).
Research will address three sources of nanoparticles and
nanostructured materials in the environment (in air, water,
soil, biosystems, and working environment), as well as the non-
clinical biological implications. The safety of manufacturing
nanoparticles is investigated in four center/networks: NSEC at
Rice University (evolution of manufacturing nanoparticles in
the wet environment), NSEC at Northeastern University
(occupational safety during nanomanufacturing), NSEC at
University of Pennsylvania (interaction between nanomaterials
and cells), and National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network
(with two nanoparticle characterization centers at the
University of Minnesota and Arizona State University). New
measurement methods for nanoparticle characterization and
toxicity of nanomaterials will be investigated. Support is
requested for a new multi-disciplinary EHS center as explained
in the reply to the next question.
<bullet> Education-related activities, such as development of
materials for schools, curriculum development for nanoscience
and engineering, development of new teaching tools,
undergraduate programs, technical training, and public outreach
($28.38 million).
Two networks for nanotechnology education with national
outreach will be supported: The Nanotechnology Center for
Learning and Teaching (NCLT) and the Network for Nanoscale
Informal Science Education (NISE).
<bullet> Research directed at identifying and quantifying the
broad implications of nanotechnology for society, including
social, economic, workforce, educational, ethical, and legal
implications ($5.79 million).
Factors that stimulate scientific discovery at the nanoscale
will be investigated, effective approaches to ensure the safe
and responsible development of nanotechnology will be explored
and developed, and the potential for converging technologies to
improve human performance will be addressed. The Nanotechnology
in Society Network will be fully operational in FY 2008.
NSF has an annual process of establishing its priorities on
nanoscale science and engineering that includes NNI Working Group
proposals with input from periodical workshops and meetings with the
communities, coordination with other agencies through the National
Nanotechnology Initiative (the Nanoscale Science, Engineering and
Technology Subcommittee (NSET) of the National Science and Technology
Council (NSTC)), considering the international context, industry, NGOs,
and other perspectives.
Q3. Can you expand on the proposed new, multi-disciplinary center that
would conduct EHS research?
A3. The National Science Foundation is in the process of preparing a
program announcement for a new Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center
(NSEC) on ``Nanotechnology Environmental Health and Safety'' to be
released later this year. This will be a NSF wide activity coordinated
by the Directorate for Biological Sciences. It is planned to create
education, outreach, and communication between the main stakeholders.
Manufactured nanomaterials and their byproducts may display new
physical, chemical, or biological properties unique to materials of
this small size (i.e., one to 100 nanometers). The purpose of this
multi-disciplinary center will be to conduct fundamental research and
education on the interactions of nanoparticles and nanomaterials in and
with the environment (air, water, and soil) and living systems at all
scales in order to understand and address the potential impact of
nanotechnology on the environment and living systems. A multi-
disciplinary approach involving the biological, physical,
computational, and mathematical sciences will be employed to understand
how nanomaterials and their byproducts interact with and impact the
environment and living systems at all scales. Research will include but
is not limited to methods and instrumentation for nanoparticle
detection, characterization, and monitoring; interactions of
nanomaterials with cellular constituents, metabolic networks, and
living tissues; bioaccumulation and its effects on living systems; and
the non-medical biological impacts of nanostructures dispersed in the
environment. In addition to understanding the potential impact of
nanomaterials on environmental health and safety, this research also is
expected to yield reciprocal knowledge on how characteristics unique to
the nanoscale realm play a role in natural systems and their design.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Steven C. Beering, Chairman, National Science Board
Questions submitted by Chairman Brian Baird
Q1. Please clarify the Board's intent with respect to the Foundation's
policy on cost-sharing. Is the Board considering revisiting its ruling
and/or evaluating the implementation and impact of the ruling on
programs across the Foundation?
A1. The National Science Board has been involved with ``cost sharing''
since the Bureau of the Budget's (predecessor of the OMB) 1954 request
for assistance in setting uniform policies for indirect costs for
research grants from federal agencies.
The Board addressed cost sharing on a number of occasions since
1954 in regard to implementation of the 1963 statutory cost sharing
requirements, university concerns over the logistics of calculating
cost share contributions, and the effect cost share would have on
wealthy and not so wealthy schools, public and private institutions,
and between basic and applied research.
In October 2004, NSF requested a revision to the current Board
policy on cost sharing to eliminate NSF program specific cost sharing
requirements and require only the statutory cost sharing of one
percent. The Board approved that request on the recommendation of its
Audit and Oversight Committee. The Board recently decided to establish
an ad hoc task group within its Committee on Strategy and Budget to
study cost sharing policies of the Foundation. The task group's
activities will take into account the Foundation's legal requirements,
impact of previous cost sharing policies, and the practice and
implementation of those policies. Specifics about the Board's likely
actions will become clearer as the task group conducts its study and
the Board considers the task group's findings and recommendations.
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. Is the Board engaged in encouraging industry partnerships? To what
degree?
A1. The Board believes industry should be a full partner with
government, academe, the non-profit sector and the public in
maintaining the health of U.S. science and engineering research and
education. Industry is by far the largest employer of scientists and
engineers and the largest source of funding for U.S. R&D. Partnership
with industry in policy decisions affecting the science and engineering
enterprise is critically important and highly sought after by the Board
and Foundation. Further, we fully endorse and support industry
partnerships with academic institutions in education and research
funded by the National Science Foundation. The Board membership
throughout its history has included industry representation in order to
reflect the leadership of U.S. science and engineering. The Board also
provides explicit policy for NSF to initiate programs that include
industry partnerships in research and education. For example, the
Board's 1996 policy statement, ``Report from the Task Force on Graduate
and Post Doctoral Education'' (NSB/NGE-96-2) provided the policy
framework for implementation in FY 97 of alternative modes of graduate
support ``permitting internships in industry. . .as part of the
graduate research experience.'' Programs such as Integrative Education
and Research Training (IGERT) have been implemented by the Foundation
to encourage this form of academic/industry partnering. The Board
further supports partnerships and collaboration in research and
education in NSF funded centers, and in programs such as the Math and
Science Partnerships. These large awards are directly approved by the
Board after careful review, including the industry partnership
components, and followed up by assessments of success. Renewal of such
major grants and cooperative agreements often depends significantly on
success in attracting industry partners, and on the level of
involvement of such partners.
The Board also solicits the input of industry in the formulation of
policy for science and engineering, both as guidance to the Foundation
and as advice to the President and Congress. Recent examples include
Board hearings to consider the establishment of a new Commission on
21st Education in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics; the
Board's ongoing study of Engineering Education needs for the future,
and the 2003 Board policy report, The Science and Engineering
Workforce: Realizing America's Potential (NSB-03-69) <http://
www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/reports.htm>. The Board's biennial report on
Science and Engineering Indicators includes an increasingly broad
component of industry relevant quantitative data, and the NSF industry
survey is in the process of being redesigned in order to improve data
for decision making involving industrial science and technology. We
further support grants under the SBIR and STTR programs in the
Foundation (Small Business innovation Research and Small Business
Technology Transfer, respectively). We expect industry partnerships to
continue to be an essential component of projects and policy for
science and engineering in the Foundation and an important policy focus
for the National Science Board.
Questions submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski
Q1. In your testimony, you mention NSF's involvement with energy
research as a partner in the President's hydrogen fuel initiative
through membership in the Interagency Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technical
Task Force. As you may know, I, along with Representative Inglis, am a
big advocate for hydrogen technology, having reintroduced the popular
H-Prize bill this Congress. Can you elaborate on this Task Force, and
give us a sense of what it has accomplished and the results that have
come out of it?
A1. The Interagency Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technical Task Force was
established shortly after President Bush announced the Hydrogen Fuel
Initiative and has met monthly since April 2003. It serves as the key
mechanism for collaboration among the federal agencies involved in
hydrogen-related research, development, and demonstration. As specified
in Section 806 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), the Task
Force provides a forum for coordinating interagency policy, programs,
and activities related to safe, economical, and environmentally sound
hydrogen and fuel cell technologies. Co-chaired by the Department of
Energy (DOE) and White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
(OSTP), the task force includes the Department of Transportation;
Department of Defense; Department of Agriculture; Department of
Commerce; Environmental Protection Agency; National Aeronautics and
Space Administration; National Science Foundation; United States Postal
Service; and, from the Executive Office of the President, Office of
Management and Budget, and Council on Environmental Quality. More
information is available at (http://www.hydrogen.gov/
interagency<INF>-</INF>task<INF>-</INF>force.html).
The task force ad hoc committee on a regulatory framework for a
hydrogen economy has identified existing and regulatory statutory
authorities, status of regulations, gaps in authority, and the lead
agency. All of this information has been integrated into an interactive
map complete with references to each applicable regulation or statute
(see www.hydrogen.gov/regulations.html).
The task force agriculture ad hoc committee is developing an action
plan with specific coordination activities for biomass-to-hydrogen and
fuel cell technology development and use in rural communities.
There are a number of areas where the hydrogen fuel cell
interagency working group (IWG) has led to interagency collaboration on
particular topics, such as materials research, hydrogen turbines, and
solid-state fuel cells.
Over the past four years, the IWG has collaboratively identified
R&D gaps that have merited additional focus, including hydrogen
infrastructure R&D, bio-based H2 production, and directed basic
research on fuel cells, hydrogen storage, and hydrogen production.
The task force created extensive hydrogen research taxonomy of
past, present, and future hydrogen activities of the Federal
Government. More information may be found at http://www.hydrogen.gov/
taxonomy.html and http://www.hydrogen.gov/federalprograms.html
The agencies are also working to establish a ``higher level'' task
force with members at the Assistant Secretary level or functional
equivalent to advise the Secretary of Energy on issues related to the
development and use of hydrogen technologies. The task force will not
replace the IWG--it is fully expected to that the groups will
complement and support each other.
Q2. You also mention NSF's Energy for Sustainability Program, which
will fund basic research and engineering of hydrogen and other
alternative fuel systems. Please explain this program and what it is
doing in the field.
A2. NSF's Engineering Directorate established the Energy for
Sustainability Program to consider a wide variety of topics and
encourage investigator-initiated projects to capture the best and
brightest in the engineering of energy for the future. The emphasis
will be on research and education in energy production, conversion, and
storage for energy sources that are environmentally friendly and
renewable.
The program is aimed at university researchers involved in basic or
fundamental engineering research to advance renewable energy sources.
Small business ventures are also eligible to apply to the Small
Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program at NSF. Larger firms can
participate in if they team with a researcher from a university through
Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry (GOALI).
The FY 2007 budget is $3 million. This is a new program and
therefore no awards have been made, but over 200 unsolicited proposals
were received in response to the February 2007 program announcement.
The majority of these proposals involved fuel cells, biofuels, or solar
energy. Awardees for this round are expected to be selected and
announced by August 1, 2007. A second program announcement is scheduled
for August-September 2007. The program intends to fund approximately 20
projects having budgets of around $100,000 per year for two or three
years.
In addition, two researchers are being funded under NSF's Faculty
Early Career Development (CAREER) Program for work on sustainable
energy involving direct methanol and microbial fuel cell concepts.