[NSB-99-110]{.underline}

**OPEN SESSION**

**353rd MEETING**

**NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD**

#  National Science Foundation

Arlington, Virginia

May 6-7, 1999

**[Members Present:]{.underline} [Members Absent:]{.underline}**

Eamon M. Kelly, Chair Vera Rubin

Diana S. Natalicio, Vice Chair Richard Tapia

John A. Armstrong John A. White, Jr

Pamela A. Ferguson

Mary K. Gaillard

Sanford D. Greenberg\*

M.R.C. Greenwood\*

Stanley V. Jaskolski

Anita K. Jones

George M. Langford

Jane Lubchenco

Eve L. Menger\*

Joseph A. Miller, Jr.

Claudia I. Mitchell-Kernan

Robert C. Richardson

Maxine Savitz

Luis Sequeira

Robert M. Solow\*\*

Bob H. Suzuki

Chang-Lin Tien\*

Warren M. Washington

Rita R. Colwell, Director

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\*Attended Thursday Only

\*\*Attended Friday Only

At its 354^th^ meeting the Board approved the provisional minutes of the
May 6-7, 1999 meeting

The National Science Board (NSB) convened in Open Session at 1:20 p.m.,
on Thursday, May 6, 1999, with Dr. Eamon M. Kelly, Chairman, presiding
(Agenda NSB 99-76). In accordance with the Government in the Sunshine
Act, this portion of the meeting was open to the public.

**[AGENDA ITEM 5: Swearing in NSB Nominees]{.underline}**

Dr. Kelly swore in five new NSB members who had recently been confirmed
by the U.S. Senate: Dr. George Langford, Dartmouth College, Dr. Joseph
Miller, E.I Dupont de Nemours & Co.,

Dr. Robert Richardson, Cornell University, Dr. Maxine Savitz,
AlliedSignal Inc., and

Dr. Luis Sequeira, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Emeritus.

Dr. Tien\'s confirmation, he noted, is expected shortly.

**[AGENDA ITEM 6: Minutes, February, March 1999 Meetings]{.underline}**

The Board APPROVED the Open Session minutes of the February 1999 and the
March 1999 NSB Meetings (NSB-99-45, NSB-99-81, respectively, Board Book
Tab E) as amended, after noting a correction to the March Minutes.

**[AGENDA ITEM 7: Closed Session Items for July 1999]{.underline}**

The Board APPROVED the Closed Session items for the July 1999 Board
Meeting (NSB-99-74, Board Book Tab F), attached as Appendix A.

**[AGENDA ITEM 8: Chair\'s Report]{.underline}**

a.  **Election of Executive Committee Members**

The Chairman announced the reelection of Dr. Claudia Mitchell-Kernan and
Dr.Warren Washington to the Executive Committee.

b.  **Committee on Communication and Outreach**

Dr. Kelly announced the establishment of the Committee on Communication
and Outreach, to be chaired by Dr. M.R.C. Greenwood. Members include
Drs. George Langford, Eve Menger, Bob Suzuki, Maxine Savitz, and
Chang-Lin Tien. Mary Hanson of the Office of Legislative and Public
Affairs will serve as Executive Secretary. The committee, is established
to advise the Board how best to inform and engage the public about
NSF\'s role in science, discovery and human resources for science and
engineering, will present a preliminary plan of action at the July
meeting.

**c. COSEPUP Meeting**

Dr. Kelly commented on a recent meeting he attended of the Committee on
Science, Engineering and Public Policy (COSEPUP). He noted that the
dominant focus during the question and answer period was on human
resources, particularly as related to K-12 education.

**d. Environmental Task Force**

Dr. Kelly stated that the Task Force was drafting a preliminary report
on its findings and recommendations. The final report is expected to be
available at the July Board meeting and Dr. Kelly asked that any
comments during the review cycle be directed to him, to Dr. Lubchenco,
or to any staff member working on the draft.

e.  **Senate Bill S. 887**

Dr. Kelly invited Dr. Robert Richardson to discuss this Senate Bill, S.
887, proposed by Senator Shelby before the House Armed Services
Committee. Dr. Richardson read two key sentences dealing with a
moratorium on admitting to a facility of a National Laboratory any
citizen of a nation appearing on the current Department of Energy
Sensitive Countries List. Referring to the portion of the bill that
requires any citizen of a foreign nation to undergo a security clearance
investigation before entering a National Laboratory, Dr. Richardson
noted that the legislation potentially could be damaging to the science
enterprise in the U.S. He also noted that the science and engineering
manpower pool in the U.S. depends greatly on people born in other
countries,

After questions and comments were solicited, Dr. Tien made two points:
that the percentage of weapons research work in the National Labs has
been decreasing; and that U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Bill
Richardson has expressed grave concerns over the legislation.

Dr. Kelly urged the Board to read S. 887 and prepare for a discussion on
Friday. He then called on Dr. Colwell for the NSF Director\'s Report.

**[AGENDA ITEM 9: Director\'s Report]{.underline}**

a.  **NSF Staff**

Dr. Colwell announced the assignment of Dr. Jane Kahle as Director of
the Division of Elementary, Secondary, and Informal Education, in the
Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR) on the first of
April. Dr. Colwell then announced that Dr. Peggy Fischer received an SES
career appointment in April as Associate Inspector General for
Scientific Integrity. Dr. Colwell also announced that Dr. Deborah
Crawford and Mr. Paul Herer were joining the Office of the Director,
following the departure of Dr. Judith Sunley who is on detail to the
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).

Next, Dr. Colwell noted that a reorganization of the EHR Directorate was
being considered to ensure the integration of education and research.

b.  **Congressional Update**

Dr. Colwell reported on two hearings at which the NSF testified. Dr.
Colwell testified on K-12 Math and Science education issues before the
House Science Committee. Both Dr. Kelly and Dr. Colwell testified before
the House Basic Research Subcommittee on the NSF FY2000 budget request.

The Earthquake Hazard Mitigation Authorization Act passed the House on
April 21. This bill authorizes funding for NSF\'s earthquake engineering
research and a portion of NSF\'s basic research in Earth Science. The
funding includes amounts requested for the Engineering and Geosciences
Directorates (GEO), and for the Earthquake Program for FY2000. In
addition, the bill fully authorizes the \$82 million Network for
Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES). The bill needs Senate approval
before enactment,

Dr. Colwell next reported that the House and Senate appropriations
subcommittees have completed their hearings. Dr. Colwell expects that
all discretionary appropriation subcommittees will be constrained, but
constraints may be relaxed later in the year.

c.  **Waterman Award**

Dr. Colwell announced that the Waterman Award Committee reviewed the
five-year post-Ph.D. criterion and recommended to the Director an
increase to seven years post Ph.D. The NSF Director\'s Policy Group
(DPG) concurred with the change. The eligibility criterion for the Year
2000 award will be 35 years of age or younger or not more than seven
years beyond the Ph.D.

Dr. Colwell stated that any change in the number of awards requires
Board approval and Congressional action, while the grant size only
requires Board approval. She asked for Board discussion.

Dr. Tien, a member of the Waterman Committee, noted that the Committee
recognized that minorities and women would particularly benefit by
widening the eligibility criteria, since they are often establishing
families at this point in their lives. Further, Dr. Tien pointed out
that most of the awards have been given in the mathematics, physics or
chemistry fields, and very few for engineering, computer science,
astronomy, or geophysics. Relaxing the eligibility criteria or giving
more than one award may allow recognition of more fields. He emphasized
that the Committee members did not want to diminish the prestige of the
award. Dr. Colwell asked the Board for approval to amend the language to
give the Committee flexibility to decide how many awards to make each
year.

The Board discussed changing the name of the award to the Alan T.
Waterman Award for Science, Engineering and Education. After discussion,
most members felt that a name change was not necessary. Factors relating
to engineering, education, and science could be emphasized in the
criteria for the award.

The Board voted to permit the NSF Director to seek congressional
approval to present more than one Alan T. Waterman Award each year.
Related Board discussion noted that the Board\'s feelings on this issue
were divided.

Dr. Colwell noted that the NSF Directorates should consider the impact
of changing the grant size, and Dr. Kelly deferred discussion about
other aspects of the Award to a future Board meeting.

d.  **Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science,
    Engineering, and Technology Development**

Dr. Colwell reported on the first of five meeting of this Commission,
held in April. The Commission is composed of 11 members appointed by the
President, Congress, or the National Governors Association. Its purpose
is to focus attention on barriers to the participation and advancement
of women, minorities and persons with disabilities in science and
engineering; promote workforce diversity; and encourage the replication
of best practices.

Dr. Colwell stated that the next two meetings will consist of public
hearings to gather information, and the final meetings will prepare
recommendations to the President and Congress due in the Spring of 2000.
Dr. Greenwood requested that information about the composition of the
membership and the charge of the Commission be provided to the Board as
soon as that information is finalized.

**e. Research Partnership**

Dr. Colwell referred to a Presidential Review Directive (PRD) to the
National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) to review and recommend
measures to strengthen the partnership between the Government and
universities. The goals of the review, she stated, are to assess and
reaffirm the principles of partnership; to promote cost-effective,
university-based research; and to ensure fair allocation of research
costs. Dr. Colwell announced plans to discuss the report in depth at a
future meeting.

**[AGENDA ITEM 10: COSEPUP GPRA Report]{.underline}**

In the absence of Dr. Morris Tannenbaum, who was unable to attend, Dr.
Kelly called on Dr. William Colglazier, Executive Officer of the
National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) to describe a recent report on the assessment of research results
for the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). Dr. Colglazier
reminded the Board that GPRA\'s objective is to encourage greater
efficiency, effectiveness and accountability in Government programs. Dr.
Colglazier said the scientific community was concerned that applying
these requirements to basic research could lead to inappropriate
quantitative measures. To address these concerns, the Committee on
Science, Engineering and Public Policy (COSEPUP) conducted three
workshops: one for industry participants; a second dealing with
strategic and performance plans of the agencies; and the last one on
assessment methodologies.

The COSEPUP GPRA report concluded that useful outcomes of basic research
cannot be measured directly on an annual basis because basic research is
too unpredictable. Instead, different types of indicators must be used
to measure the quality of the research, the relevance of the research to
the mission, and the leadership of the research benchmarking. These
evaluations can be accomplished by expert review. In terms of
leadership, international benchmarking is deemed valuable to compare how
countries are doing within certain fields. COSEPUP had similar
recommendations for applied research, but milestones could actually be
established and progress be evaluated accordingly.

COSEPUP also recommended that agencies emphasize the importance of human
resources in their strategic and performance plans, which in turn would
be part of their programs\' evaluation. The report included a
recommendation to establish a process that identifies and coordinates
areas of research among multiple agencies. COSEPUP suggested identifying
a lead agency for each field of research to ensure communications among
agencies would be open and forthcoming.

Dr. Colglazier said that reaction to the report from Congressional
Committees, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the
Inspectors General was positive. He added that the remaining resources
would be used to conduct five workshops: benchmarking; strategic plans;
expert review; coordination; and human resources.

Dr. Kelly invited questions from the Board. Asked if there would be any
assessment of the effect of GPRA, Dr. Richard Bissell, Executive
Director of COSEPUP, responded that a more in-depth study was being
considered to assist agencies as they move into the next phase of GPRA,
examining how different tools would apply to different agencies.
Regarding coordination among agencies, Dr. Colglazier assured the Board
that no agency would monitor others, but a lead agency would be
responsible for knowing what others are doing and communicating relevant
activities.

Members commended the NRC and COSEPUP for this useful report.

**[AGENDA ITEM 11: Recipients of the Alan T. Waterman, NSB Public
Service and Vannevar Bush Awards]{.underline}**

Dr. Kelly introduced Dr. Chaitan Khosla of Stanford University, winner
of the 24^th^ annual Alan T. Waterman Award, which was established by
Congress to honor young researchers whose work is at the forefront of
their peers. Dr. Kelly pointed out that NSF had recognized Dr. Khosla\'s
talents with research support since 1992 and a Young Investigator Award
in 1994.

Dr. Khosla thanked the Board for the opportunity to address them. He
briefly described his research work with natural products, stating that
their importance historically has been for the pharmaceutical industry
as the single largest source of new high value product discoveries. Dr.
Khosla and his research associates focus on: (1) the chemical aspects of
how nature synthesizes these complex, natural molecules; (2) the
engineering aspects which seeks to develop new methods to produce new
natural products; and (3) the biological aspect whereby they can exploit
the properties of molecules for medical purposes. Dr. Khosla said the
most important contribution of their research has been the human
output---the students and postdoctoral fellows who have trained with
them. Second, their work has rekindled the pharmaceutical, agrochemical,
and agrobiological industries\' interest in natural products. He noted
that the first products from their natural product research are already
beginning to advance to preclinical testing. Finally he speculated that
the long term impact of his research would be based on contributions to
the engineering of natural products.

Dr. Kelly invited questions. In discussion with the Board, Dr. Khosla
acknowledged the difficulty of intellectual property issues associated
with natural products, commented on advances in separating cancer cells
from healthy cells in human beings, and emphasized the importance of
collaboration and interdisciplinary research. Dr. Khosla noted that
problems in modern society are too complex for any single discipline to
solve.

Dr. Kelly congratulated Dr. Khosla and welcomed Dr. Maxine Singer,
recipient of the 1999 Vannevar Bush Award.

Dr. Singer thanked the Board for the honor of the award. She presented
an overview of her work, in relation to research on the three billion
base pairs of genes that constitute the human genome. Between five and
ten percent of the genome has been found to contain genetic information,
she explained, and the remainder is referred to as junk. Dr. Singer
believes that these poorly-understood pairs have survived 65 million
years of evolution for a reason, and it has been the challenge of her
work to discover that reason, She argued that understanding these
reasons will help us understand more about the way the life has evolved
and about our place in evolution. It has also given understanding of
certain human mutations that can cure disease. She concluded that, far
from being \"junk,\" the material that is the focus of her research has
turned out to be a critical and interesting aspect of the human genome.

Board members raised questions concerning both the content of Dr.
Singer\'s research and her role as a scientist-researcher at the same
time she is a leader of other people\'s research. Dr. Singer described
what is being learned about the processes that underlie mutations. She
also said that to be a leader of other people\'s research, one must also
be actively engaged in research or risk losing sensitivity to the
problems that are important to researchers.

Dr. Kelly thanked Dr. Singer for her presentation, then welcomed the
final awardees present at the meeting who received the 1999 NSB Public
Service Award as a group for the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS)
television series, \"Bill Nye, The Science Guy.\" The award was
presented to Bill Nye, host and head writer, and to the executive
producers, Elizabeth Brock, Erren Gottlieb, and James McKenna. Dr. Kelly
welcomed two members of the team, Bill Nye and Elizabeth Brock, and
invited them to speak.

Ms. Brock thanked the Board for the honor and described the important
role that support from NSF played in developing the pilot program. She
also discussed the results of evaluations conducted over the last two
seasons to measure the program's impact on learning, and stressed the
importance of being both educational and entertaining.

Mr. Nye said the goal of the program is to get the audience
scientifically engaged so that more people will choose scientific
careers. Mr. Nye also emphasized that artificial disciplinary
distinctions among the sciences were unproductive in their experience.

When asked about audience demographics, Mr. Nye said that the show is
aimed at 10 year olds (fourth graders). More than forty percent of the
viewers, he noted, were adults, and the PBS audience mirrors the ethnic
composition of the U.S.

Another question asked what NSF should do to increase the scientific
literacy of the public. Mr. Nye responded that informal education was
very important. In response to a question about national science
standards, Mr. Nye said they have found the AAAS science benchmarks
useful, but in general, existing standards involve too much detail to be
usable in producing their shows.

**[AGENDA ITEM 12: NSB Committee Charges and Structure]{.underline}**

Dr. Kelly deferred discussion of this Agenda item until Friday to
provide time for the presentation on long-range planning.

**[AGENDA ITEM 13: NSF Long-Range Planning and Budget - FY
2001]{.underline}**

Dr. Colwell presented an overview of the Long-Range Planning process.
The March NSB meeting began the annual cycle of planning and budget
development based on Directorate needs and opportunities. This meeting
will outline the key elements of the FY 2001 budget. In June, the NSB
Executive Committee will focus on a detailed FY 2001 budget. The budget
proposal will be presented to the Board in July for approval; and the
budget request will be submitted to OMB in September.

Dr. Colwell discussed the key influences on the FY 2001 budget
development process: the NSF strategic plan; and long-term budget
emphasis areas such as IT^2^, Biocomplexity, and the science and
engineering workforce. She said members of Congress have been generally
supportive of proposals and testimony brought before both the House and
Senate. However, she cautioned, the overall constrained budget
environment demands that the FY 2001 budget be very compelling. She also
stated that the NSF GPRA strategic plan is due to OMB by March 2000,
giving NSF less than a year for development.

Dr. Colwell described the key elements of the NSF vision that embrace
discovery, learning and enablement. She noted the need to identify NSF
as an investor in the future, and suggested that the first FY2001-2005
unifying budget theme should be the 21^st^ Century Workforce. A second
theme should be information and connectivity.

In discussing the mission of the NSF, Dr. Colwell noted that the mission
statement written in 1955 is still applicable today. Now, as then, it is
imperative that NSF continues to support research that reaches all
fields and all disciplines, and education at all levels. She said the
NSF Strategic Plan and the NSF GPRA Strategic Plan both emphasize
knowledge, human resources, and infrastructure. Dr. Colwell said that
the Directorate priorities could be described in similar terms: the
infrastructure (capability to do the things needed); research (having
the information and knowledge at each level of synthesis); and the
workforce (human resources). The priority-setting process within the
Directorates was based on these three emphasis areas and would determine
what should be included in the FY2001 budget request.

Dr. Colwell noted three themes that will be emphasized in the FY 2001
budget: Information technology; biocomplexity, and the S&E workforce for
the 21^st^ century. She first discussed research on information
technology as a national imperative, as outlined in a recent report by
the President\'s Information Technology Advisory Commission (PITAC).
Since PITAC\'s recommendations were released last December, an
Interagency working group has been established, with NSF as the lead
Agency, and the directors from the National Aeronautical and Space
Administration (NASA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA), and U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
participating.

Among the IT^2^ goals Dr. Colwell cited education as one of the most
pressing. The goal to have a premiere science-, math-, engineering-,
technology-educated workforce is the key to tapping the full potential
of all the emerging technologies. Estimates show that IT has generated a
third of the recent growth in the U.S. economy, accounting for 7.4
million jobs. Biocomplexity, a multidisciplinary approach to
understanding the world\'s environment, also has enormous payoffs.

Dr. Colwell next presented international data to support the need for
investment in basic research. Several members cautioned that the data
presented did not acknowledge the substantial time lag between
investments in research and output in the economy.

Dr. Colwell posed a question for the members to consider before the next
day\'s meeting. If NSF does not receive additional resources, what
tradeoffs should be made between award size, duration, proposal success
rates, and the number of investigators NSF supports? Dr. Tien suggested
that NSF help grantees find funding from outside government sources, for
example from industry or from foundations through matching funds. Some
discussion followed on whether this approach would put scientific merit
at risk. It was also pointed out that the relationship between grant
size or duration and scientific productivity also needs more study. The
Board discussed data available to help understand these issues.

Dr. Kelly concluded the discussion with compliments to Dr. Colwell on
the presentation.

The meeting was recessed at 5:25 p.m.

\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*

**Friday, May 27, 1999**

Dr. Kelly, Chairman, reconvened the Open Session at 8:35 a.m., and
reminded those present that the meeting was being recorded.

**[AGENDA ITEM 12: NSB Committee Charges and Structure]{.underline}**

Dr. Kelly returned to this agenda item, asking Dr. Marta Cehelsky, NSB
Executive Officer, to present a review of the NSB Committee Charges and
Structure.

Beginning with an historical overview, Dr. Cehelsky remarked that the
earliest committees formed in the 1950s were disciplinary-based. In the
1960s, committees were organized according to function, with three
general areas of Board responsibility: Programs, Administration, and
Policy and Planning. Budget Committees were established intermittently.

Dr. Cehelsky noted that the most recent review of the NSB committees
occurred in 1985-1986. This was the last major reform effort, which
resulted in a plan to establish three Standing committees: Education and
Human Resources (EHR), Programs and Plans (CPP), Audit and Oversight
Committee (A&O). At one point there was a Budget Committee, but it was
soon eliminated and its functions were shifted to the Executive
Committee.

Dr. Cehelsky described the original charges of the major committees. The
Executive Committee had the powers delegated to it by the Board, which
included the ability to act for the Board between meetings. The
Executive Committee was also responsible for reviewing and setting the
Board agenda, for coordinating the work of the committees, and for
monitoring the NSF budget activity and advising the Board on budget
matters. The biggest change since 1986 is that the Executive Committee
has been delegated the authority both to monitor the NSF budget and to
approve the NSF budget submission to OMB. This action was formally taken
in 1997.

The CPP Committee was established to oversee long-range planning for NSF
and to provide comprehensive reviews of programs, allowing the Board to
influence program development at early stages. This was intended to move
the Board away from the necessity that characterized their work until
the mid-1980\'s for review and approval of specific awards. In the
mid-1980\'s, legislative changes made it possible for the Board to
delegate approvals to the Director at whatever level it wishes.

The EHR committee was established to have powers equivalent to CPP, but
in the educational area. Other broad responsibilities included
monitoring the educational portfolio of NSF. The oldest of the
committees, A&O, had been created primarily to monitor the NSF review
process in approving awards and agreements. Other functions were added,
such as reviewing internal controls, monitoring policies and procedures,
and conducting Special Board Investigations. A&O evolved a large role in
monitoring administrative policy issues and in supervising the Inspector
General (IG).

In the years since 1986, concerns were raised that the Board structure
did not reflect the NSF\'s emphasis on the integration of research and
education. For the most part, however, the structure of the Board has
not significantly changed since 1985-1986.

Recent operational changes encouraged the conduct of business
electronically and made memberships in standing committees mutually
exclusive. Task committees, since 1985, have been established to work
through the Standing Committees and to deal with specific policy issues.
Then, as now, they have been encouraged to use external consultants to
provide expert information.

Dr. Cehelsky asked the Board to consider if changes are necessary to the
current structure of the Board and its committees. She raised several
questions: Do the committee charges need to be updated or clarified in
the context of the NSB strategic plan? Do the existing processes work
well? Are committees working effectively? Is the current structure
appropriate for optimal oversight of the NSF?

Dr. Suzuki, Chair, EHR, remarked that the current structure for the most
part would continue to be effective. He suggested, however, that the
charge of EHR be expanded to emphasize the current concerns about math
and science education at the K-12 level. He voiced concern about the
integration of education and research, and said that more committee
meeting time was needed to review policy issues.

A&O Committee Chairman Dr. Jaskolski remarked that the current committee
structure was good, but that the descriptions of the committees in the
charges emphasized reactive roles (e.g. \"conducts,\" reviews,\"
evaluates,\" supervises\"). He suggested that the wording be updated to
reflect a more proactive role.

The Chair of CPP, Dr. Armstrong, noted that his committee is constantly
trying to devote more time to reviewing long-range research initiatives,
and decrease the time spent on the statutory review of proposed awards.
Dr. Richardson noted his frustration at the committees\' exclusive
memberships. He would rather have staggered meeting times to be able to
attend meetings of other committees. Dr. Kelly noted the suggestion to
consider staggering the meeting times. With no further comment, Dr.
Kelly asked that additional questions or suggestions on this topic be
made to Dr. Cehelsky as soon as possible.

**[AGENDA ITEM 15: Annual Business]{.underline}**

**[(a) NSB Calendar for 2000]{.underline}**

Dr. Kelly referred to Tab G (NSB-99-83) in the Board Book, where a
proposed 2000 NSB meeting calendar was set out. He asked that the Board
review the calendar and respond to the Board Office before the next
meeting if there are scheduling conflicts. The NSB 2000 calendar will be
finalized at the July meeting.

**[(b) Executive Committee Annual Report]{.underline}**

Referring to Tab H (NSB/EC-99-9) of the Board Book, Dr. Kelly called on
Dr. Colwell to present the Annual Report of the NSB Executive Committee.

Dr. Colwell stated that the Report was approved by the Executive
Committee on Wednesday, May 5, and noted that no further action was
required by the full Board. Dr. Colwell invited questions, but none were
raised.

**[AGENDA ITEM 16: Cost-Sharing Policy]{.underline}**

Dr. Kelly called on Acting Deputy Director Dr. Bordogna to deliver his
presentation on cost-sharing. Dr. Bordogna began by noting that this
item had been presented at each of the standing committee meetings.
Board members noted a need to revise the Policy statement and further
discussion was tabled until after the Committee reports (Agenda item 17)
were made.

**[AGENDA ITEM 17: Committee Reports]{.underline}**

**a. Audit and Oversight (A&O)**

Dr. Stanley Jaskolski, Chair, delivered the A&O report after first
acknowledging and thanking Executive Secretaries Joanna Rom and René
Pettis for their help in coordinating the minutes. In providing an
update on Y2K, Dr. Jaskolski noted that NSF is on track with its systems
in compliance for Y2K processing. The remainder of the year will focus
on identifying backup and contingency plans.

Dr. Jaskolski further reported that the Committee accepted the NSF
cost-sharing policy as it was written, but will refine some of the
language in light of the recent Board discussion. Next, Dr. Jaskolski
referred to the recently issued 1998 NSF Accountability Report, which
was distributed to the Board. This report contains both financial
accounting information and performance information. NSF, he announced,
received a clean accounting opinion from its independent auditors, and
was one of only two federal agencies to receive an A rating for its
financial efforts from the Chair of the House Subcommittee on Government
Management, Information, and Technology.

Dr. Jaskolski next referred to the GPRA efforts, as reported by Paul
Herer and Loretta Hopkins of the Office of the Director and Philip
Sunshine, Acting Inspector General. Drafts of the official performance
report will be distributed for review, and comments will be welcome via
the Web.

The final item noted was the Committee's discussion of the IG\'s
semiannual report to Congress for the period ending March 31, 1999. The
Committee made no exceptions to the report, and agreed on the contents
of the NSB management letter that will transmit the report to the Hill.

Dr. Kelly congratulated NSF staff on the clean financial opinion.

**b. Programs and Plans (CPP)**

The Chair of CPP, Dr. John Armstrong, reported on the working session
with the Task Force on the Environment, in which the Task Force
discussed its findings and recommendations. Dr. Armstrong reported on
the discussion led by Dr. Bordogna and Dr. Colwell about the long-range
planning for NSF infrastructure. He noted that infrastructure
encompasses not only equipment but also facilities that involve
distributed networking and database capabilities. He noted that there
had not been enough time to discuss the status report given by Dr.
Ruzena Bajcsy, Assistant Director for Computer and Information Sciences
and Engineering (CISE) about the CISE Directorate\'s IT^2^ planning.

Dr. Armstrong noted that the Committee needs to expand the definition of
infrastructure. He stated that one of the issues is that the capital
cost of distributed infrastructure may be a smaller fraction of the
overall cost of ownership and operation than it currently is. Dr.
Jaskolski commented that the infrastructure issue provides opportunities
for new and better software design in which the NSF can take a
leadership role.

Dr. Kelly invited additional comments from Dr. Lubchenco regarding the
Environment Task Force. She responded that the Task Force is close to
finalizing its findings and recommendations, and anticipates delivering
the report to CPP and the Board at the July meeting. Dr. Kelly
reiterated that the final draft of the report by the Task Force on the
Environment would be provided to the Board in advance of the July
meeting.

**c. Education and Human Resources (EHR)**

Dr. Bob Suzuki, Chair, EHR, began his report stating that the Committee
approved the Report on the field hearings that were held by the EHR
Committee Task force on Math and Science Achievement in Los Angeles,
Chicago, and Puerto Rico in 1998. Dr. Suzuki noted that the report would
be posted on the NSB web site, as well as distributed in hardcopy via
mail. Another report, \"Preparing Our Children,\" is expected to by
issued in late May and distributed nationwide to state boards of
education, and four-year institutions.

Dr. Suzuki next discussed the presentation his Committee received on NSF
research and education funding and review profiles. The Committee asked
that additional data be presented at the July EHR meeting. Dr. Luther
Williams, Assistant Director, EHR, reported on EHR initiatives in three
major areas: research, the science, math, engineering and technology
(SMET) instructional workforce, and science and engineering workforce
diversity. Dr. Suzuki reported that NSF will fund 20 of the 150
proposals received by the 1999 K-12 Teaching Fellows program, and that
NSF plans to institute an undergraduate SMET Teaching Scholars Program
K-14 that involves faculty from several disciplines. Suggestions were
made to engage parents in the education process and to study the role of
parents and family in education.

Finally, Dr. Suzuki reported on the EHR Committee\'s work plan. Five
policy areas had been identified: K-16 education; research into
education; promoting greater collaboration among institutions; promoting
diversity; and promoting greater public understanding of science and
engineering. There was general agreement in the Committee that the
priority item should be the focus on K-16 education. Members agreed to
focus on how NSF can maximize its impact. The Committee recommended that
a symposium be organized, and will develop further details about on this
in July.

*Subcommittee on Science and Engineering Indicators - 2000*

Dr. Mitchell-Kernan, Chair, EHR Subcommittee on Science an Engineering
Indicators, reported that the subcommittee began reviewing chapters for
the Year 2000 volume and discussed external reviewers for each chapter.
Dr. Mitchell-Kernan said that Chapter I, \"Science and Technology in
Times of Transition: The 1940s to the 1990s\" had been sent out for
external review several weeks prior to their meeting, and seven reviews
had been returned, with two promised shortly. One of the major
recommendations from reviewers was to include more information on
progress in scientific areas in the last 50 years. Dr. Mitchell-Kernan
encouraged the Board to participate in the review of the draft chapters.
She also noted that another NSF volume, *Women, Minorities, and Persons
with Disabilities in Science & Engineering* (NSF 99-338) was recently
published and copies were sent to all Board members.

**d. Executive Committee**

Dr. Rita Colwell, Chair of the Executive Committee, reported that the FY
2001 budget should be brought to the NSB Executive Committee for
approval at the July 28-29 NSB Meeting. Should sufficient time not be
available at that meeting, time has been reserved for an Executive
Committee meeting on August 10.

**e. Task Force on International Issues**

Dr. Diana Natalicio, Chair, reported that the Task Force approved a work
plan aimed at presenting a draft report to the Board at the May 2000
meeting. She said that the Task force was in an information-gathering
stage and will conduct hearings and presentations. The first panel,
scheduled for July, will look at how various agencies interact. Dr.
Natalicio welcomed suggestions about topics or speakers that the Task
Force should consider and encouraged Board members to participate in the
hearings.

**f. Task Force on NSB 50^th^ Anniversary**

Dr. Warren Washington delivered the report in the absence of Dr. Vera
Rubin, Chair. He reported on the three items discussed during an April
29^th^ conference call: (1) a brochure prepared by a science journalist
celebrating the Board\'s accomplishments, to be completed by December
2000, and a comprehensive history by a science historian planned for
publication two or three years after the fiftieth anniversary; (2) plans
for naming an asteroid after the NSF; and (3) plans for the actual
celebration, with a dinner scheduled for December 11, 2000.

Dr. Kelly noted that the NSF Director is scheduled to attend the Nobel
Award ceremony in Sweden on December 10, 2000, and therefore the
celebration may be rescheduled to December 12. He suggested that members
clear their calendars for December 11 through 13, 2000.

g.  **Committee on Strategic Science and Engineering Policy Issues**

Dr. Kelly, Chair of the Committee on Strategic Science and Engineering
Policy Issues, reported that the Committee heard a presentation from Dr.
Bruce Donn, Director of the Science and Technology Policy Institute at
RAND, on the RaDiUS Database Project. Dr. Donn discussed its potential
use to measure the status and output of federal research funding. The
Committee also discussed a draft workplan for the committee\'s work.

**[AGENDA ITEM 18: CPP Task Force on the Environment]{.underline}**

Dr. Jane Lubchenco reported that the draft report and recommendations of
the Task Force are close to being final, and delivery to the Board was
expected for the July meeting.

**[AGENDA ITEM 16 (Continued): Cost-Sharing Policy]{.underline}**

Dr. Kelly reintroduced the topic of the revised language for a
cost-sharing policy. The Board APPROVED a revised statement on
cost-sharing policy (NSB-99-92, attached), replacing the sentence on
page two to read:

> Requirements for cost-sharing may take into account the type of
> institution, institutional size, level of other research support,
> populations serviced, et cetera.

Dr. Bordogna announced that the cost-sharing principles would be ready
for distribution immediately after the meeting.

**[NON-AGENDA ITEMS]{.underline}**

Dr. Colwell announced that Dr. Chang-Lin Tien of the University of
California, Berkeley, was confirmed the previous night as a member of
the National Science Board for a term expiring on May 10, 2004. Also,
Dr. Joseph Bordogna was confirmed as Deputy Director of the National
Science Foundation.

Dr. Colwell announced that Dr. Mary Clutter, Assistant Director for
Biological Sciences, had been recognized as a 1998 Presidential
Distinguished Executive Rank Awardee. Dr. Clutter received a \$20,000
award and was honored at a White House ceremony for her accomplishments.
Further, Dr. Karl Erb, Director, Office of Polar Programs, Office of the
Director, was recognized with a 1998 Meritorious Executive Rank Award,
including a \$10,000 award.

Dr. Kelly returned to the topic of Senate Bill 887, which proposed a
moratorium on foreign visitors to U.S. Department of Energy nuclear
laboratories. Dr. Richardson distributed a statement about the Bill.
Several members emphasized the seriousness of the issue, stating that
the Bill could have severe repercussions on the scientific enterprise as
a whole. The membership concurred that subject to additional information
on the issue the Executive Committee was authorized to approve a Board
statement on Senate Bill 887.

There was no further business and the Open Session was adjourned at
10:20 a.m., to reconvene at 10:30 a.m. in Closed Session.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Catherine J. Hines

Operations Officer

Attachments:

Appendix A: Closed Session Items for the May 1999 Board Meeting

Appendix B: National Science Foundation Policy Statement on Cost-Sharing
(NSB-99-92)

[Appendix A to NSB-99-110]{.underline}

Record of discussion

353^rd^ Meeting

National Science Board

May 6-7, 1999

The Chairman presented a list of items to be considered in Closed
Session at the July, 1999 NSB meeting (NSB-99-74). A proposed resolution
and a certification from the General Counsel regarding closing these
portions of the meeting were also distributed. The Board adopted the
proposed resolution as follows:

The Board DETERMINED that the following portions of the meeting of the
National Science Board (NSB) scheduled for July 28-29, 1999 shall be
closed to the public:

1.  That portion in which minutes of the closed sessions of earlier
    meetings will be discussed. An open meeting on that portion would be
    likely to compromise information and discussions properly held
    confidential under the Board\'s resolutions authorizing the closed
    sessions.

2.  Those portions having to do with discussions regarding nominees for
    appointment as National Science Board (NSB) members and National
    Science Foundation (NSF) staff, or with specific staffing or
    personnel actions. An open meeting on these subjects would be likely
    to constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

3.  Those portions having to do with future budgets not yet submitted by
    the President to the Congress.

4.  Those portions having to do with pending proposals and proposed
    awards for specific grants, contracts or other arrangements. An open
    meeting on those portions would be likely to disclose personal
    information and constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
    privacy. It would also be likely to disclose research plans and
    other related information that are trade secrets, and commercial or
    financial information obtained from a person that are privileged or
    confidential. An open meeting would also prematurely disclose the
    position of the NSF on the proposals in question before final
    negotiations and any determination by the Director to make the
    awards and so would be likely to frustrate significantly the
    implementation of the proposed Foundation action.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Catherine J. Hines

Operations Officer