## [NSB-00-123]{.underline}

### APPROVED MINUTES[^1]

**OPEN SESSION**

**358^th^ MEETING**

**NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD**

The National Science Foundation

Arlington, Virginia

May 4, 2000

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

Eamon M. Kelly, Chairman Robert M. Solow

Diana S. Natalicio, Vice Chair John A. White, Jr.

John A. Armstrong

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 T. Mitchell-Kernan

Robert C. Richardson

Vera Rubin

Maxine Savitz

Luis Sequeira

Bob H. Suzuki

Richard Tapia

Chang-Lin Tien

Warren M. Washington

Rita R. Colwell, NSF Director

The National Science Board (Board) convened in Open Session at 11:35
a.m. on Thursday, May 4, 2000, with Dr. Kelly, Chairman of the Board,
presiding (Agenda NSB-00-67). In accordance with the Government in the
Sunshine Act, this portion of the meeting was open to the public.

# AGENDA ITEM 3: Presentation by Dr. Michael Turner

a.  **Presentation**

Dr. Kelly called on Dr. Richardson to introduce the guest speaker. In
introducing Dr. Michael Turner, Chairman of the Department of Astronomy
and Astrophysics and the Bruce V. and Diana M. Rauner Distinguished
Service Professor at the University of Chicago, Dr. Richardson commented
that recent discoveries in astronomy and astrophysics supported by the
National Science Foundation contradict arguments in a currently popular
book that the best and most exciting scientific discoveries are past. He
pointed to reports in the *New York Times* and *Washington Post* the
previous week on recently obtained detailed images of the universe as it
existed nearly 15 billion years ago. He stated that Dr. Turner would
speak on the topic of new developments in astrophysics.

Dr. Turner began his presentation by stating that the most exciting
science is being done at the boundaries of disciplines and is
fundamentally interdisciplinary. Dr. Turner discussed five recent
discoveries and how these discoveries link to an understanding of the
origin and evolution of the universe, the unification of the forces and
particles, and how objects in the universe work. He noted the following
important discoveries: (1) A recent experiment revealed that some
neutrinos have mass and that they contribute as much to the total mass
of the universe as do stars. (2) Data from telescopic observations
indicate that the expansion of the universe is accelerating despite the
effects of gravity, indicating the existence of dark energy, which has
repulsive gravity. (3) Recent analyses reveal that the mass and gravity
of known matter in the universe are insufficient to hold galaxies
together. Most of the mass in the universe is dark matter. (4)
Observations using a National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) satellite detected a cosmic microwave background, the echo of the
Big Bang, from the universe at 500,000 years of age. The intensity of
the microwave background was remarkably the same in all directions, but
slight variations indicated areas with more or less matter. (5) An
experiment at the South Pole looked at the structure of the microwave
background from above the atmosphere and determined that the curvature
of the universe is basically flat, like a piece of paper.

Dr. Turner summarized the impact that these and other discoveries will
have on research in astrophysics. The universe is approximately
one-third matter and two-thirds dark energy in a form that has not yet
been identified. In the next ten to twenty years, researchers will
attempt to determine what constitutes dark matter, how dark matter is
linked to the unifying forces and particles, where the lumpiness that
seeded the structure of the universe came from, and whether there are
unseen spatial and temporal dimensions.

**b. Comments by Dr. Eileen Friel**

Dr. Richardson asked Dr. Eileen Friel, Executive Officer of the Division
of Astronomical Sciences, to comment on some of the NSF projects
designed to study the areas discussed by Dr. Turner. Dr. Friel discussed
the role played by many NSF programs and facilities, including several
divisions in the Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences, as
well as the Office of Polar Programs and the Directorate for
Geosciences. In addition, the Major Research Equipment (MRE) projects
and the large facilities like Gemini, Laser Interferometer
Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO), and Alma support this kind of
research. NSF activities use such facilities as the very large array,
optical infrared telescopes, Gemini, national observatories, satellites
supported by NASA, and gamma ray and cosmic ray detectors. The NSF
supports neutrino experiments at the South Pole and gravity experiments
like LIGO and has partnerships with the Department of Energy, NASA,
private organizations and industry, and international collaborators.

After discussion, Dr. Kelly thanked Dr. Turner for his enlightening
presentation and recessed the Open Session.

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

At 2:21 p.m. Dr. Kelly welcomed NSF staff and guests to the Open
Session. He noted the recognition of recipients of the Alan T. Waterman
Prize, the Board's Public Service Award, and the 2000 Vannevar Bush
Award at the Annual Awards dinner of the previous evening. He thanked
Mrs. Susan Fannoney and other Board staff for their fine job in
organizing the event. In addition, Dr. Kelly acknowledged that this was
the final Board meeting for Drs. Greenberg, Mitchell-Kernan, Menger, and
Solow. He then reconvened the Open Session.

# 

# AGENDA ITEM 5: March 2000 Open Session Minutes

The Board APPROVED the Open Session minutes of the March 2000 meeting,
as amended (NSB-00-69, Board Book Tab B).

# AGENDA ITEM 7: Closed Session Items for August Meeting

The Board APPROVED the Closed Session items for the August 2000 Board
Meeting (NSB-00-68, Board Book Tab C).

# AGENDA ITEM 8: Chair's Report

**a. Announcement of Honors**

Dr. Kelly congratulated NSF Director Colwell on her election to the
National Academy of Sciences. He announced that Dr. Tapia received a
unique honor from Cornell University, which established the David
Blackwell and Richard Tapia Distinguished Lecturer Series in the
Mathematical and Statistical Sciences to highlight the contributions of
African American, Latino, and Native American scientists working in the
mathematical and statistical sciences.

**b. Status of Board Nominations**

Dr. Kelly reported that on May 1 the White House announced its intent to
nominate Dr. Mark Wrighton, Chancellor and Professor of Chemistry at
Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, as the final member of the
class of 2006. Three additional current Board members have been
renominated to the class of 2006: Drs. Lubchenco, Washington, and White.
Drs. Michael G. Rossman and Daniel Simberloff, nominated earlier, still
await Senate confirmation. Each nominee will be appointed to serve as a
Board consultant after May 10, until confirmation. Dr. Kelly
congratulated each nominee for the class of 2006. \[See NSB-00-69, page
2, for other nominees for the class of 2006.\]

**c. 50^th^ Anniversary Event**

Dr. Kelly reported that he, Dr. Colwell, and Dr. Langford participated
in an event on April 27 celebrating the 50^th^ anniversary of the NSF,
which received media attention. Dr. Colwell added her commendation to
the committee and the Office of Legislative and Public Affairs for an
inspirational morning with school children from Washington, DC.

**d. Cosmology Prize**

Dr. Kelly congratulated Dr. Rubin for her participation in the Advisory
Board of the Peter Gruber Foundation's new Cosmology Prize to be given
to an outstanding astronomer, cosmologist, physicist, or mathematician
in recognition of fundamental scientific advances that shape the way we
see and comprehend our universe. The first annual \$150,000 award will
be announced in August and presented in November at the Pontifical
Academy of Sciences at the Vatican.

**e. Discharge of Committee**

Dr. Kelly discharged the Ad Hoc Committee on the 2000 Vannevar Bush
Award, with thanks to the chair, Dr. Menger, other members Drs. Jones,
Langford, Richardson, and Tien, and executive secretary Mrs. Susan
Fannoney of the Board staff.

**f. Board Elections**

Dr. Kelly reported his reelection as Chair for an additional two years
and the election of Dr. Jones as Vice Chair. Dr. Kelly thanked Dr.
Natalicio on behalf of the Board and personally for her service and
contributions as Vice Chair during the past two years. He announced that
two new members of the Executive Committee would be elected at the
August meeting.

[AGENDA ITEM 8: Director's Report]{.underline}

**a. Staff Introductions**

Dr. Colwell introduced several recently appointed NSF staff members: Dr.
Costello Brown, interim Division Director for Educational System Reform;
Dr. Aubrey Bush, Division Director for Advanced Networking
Infrastructure and Research; Mr. Donald G. McCrory, Deputy Chief
Financial Officer and Director, Division of Financial Management; and
Mr. Eric Hamilton, interim Division Director for Research, Evaluation
and Communication in the Education and Human Resources (EHR)
Directorate.

**b. Congressional Update**

Dr. Colwell provided an update on Congressional actions. On March 30,
Dr. Margaret Leinen, Assistant Director of the Directorate for
Geosciences, testified before the Senate Energy Committee on NSF's role
in climate change research and how the research activities of various
federal agencies are coordinated through the National Science and
Technology Council.

On April 4, Drs. Colwell and Kelly testified on NSF's fiscal year 2001
budget request before the House Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban
Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriation Subcommittee and on
May 4 before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee. Dr. Colwell
reported that early indications suggest the budget allocation will be
less, perhaps substantially less, than the Administration's request.
First mark-ups of the bills are expected in late May, and full committee
mark-ups in early or mid June.

Dr. Colwell reported on three bills affecting NSF. House Science
Committee Chairman Sensenbrenner introduced H.R. 3904 to prevent the
elimination of *Science and Engineering Indicators* and six other NSF
publications, which was passed by the House on April 4 and referred to
the Senate Committee on Government Affairs. No Senate hearings have been
scheduled. Representative Ehlers introduced H.R. 4271, the National
Science Education Act, on April 13, which would amend NSF's organic act
to authorize a number of activities, including a master teacher program,
educational software development, and professional development in
educational technology. The bill has been referred to both the Science
Committee and the Education and the Workforce Committee. No hearings
have been scheduled. Senators Frist and Rockefeller introduced S.B.
2046, the Next Generation Internet Act, on April 13. This bill would
authorize NSF to spend \$352 million over the next three years and would
require that 10 percent of appropriated amounts be spent on research to
make high-speed networks available in rural areas.

#### AGENDA ITEM 9: Executive Committee Annual Report

Dr. Kelly called on Dr. Colwell to present the Annual Report of the
Executive Committee, summarizing activities for the preceding year. The
Board received the report as distributed (NSB/EC-00-09, Board Notebook
Tab D).

AGENDA ITEM 10: NSB 2001 Meeting Calendar

Dr. Kelly reminded the Board of previous discussions concerning the
location and timing of the annual off-site policy meeting and retreat.
Although the 2001 retreat will be held in February, in future years the
Board may wish to consider a different month to expand the range of
locations where weather would not be a factor in travel considerations.
Suggested locations for the 2001 meeting include Tucson, in conjunction
with a visit to the National Optical Astronomy Observatories; Florida
State University, in conjunction with a visit to the National High
Magnetic Laboratory; the University of Virginia and Virginia Tech, in
conjunction with a visit to the Greenbank Observatory; and the Scripps
Institute of Oceanography in La Jolla.

During discussion, several Board members supported the idea of
considering the District of Columbia area as a retreat location because
it would increase access to speakers involved in the transition to a new
Administration. It was noted that coherence between the site selected
and the theme of the retreat is a consideration.

The Board unanimously APPROVED the meeting calendar for 2001 (NSB-00-97,
Board Book Tab E).

#### ADENDA ITEM 11: Committee Reports

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

Committee chair Dr. Jaskolski reported that the committee reviewed the
fiscal year 1999 report on the Merit Review System as presented by Dr.
Nathaniel G. Pitts, Director of the Office of Integrative Activities,
and discussed how goals were addressed with respect to the Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA). During discussion, it was noted that
the diversity in approaches used by NSF programs is consistent with the
Board's recommendations in its March 1997 report on merit review. There
was considerable interest in the predictive effects on scientific
outcomes of the various approaches to merit review.

Mr. McCrory and Ms. Jannifer C. L. Jenkins, liaison to the Office of
Budget, Finance and Award Management in the Office of the Inspector
General, reported that the Congressional House Government Reform
Committee on Government Management, Information and Technology gave NSF
for the second year a grade of A for high-quality federal financial
management. Only 2 of 24 organizations received an A.

Audit plans are in place for fiscal year 2000. The current audit
contract expires this year, and preparations are being made for a new
contract.

The committee discussed the change in review criteria for major awards,
namely, that review will be based on a percent threshold system rather
than on absolute amounts. The committee discussed and accepted the
Inspector General's Semiannual Report to the Congress for the period
ending March 31, 2000. A spokesperson for the Office of the Inspector
General provided information on internal and external outreach efforts
and several active investigation and audit projects. In addition, the
committee approved its revised charge for consideration by the Board.

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

Committee chair Dr. Armstrong asked Dr. Lubchenco, chair of the Task
Force on the Environment, to announce the just-released study
*Environmental Science and Engineering for the 21^st^ Century.* Dr.
Lubchenco presented copies to the Board and thanked Board members and
NSF staff who contributed to the report. She noted that the report has
been posted on NSF's website. Dr. Armstrong reported that the committee
has asked for an update at every other meeting on this important
initiative.

Dr. Armstrong reported that the committee also discussed the draft
interim guidelines that NSF will use in managing the MRE account. The
need for guidelines for MRE is driven by the evolution of
infrastructure, especially information technology, and the need to
insure that the MRE account is used for substantial steps forward. Dr.
Bordogna led a discussion of items that might appear on the MRE list in
the future. Committee discussion of the Director's report on the Merit
Review system for FY 1999 focused on how to make sure that the NSF
sponsors the best set of projects and takes the right level of risk. In
addition, the committee approved its draft charge for consideration by
the Board.

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

Committee chair Dr. Suzuki began his report with budget issues. He
stated that Dr. Judith Sunley, Interim Assistant Director of the EHR
Directorate, reviewed the directorate's fiscal year 2001 budget,
explaining some of the major program expansions, including the 21^st^
Workforce Initiative. The EHR Directorate education activities are
complemented by initiatives in other directorates that also include
education and human resource aspects. In discussions with Dr. Sunley,
the committee defined priority areas as (1) preparing the instructional
workforce, (2) attacking minority achievement gaps, (3) instructional
technology as a driver for change, (4) scientific, mathematical,
engineering, and technological education, (5) research on education, and
(6) bridging the gap between teacher education and the disciplines. Dr.
Sunley will continue to develop the framework and relate that framework
to priorities and budget allocations.

The committee heard a report from Dr. Norman Fortenberry, Acting
Division Director for Human Resource Development in the EHR Directorate,
on the NSF programs that have been developed to promote diversity; the
report will be continued at the August meeting. Dr. Toni Clewell, the
Executive Director of the Commission on the Advancement of Women and
Minorities in Science, Engineering, and Technology Development, reported
to the committee on the work of the commission. The committee revised a
draft statement on openness of science and engineering communication for
presentation to the Board (Agenda Item 11, Continued, below). In
addition, the committee discussed a plan for exploring NSF's future role
in K-16 education by convening an expert panel to review NSF programs
and materials related to K-16 education and meet with the EHR
Directorate to suggest future directions for NSF. The committee also
approved its draft charter for recommendation to the Board.

Dr. Suzuki thanked Dr. Mitchell-Kernan, chair of the Subcommittee on
Science and Engineering Indicators, for her contributions to *Science
and* *Engineering Indicators2000.* He announced the appointment of Dr.
Tapia as the new chair of the Subcommittee.

*Subcommittee on Science and Engineering Indicators (S&EI)*

Subcommittee chair, Dr. Mitchell-Kernan, reported that the two-volume
*Science and Engineering Indicators2000*, a "companion piece," and a
compact disk await clearance by the White House for release, a process
that takes approximately one month. Dr. Mitchell-Kernan thanked the
Science Resources Studies (SRS) Division; Ms. Jennifer Bond, Director of
the Indicators Unit; Dr. Daryl Chubin, Senior Policy Officer in the
Board Office; Ms. Mary Poats, Executive Secretary; and subcommittee
members for their excellent work. She noted that, while Ms. Bond is on
detail as a legislative fellow, Mr. Rolf Lehming will serve as Acting
Program Director for the S&EI Program.

Dr. Mitchell-Kernan reported that Dr. Lynda Carlson, SRS Division
Director, presented five draft data cards that highlight specific S&EI
data, and the subcommittee recommended that the cards be printed and
distributed as a set. Dr. Carlson also discussed three reports from
different stakeholder groups on science and engineering indicators.

Dr. Mitchell-Kernan reflected on recent experience and offered
recommendations on future assessment of the S&EI. She further noted that
legislation to eliminate the sunset provision for *Science and
Engineering Indicators* has been introduced in the House, and reported
that Mr. William Noxon, Acting Section Head of the Media and Public
Information Section in the Office of Legislative and Public Affairs,
provided information on the rollout process and plans to publicize the
report.

d.  **Task Force on the NSF's 50^th^ Anniversary**

Task force chair Dr. Rubin reported that the 50^th^ anniversary
commemorative booklet should be ready for external review on May 26.
Reviewers being considered include historians, long-time employees, and
former Chairs of the NSB. The task force discussed the celebratory event
to be held on December 12 at the headquarters of the Carnegie
Institution of Washington. Dr. Rubin reported that the 24 winners of the
Jumpstart competition have been notified and will be announced in the
May 14 *Parade Magazine.* Winners will come to Washington on May 17 for
scheduled activities.

**e.** **Task Force on International Issues in Science and Engineering**

Task force chair Dr. Natalicio announced that Drs. Armstrong and
Lubchenco have joined the task force. Based on the Board's
recommendation at the last meeting, the task force has accepted the
challenge to prepare an interim report for Board approval at the October
meeting. The goal is to have a report ready for dissemination during the
transition to a new Administration. The interim report will focus on
specific areas of current policy interest. The task force intends to
identify key issues, present the role of science in addressing those
issues, and make specific recommendations. If possible, the task force
will have a draft report available for discussion at the Board's August
meeting.

f.  **Committee on Science and Engineering Policy Issues**

Committee chair Dr. Kelly stated that Dr. Maxine Singer, chair of the
National Academies' Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy
(COSEPUP), reported on the benchmarking experiments that the committee
had recently completed; the findings were published as *Experiments in
International Benchmarking of U.S. Research Fields*. Former Board Vice
Chair, Dr. Marye Anne Fox, also with COSEPUP, joined the committee
discussion by telephone. The discussion focused on the utility of this
methodology for priority setting across fields of scientific research.
The executive secretary of the committee, Ms. Jean Pomeroy of the Board
staff, reviewed the status of current activities and questions remaining
to be addressed. Dr. Donna Fossum, manager of the RaDiUS project at
RAND's Science and Technology Policy Institute, presented information on
the ambiguities in definitions and data measuring federally funded
research and development. The committee agreed to continue discussions
by telephone conference, with the goal of having a report ready in
December for the transition to a new Administration.

g.  **Committee on NSB Nominees**

Committee chair Dr. Jones reported that the committee held its first
meeting on May 3 and reviewed the time-line for developing nominations
and the selection process. The intent is to provide a list of
nominations to the White House in January for consideration for the next
appointment cycle. Dr. Jones encouraged Board members and others to
submit nominations through the Board Office. Dr. Jones noted that the
current number of candidates is relatively small and there may be a
shortage of candidates in some diversity areas and disciplines.

**h. Standing Committee Charges**

Dr. Kelly noted that the process of reviewing committee charges was
complete. He accepted the charges as recommended by the committees.

AGENDA ITEM 12: Director's Merit Review Report

Dr. Kelly referred Board members to the NSF Director's FY 1999 Report on
the NSF Merit Review System (NSB-00-84, Board Book Tab F) and stated
that the Board had officially received the report. At Dr. Colwell's
request, Dr. Pitts highlighted for the Board the merit review process in
the context of GPRA. The NSF is developing systems, setting uniform
guidelines, and changing committee structure in order to increase
accountability for its actions. A critical element in agency success is
a credible, efficient merit review system. Two GPRA goals specifically
focus on the merit review system: expending at least 90 percent of funds
using a credible merit review system (95 percent of NSF funds are
expended in this fashion), and implementing the two merit review
criteria (What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity? What
are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?). The NSF is trying to
improve in the second area by highlighting the criteria in
solicitations, presentations, and communications with college and
university presidents.

During the past 15 years, the total number of proposals submitted has
remained fairly constant, varying from 28,000 to 31,000 proposals per
year. The success rate has varied from 30 to 33 percent per year, with
slight variations among programs. Success rate profiles by demographic
characteristics reveal that the most significant difference occurs
between prior principal investigators (39 percent success rate) and new
investigators (23 percent success rate). Figures for minority and female
principal investigators are close to the average. The average award is
\$93,000; the median is \$73,000. An NSF goal is to increase the average
award to \$108,000.

Dr. Pitts explained that NSF uses three types of reviewmail review,
panel review, and a combination of mail and panel reviewand that
reviewers are all volunteers, regardless of the process used. Although
panels are more time consuming for the reviewers than mail reviews,
panels have a better completion rate than mail reviews. On the other
hand, mail reviews have the advantage of enabling broader input. The
trend during the past 10 years has been to move toward panel review. If
the trend continues at the current rate, in approximately five years
there will be no more mail review. Dr. Pitts suggested that the Board
may want to consider the implications of this trend. The goal is to
complete reviews within six months. Data show that 65 percent of
proposals reviewed by panel only and 50 percent of proposals reviewed by
mail only meet the goal. Last year there were 246,000 reviews, ranging
from excellent to poor. The relative number of declinations of excellent
proposals has remained sizable during the past several years.

##### Board Discussion

Board discussion following the presentation focused on modes of review
and highlighted that the most important concern is the quality of the
decisions under any method used. Members suggested the possibility of a
combined virtual panel review by teleconferencing and a mail review
process, and also suggested that FastLane might be used to support
electronic proposal reviews. It was noted, however, that many users
complain about the FastLane proposal submission system and that NSF is
working to develop a better system by the end of the calendar year.
Members also observed that, considering the small size and short
duration of many grants, the process is inefficient: too much time is
spent writing and reviewing proposals for the money involved.

Final discussion focused on the second merit review criterion,
especially the integration of research and education, the integration of
diversity into programs, and ways to measure progress in these areas.
Dr. Suzuki noted that the primary reason for integrating research and
education and diversity is to enhance the quality of education. He
observed that the way integration aspects of proposals are measured does
not appear to enhance the quality of education, and he expressed concern
that integration aspects are evaluated in a superficial manner. Dr.
Tapia added that the criterion is problematic because it is basically a
guideline that is difficult to enforce and does not motivate change. He
requested that minority data be disaggregated by gender, ethnicity, and
other measures of diversity, not just in merit reviews but also in any
analysis NSF undertakes. Dr. Suzuki asked for data comparing performance
by institutional category, such as research institutions, liberal arts
colleges, and comprehensive universities. Dr. Kelly stated that merit
review issues would be discussed again in August.

#### AGENDA ITEM 13: NSB Report on Communication and Outreach (NSB-00-99, draft)

Committee chair Dr. Greenwood recalled that the committee was
established a year ago to provide guidance on the role that the Board
and the NSF should play in expanding public awareness of science and
engineering as part of the NSF mission. After reviewing a variety of
communication and outreach issues, the committee offered findings and
recommendations in three areas: (1) need for increased advocacy for
science and engineering to increase the American public's appreciation
for science, engineering, and fundamental research, (2) need for
increased collaboration among NSF communication efforts, especially the
efforts of the Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences,
the Directorate for EHR, and the Office of Legislative and Public
Affairs, and (3) need for an expanded role of Board members in
communicating science and engineering to the public. Dr. Greenwood noted
that the status, knowledge, and visibility of the board put it in a
unique position to promote the understanding and appreciation of science
and engineering.

Dr. Greenwood stated that the committee will post the report on the
Board's website for comment. She asked for Board comments by early July.
Any suggested changes will be discussed during a teleconference before
the August meeting. The committee will present its final report for
approval at the August meeting. Dr. Greenwood requested that in the same
time frame the NSF indicate who will be its contact with the Board for
providing members with speaking materials. She thanked committee members
Drs. Suzuki, Tien, Menger, Savitz, and Langford and committee staff,
Executive Secretary Mary Lou Higgs and Dr. Robert Webber, for their
diligent and excellent work.

Dr. Kelly commented that this report covered a most important issue and
urged Board members to submit their comments by July 1. The report will
be formally considered for approval at the August meeting.

[AGENDA ITEM 11, CONTINUED: Statement on Openness in
Science]{.underline}

On behalf of the EHR Committee, Dr. Suzuki distributed the statement on
openness in science. After a brief discussion, the Board APPROVED the
Statement on Open Communication and Access in Science and Engineering
(NSB 00-106) as distributed, leaving final editorial authority to the
chairman of the EHR Committee.

#### AGENDA ITEM 14: NSF Budget and Planning

Dr. Colwell reminded Board members that they had requested more
discussion on several budget topics and noted that two---national
science and engineering infrastructure, and analysis of NSF award size
and duration goals in relation to diversity activities---would be
discussed at the August meeting.

*NSF Implementation of Recommendations from the Board's Environment
Report*

Dr. Colwell provided an update on actions taken to implement the
recommendations of *Environmental Science and Engineering for the 21^st^
Century* in three categories: (1) organization of NSF staff to carry out
a program of research, education, and knowledge assessment, (2)
resources and funding to support an expanded program of environmental
activities, and (3) the current priority areas and a means of
establishing future priority areas. With respect to organization, she
reported that Dr. Leinen coordinates the environmental portfolio across
the NSF and chairs an internal advisory group. She is assisted by Dr.
Margaret Cavanaugh, Staff Associate in the Director's Office. The NSF is
in the process of establishing a new advisory committee on environmental
research and education, expected to begin work in the fall. With regard
to the second category, resources and funding, an internal process has
been initiated to help identify interdisciplinary opportunities in
environmental areas and to shape long-term priorities. In the next few
years it will be necessary to increase the priority given to strategic
enabling technologies for the incorporation of human and societal
factors in the development of infrastructure for environmental
activities. With respect to current priorities, the NSF had strong
response to its Biocomplexity in the Environment competition this year.

*The NSF Budget*

**21^st^ Century Workforce Initiative:** Dr. Colwell explained that the
NSF has framed the initiative around three key areas in which it has
special interest, capability, and responsibility: (1) the instructional
workforce for science, math, and engineering technology, (2) the science
and engineering workforce, and (3) the technological workforce. Rather
than focusing on programs at this point, the NSF is delineating the
strategic directions from which the programs will be developed. These
directions include (1) the science of learning, (2) activities that link
research and education from high school through graduate studies, (3)
insuring diversity through access mechanisms and building linkages
between minority and majority serving institutions, (4) information
technology, and (5) NSF partnerships with other agencies and sectors.
She noted that NSF's most important product is people and that the
agency touches 200,000 lives every year, including 80,000 teachers and
35,000 students. The NSF provides the scientists and engineers employed
in industry, academia, and government.

##### 

**Mathematics Initiative:** Dr. Colwell noted that NSF intends to pursue
an aggressive agenda in mathematics, pure mathematics, applied
mathematics, and statistics, and cited a recent report by COSEPUP that
showed the Nation faces a dangerous situation in mathematics.

**Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences:** NSF intends to expand its
budget in this area during the next several years so that by 2003 it
will have a major interdisciplinary initiative. Dr. Colwell argued that
every NSF initiative must incorporate investments in understanding the
impact of human behavior on the natural world and vice versa. Dr. Norman
Bradburn, Assistant Director of the Directorate for Social, Behavioral
and Economic Sciences, is heading the conceptual development for this
effort and will present a timetable for this initiative at the next
Board meeting.

**Grant size and duration:** The agency requires an increase of \$4
billion to bring the average grant size and duration up to the level
targeted in the NSF strategic plan. The fiscal year 2002 goals are for
grants of \$120,000 and 3.3 years duration. The major reason for the
need to increase grant size is that the nature of research has changed
and has become progressively more expensive, at the same time that the
value of research results has grown even faster than costs. Dr. Colwell
also noted that when grant amounts are adjusted for inflation, the
grants given today are smaller than the ones awarded in 1963. The NSF
will make these points to the Office of Management and Budget, using
case studies, facts, and figures.

**Administration and Management (A&M) Support:** For fiscal year 2001,
NSF requests an increase for A&M of almost 14 percent, or \$215 million,
over the amount for fiscal year 2000. A similar increase will be needed
for several years if the NSF is to manage significant increases in
program funding and the corresponding increases in complexity and
quantity of the workload. Three long-term objectives are guiding NSF's
development of the fiscal year 2002 A&M budget request: (1) make the NSF
totally electronic in its business operations; (2) align the size,
composition, and skill base of our workforce to future needs; and (3)
increase diversity within our workforce. Although the NSF must continue
its investments in technological infrastructure, it is also critical
that the NSF focus on workforce needs for the 21^st^ century.

**Tools:** The NSF will spend about \$1.24 billion on tools in fiscal
year 2001, about a quarter of the budget. The increase proposed for
tools is approximately 13 percent. New developments in nanotechnology,
information technology, and biotechnology have changed profoundly the
capabilities and even the basic concept of tools. For example, the
ability to network facilities, research platforms, high-performance
computers, and vast databases together has created both new frontiers of
investigation and an unparalleled opportunity to integrate research and
education at every level. Dr. Colwell reminded the Board that it has
received draft interim guidelines for planning and managing the MRE
account. These draft guidelines will be discussed at the August meeting.
Major topics for discussion include the definition of MRE, the kinds of
projects that should be eligible for funding, balance and priorities
within and across disciplines and directorates, and readiness of
projects to be included in the fiscal year 2002 budget request.

In summary, Dr. Colwell noted that a quarter of the NSF budget is
people, a quarter is tools, and half is ideas.

##### Board Discussion

In response to questions, Dr. Colwell made the following points. Each
year the NSF gets 30,000 proposals, enlists 50,000 people to review
them, and completes 250,000 reviews. Approximately 9,000 proposals are
funded. The average grant size is less than it was 40 years ago and the
duration is only 2.8 years. The average grant is neither enough money
nor long enough to get a Ph.D. student through the Ph.D. program. Dr.
Colwell argued that this situation is wasteful of time, a fraudulent way
to do science, and abusive of the Nation's young people. She noted that
NSF has enlisted the support of 47 captains of industry who have signed
a letter to Congress in support of increased funding for NSF.

Dr. Colwell agreed with the desirability of NSF hosting workshops to
look at best practices as a way to help institutions incorporate
technologies into the classroom and laboratory. She responded to several
comments on the rising costs of overhead, noting that these costs are
real, driven in part by the need for compliance with growing regulatory
requirements.

#### AGENDA ITEM 15: National Science and Engineering Infrastructure

Dr. Kelly noted that discussion of this topic has been postponed until
the August meeting.

#### AGENDA ITEM 16: Other Business

Dr. Kelly concluded the meeting by thanking and saying farewell to Drs.
Greenberg, Menger, Mitchell-Kernan, and Solow. Dr. Kelly noted that
their contributions are evident in all the Board's recent products, and
that their wisdom and creativity will be missed.

Following a standing ovation for departing members, Dr. Kelly adjourned
the Open Session at 5:07 p.m.

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

## Janice E. Baker

Policy Writer/Editor

###### Attachments: NSB-00-97

NSB-00-106

[^1]: The minutes of the Open Session of the 358^th^ meeting were
    approved at the 359^th^ meeting, August 3, 2000