######### **NSB-04-47**

April 2, 2004

**MEMORANDUM TO** **NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD MEMBERS**

**SUBJECT:** Summary Report of March 24-25, 2004 Meeting

The major actions of the National Science Board (NSB, the Board) at its
379^th^ meeting on

March 24-25, 2004 are summarized for the information of those members
absent and as a reminder to those present. In addition, a preliminary
summary of the proceedings is provided.

This memorandum will be made publicly available for any other interested
parties to review. A more comprehensive set of NSB meeting minutes will
be posted on the Board's public Web site following Board approval at its
next meeting.

**1. [Major Actions of the Board]{.underline}** (not in rank order of
importance)

a.  The Board approved the minutes for the Open Plenary Session
    (<http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/meetings/mtg_list.htm#recent>) and Closed
    Plenary Session of the February 2004 meeting of the NSB.

b.  The Board elected members to a Committee on Nominations to prepare a
    slate of candidates for the May 2004 Board elections. The members
    are Drs. Bowen, Ford, Hastings and Hoffman. Dr. Michael Crosby will
    serve as Executive Secretary, and members will elect their own
    Chairman.

c.  The Board approved a resolution to close portions of the upcoming
    May 3, 4, 2004 NSB meeting dealing with staff appointments, future
    budgets, pending proposals/awards for specific grants, contracts, or
    other arrangements, and those portions dealing with specific Office
    of the Inspector General (OIG) investigations and enforcement
    actions, or agency audit guidelines ([NSB-04-30]{.underline},
    Attachment 1).

d.  The Board approved recipients for the 2004 Vannevar Bush Award, the
    Alan T. Waterman Award, and the Public Service Awards. Awardees will
    be announced after the Chairman has notified the awardees of their
    selection.

e.  The Board approved a resolution related to National Science
    Foundation (NSF) support for scientists at the Smithsonian
    Institution (SI) calling for the NSF Acting Director to negotiate
    with the SI Under Secretary of Science to develop a memorandum of
    understanding (MOU) detailing protocol for implementing this
    resolution. ([NSB-04-48]{.underline}, Attachment 2).

## [2. NSB Chair's Report]{.underline}

[Report on Senate Appropriations Hearing]{.underline}

The Chairman reported that on February 26 he testified before the Senate
Veteran's Administration, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent
Agencies Subcommittee on the NSF budget request for FY 2005. Both
Chairman Bond and Ranking Member Mikulski expressed their continued
support for doubling the NSF's budget during the next five years. They
expressed disappointment in the proposed 3 percent increase in NSF's
budget and in reduced spending for programs in Education and Human
Resources. They were especially disappointed in the proposed transfer of
the Math and Science Partnership Program to the Department of Education.
In his testimony, the Chairman provided the Board's official statement,
"In support of the Math and Science Partnership Program (MSP) at the
National Science Foundation." Concerning the Board's proposed budget,
Dr. Washington described NSB plans for enhancing contributions to
national science policy discussions and strengthening oversight of NSF.

[Legislative Update]{.underline}

The Chairman said he had asked NSF's Office of Legislative and Public
Affairs to provide the Board with a summary of key Congressional
activities since the last Board meeting. A copy of this update was
provided for members' information in the background materials for the
meeting.

[Update on Smithsonian Institution]{.underline}

The Chairman reminded members that at the November 2003 Board meeting he
had asked NSF's General Counsel and the NSB Executive Officer to work
together to identify Board or Foundation policies regarding NSF funding
of Federal researchers, and prepare an overview of recent legislation
that may impact NSF in this regard. During the February 2004 NSB
meeting, the General Counsel provided the Board with an overview of
these policies, practices, and legislation. Following the February NSB
meeting, the Chairman reported there have been numerous followup
discussions and communication on this topic among NSB and NSF staff,
Congressional staff, and representatives of the Smithsonian Institution.
Dr. Washington said he believed that there is a collective assessment
that progress has been made towards reaching common ground for all
parties, and, as a result, it is appropriate for the Board to discuss
whether it should modify existing policy.

After discussion of the many implications of the proposed changes, the
Board unanimously passed a resolution instructing the Acting NSF
Director to negotiate with the Smithsonian Institution and draft a MOU
to permit Smithsonian Institution scientists to compete for NSF awards
under specific circumstances. The draft MOU will be brought back to the
Board for review and approval.

[NSB Nominating Committee]{.underline}

The Chairman reported that in Executive Closed Session today, the Board
elected a Nominating Committee charged with creating a slate of
candidates for the election of Board officers in May. Members of the
committee are Drs. Bowen, Ford, Hastings and Hoffman. The committee
members will elect their own chairman.

[Nominations for NSB Members]{.underline}

The Chairman reported that nominations for new NSB members are being
accepted for the class of 2006 -- 2012. Names should be submitted to Dr.
Crosby and Susan Fannoney. He said that the final list will come back to
the Board for approval before submission to the White House.

[Honorary Awards]{.underline}

The Chairman reported that in Closed Plenary Session the Board approved
recipients of the 2004 Vannevar Bush Award, the Alan T. Waterman Award,
and the Public Service Awards. The names of the awardees will be made
public once recipients have been contacted by the Acting Director of NSF
and the NSB Chair.

[Discharge of Task Force]{.underline}

The Chairman announced that he was discharging with thanks the EHR Task
Force on National Workforce Policies for S&E. It was chaired by Dr.
Miller, with Dr. Langford as Vice Chair, and members Drs. Fedoroff,
Natalicio, Savitz, and Simberloff. NSF Assistant Directors Drs. Bradburn
and Pitts also served as members. The Chairman expressed thanks to
Karolyn Eisenstein as Executive Secretary and Jean Pomeroy of the NSB
Office for their outstanding support.

**[3. NSF Director's Report]{.underline}**

The Acting Director announced changes in Senior NSF Staff - Dr. Wanda
Ward has been serving as Acting Assistant Director for Social,
Behavioral, and Economic Sciences Directorate since March 14, and Dr.
Thomas Windham, began his position as Senior Advisor in the Office of
the Director for Science & Engineering (S&E) Workforce on February 17.

The Acting Director also provided a summary of recent Congressional
activities. He met

March 4 with Congressman Nick Stone who is interested in encouraging
private sector investment in math and science education, and wishes to
establish a Congressional Gold Medal to reward such private sector
investments. A hearing will be held March 31 on this topic, and Dr.
Ramaley will be a witness. Dr. Bement met with Mike Stevens, minority
staffer of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on the issues related
to NSF funding of Smithsonian Institution scientists. The Senate Health
and Science Committee held a hearing March 15 on the recent reports by
the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) and the National
Research Council. Hearings were held March 17 on green chemistry, and
the Acting Director was a witness and described NSF's \$30 million
portfolio in this area. He also attended a Congressional breakfast March
18 to recognize recipients of the President's awards for excellence in
math and science teaching. Since the February NSB meeting, the NSF has
held briefings for Congressional staff on Cybersecurity, the FY 2005
budget request, high-end computing, and the scholarship for service
program.

**[4. NSB Committees Summary Reports]{.underline}**

**a. Executive Committee (EC)**

Board members were given an opportunity to review two proposals from NSB
members that were recommended for funding by NSF program staff. No Board
members expressed any concerns about NSF's review and handling of these
proposals. The Chairman also reported that the Executive Committee
endorsed the response to the Sunshine Act Audit of the NSB by the Office
of Inspector General prepared by the NSB Executive Officer.

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

Dr. Gerald Barkdoll, Project Director, provided an update on the NAPA
review of NSF. Final issuance of the report is scheduled for April 22.
The committee agree that they would briefly: a) reiterate to NAPA the
input already provided to them (through Dr. Crosby) on the single report
chapter on the NSB, b) take appropriate time to review the entire report
in the context of policy issues that may require Board action, and c)
address the Board's feedback on the NAPA report to the appropriate
Congressional committees.

Mr. Thomas Cooley, NSF's Chief Financial Officer, provided an update on
Grants Monitoring, fulfilling a commitment made at the November meeting.
Based on feedback from audits, there is a clear sense that new and other
non-traditional grantees need the most attention, and that pro-active
training and communication are important to prevent poor audit results
down the road.

Dr. Crosby reported on the NSB Sunshine Act Audit and the NSB's plans
for responding. He noted that overall the NSB "passed" the audit and
recommended that the NSB address the recommendations for improvement by
development of a handbook, training, and dedicated staffing to support
Sunshine Act compliance, and having the NSB Executive Officer attend
various NSF executive management, Major Research Facilities Research and
Construction and Director's Review Board meetings with approval of the
NSF Director. The committee endorsed this approach.

In closed session, the OIG presented information about two ongoing
investigations.

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

Chairman George Langford welcomed Acting Director Arden Bement to the
committee, and introduced Dr. Thomas Windham, as the Senior Advisor for
Science and Engineering Workforce. Dr. Windham addressed the committee
briefly on his vision for his new position. .

Dr. Langford reminded the committee members of the Statement of the NSB
in Support of the Math and Science Partnership (MSP) Program at the
National Science Foundation to the Office of Science and Technology
Policy, Office of Management and Budget, and Congress on the proposed
transfer of the Math and Science Partnership Program to the Department
of Education. There have been no changes to date on the status of the
MSP program. The EHR Committee asked to go on record that it remains in
favor of maintaining the MSP program at NSF.

Dr. Bianca Bernstein, Division Director, Graduate Education, provided
the committee with an update on a Graduate Student Workshop jointly
sponsored by NSF, the National Institutes of Health and the Council of
Graduate Students, which is now scheduled for June 17-18, 2004 at the
American Association for the Advancement of Science Building in
Washington, DC.

Dr. Crosby provided an update on the manuscript on S&E Workforce
prepared for the journal, *Science*, jointly authored by Drs.
Washington, Miller, Langford, Natalicio, and Crosby with Ms Pomeroy that
was submitted as a Policy Forum article. The authors felt it was
important to continue to clarify the position of the Board on the topic
of the S&E Workforce and initiate a broader discussion on this topic.

The committee members considered a draft executive summary with findings
and recommendation that resulted from the NSB Workshop on Broadening
Participation in Science and Engineering Research and Education held in
August 2003. The draft will be revised, based on the committee
discussion. The committee will meet by teleconference to review the
revised draft for consideration by the full Board at the May NSB
meeting.

Dr. Judith Ramaley, Assistant Director of the Education and Human
Resources Directorate, provided a presentation on EHR priorities and
2005 budget. Dr. Ramaley discussed budget changes from FY 2003 to FY
2004, and noted that most significant changes occur when going to FY
2005 when the EHR budget requests declines by 18 percent. Dr. Ramaley
noted that an \$80M portion of the MPS Program funds in FY 2005 would be
in the Research and Related Activities Account to be used for phasing
out the existing awards.

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

The S&EI Subcommittee did not meet, but the Chairman called on Dr.
Richardson to report on the status of S&E Indicators --2004. Dr.
Richardson reported that the publication had been submitted January 12
to the White House, but no word has been received on its release for
delivery to Congress. Dr. Washington asked the Executive Officer to look
into this situation.

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

In open session, the committee heard a status report on the planning for
NSF's role in the Academic Research Fleet. Four specific initiatives
represent NSF's role in decadal efforts to renew the fleet: Alaska
Region Research Vessel; three regional class ships; a seismic vessel to
replace the R/V Ewing; and a replacement for the ALVIN.

There was a status report from the NSB Task Force on Long-lived Data
Collections (LLDC). A workshop was held on March 23 with broad
representation from the scientific community. A report will be produced
that summarizes the outcomes from this workshop and the earlier workshop
with the Federal community. The report will be made available to the
Board and will inform the task force on LLDC.

The committee heard a report from the *ad hoc* Task Group on High Risk
Research. A workshop is being organized for the fall. The Group is
working on a list of invitees and a paper on this subject. Additional
invitee names are being solicited, and the NSB Executive Officer will be
contacting NSF staff in this regard.

The Chair of the Subcommittee on Polar Issues presented a report on
their meeting.

The committee held a discussion related to the National Academies'
Report on Setting Priorities for Large Research Facilities.

**f. CPP Subcommittee on Polar Issues (PI)**

The Subcommittee on Polar Issues heard from the Office of Polar Programs
on the following items: a meeting with the Alaska Native Science
Commission in Bethel, Alaska; the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment and a
gathering of stakeholders in Seward, Alaska; an Office of Polar
Programs-sponsored international workshop for ice core scientists to
explore the development of an international "toolbox" to be used on a
shared basis; the McMurdo Infrastructure Long Range Plan; Information
Technology security in the Antarctic; planning for the International
Polar Year, 2007-2008; the most recent Antarctic season, which went well
due to good weather; and two dinosaur discoveries made less than a week
apart in Antarctica.

The subcommittee also heard presentations on: the importance of small
eddies in the Arctic ocean that are thought to help disperse water in
the halocline and thus prevent a sudden warming from the warmer, saltier
Atlantic water that lies beneath, and environmental assessment of
scientific and operational activities in Antarctica.

**g. Committee on Strategy and Budget (CSB)**

Dr. Maxine Savitz led the committee in a discussion of the questions
raised by Office of Science and Technology Policy, Congressional Staff,
and NSB Members related to the report submitted by the Board as mandated
in Section 22 of the NSF Authorization Act of 2002. NSF staff prepared
responses and related data to inform this discussion.

Specific areas discussed included the causes for and implications of the
large increases in proposals submitted to the NSF over the past three
years -- from a level of about 30,000 per year through 2001 to 40,000
proposals in 2003. Suggested causes include an increase in Information
Technology Research (ITR), Small Business Innovation Research, and
CAREER submissions; and a reduction in funding at other Federal
agencies.

The CSB discussed tradeoffs associated with changing award size and
duration, including affects on funding rates and future funding
opportunities (mortgages). Projections of tradeoffs in award size and
duration, funding rate, and cost are issues that require careful
management and monitoring. NSF is addressing mortgaging of future awards
by past commitments through its use of standard and continuing grant
mechanisms.

The CSB was provided information on current NSF efforts in support of
about 35,000 undergraduate students. Dr. Savitz requested additional
information on the effectiveness of programs to encourage education
beyond undergraduate level, particularly for minority students. Dr.
Savitz requested Dr. Crosby to provide a summary of the questions and
requests for further information that were raised during the committee
discussion. He will then discuss with Dr. Bement, and NSF will provide
responses and additional input to these issues.

Dr. Savitz led a discussion on the request from Hill staff for the Board
to specify strategic funding recommendations in the "Section 22" report
in \$100 million increments. The Committee indicated that the Board
should advise on general principles and provide guidance for broader
categories, rather than respond with specific dollar amounts.

Dr. Bement presented an overview of the FY 2006 budget preparation and
approval process. Dr. Savitz noted that there would be further
discussions to clarify CSB's involvement in the process. Dr. Crosby will
work with Dr. Bement to provide appropriate budget planning material to
CSB prior to the May meeting

**g. *Ad Hoc* Committee on 2004 Vannevar Bush Award**

The Vannevar Bush Award Committee selected a candidate for the 2004
award to recommend to the NSB during the Executive Closed Session on
Thursday, March 25.

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

#### Michael P. Crosby 

#### Executive Officer 

Attachment 1: [NSB-04-30]{.underline}

Attachment 2: [NSB-04-48]{.underline}

# [Attachment 1 to NSB-04-47]{.underline}

# [NSB-04-30]{.underline}

March 2, 2004

MEMORANDUM TO MEMBERS AND CONSULTANTS OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD

**Subject: Closed Session Agenda Items for May 3-4, 2004 Meeting**

The Government in the Sunshine Act requires formal action on closing
portions of each Board meeting. The following are the Closed Session
Agenda items anticipated for the

May 3-4, 2004 meeting.

1.  Staff appointments

2.  Future budgets

3.  Grants and contracts

4.  Specific Office of Inspector General investigations and enforcement
    actions

A proposed resolution and the General Counsel\'s certification for
closing these portions of the meetings are attached for your
consideration.

Michael P. Crosby

Executive Officer

Attachments (2)

PROPOSED

RESOLUTION

TO CLOSE PORTIONS OF

380th MEETING

NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD

[RESOLVED:]{.underline} That the following portions of the meeting of
the National Science Board (NSB) scheduled for May 3, 4, 2004 shall be
closed to the public.

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

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

3.  Those portions having to do with proposals and 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.

4.  Those portions having to do with specific Office of the Inspector
    General investigations and enforcement actions, or agency audit
    guidelines.

The Board finds that any public interest in an open discussion of these
items is outweighed by protection of the interests asserted for closing
the items.

CERTIFICATE

It is my opinion that portions of the meeting of the National Science
Board (NSB) or its subdivisions scheduled for May 3 - 4, 2004 having to
do with nominees for appointments as NSB members and National Science
Foundation (NSF) staff, or with specific staffing or personnel issues or
actions, may properly be closed to the public under 5 U.S.C. § 552b(c)
(2) and (6); those portions having to do with future budgets may
properly be closed to the public under 5 U.S.C. § 552b(c) (3) and 42
U.S.C. 1863(k); those portions having to do with proposals and awards
for specific grants, contracts, or other arrangements may properly be
closed to the public under 5 U.S.C. § 552b(c) (4), (6), and (9) (B);
those portions disclosure of which would risk the circumvention of a
statute or agency regulation under 5 U.S.C. § 552b(c) (2); and those
portions having to do with specific Office of the Inspector General
investigations and enforcement actions may properly be closed to the
public under 5 U.S.C. § 552b(c) (5), (7) and (10).

Lawrence Rudolph

General Counsel

National Science Foundation

#### Attachment 2 to [NSB-04-47]{.underline}

**[NSB-04-48]{.underline}**

March 26, 2004

# RESOLUTION

NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD

REVISION TO NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION POLICY

ON CONSIDERING PROPOSALS FROM, AND MAKING AWARDS TO,

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION SCIENTISTS

RESOLVED, that the National Science Board (NSB) directs that the
National Science Foundation (NSF) will modify its current policy on
funding other Federal agencies to acknowledge the unique status of
Smithsonian Institution (SI) and its special contributions to science
research and education by making all full time and post-doctoral
scientists of the SI eligible to apply for NSF grants through the normal
merit review process.

The NSF Director is authorized and requested to make such modifications,
and to negotiate a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the SI Under
Secretary for Science that will provide the specific details and
protocol by which NSF will accept SI proposals and make awards to the
SI. The MOU shall be submitted to the NSB for approval prior to
implementation.

Warren M. Washington

Chairman

#