NSB 02-190

**Science and Engineering**

**Infrastructure For**

**the 21st Century**

*The Role of the*

*National Science Foundation*

> ![](media/image1.jpeg){width="2.8743055555555554in"
> height="1.3104166666666666in"}
>
> *\
> *

National Science Board\
*Draft: December 4, 2002*

**Contents**

###### 

###### Foreword

*NSB Membership*

*INF Membership*

*Preface*

Acknowledgements

Executive Summary

I.  Introduction

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
A.  Background

B.  The Charge to the Task Force

C.  Strategy for Conducting the Study

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
II. The Larger Context for S&E Infrastructure

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
A.  History and Current Status

B.  The Importance of Partnerships

C.  The Next Dimension

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
III. The Role of the National Science Foundation

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
A.  Leadership Role

B.  Priority Setting Process

C.  Current Programs and Strategies

D.  Future Needs and Opportunities

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
IV. Principal Findings and Recommendations

V.  Conclusion

Glossary

Bibliography

Appendices

**NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD MEMBERS**

The National Science Board (NSB) consists of 24 members plus the
Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF). Appointed by the
President, the Board serves as the policy-making body of NSF and
provides advice to the President and the Congress on matters of national
science and engineering policy. There are currently nine vacant
positions on the Board.

**[Alphabetical List]{.underline}**

**Dr. rita r. colwell**, (Chairman, Executive Committee), Director,
National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1205,
Arlington, VA 22230

**DR. NINA V. FEDOROFF**, Willaman Professor of Life Sciences, Director
Life Sciences Consortium, and Director, Biotechnology Institute, The
Pennsylvania State University, 519 Wartik Building, University Park, PA
16802

**DR. PAMELA A. FERGUSON,** Professor and Former President, Grinnell
College, Grinnell, IA 50112-0810

**DR. MARY K. GAILLARD\*\***, Professor of Physics, Theory Group
50-A5101, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, One Cyclotron Road,
Berkeley, CA 94720

**DR. M.R.C. GREENWOOD\*\***, Chancellor, University of California, 296
McHenry Library, Santa Cruz, CA 95064

**DR. STANLEY V. JASKOLSKI\*\***, Vice President, Eaton Corp. (Retired)
W278 N2725 Rocky Point Road, Pewaukee, WI 53072

**DR. ANITA K. JONES,** University Professor, Department of Computer
Science, University of Virginia, Thornton Hall, Charlottesville, VA
22903

**DR. GEORGE M. LANGFORD**, Professor, Department of Biological Science
6044, Dartmouth College, 6044 Gilman Laboratory, Hanover, NH 03755

**DR. JANE LUBCHENCO,** Wayne and Gladys Valley Professor of Marine
Biology and Distinguished Professor of Zoology, Oregon State University,
3029 Cordley Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331

**DR. JOSEPH A. MILLER, JR.**, Executive Vice President and Chief
Technology Officer, Corning, Inc., Science Center Drive, SP-FR-02,
Corning, NY 14831

**DR. DIANA S. NATALICIO**, (*Vice Chair*) President, The University of
Texas at El Paso, 500 West University, Administration Building, Room
500, El Paso, TX 79968-0500

**DR. ROBERT C. RICHARDSON,** Vice Provost for Research and Professor of
Physics, Department of Physics, Clark Hall 529, Cornell University,
Ithaca, NY 14853

**DR. MICHAEL G. ROSSMANN,** Hanley Distinguished Professor of
Biological Sciences, Department of Biological Sciences, Purdue
University, West Lafayette, IN 47907

**DR. MAXINE SAVITZ**, General Manager, Technology Partnerships,
Honeywell (Retired), Mail Code 1/5-1, 26000, 2525 West 190th Street,
Torrance, CA 90504-6099

**DR. LUIS SEQUEIRA**, J.C. Walker Professor Emeritus, Departments of
Bacteriology and Plant Pathology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
53706

**DR. DANIEL SIMBERLOFF**, Nancy Gore Hunger Professor of Environmental
Science, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of
Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37966

**DR. BOB H. SUZUKI\*\***, President, California State Polytechnic
University, 3801 West Temple Avenue, Pomona, CA 91768

**DR. RICHARD TAPIA\*\***, Professor, Department of Computational &
Applied Mathematics, MS 134, Rice University, 6100 South Main Street,
Houston, TX 77005

**DR. WARREN M. WASHINGTON**, (*Chair*) Senior Scientist and Section
Head, National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), P.O. Box 3000,
1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80307-3000

**DR. JOHN A. WHITE, JR.**, Chancellor, University of Arkansas,
Administration Building 425, Maple Street, Fayetteville, AR 72701

**DR. MARK S. WRIGHTON**, Chancellor, Washington University, Saint
Louis, MO 63130-4899

\*\* Consultant

**NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD**

**COMMITTEE ON PROGRAMS AND PLANS**

**TASK FORCE ON SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INFRASTRUCTURE**

  --------------------------------------------------------------- -------
  John A. White, Jr., *Chair*                                     

  Anita K. Jones                                                  

  Jane Lubchenco                                                  

  Michael G. Rossmann                                             

  Robert C. Richardson                                            

  Mark S. Wrighton                                                

  Mary E. Clutter\                                                
  *Assistant Director*, Biological Sciences, National Science     
  Foundation                                                      

  Warren M. Washington, *Ex Officio*                              

  Chairman, National Science Board                                

  Rita R. Colwell, *Ex Officio*                                   

  Director, National Science Foundation                           

  Paul J. Herer, *Executive Secretary*                            
  --------------------------------------------------------------- -------

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report, based on a study conducted by the National Science Board
(NSB), aims to inform the national dialogue on the current state and
future direction of the science and engineering (S&E) infrastructure,
highlighting the role of the National Science Foundation (NSF) as well
as the larger resource and management strategies of interest to Federal
policymakers in both the executive and legislative branches.

**CONTEXT AND FRAMEWORK FOR THE STUDY**

There can be no doubt that a modern and effective research
infrastructure is critical to maintaining U.S. leadership in S&E. New
tools have opened vast research frontiers and fueled technological
innovation in fields such as biotechnology, nanotechnology, and
communications. The degree to which infrastructure is regarded as
central to experimental research is indicated by the number of Nobel
Prizes awarded for the development of new instrument technology. During
the past twenty years, eight Nobel prizes in physics were awarded for
technologies such as the electron and scanning tunneling microscopes,
laser and neutron spectrography, particle detectors, and the integrated
circuit.

Recent concepts of infrastructure are expanding to include distributed
systems of hardware, software, information bases, and automated aids for
data analysis and interpretation. Enabled by information technology, a
qualitatively different and new S&E infrastructure has evolved,
delivering greater computational power, increased access, distribution
and shared-use, and new research tools, such as data analysis and
interpretation aids, web-accessible databases, archives, and
collaboratories. Many viable research questions can be answered only
through the use of new generations of these powerful tools.

Among Federal agencies, NSF is a leader in providing the academic
community with access to forefront instrumentation and facilities. Much
of this infrastructure is intended to address currently intractable
research questions, the answers to which may transform current
scientific thinking. In an era of fast-paced discovery, it is imperative
that NSF's infrastructure investments provide the maximum benefit to the
entire S&E community. NSF must be prepared to assume a greater S&E
infrastructure role for the benefit of the Nation.

**STRATEGY FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE STUDY**

The Board, through its Task Force on S&E Infrastructure (INF), engaged
in a number of activities designed to assess the general state and
direction of the academic research infrastructure, and illuminate the
most promising future opportunities. These activities included reviewing
the current literature, analyzing quantitative survey data, soliciting
input from experts in the S&E community, discussing infrastructure
topics with representatives from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), and other Federal
agencies, and surveying NSF's principal directorates and offices on S&E
infrastructure needs and opportunities. A draft report is being released
for public comment on the NSB/INF web site.

**PRINCIPAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS**

A number of themes emerged from the diverse input received. Foremost
among them was that, over the past decade, the funding for academic
research infrastructure has not kept pace with rapidly changing
technology, expanding research opportunities, and increasing numbers of
users.

Information technology has made many S&E tools more powerful, remotely
usable, and connectable. The new tools being developed make researchers
more effective -- both more productive and able to do things they could
not do in the past. An increasing number of researchers and educators,
working as individuals and in groups, need to be connected to a
sophisticated array of facilities, instruments, and databases. Hence,
there is an urgent need to increase Federal investments aimed at
providing access for scientists to the latest and best scientific-
infrastructure as well as updating infrastructure currently in place.
While a number of Federal Research and Development (R&D) agencies are
addressing some of their most critical needs, the Federal government is
not addressing the needs of the Nation's science and engineering
enterprise with the required scope and breadth.

To expand and strengthen the Foundation\'s infrastructure portfolio, the
Board developed four recommendations. The Board will periodically assess
NSF's implementation of these recommendations,

**[Recommendation 1]{.underline}: Increase the share of the budget
devoted to S&E infrastructure.**

NSF's future investment in S&E infrastructure should be increased in
order to respond to the needs and opportunities identified in this
report. It is hoped that the majority of these additional resources can
be provided through future growth of the NSF budget. The more immediate
needs must be at least partially addressed through increasing the share
of the NSF budget devoted to infrastructure. The current 22 percent of
the NSF budget devoted to infrastructure is too low and should be
increased. In increasing the infrastructure share, the focus should be
on providing individual investigators and groups of investigators with
the resources they need to work at the frontiers of S&E.

**[Recommendation 2]{.underline}: Give special emphasis to the following
activities, listed in order of priority:**

-   **Develop and deploy an advanced cyberinfrastructure to enable new
    S&E in the 21^st^ century.**

> This investment should address leading-edge computation as well as
> visualization facilities, data analysis and interpretation tool kits
> and workbenches, data archives and libraries, and networks of much
> greater power and in substantially greater quantity. Providing access
> to moderate-cost computation, storage, analysis, visualization and
> communication for every researcher will lead to an even more
> productive national research enterprise. This is an important
> undertaking for NSF and other Federal agencies because this new
> infrastructure will play a critical role in creating the research
> vistas of tomorrow.

-   **Increase support for large facility projects.**

> Several large facility projects have been approved for funding by the
> NSB, but have not been funded. At present, an annual investment of at
> least \$350 million is needed over several years just to address the
> backlog of facility projects construction. Postponing this investment
> now will not only increase the future cost of these projects but also
> result in the loss of U.S. leadership in key research fields.

-   **Address the mid-size infrastructure funding gap.**

> A mid-size infrastructure funding gap exists. While there are programs
> for addressing \"small\" and \"large\" infrastructure needs, none
> exists for infrastructure projects costing between millions and tens
> of millions of dollars. NSF should increase the level of funding for
> mid-size infrastructure and develop new funding mechanisms, as
> appropriate, to support mid-size projects.

-   **Increase research to advance instrument technology and build
    next-generation observational, communications, data analysis and
    interpretation, and other computational tools.**

> Instrumentation research is often difficult and risky, requiring the
> successful integration of theoretical knowledge, engineering and
> software design, and information technology. In contrast to most other
> infrastructure technologies, commercially available data analysis and
> data interpretation software typically lags well behind university
> developed software, which is often not funded or under-funded,
> limiting its use and accessibility. This research will accelerate the
> development of instrument technology to ensure that future research
> instruments and tools are as efficient and effective as possible.

**[Recommendation 3:]{.underline} Expand education and training
opportunities at new and existing research facilities.**

######### Investment in S&E infrastructure is critical to developing a 21^st^ century S&E workforce. Educating people to understand how S&E instruments and facilities work and how they uniquely contribute to knowledge in the targeted discipline is critical. Training and outreach activities should be a vital element of all major research facility programs. This outreach should span communities from existing researchers who may become new users, to undergraduate and graduate students who may design and use future instruments, to kindergarten through grade twelve (K-12) children, who may become motivated to become scientists and engineers. There are also opportunities to expand public access to National S&E facilities though high-speed networks and special outreach activities.

**[Recommendation 4:]{.underline} Strengthen the infrastructure planning
and budgeting process through the following actions:**

-   Foster systematic assessments of U.S. academic research
    infrastructure needs for both disciplinary and cross-disciplinary
    fields of research. Re-assess current surveys of infrastructure
    needs to determine if they fully measure and are responsive to
    current requirements.

-   Develop specific criteria and indicators to assist in balancing
    infrastructure investments across S&E disciplines and fields and in
    establishing priorities.

-   Conduct an assessment to determine the most effective budget
    structure for supporting S&E infrastructure.

-   Develop budgets for infrastructure projects that include the total
    costs to be incurred over the entire life-cycle of the project,
    including research, planning, design, construction, commissioning,
    maintenance, operations, and, to the extent possible, research
    funding.

Because of the need for the Federal government to act holistically in
addressing the requirements of the Nation's science and engineering
enterprise, the Board developed a fifth recommendation, aimed
principally at OMB, OSTP and the National Science and Technology Council
(NTSC).

**[Recommendation 5:]{.underline} Develop interagency plans and
strategies to do the following:**

-   Establish interagency infrastructure priorities that meet the needs
    of the S&E community and reflect competitive merit review as the
    best way to select S&E infrastructure projects.

-   Improve the recurrent funding of academic research so that, over
    time, institutions become capable of covering the full cost of the
    federally-funded research they perform, including sustainability of
    their research infrastructure.

-   Stimulate the development and deployment of new infrastructure
    technologies to foster a new decade of infrastructure innovation.

-   Develop the next generation of the high-end high performance
    computing and networking infrastructure needed to enable a broadly
    based S&E community to work at the research frontier.

-   Facilitate international partnerships to enable the mutual support
    and use of research facilities across national boundaries

-   Protect the Nation's massive investment in S&E infrastructure
    against accidental or malicious attacks and misuse.

**CONCLUSION**

Rapidly changing infrastructure technology has simultaneously created a
challenge and an opportunity for the U.S. S&E enterprise. The challenge
is how to maintain and revitalize an academic research infrastructure
that has eroded over many years due to obsolescence and chronic
under-investment. The opportunity is to build a new infrastructure that
will create future research frontiers and enable a much broader segment
of the S&E community. The challenge and opportunity must be combined
into a single strategy. As current infrastructure is replaced and
upgraded, the next generation infrastructure must be created. The young
people who are trained using state-of-the-art instruments and facilities
are the ones who will demand and create the new tools, and make the
breakthroughs that will extend the science and technology envelope.
Training these young people will ensure that the U.S. maintains
international leadership in the key scientific and engineering fields
that are vital for a strong economy, social order and national security.

I.  **INTRODUCTION**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
A.  **Background**

Since the beginning of civilization, the tools humans invented and used
have enabled them to pursue and realize their dreams. So it is with
science and engineering (S&E). New tools have opened vast research and
education vistas and enabled scientists and engineers to explore new
regimes of time and space. Advanced techniques in areas such as
microscopy, spectroscopy, and laser technology have made it possible to
image and manipulate individual atoms and fabricate new materials.
Advances in radio astronomy and instrumentation at the South Pole have
allowed scientists to probe the furthest reaches of time and space and
unlock secrets of the universe. Communications and computational
technologies, such as interoperable databases and informatics, are
revolutionizing such fields as biology and the social sciences. With the
advent of high-speed computer-communication networks, greater numbers of
educational institutions now have access to cutting-edge research and
education tools and infrastructure.

It is useful to distinguish between the terms "tool" and
"infrastructure." Webster's Third New International Dictionary provides
only one definition of infrastructure; i.e. "an underlying foundation or
basic framework (as of an organization or system)." It provides many
definitions of tool, the most applicable being "anything used as a means
of accomplishing a task or purpose." Given these definitions, it may be
useful to say that infrastructure not only includes tools but also
provides the basis, foundation and/or support for the creation of tools.

*"*Research infrastructure" is a term that is commonly used to describe
the tools, services, and installations that are needed for the S&E
research community to function and for researchers to do their work. For
the purposes of this study, it includes: (1) hardware (tools, equipment,
instrumentation, platforms and facilities), (2) software (enabling
computer systems, libraries, databases, data analysis and data
interpretation systems, and communication networks), (3) the technical
support (human or automated) and services needed to operate the
infrastructure and keep it working effectively, and (4) the special
environments and installations (such as buildings and research space)
necessary to effectively create, deploy, access, and use the research
tools.[^1]

An increasing amount of the equipment and systems that enable the
advancement of research are large-scale, complex, and costly. "Facility"
is frequently used to describe such equipment, because typically the
equipment requires special sites or buildings to house it and a
dedicated staff to effectively maintain and use the equipment.
Increasingly, many researchers working in related disciplines share the
use of such large facilities, either on site or remotely.

"Cyberinfrastructure" is used in this report to connote a comprehensive
infrastructure based upon distributed networks of computers, information
resources, on-line instruments, data analysis and interpretation tools,
relevant computerized tutorials for the use of such technology, and
human interfaces. The term provides a way to discuss the infrastructure
enabled by distributed computer-communications technology in contrast to
the more traditional physical infrastructure.[^2]

There can be no doubt that a modern and effective research
infrastructure is critical to maintaining U.S. leadership in S&E. The
degree to which infrastructure is regarded as central to experimental
research is indicated by the number of Nobel Prizes awarded for the
development of new instrument technology. During the past twenty years,
eight Nobel prizes in physics were awarded for technologies such as the
electron and scanning tunneling microscopes, laser and neutron
spectrography, particle detectors, and the integrated circuit.

Much has changed since the last major assessments of the academic S&E
infrastructure were conducted over a decade ago. For example:

-   Research questions require approaches that are increasingly
    multidisciplinary, and involve a broader spectrum of disciplines.
    Collaboration among disciplines is increasing at an unprecedented
    rate.

-   Researchers are addressing phenomena that are beyond the temporal
    and spatial limits of current measurement capabilities. Many viable
    research questions can be answered only through the use of new
    generations of powerful tools.

-   Enabled by information technology (IT), a qualitatively different
    and new S&E infrastructure has evolved, delivering greater
    computational power, increased access, distribution and shared-use,
    and new research tools, such as flexible, programmable statistics
    packages, many forms of automated aids for data interpretation, and
    web-accessible databases, archives, and collaboratories. IT enables
    the collection and processing of data that could not have been
    collected or processed before. Increasingly, researchers are
    expressing a compelling need for access to these new IT-based
    research tools.

-   International cooperation and partnerships are increasingly used to
    construct and operate large and costly research facilities. With
    many international projects looming on the horizon, the U.S.
    Congress and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) are concerned
    about the management of these complex relationships.

-   The reality of today\'s world requires that academe secure its
    research infrastructure and institute safeguards for its working
    environment and critical systems. Issues are also being raised about
    the security of information developed by scientists and engineers,
    such as genomic databases.

These changes have created unprecedented challenges and opportunities
for 21^st^ century scientists and engineers. Consequently, the National
Science Board (NSB) determined that a fresh assessment of the national
infrastructure for academic S&E research was needed - to ensure its
future quality and availability.

B.  **The Charge to the Task Force**

In September 2000 the National Science Board established the Task Force
on Science and Engineering Infrastructure (INF), under the auspices of
its Committee on Programs and Plans (CPP). The complete charge to the
INF is included in Appendix A. In summary, the INF was charged to:

> "Undertake and guide an assessment of the fundamental science and
> engineering infrastructure in the United States ... with the aim of
> informing the national dialogue on S&E infrastructure and highlighting
> the role of NSF as well as the larger resource and management
> strategies of interest to Federal policymakers in both the executive
> and legislative branches. The report should enable an assessment of
> the current status of the national S&E infrastructure, the changing
> needs of S&E, and the requirements for a capability of appropriate
> quality, size and scope to ensure continuing U.S. leadership."

In its early organizing meetings and in discussions with the CPP, the
INF defined the scope and terms of reference for the study. Because the
charge focused on "fundamental science and engineering," the INF decided
to address primarily the infrastructure needs of the academic research
community, including infrastructure at national laboratories or in other
countries, as long as it served the needs of academic researchers. The
INF also determined that the study should focus on "research"
infrastructure, in contrast to infrastructure serving purely educational
purposes, such as classrooms, teaching laboratories and training
facilities. However, the INF recognized that many cutting-edge research
facilities are "dual use," in that they also provide excellent
opportunities for education and training as well as research. Such
infrastructure was included within this study.

Finally, while the study was concerned with the status of the entire
academic research infrastructure, the Task Force decided that it should
also provide an in-depth analysis of NSF's infrastructure policies,
programs and activities, including a look at future needs, challenges
and opportunities. This was done for the purpose of providing specific
advice to the NSF Director and the National Science Board. While other
R&D agencies, such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA), Department of Energy (DoE), Department of Defense (DoD) and
National Institutes of Health (NIH) play an important role in serving
the infrastructure needs of academic researchers, detailed surveys of
their infrastructure support programs are not provided.

# Strategy for Conducting the Study

In responding to its charge, the Task Force recognized certain limits in
what it could do. Conducting a new comprehensive survey of academic
institutions was not deemed to be practical, in that it would take too
much time to accomplish. As an alternative, the INF engaged in a number
of parallel activities designed to assess the general state and
direction of the academic research infrastructure, and illuminate the
most promising future opportunities. The principal activities were the
following:

-   The INF surveyed the current literature, including reviewing and
    considering the findings of over 60 reports, studies, and planning
    documents. This literature list appears in Appendix B.

-   Representatives from other agencies, such as NASA, DoE, and the
    Office of Management and Budget (OMB) made presentations to the INF
    and responded to many questions. In addition, specialists were
    invited to address the Task Force on relevant topics at several
    meetings.

-   The seven NSF directorates[^3] and the Office of Polar Programs
    (OPP) provided assessments of the current state of the research
    infrastructure serving the S&E fields they represent, as well as an
    assessment of future infrastructure needs and opportunities through
    2010.

-   Drafts of the report were presented to and discussed with the NSF
    Director's Policy Group, the NSB Committee on Programs and Plans,
    and the full National Science Board.

II. **THE LARGER CONTEXT FOR S&E INFRASTRUCTURE**

    A.  History and Current Status

Today S&E research is carried out in laboratories supported by
government, academe, and industry. Before 1900, however, there were
relatively few government-supported research activities. In 1862
Congress passed the Morrill Act, which made it possible for the many new
states to establish agricultural and technical (land grant) colleges for
their citizens. Although originally started as technical colleges, many
of them grew, with additional state and Federal aid, into large public
universities with premier research programs.

Before World War II, universities were regarded as peripheral to the
Federal research enterprise. In the years between World War I and World
War II, the immigration of scientists from Europe helped to develop
American superiority in fields such as physics and engineering. World
War II dramatically expanded Federal support for academic and industrial
R&D. The war presented a scientific and engineering challenge to the
United States ­ to provide weapons based on advanced concepts and new
discoveries that would help defeat the enemy. Large national
laboratories, such as Los Alamos National Laboratory, were founded in
the midst of the war.

The modern research university came of age after World War II when the
Federal government decided that sustained investments in science would
improve the lives of citizens and the security of the Nation. The
Federal government increased its support for students in higher
education through programs such as the GI Bill. It also established NSF
in 1950 and NASA in 1957. An infusion of Federal funds made it possible
for universities to purchase the increasingly expensive scientific
equipment and advanced instrumentation that were central to the
expansion of both the R&D and the teaching functions of the university.

The advent of the Cold War combined with the wartime demonstration of
the significant potential for commercial and military applications of
scientific research led to vast increases in government funding for R&D
in defense-related technologies. This resulted in a significant
expansion of the R&D facilities of private firms and government
laboratories. Concomitantly, the Federal government increased its
support for academic research and the infrastructure required to support
it. The U.S. government has been a partner with industry and
universities in creating the infrastructure for many critical new
industries, ranging from agriculture to aircraft to biotechnology to
computing and communications.[^4] This infrastructure extends across the
Earth's oceans, throughout its skies, and from Pole to Pole.

Most of the Nation's academic research infrastructure is now distributed
throughout nearly 700 institutions of higher education; and it extends
into more than 200 Federal laboratories and hundreds of non-profit
research institutions. Many of these laboratories have traditions of
shared use by researchers and students from the Nation's universities
and colleges. In this role, participating Federal laboratories have
become extensions of the academic research infrastructure.

Assessing the current status of the academic research infrastructure is
a difficult undertaking. Periodic surveys of universities and colleges
attempt to address various aspects of this infrastructure. But the gaps
in the information collected and analyzed leave many important questions
unanswered. A national survey of academic research instrumentation
needs, conducted nearly a decade ago, provides the latest available
information on annual expenditures for instruments with a total cost of
\$20,000 or more.[^5] As indicated in Table 1, in 1993, the purchase of
academic research instrumentation totaled \$1,203 million, an increase
of six percent over the amount reported in the previous survey in 1988.
The Federal government provided \$624 million, or 52 percent of the
total.

NSF provided \$213 million in support of research infrastructure during
1993, while NIH provided \$117 million and DoD contributed \$106
million. Of the non-federal sources of funding, the largest single
source was the contribution from the academic institutions. A sizable
contribution of \$105 million came from private, non-profit foundations,
gifts, bonds, and other donations.

A 1998 NSF survey representing 660 research-performing colleges and
universities reveals how these institutions fund capital research
construction, in contrast to research instrumentation. Table 2 indicates
that, overall, research-performing institutions derived their S&E
capital projects funds from three major sources: the Federal government,
state and local governments, and institutional resources. Institutional
resources consist of private donations, institutional funds, tax-exempt
bonds, and other sources.

**Table 2. Source of Funds to Construct and Repair/Renovate S&E Research
Space: 1996 and 1997**

+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| #                    | **Percent of funds    | **Percent of funds    |
|                      | for new               | for                   |
| # Source of Funds    | construction**        | repair/renovation**   |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
|                      |                       |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Federal Government   | 9%                    | 9%                    |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| State/Local          | 31                    | 26                    |
| Government           |                       |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Institution all      | 60                    | 65                    |
| Sources              |                       |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
|                      |                       |                       |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| ## TOTAL             | 100%                  | 100%                  |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| ### TOTAL COSTS      | \$3.1 billion         | \$1.3 billion         |
+----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

NOTE: Only projects costing \$100,000 or more

SOURCE: *National Science Foundation/SRS, 1996 Survey of Scientific and
Engineering Research Facilities at Colleges and Universities.*

The Federal government directly accounted for 9 percent of all
construction funds (\$271 million) and 9 percent (\$121 million) of all
repair/renovation funds. Additionally, some Federal funding was provided
through indirect cost recovery on grants and/or contracts from the
Federal government. These overhead payments are used to defray the
indirect costs of conducting Federally funded research and are counted
as institutional funding.

Another NSF survey representing 580 research-performing institutions in
2001 provides some information on the current amount, distribution and
adequacy of academic research space, which includes laboratories,
facilities and major equipment costing at least \$1 million.

As Table 3 indicates, in 1988 there were 112 million net assignable
square feet (NASF) of S&E research space. By 2001 it had increased by 38
percent to 155 million NASF. Doctorate-granting institutions represented
95 percent of the space, with the top 100 institutions having 71 percent
and minority-serving institutions having 5 percent. In addition, 82
percent of institutions surveyed reported inadequate research space,
while 51 percent reported a deficit of greater than 25 percent. The
greatest deficit was reported by computer sciences, with only 27 percent
of the space reported as adequate, and more than double the current
space required to make up the perceived deficit. To meet their current
research commitments, the research-performing institutions reported that
they needed an additional 40 million NASF of S&E research space or 27
percent more than they had.

**Table 3. Academic Research Space by S&E Field, 1988-2001**

+--------------------------+---+----+----+----+----+-------+-------+
| Field                    | N |    |    |    |    | \%    | \%    |
|                          | e |    |    |    |    | NASF  | addit |
|                          | t |    |    |    |    | rep   | ional |
|                          | a |    |    |    |    | orted | NASF  |
|                          | s |    |    |    |    | as    | n     |
|                          | s |    |    |    |    | ade   | eeded |
|                          | i |    |    |    |    | quate |       |
|                          | g |    |    |    |    |       |       |
|                          | n |    |    |    |    |       |       |
|                          | a |    |    |    |    |       |       |
|                          | b |    |    |    |    |       |       |
|                          | l |    |    |    |    |       |       |
|                          | e |    |    |    |    |       |       |
|                          | s |    |    |    |    |       |       |
|                          | q |    |    |    |    |       |       |
|                          | u |    |    |    |    |       |       |
|                          | a |    |    |    |    |       |       |
|                          | r |    |    |    |    |       |       |
|                          | e |    |    |    |    |       |       |
|                          | f |    |    |    |    |       |       |
|                          | e |    |    |    |    |       |       |
|                          | e |    |    |    |    |       |       |
|                          | t |    |    |    |    |       |       |
|                          | ( |    |    |    |    |       |       |
|                          | N |    |    |    |    |       |       |
|                          | A |    |    |    |    |       |       |
|                          | S |    |    |    |    |       |       |
|                          | F |    |    |    |    |       |       |
|                          | ) |    |    |    |    |       |       |
|                          | i |    |    |    |    |       |       |
|                          | n |    |    |    |    |       |       |
|                          | m |    |    |    |    |       |       |
|                          | i |    |    |    |    |       |       |
|                          | l |    |    |    |    |       |       |
|                          | l |    |    |    |    |       |       |
|                          | i |    |    |    |    |       |       |
|                          | o |    |    |    |    |       |       |
|                          | n |    |    |    |    |       |       |
|                          | s |    |    |    |    |       |       |
+--------------------------+---+----+----+----+----+-------+-------+
|                          | 1 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 20 | 2001  | 2001  |
|                          | 9 | 92 | 96 | 99 | 01 |       |       |
|                          | 8 |    |    |    |    |       |       |
|                          | 8 |    |    |    |    |       |       |
+--------------------------+---+----+----+----+----+-------+-------+
|                          |   |    |    |    |    |       |       |
+--------------------------+---+----+----+----+----+-------+-------+
| All                      | 1 | 1  | 1  | 1  | 1  | 29%   | 27%   |
| fields                   | 1 | 22 | 36 | 50 | 55 |       |       |
| \...\...\...\...\...\... | 2 |    |    |    |    |       |       |
| \...\...\...\...\...\... |   |    |    |    |    |       |       |
| \...\...\...\...\...\... |   |    |    |    |    |       |       |
+--------------------------+---+----+----+----+----+-------+-------+
| Agricultural             | 1 | 20 | 22 | 25 | 27 | 30%   | 11%   |
| sc                       | 8 |    |    |    |    |       |       |
| iences\...\...\...\...\. |   |    |    |    |    |       |       |
| ..\...\...\...\...\..... |   |    |    |    |    |       |       |
+--------------------------+---+----+----+----+----+-------+-------+
| Biological               | 2 | 28 | 30 | 32 | 33 | 27%   | 32%   |
| scien                    | 4 |    |    |    |    |       |       |
| ces\...\...\...\...\...\ |   |    |    |    |    |       |       |
| ...\...\...\...\...\.... |   |    |    |    |    |       |       |
+--------------------------+---+----+----+----+----+-------+-------+
| Computer                 | 1 | 2  | 2  | 2  | 2  | 27%   | 109%  |
| scien                    |   |    |    |    |    |       |       |
| ces\...\...\...\...\...\ |   |    |    |    |    |       |       |
| ...\...\...\...\...\.... |   |    |    |    |    |       |       |
+--------------------------+---+----+----+----+----+-------+-------+
| Earth, atmospheric, and  | 6 | 7  | 7  | 8  | 8  | 38%   | 26%   |
| ocean \...\...\...,,..   |   |    |    |    |    |       |       |
+--------------------------+---+----+----+----+----+-------+-------+
| Engineering\...\...\...  | 1 | 18 | 22 | 25 | 26 | 23%   | 26%   |
| \...\...\...\...\...\... | 6 |    |    |    |    |       |       |
| \...\...\...\...\...\... |   |    |    |    |    |       |       |
+--------------------------+---+----+----+----+----+-------+-------+
| Medical                  | 1 | 22 | 25 | 27 | 28 | 23%   | 34%   |
| sciences\                | 9 |    |    |    |    |       |       |
| ...\...\...\...\...\...\ |   |    |    |    |    |       |       |
| ...\...\...\...\...\.... |   |    |    |    |    |       |       |
+--------------------------+---+----+----+----+----+-------+-------+
| Physical sciences &      | 1 | 17 | 19 | 20 | 20 | 33%   | 25%   |
| m                        | 7 |    |    |    |    |       |       |
| athematics\...\...\..... |   |    |    |    |    |       |       |
+--------------------------+---+----+----+----+----+-------+-------+
| Psychology & social      | 6 | 6  | 7  | 9  | 9  | 38%   | 32%   |
| scie                     |   |    |    |    |    |       |       |
| nces\...\...\...\...\... |   |    |    |    |    |       |       |
+--------------------------+---+----+----+----+----+-------+-------+
| Other                    | 4 | 2  | 2  | 3  | 3  | 72%   | 18%   |
| sciences\...             |   |    |    |    |    |       |       |
| \...\...\...\...\...\... |   |    |    |    |    |       |       |
| \...\...\...\...\...\... |   |    |    |    |    |       |       |
+--------------------------+---+----+----+----+----+-------+-------+
| Note: Components may not |   |    |    |    |    |       |       |
| add to totals due to     |   |    |    |    |    |       |       |
| rounding.                |   |    |    |    |    |       |       |
|                          |   |    |    |    |    |       |       |
| Source: Survey of        |   |    |    |    |    |       |       |
| Scientific and           |   |    |    |    |    |       |       |
| Engineering Research     |   |    |    |    |    |       |       |
| Facilities, 2001,        |   |    |    |    |    |       |       |
| NSF/SRS.                 |   |    |    |    |    |       |       |
+--------------------------+---+----+----+----+----+-------+-------+

Maintaining the academic research infrastructure in a modern and
effective state over the past decade has been especially challenging
because of the increasing cost to construct and maintain research
facilities and the concomitant expansion of the research enterprise,
with substantially greater numbers of faculty and students engaged in
S&E research. The problem is exacerbated by the recurrent Federal
funding of research below full economic cost, which has made it
difficult for academic institutions to set aside sufficient funds for
infrastructure maintenance and replacement.

A recent RAND study estimated that the true cost of facilities and
administration (F&A) for research projects is about 31 percent of the
total Federal grant. Because of arbitrary caps placed on Federal F&A
rates, the share that the Federal government actually pays is between 24
and 28 percent. This amounts to between \$0.7 and \$1.5 billion in
annual costs that are not reimbursed. Moreover, the infrastructure
component in negotiated F&A rates has increased since the late 1980s,
from under 6 percent in 1988 to almost 9 percent in 1999.[^6]

A recent government study indicated that the Federal government's
contribution to construction funds at the Nation's research performing
colleges and universities has declined since 1990 -- from 16 to 9
percent. Colleges and universities picked up the slack by increasing
their institutional share from 52 to 60 percent. This includes private
donations, which increased from \$419 million to \$597 million.[^7]

Over the past decade, a number of diverse studies and reports have
charted a growing gap between the academic research infrastructure that
is needed and the infrastructure that is provided. For example:

-   A 1995 study by the NSTC indicated that the academic research
    infrastructure in the U.S. is in need of significant renewal,
    conservatively estimating the facilities and instrumentation needed
    to make up the deficit at \$8.7 billion.[^8]

-   In 1998, an NSF survey estimated costs for deferred capital projects
    to construct, repair or renovate academic research facilities at
    \$11.4 billion, including \$ 7.0 billion to construct new facilities
    and \$4.4 billion to repair/renovate existing facilities.[^9]

-   A 2001 report to the Director, NIH estimated that \$5.6 billion was
    required to address inadequate and/or outdated biomedical research
    infrastructure. The report recommended new funds for NIH facility
    improvement grants in FY 2002, a Federal loan guarantee program to
    support facility construction and renovation, and the removal of
    arbitrary caps of the Federal F&A rate.[^10]

-   In 2001, the Director of NASA reported a \$900 million construction
    backlog and said that \$2 billion more was needed to revitalize and
    modernize research infrastructure.[^11]

-   A recent study indicated that DoE's Office of Science laboratories
    and facilities, many of which are operated by universities, are
    aging and in disrepair -- over 60 percent of the space is over 30
    years old. A DoE strategic plan identified over \$2 billion of
    capital investment projects over the next ten years (FY 2002 through
    FY 2011.)[^12]

-   In FY 2001 an informal survey of NSF directorates and the Office of
    Polar Programs estimated that future academic S&E infrastructure
    needs and opportunities through 2010 would cost an additional \$18
    billion.[^13]

-   An NSF blue-ribbon advisory panel recently estimated that an
    additional \$850 million per year in cyberinfrastructure would be
    needed to sustain the ongoing revolution in S&E.[^14]

While these surveys and studies provide a rough measure of the magnitude
of problem, they say little about the cost of lost S&E opportunities. In
a number of critical research fields, the lack of quality infrastructure
is limiting S&E progress. For example, the lack of long-term stable
support for "wetware" archives is preventing more rapid advances in
post-genomic discoveries.

A.  **The Importance of Partnerships**

As S&E infrastructure projects grow in size, cost and complexity,
collaboration and partnerships increasingly enable them. These
partnerships increase both the quality of the research enterprise and
its impact on the economy and on society. The number of
government-funded infrastructure projects that entail international
collaboration has increased steadily over the last decade. The very
nature of the S&E enterprise is global, often requiring access to
geographically dispersed materials, phenomena, and expertise, as well as
collaborative logistical support. It also requires open and timely
communication, sharing, and validation of findings, data, and data
analysis procedures. Projects in areas such as global change, genomics,
astronomy, space exploration, and high-energy physics have a global
reach and often require expertise and resources that no single country
possesses. Further, the increasing cost of large-scale facilities often
requires nations to share the expense. NSF currently supports a
substantial and growing number of projects with international
partnering. Among them are the twin GEMINI Telescopes, the Large Hadron
Collider (LHC), the IceCube South Pole neutrino observatory, the Laser
Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO), the Ocean Drilling
Program, and the Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA).

![](media/image2.png){width="3.1666666666666665in"
height="2.1979166666666665in"}

*ALMA conceptual image courtesy of the European Southern Observatory*

In the future, a growing number of large infrastructure projects will be
carried out through international collaborations and partnerships. The
Internet, the World Wide Web and other large distributed and networked
databases will facilitate this trend by channeling new technologies,
researchers, users and resources from around the globe. [^15]^.^

All large future infrastructure projects should be considered from the
perspective of potential international partnering, or at a minimum of
close cooperation regarding competing national-scale projects. An
additional challenge is maintaining interest in and political support
for long-term international projects. Any absence of follow-through on
high profile projects could increase the danger of the U.S. becoming
known as an unreliable international partner.

Congress has generally been unwilling to set aside multiyear funding for
a project at its outset, requiring assiduous efforts by sponsoring
agencies to ensure sustained funding.

Interagency coordination of large infrastructure projects is also
extremely important. For example, successful management of the U.S.
astronomy and astrophysics research enterprise requires close
coordination between NASA, NSF, DoD, DoE and many private and
state-supported facilities. Likewise, implementation of the U.S. polar
research program, which NSF leads, requires the coordination of many
Federal agencies and nations. University access to the facilities of
many of the national laboratories has been facilitated through
interagency agreements. There are a number of models for effective
interagency coordination, such as committees and subcommittees of the
White House-led NSTC.

In the fields of high-energy and nuclear physics, NSF and DoE have
developed an effective scheme that facilitates interagency coordination
while simultaneously obtaining outside expert advice. The High Energy
Physics Coordination Panel (HEPAP), supported by NSF and DoE, gives
advice to the agencies on research priorities, funding levels, and
balance, and provides a forum for DoE-NSF joint strategic planning. This
scheme has facilitated joint DoE-NSF infrastructure projects. For
example, the HEPAP-backed plan for U.S. participation in the European
Large Hadron Collider has been credited with making that arrangement
succeed.[^16]

Partnerships with the private sector also play an important role in
facilitating the construction and operation of S&E infrastructure. For
example, much of the equipment available in the Engineering Research
Centers and the National Nanofabrication Users Network (NNUN) has been
funded by industrial firms. Public-private sector partnerships have also
helped to enable the Internet, the Partnerships for Advanced
Computational Infrastructure (PACI) and the TeraGrid project.

B.  The Next Dimension

While there have been many significant breakthroughs in infrastructure
development over the last decade, nothing has come close to matching the
impact of IT and microelectronics. The rapid advances in IT have
dramatically changed the way S&E information is gathered, stored,
analyzed, presented and communicated. These changes have led to a
qualitative, as well as quantitative, change in the way research is
performed. Instead of just doing the "old things" cheaper and faster,
innovations in information, sensing, and communications are creating
new, unanticipated activities, analysis, and knowledge. For example:

-   Simulation of detailed physical phenomena - from subatomic to
    galactic and all levels in between - is possible; these simulations
    reveal new understanding of the world, e.g. protein folding and
    shape, weather, and galaxy formation. Databases and simulations also
    permit social and behavioral processes research to be conducted in
    new ways with greater objectivity and finer granularity than ever
    before.

-   Researchers used to collect and analyze data from their own
    experiments and laboratories. Now, they can share results in shared
    archives, such as the protein data bank, and conduct research that
    utilizes information from vast networked data resources.

-   Automated data analysis procedures of various kinds have been
    critical to the rapid development of genomics, climate research,
    astronomy, and other areas, and will certainly play an even greater
    role with accumulation of ever larger databases.

-   Low-cost sensors, nano-sensors, and high-resolution imaging enable
    new, detailed data acquisition and analysis across the sciences and
    engineering -- for environmental research, genomics, applications
    for health, and many other areas.

-   The development of advanced robotics, including autonomous
    underwater vehicles and robotic aircraft, allow data collection from
    otherwise inaccessible locations, such as under polar ice. Advanced
    instrumentation makes it possible to adapt and revise a measuring
    protocol depending on the data being collected.

Research tools and facilities increasingly include digital computing
capabilities. For example, telescopes now produce bits from CCD panels
rather than photographs. Particle accelerators, gene sequencers, and
seismic sensors, and many other modern S&E tools also produce
information bits. As with IT systems generally, these tools depend
heavily on hardware and software.

The exponential growth in computing power, communication bandwidth, and
data storage capacity will continue for the next decade. Currently, the
U.S. Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI) has as its target
the development of machines with 100 Teraflop/second capabilities[^17]
by 2005. Soon many researchers will be able to work in the "peta"
(10^15^) range. [^18] IT drivers --smaller, cheaper, and faster -- will
enable researchers in the near future to:

-   Establish shared virtual and augmented reality environments
    independent of geographical distances between participants and the
    supporting data and computing systems.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Integrate massive data sets, digital libraries, models and
    analytical tools from many sources.

-   Visualize, simulate and model complex systems such as living cells
    and organisms, geological phenomena, and social structures.

With the advent of networking, information, computing and communications
technologies, the time is approaching where the entire scientific
community will have access to these frontier instruments and
infrastructure. Many applications have been and are being developed that
take advantage of network infrastructure, such as research
collaboratories, interactive distributed simulations, virtual reality
platforms, control of remote instruments, field work and experiments,
access to and visualization of large data sets,[^19] and distance
learning (via connection to infrastructure sites).[^20]

Advances in computational techniques have already radically altered the
research landscape in many S&E communities. For example, the biological
sciences are undergoing a profound revolution, based largely on the use
of genomics data and IT advances. Genomics is now pervading all of
biology, and is helping to catalyze an integration of biology with other
sciences. Central to genomic sequencing and analysis is access to
high-speed computers to store and analyze the enormous amount of data.
Automated methods for model search, classification, structure matching,
and model estimation and evaluation already have an essential role in
genomics and in other complex, data intensive domains, and should come
to play a larger role in the social sciences.

The Nation\'s IT capability has acted like adrenaline to all of S&E. The
next step is to build the most advanced research computing
infrastructure while simultaneously broadening its accessibility. NSF is
presently working toward enabling such a distributed, leading-edge
computational capability. Extraordinary advances in the capacity for
visualization, simulation, data analysis and interpretation, and robust
handling of enormous sets of data are already underway in the first
decade of the 21st century. Computational resources, both hardware and
software, must be sufficiently large, sufficiently available, and,
especially, sufficiently flexible to accommodate unanticipated
scientific and engineering demands and applications over the next few
decades.

III. **THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION**

######## NSF's Leadership Role

Among Federal agencies, NSF is a leader in providing the academic
research community with access to forefront instrumentation and
facilities. This role is conferred upon it by its history and mission.
NSF is the only agency charged to broadly *promote the progress of
science; to advance the National health, prosperity, and welfare; to
secure the National defense; and for other purposes.*[^21] While other
agencies support S&E infrastructure needed to accomplish their specific
missions, only NSF has the broad responsibility to see that the academic
research community continues to have access to forefront instrumentation
and facilities, to provide the needed research support to utilize them
effectively, and to provide timely upgrades to this infrastructure.

Because of its unique responsibilities and mission, NSF must address
issues and adopt strategies that are different from other agencies. For
example, application mission agencies, such as DoD or DoE, focus
primarily on what is enabled by a facility. NSF's infrastructure
investments must also consider other issues, such as the educational
impacts of the facility on designers, operators, and students, the
balance of support across disciplines and fields, and the development of
next-generation instruments. This broad, integrated strategy is
reflected in NSF's three strategic goals, expressed here as outcomes:

> [People]{.underline} - A diverse, internationally competitive and
> globally engaged workforce of scientists, engineers, and well-prepared
> citizens.
>
> [Ideas]{.underline} - Discovery across the frontiers of S&E, connected
> to learning, innovation and service to society.
>
> [Tools]{.underline} - Broadly accessible, state-of-the-art and shared
> research and education tools.

These goals are mutually supportive and each is an essential element of
the strategy to ensure the health of the U.S. S&E enterprise. For
example, advances in infrastructure go hand-in-hand with scientific
progress and workforce development. Research discoveries create the need
for new infrastructure and underpin the development of new
infrastructure technologies. In turn, infrastructure developments open
up new research vistas and help to sustain S&E at the cutting edge. The
development of new infrastructure also has an enormous impact on the
education of students who will be the next generation of leaders in S&E.

Except for the South Pole Station and the other Antarctic Program
facilities, NSF does not directly construct or operate the facilities it
supports. Typically, NSF makes awards to external entities, primarily
universities, consortia of universities or non-profit organizations, to
undertake construction, management and operation of facilities. All
infrastructure projects are selected for funding through a competitive
and transparent merit review process. NSF retains responsibility for
overseeing the development, management and successful performance of the
projects. This approach provides the flexibility to adjust to changes in
science and technology while providing accountability through efficient
and cost-effective management and oversight. An essential added benefit
of NSF's model is the opportunity to train young scientists and
engineers by engaging them directly in planning, construction and
operation of major facilities and large-scale instrumentation.

Throughout its 50-year history, NSF has enjoyed an extraordinarily
successful track record in providing state-of-the-art facilities for S&E
research and education. NSF management and oversight have not only
enabled the establishment of unique national assets, but have also
ensured that they serve the S&E communities and the discovery process as
intended. Some of the areas where NSF plays a major (perhaps a dominant)
Federal funding role are:

-   Atmospheric and climate change research

-   Digital libraries for S&E

-   Biocomplexity and biodiversity research

-   Exploration of the earth's mantle

-   Gravitational physics

-   High-performance computing and advanced networking

-   Machine learning and statistics

-   Cognitive psychology

-   Ground-based astronomy

-   Materials research

-   Oceanography

-   Plant genomics

-   Polar research

-   Seismology and earthquake engineering

    A.  **Establishing Priorities for Large Infrastructure Projects**

In establishing infrastructure priorities, the S&E community, in
consultation with NSF, develops ideas, considers alternatives, explores
partnerships, and develops cost and timeline estimates. By the time a
proposal is submitted to NSF, these issues have been thoroughly
examined. Upon receipt by NSF, proposals are first subjected to rigorous
external peer review, focusing on the criteria of intellectual quality
and broader impacts of the project. Only the highest rated proposals
undergo a review process that involves subsequently higher levels of NSF
management. Proposals that survive this process are reviewed by a
top-level NSF panel that makes recommendations to the Director. Projects
recommended by the panel for NSF funding must meet all of the following
criteria:

-   Provide an exceptional opportunity to enable frontier research and
    education.

-   Have high priority within the relevant S&E communities and/or
    support the best interdisciplinary work located in the boundary
    spaces *between* disciplines.

-   Are timely (i.e., the right investment at the right time).

-   Are ready to be initiated, in terms of feasibility, engineering
    cost-effectiveness, interagency and international partnerships, and
    management.

Projects selected for recommendation to the Director are then grouped as
follows: first priority is given to approved projects that have been
started but not completed, second priority to projects that have been
previously approved by the NSB but not yet started, and third priority
to new projects. The panel then ranks the projects within each of these
groups in priority order on the basis of the following considerations:

-   How "transformative" is the project? Will it change the way research
    is conducted or change fundamental S&E concepts/research frontiers?

-   How great are the benefits of the project? How many researchers,
    educators and students will it enable? Does it broadly serve many
    disciplines?

-   How pressing is the need? Is there a window of opportunity? Are
    there interagency and international commitments that must be met?

After considering the strength and substance of the Panel's
recommendations, the balance among various fields and disciplines, and
other factors, the Director selects the candidate projects to bring
before the National Science Board for consideration. The NSB reviews
individual projects on their merits and authorizes the Foundation to
pursue the inclusion of selected projects in future budget requests. In
August NSF brings a rank ordered list of all approved large facility
construction projects to the \>NSB, as part of the budget process. The
NSB reviews the list and \>either approves or argues the order of
priority. As part of its budget submission, NSF presents this
rank-ordered list of projects (or a subset of it) to OMB. \>

A.  **Current Programs and Strategies**

Table 4 indicates that the FY 2003 budget request for tools totaled
\$1,122 million, representing about 22.3 percent of the overall NSF
budget request. Over the past few years this number has ranged from 22
to 26 percent.

In the category of *Research Resources*, a range of activities are
supported, including multi-user instrumentation; the development of
instruments with new capabilities, improved resolution or sensitivity;
upgrades to field stations and marine laboratories; support of living
stock collections; facility-related instrument development and
operation; and the support and development of databases and informatics
tools and techniques.

**Table 4. NSF Investment in Tools, FY 2001-2003**

(Millions of Dollars)

![](media/image3.wmf)

> > Totals may not add due to rounding.
>
> > ^1^ Includes computational sciences, physics, materials research,
> > ocean sciences, atmospheric sciences, and earth sciences facilities,
> > Cornell Electron Storage Ring (CESR), the National High Field Mass
> > Spectrometry Center, the MSU Cyclotron, the National High Magnetic
> > Field Laboratory (NHMFL), the Science and Technology Policy
> > Institute (STPI), Science Resources Statistics (SRS), and the
> > National Nanofabrication Users Network (NNUN).

Not included in Table 4 are over 300 NSF-supported research centers
receiving a total of \$240 million in NSF support and leveraging
additional external support of \$390 million (mostly university and
industrial matching.)[^22] NSF centers have been outstanding catalysts
for the acquisition and deployment of major infrastructure investments.
For example, many of the Engineering Research Centers and Materials
Research Science and Engineering Centers acquire, maintain and update
extensive shared facilities and testbeds, often with major equipment
donations from industry partners. These facilities often serve as shared
campus-wide, statewide or regional facilities.

Table 5 contains data on NSF's investment in Tools by major activity:
the seven NSF directorates, two offices, and the Major Research
Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) Account.

**Table 5. NSF Tools Expenditures by Major Activity, FY 1998/2002**

> **(Millions of Dollars)**

# ![](media/image4.wmf)

^a^ BIO = Biological Sciences; CISE = Computer and Information Science
and Engineering;

ENG = Engineering; GEO = Geosciences; MPS = Mathematical and Physical
Sciences;

SBE = Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences; OPP = Office of Polar
Programs;

IA = Integrative Activities; EHR = Education and Human Resources.

^b^ Other budget items include Salaries and Office of Inspector General

^c^ Numbers may not add due to rounding.

BIO invests about 9 percent of its annual budget in the Tools category.
Heretofore, the typical infrastructure investments have been in small to
medium size instrumentation, such as mass spectrometers, electron
microscopes, and genomic sequencers, and in stock centers, natural
history collections, and searchable biological databases. The biological
sciences are undergoing a profound revolution, based largely on the use
of genomics data and IT advances. Hence, there are indications that
BIO's future infrastructure requirements will increase substantially.
(The future needs and opportunities of each directorate are discussed in
the next section of the report.)

CISE supplies the critical infrastructure needs not only for computer
S&E research, but also for other sciences and engineering that require
high end computational and communications capabilities. Its
infrastructure investment is large -- 27 percent of its budget -- and
growing rapidly. Much of the infrastructure budget is represented by two
major projects: the Terascale Computing Systems (TCS) and the
Partnerships for Advanced Computational Infrastructure (PACI).
Additionally, CISE currently provides support for small to medium end
activities for more than 200 research universities. Resources range over
the breadth of the cyberinfrastructure and include computational
resources, networking testbeds, software and data repositories, and
instruments.

ENG direct investment in Tools is very small -- only one percent of its
budget - largely comprised of support for the National Nanofabrication
Users Network (NNUN). However, this direct investment is augmented by
ENG's equipment investment through research grants and at NSF-supported
centers, such as the Engineering Research Centers and the Earthquake
Engineering Research Centers. These centers also attract a considerable
investment in industry matching funds. ENG also receives support for the
Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) from the NSF-wide
Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) Account.

EHR's current infrastructure consists of the people, computing equipment
and networks, physical facilities, instrumentation, and other components
that drive educational excellence and support the integration of
research with education. In FY 2002, EHR will invest nearly \$25 million
in the National Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
Education Digital Library (NSDL), a national resource that will aid
researchers and educators in the development and dissemination of
teaching and learning resources.

GEO spends approximately 39 percent of its total budget on
infrastructure and also relies heavily on the MREFC Account. Because of
its inherently observational nature, cutting-edge research in the
geosciences requires a vast range of capabilities and diverse
instrumentation, including ships and aircraft, ground-based
observatories, laboratory and experimental analysis instruments,
computing capabilities, and real-time data and communication systems.

MPS currently invests about 25 percent of its overall budget annually in
the Tools category, most of which goes to the larger facilities. Like
GEO, the disciplines represented by MPS require extensive observational
facilities and other infrastructure. In addition, MPS relies heavily on
the NSF-wide MREFC Account.

SBE invests about 17 percent of its budget in infrastructure, comprised
chiefly of distributed facilities that do not require large
construction. This includes new data collections that serve a broad
range of scholars; digital libraries, including data archives; shared
facilities that enable new data to be collected; and centers that
promote the development of new approaches in a field.

OPP supports research across all disciplines in the two Polar Regions,
ranging from archaeology to astrophysics and biology to space weather.
OPP invests over 70% of its budget in Tools and supports large
scientific instruments; laboratories; facilities for housing, health and
safety, food service, and sanitation; satellite communications;
transportation (including fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, and research
ships); and data and database management, all requiring significant
investment in ongoing maintenance and operations in an unforgiving
climate. This infrastructure is provided for the benefit of all the
research programs supported by NSF's Directorates, as well as the
Federal mission agencies and other institutional partners.

**NSF-wide Infrastructure Programs**

*Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) Account:*
NSF established the MREFC Account in 1995 to better manage the funding
of large facility projects, such as accelerators, telescopes, research
vessels and aircraft, all of which require peak funding over a
relatively short period of time. Previously, such projects were
supported within NSF's Research and Related (R&RA) Account. The MREFC
Account supports facility projects that provide unique research and
education capabilities at the cutting edge of S&E, with costs ranging
from several tens to hundreds of millions of dollars. It provides
funding for a*cquisition, construction and commissioning* in contrast to
other activities, such as *planning, design and development, and
operations and maintenance,* which are funded from the R&RA Account.

Table 6 indicates the projects supported by the MREFC Account since its
inception. Included are several projects approved by the National
Science Board waiting funding.

While the MREFC model has served NSF well, there are a number of issues
that NSF is currently examining in its effort to provide the best
support for large facility projects, such as:

-   How large should a project be before it can be considered for MREFC
    funding?

-   When should large infrastructure projects be supported within
    directorate budgets versus the MREFC Account?

-   What costs should be charged to the MREFC Account versus the R&RA
    Account?

-   How should budget priorities be established across different fields
    and disciplines?

-   How should these large projects be managed?

*Major Research Instrumentation (MRI)*: The MRI program supports
instrumentation having a total cost ranging from \$100,000 to \$2
million. It seeks to improve the quality and expand the scope of
research and foster the integration of research and education by
providing instrumentation for research-intensive learning environments.
In FY 2003 NSF has requested \$54 million for this program to support
the acquisition and development of research instrumentation for academic
institutions. This amount falls far short of meeting the real needs and
opportunities, based on the survey of directorate needs and the amount
of MRI proposals received in FY 2002.

A.  **Future Needs and Opportunities**

Table 7 is a 10-year projection of future S&E infrastructure
requirements identified in reports provided by each of the NSF
directorates and OPP. The degree of specificity employed in identifying
the requirements ranged from listing specific facilities and
instrumentation to providing rough estimates for broad categories of
infrastructure needs. Hence, the \$18.9 billion estimate of funding
needed over the next ten years must be viewed as a rough indication of
need, and not one that has been assessed and formally endorsed by the
NSB. In order to view the commonalities and differences between
scientific fields, a summary of the infrastructure needs of each
directorate and office is presented below.

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 0%" />
<col style="width: 23%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td><strong>Table 7</strong></td>
<td colspan="10"><p id="nsf-future-infrastructure-needs-fy-2002-2012"
class="heading">NSF Future Infrastructure Needs, FY 2002-2012</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="3"><strong>NSF Directorates/Office</strong></td>
<td><strong>BIO</strong></td>
<td><strong>CISE</strong></td>
<td><strong>EHR</strong></td>
<td><strong>ENG</strong></td>
<td><strong>GEO</strong></td>
<td><strong>MPS</strong></td>
<td><strong>OPP</strong></td>
<td><strong>SBE</strong></td>
<td><strong>TOTAL</strong></td>
<td><strong>%</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="6"><strong>Range of Project Cost</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">$1M - $10M</td>
<td>1,600</td>
<td>600</td>
<td>650</td>
<td>500</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>100</td>
<td>300</td>
<td>3,950</td>
<td>20</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">$10M - $50M</td>
<td>1,600</td>
<td>800</td>
<td>400</td>
<td>700</td>
<td>900</td>
<td>500</td>
<td>300</td>
<td>200</td>
<td>5,400</td>
<td>29</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">$50M - $250M</td>
<td>600</td>
<td>1,000</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>1,000</td>
<td>1,800</td>
<td>2,000</td>
<td>400</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>6,800</td>
<td>37</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">$250M - $500M</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>500</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>900</td>
<td>300</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>1,700</td>
<td>9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">&gt; $500M</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>1,000</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>1,000</td>
<td>5</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td colspan="2"><p><strong>Total</strong></p>
<p>(Millions of Dollars)</p></td>
<td>3,800</td>
<td>2,900</td>
<td>1,050</td>
<td>2,200</td>
<td>2,800</td>
<td>4,500</td>
<td>1,100</td>
<td>500</td>
<td>18,850</td>
<td>100</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

**BIO:** The use of information technology and the development of
numerous new techniques have catalyzed explosive research growth and
productivity. However, infrastructure investments have not kept up with
the expanding needs and opportunities. For example, there is an
increasing need to develop, maintain and explore huge interoperable
databases that result from the determination of complete genomes. In
order to thrive in the future, biological researchers will need new
large concentrated laboratories where a variety of experts meet and work
on a daily basis. They will also need major distributed research
platforms, such as the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON),
that link together ecological sites, observational platforms,
laboratories, databases, researchers and students from around the globe.
An essential and neglected aspect of support for biological research is
the provision of resources to make automated data analysis and
interpretation procedures publicly accessible and easily usable by other
investigators. Increasingly, published results are derived from
intensive automated data analysis and modeling, and cannot be reproduced
or checked by other researchers without access to software often
developed for a specific research project.

**CISE:** In the future, substantial investments must be made in
providing increasingly powerful computational infrastructure necessary
to support the increasing demands of modeling, data analysis and
interpretation, management, and research. CISE researchers will require
testbeds to develop and prove experimental technologies. CISE must also
expand the availability of high performance computing and networking
resources to the broader research and education community. Effective
utilization of advanced computational resources will require more
user-friendly software and better software integration. Funding for
highly skilled technical support staff is essential to encouraging
broader participation by the community in the evolving
cyberinfrastructure.

**EHR:** The directorate's future needs include: electronic
collaboratory spaces in support of research and instruction; centers for
disseminating and validating successful educational materials and
practices at all levels; increased computational capacity for needs in
modeling and simulation in systems research and in learning settings;
and databases of international and domestic student learning indicators.

**ENG:** The rapid pace of technological change will require ENG to
invest significantly more funds for research instrumentation and
instrumentation development, multi-user equipment centers, and major
networked experimental facilities, such as the National Nanotechnology
Infrastructure Network, and the Network for Earthquake Engineering
Simulation. Needs for research tools are diverse, ranging from
high-speed high-resolution imaging technology to study gene development
and expression to a suite of complex instruments that enables the
simulation, design, and fabrication of novel nano-and micro-scale
structures and systems. In addition, substantial investment is needed to
enable engineering participation in grid activities, to facilitate
collaborations between engineering and computer science researchers, and
to develop tools (including improved tele-operation and visualization
tools, integrated analytical tools to support real-time analysis of
processes, multi-scale modeling and protocols for shared analytical
codes and data sets).

**GEO:** In the future, the geosciences research community will require
new state-of-the-art observing facilities and research platforms. Many
of these facilities must be mobile and/or distributed over wide
geographic locations. The increased need for distributed observing
systems will require better networking technologies and increased
capabilities for data capture, storage, access, analysis, and exchange.
The increased demands for climate and environmental modeling will
require high-end computational capabilities (petaflop) and new
visualization tools. An essential element in future advances is the
ability to integrate data from multiple observatories into models and
data sets. The necessity of support, noted above for biology, for
publicly accessible and useable data analysis and interpretation
software applies equally here.

**MPS:** Mathematical and physical sciences researchers seek answers to
fundamental science questions that have the potential to revolutionize
how we think about nature (e.g. the origin of mass, the origin of the
matter-antimatter asymmetry of the universe, the nature of the
accelerating universe, and the structure of new materials). Such
research increasingly requires more expensive and sophisticated
instruments that range from the relatively small to the very large, such
as radio observatories, neutron scattering, x-ray synchrotron radiation,
high magnetic fields, neutrino detectors, and linear colliders. In
addition, increased investments are needed in cyberinfrastructure to
facilitate the conduct of science in the rapidly changing environment
surrounding the massive petabyte data sets from astronomy and physics
facilities.[^23] Investments include high-speed communication links,
access to teraflop computing resources, and electronic communications
and publishing.

**OPP:** With the growing realization that the Polar Regions offer
unique opportunities for research - in fields as disparate as
neutrino-based astrophysics and evolutionary biology at the genetic
level- comes the need for increasingly sophisticated and diverse new
instrumentation. Progress in areas such as climate change research will
hinge on the development of distributed observing systems adapted to
function in the harsh polar environment with minimum on-site maintenance
and power requirements. Automated, intelligent underwater and airborne
robotic systems will be essential in providing safe and effective access
to sub-ice and atmospheric environments. High-speed connectivity to the
South Pole Station must be improved to enable scientists to control
instruments from stateside laboratories and to analyze incoming data in
real time. Finally, the basic infrastructure that enables scientists to
survive in Polar Regions, especially in Antarctica, must be maintained
and improved.

**SBE:** Research in the social, behavioral and economic sciences is
increasingly a capital-intensive activity. Social science research, for
example, is increasingly dependent on the accumulation and processing of
large data sets, requiring larger computer facilities, access to
state-of-the art information technologies, and employment of trained,
permanent staffs. Advances in computational techniques are radically
altering the research landscape in many of our communities. Examples
include automated model search aids, sophisticated statistical methods,
modeling, access to shared databases of enormous size, new statistical
approaches to the analysis of large databases (data mining), web-based
collaboratories, virtual reality techniques for studying social behavior
and interaction, and the use of computers for on-line experimentation.

The demand for new S&E infrastructure is driven by scientific
opportunity and the needs of researchers; hence, it is *field
dependent*. However, it is not the purpose of this report to provide a
detailed examination of the opportunities and needs for each scientific
discipline and field. There are many discipline-specific surveys,
studies and reports that do this quite well. Rather, in examining the
range of need and opportunities identified in the NSF directorate
reports, it is useful to consider the needs and issues they have in
common. For example, the directorates identified the following areas as
having particular priority:

*Cyberinfrastructure:* Advances in computational and communications
technology are radically altering the research landscape for S&E
communities. In the future, these communities must be prepared to manage
and exploit an even more rapid evolution in the tools and infrastructure
that empower them. Virtually all of the directorates and offices cited
cyberinfrastructure as a top investment priority. The following were
noted as priority needs:

-   Accessing the next generation of information systems including grid
    computing, digital libraries and other knowledge repositories,
    virtual reality/telepresence, and high performance computing and
    networking and middleware applications.

-   Expanding the availability of high performance computing and
    networking resources to the broader research and education
    community. As more extensive connection across the S&E community is
    supported, the utility of the resources to current users must also
    be sustained. Collaboration and coordination with state and local
    infrastructure efforts will also be essential. The overall goal is
    to provide resources and build capacity for smaller institutions
    while continuously enabling new research directions at the high end
    of computing performance.

-   Providing computational infrastructure necessary to support the
    increasing demands of modeling, data analysis and management, and
    research. Computational resources at all levels, from desktop
    systems to supercomputing, are needed to sustain progress in S&E.
    The challenge is to provide scalable access to a pyramid of
    computing resources from the high-performance workstations needed by
    most scientists to the teraflop-and-beyond capability critically
    needed for solving the grand-challenge problems.

-   Increasing the ability to integrate data sets from multiple
    observatories into models and physically consistent data sets.
    Development of techniques and systems to assimilate information from
    diverse sources into rational, accessible, and digital formats is
    needed. Envisioned is a web-accessible hierarchical network of
    data/information and knowledge nodes that will allow the close
    coupling of data acquisition and analysis to improve understanding
    of the uncertainties associated with observations. The system must
    include analysis, visualization and modeling tools.

-   Improved modeling and prediction techniques adequate for data
    analysis under modern conditions, which include enormous data sets
    in large numbers of variables, intricate feedback systems,
    distributed databases with related but non-identical variable sets,
    and hierarchically related variables. Many of the most advanced
    techniques are now implemented as freeware by academic groups, with
    inadequate interfaces and support.

-   Maintaining the longevity and interoperability of a growing
    multitude of databases and data collections.

*Large Facility Projects:* Over half of the needs identified by the
directorates fell in the category of "large" infrastructure; i.e.,
projects with a total cost of \$75 million or more. The reality is that
many important needs identified five to ten years ago have not been
funded and the scientific justifications for those facilities have
grown. In the past couple of years, the number of large projects
approved for funding by the National Science Board, but not yet funded,
has grown. The FY 2003 request for the MREFC Account is about \$126
million. It will require an annual investment of at least \$350 million
for several years to address the backlog of research facilities
construction projects.

*Mid-Sized Infrastructure*: Many of the NSF directorates identified a
"*mid-size infrastructure*" funding gap. While there is no precise
definition of mid-size infrastructure, for the purposes of this report
it is assumed to have a total construction/installation cost of ranging
from millions to tens of millions of dollars. Examples of infrastructure
needs that have long been identified as very high priorities but that
have not been realized include acquisition of an incoherent scatter
radar to fill critical atmospheric science observational gaps;
replacement of an Arctic regional research vessel; replacement or
upgrade of submersibles; beam line instrumentation for neutron science,
and major upgrades of computational capability. In many cases the
mid-size instruments that are needed to advance an important scientific
project are research projects in their own right, projects that advance
the state-of-the-art or that invent completely new instruments. These
are not suitable for funding with the MREFC account owing to their mix
of research and of instrument construction, but are essential if NSF is
to continue to be the agency whose work leads to developments like MRI
and LASIK surgery - developments that had their roots in research on
advanced instrumentation.

*Maintaining and Upgrading Existing Infrastructure:* Obtaining the money
to maintain and upgrade existing research facilities, platforms,
databases, and specimen collections is a difficult challenge for
universities. IT adds a new layer of complexity to already complex
science and engineering instruments. The design and build time for large
instruments can be 2 to 4 generations of IT; while IT must be "planned
in" - it cannot be designed in afterwards. Instruments with long
lifetimes must consider upgrade paths for IT systems that will enable
enhanced sensors, data rates or other improved capabilities. The
challenge to NSF is how to maintain and upgrade existing infrastructure
while simultaneously advancing the state-of-the-art.

*Instrumentation Research**: ***Increased support for research in areas
that can lead to advances in instruments, in terms of cost and function,
is critically important. Such an investment will be cost-effective
because skipping even one generation of a big instrument may save
hundreds of millions of dollars. Also, totally new instruments can open
doors to new research vistas. In addition, industry is rapidly
transforming the tools developed in support of basic research into the
tools and technologies of industry. At the same time, industry is
increasingly relying on NSF-sponsored fundamental research programs in
universities for the initial development of such tools.

### 

*Multi-Disciplinary Infrastructure Platforms*: As the academic
disciplines become intertwined, there is an increasing need for sites
where multidisciplinary teams can interact and have access to cutting
edge tools. Such facilities must be shared among a number of researchers
much as a telescope is shared among a number of astronomers. The sharing
of such facilities, in turn, requires investigators to become more
collaborative and work in new ways. This will require increased
attention to multidisciplinary training. Open technological platforms
offer high-quality instrumentation and technological services to
researchers and institutions that could not otherwise afford them.
Networks can help guide users, provide services, and encourage
interaction between different communities.

*Polar Regions Research*: NSF infrastructure in the Polar Regions
enables research supported not only by OPP and most other NSF
Directorates, but also by the Nation's mission agencies, notably NASA,
DoI, DoE, and DoC. The new South Pole Station will fully exploit this
capability; however, improved transportation to the Station will be
needed as will continuous high-bandwidth capability for data transfer
and connectivity to the cyberinfrastructure. In addition, NSF
infrastructure at McMurdo Station, the base for South Pole and remote
field applications, needs to be maintained at a faster pace than has
occurred in recent years. Finally, many fields of science require access
to Polar Regions during the winter months, a capability that currently
can be supported only to a very limited extent.

*Education and Training:* Investments that expand the educational
opportunities at research facilities have already had an enormous impact
on students. Many of these investments can be further leveraged by new
activities that reach out to K-12 students and influence the teaching of
science and mathematics. Similarly, the public's direct participation in
advanced visualization access to national research facilities can open a
much-needed avenue for public involvement in the excitement of
scientific discovery and the creative process of engineering.

Infrastructure Security: The events of September 11, 2001 increased
awareness of important security issues with respect to protecting the
Nation's S&E infrastructure. Examples include:

-   Attacks on S&E infrastructure to destroy valuable national resources
    and disrupt U.S. science and technology.

-   Use of S&E infrastructure, such as shared research websites, for
    destructive purposes.

-   Security, confidence and trust in S&E databases.

The increasingly distributed and networked nature of S&E infrastructure
means that problems can propagate widely and rapidly, and researchers
depend on capabilities at many sites. Infrastructure security requires
innovations in IT to monitor and analyze threats in new settings of
global communications and commerce, asymmetric threats, and threats
emanating from groups with unfamiliar cultures and languages. The U.S.
and its international partners face unprecedented challenges for the
security, reliability and dependability of IT-based infrastructure
systems. For example, the major barriers to realizing the promise of the
Internet are security and privacy issues - research issues requiring
further study - and the need for ubiquitous access to broadband service.
Current middleware and strategic technology efforts are attempting to
address these problems, but a significantly greater investment is needed
to address these problems successfully.

######## PRINCIPAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A number of themes emerged from the diverse input received. Foremost
among them was that, over the past decade, the funding for academic
research infrastructure has not kept pace with rapidly changing
technology, expanding research opportunities, and increasing numbers of
users.

Information technology has made many S&E tools more powerful, remotely
usable, and connectable. The new tools being developed make researchers
more effective -- both more productive and able to do things they could
not do in the past. An increasing number of researchers and educators,
working as individuals and in groups, need to be connected to a
sophisticated array of facilities, instruments, and databases. Hence,
there is an urgent need to increase Federal investments aimed at
providing access for scientists to the latest and best scientific-
infrastructure as well as updating infrastructure currently in place.
While a number of Federal Research and Development (R&D) agencies are
addressing some of their most critical needs, the Federal government is
not addressing the needs of the Nation's science and engineering
enterprise with the required scope and breadth.

To expand and strengthen the Foundation\'s infrastructure portfolio, the
Board developed four recommendations. The Board will periodically assess
NSF's implementation of these recommendations,

**[Recommendation 1]{.underline}: Increase the share of the budget
devoted to S&E infrastructure.**

NSF's future investment in S&E infrastructure should be increased in
order to respond to the needs and opportunities identified in this
report. It is hoped that the majority of these additional resources can
be provided through future growth of the NSF budget. The more immediate
needs must be at least partially addressed through increasing the share
of the NSF budget devoted to infrastructure. The current 22 percent of
the NSF budget devoted to infrastructure is too low and should be
increased. In increasing the infrastructure share, the focus should be
on providing individual investigators and groups of investigators with
the resources they need to work at the frontiers of S&E.

**[Recommendation 2]{.underline}: Give special emphasis to the following
activities, listed in order of priority:**

-   **Develop and deploy an advanced cyberinfrastructure to enable new
    S&E in the 21^st^ century.**

> This investment should address leading-edge computation as well as
> visualization facilities, data archives and libraries, and networks of
> much greater power and in substantially greater quantity. Providing
> access to moderate-cost computation, storage, visualization and
> communication infrastructure for every researcher will lead to an even
> more productive national research enterprise. Developing the new
> cyberinfrastructure, including the informatics and databases; high-end
> computing; and high-speed networks that can enable a broader range of
> institutions and people will require a large and sustained investment
> over many years. Funding of implementations and maintenance of
> statistical, machine learning, data mining, and related workbenches of
> many kinds, both general and adapted to special requirements of
> particular disciplines, is essential. This is an important undertaking
> for NSF because this new infrastructure will play a critical role in
> creating the research vistas of tomorrow. [^24]
>
> It is critical that any Federal cyberinfrastructure initiative reflect
> the joint vision and commitment of NSF, the other R&D agencies, and
> the S&E community. For example, several other agencies, such as DoE,
> NASA, NIH and DoD have very large scientific computing activities.
> While one agency may choose to invest in the highest performance
> computers, another may choose to invest just below that capability.
> Hence, there must be a strong interagency coordinated effort to ensure
> that a broad range of needs is addressed.

-   **Increase support for large facility projects.**

> In recent years, NSF has received an increased number of requests for
> major research facilities and equipment from the S&E community. Many
> of these requests have been rated outstanding by research peers,
> program staff, management and policy officials, and the National
> Science Board. Several large facility projects have been approved for
> funding by the NSB, but have not been funded. At present, an annual
> investment of at least \$350 million is needed over several years just
> to address the backlog of facility projects construction. Postponing
> this investment now will not only increase the future cost of these
> projects but also result in the loss of U.S. leadership in key
> research fields.

-   **Address the mid-size infrastructure funding gap.**

> A \"mid-size infrastructure\" funding gap exists. While there are
> programs for addressing \"small\" and \"large\" infrastructure needs,
> none exists for infrastructure projects costing between millions and
> tens of millions of dollars. NSF should increase the level of funding
> for mid-size infrastructure and develop new funding mechanisms, as
> appropriate, to support these projects.

-   **Increase research to advance instrument technology and build
    next-generation observational, communications, data analysis and
    interpretation, and other computational tools.**

> Instrumentation research is often difficult and risky, requiring the
> successful integration of theoretical knowledge, engineering and
> software design, and information technology. In contrast to most other
> infrastructure technologies, commercially available data analysis and
> data interpretation software typically lags well behind university
> developed software, which is often unfunded or under-funded, limiting
> its use and accessibility. This research will accelerate the
> development of instrument technology to ensure that future research
> instruments and tools are as efficient and effective as possible. NSF
> should systematically assess technologies that can directly affect
> instrument function and cost to ensure that the precursor research is
> performed.

**[Recommendation 3:]{.underline} Expand education and training
opportunities at new and existing research facilities.**

######### Investment in S&E infrastructure is critical to developing a 21^st^ century S&E workforce. Educating people to understand how S&E instruments and facilities work and how they uniquely contribute to knowledge in the targeted discipline is critical. Training and outreach activities should be a vital element of all major research facility programs. This outreach should span communities from existing researchers who may become new users, to undergraduate and graduate students who may design and use future instruments, to kindergarten through grade twelve (K-12) children, who may become motivated to become scientists and engineers. There are also opportunities to expand public access to National S&E facilities though high-speed networks and special outreach activities.

**[Recommendation 4:]{.underline} Strengthen the infrastructure planning
and budgeting process through the following actions:**

-   Foster systematic assessments of U.S. academic research
    infrastructure needs for both disciplinary and cross-disciplinary
    fields of research. Re-assess current surveys of infrastructure
    needs to determine if they fully measure and are responsive to
    current requirements.

-   Develop specific criteria and indicators to assist in balancing
    infrastructure investments across S&E disciplines and fields and in
    establishing priorities. (As a starting principle, infrastructure
    priorities should be determined by the priority of the research
    problems they are designed to address.)

-   Conduct an assessment to determine the most effective budget
    structure for supporting S&E infrastructure.

-   Develop budgets for infrastructure projects that include the total
    costs to be incurred over the entire life-cycles of projects,
    including research, planning, design, construction, commissioning,
    maintenance, operations, and, to the extent possible, research
    funding. Included in this planning must be sufficient human
    resources, such as the highly trained experts who maintain the
    instruments and facilities and assist researchers in their
    operation.

Many studies and surveys[^25] indicate that the funding for academic
research infrastructure has not kept pace, over the past decade, with
rapidly changing technology, expanding research opportunities, and
increasing numbers of users. There is an urgent need to arrest this
erosion by increasing Federal investments aimed at creating new
cutting-edge infrastructure and updating infrastructure currently in
place. Because of the need for the Federal government to act
holistically in addressing the requirements of the Nation's S&E
enterprise, the Board developed a fifth recommendation, aimed
principally at OMB, OSTP and the NSTC.

**[Recommendation 5:]{.underline} Develop interagency plans and
strategies to do the following:**

-   Establish interagency infrastructure priorities that meet the needs
    of the S&E community and reflect competitive merit review as the
    best way to select S&E infrastructure projects.

-   Improve the recurrent funding of academic research so that, over
    time, institutions become capable of covering the full cost of the
    research work they do, including sustaining their research
    infrastructure.

-   Stimulate the development and deployment of new infrastructure
    technologies to foster a new decade of infrastructure innovation.

-   Develop the next generation of the high-end high performance
    computing and networking infrastructure needed to enable a broadly
    based S&E community to work at the research frontier.

-   Facilitate international partnerships to enable the mutual support
    and use of research facilities across national boundaries

-   Protect the Nation's massive investment in S&E infrastructure
    against accidental or malicious attacks and misuse.

IV. **CONCLUSION**

Rapidly changing infrastructure technology has simultaneously created a
challenge and an opportunity for the U.S. S&E enterprise. The challenge
is how to maintain and revitalize an academic research infrastructure
that has eroded over many years due to obsolescence and chronic
under-investment. The opportunity is to build a new infrastructure that
will create future research frontiers and enable a much broader segment
of the S&E community. The challenge and opportunity must be combined
into a single strategy. As current infrastructure is replaced and
upgraded, the next-generation infrastructure must be created. The young
people who are trained using state-of-the-art instruments and facilities
are the ones who will demand and create the new tools, and make the
breakthroughs that will extend the science and technology envelope.
Training these young people will ensure that the U.S. maintains
international leadership in the key scientific and engineering fields
that are vital for a strong economy, social order and national security.

**APPENDIX A**

**The Charge to the Task Force on Science and Engineering Infrastructure
(INF)**

The quality and adequacy of the infrastructure for science and
engineering are critical to maintaining the leadership of the United
States on the frontiers of discovery and for insuring their continuous
contribution to the strength of the national economy and to quality of
life. Since the last major assessments were conducted over a decade ago,
that infrastructure has grown and changed, and the needs of science and
engineering communities have evolved. The National Science Board, which
has a responsibility for monitoring the health of the national research
and education enterprise, has determined that there is a need for an
assessment of the current status of the national infrastructure for
fundamental science and engineering, to ensure its quality and
availability to the broad S&E community in the future.

Several trends contribute to the need for a new assessment:

-   The impact of new technologies on research facilities and equipment;

-   The changing infrastructure needs in the context of new discoveries,
    intellectual challenges, and opportunities;

-   The impact of new tools and capabilities, such as IT and large data
    bases;

-   Rapidly escalating cost of research facilities;

-   Changes in the university environment affecting support for S&E
    infrastructure development and operation; and

-   The need for new strategies for partnering and collaboration.

The Task Force on Science and Engineering Infrastructure (INF),
reporting to the Committee on Programs and Plans (CPP) is established to
undertake and guide an assessment of the fundamental science and
engineering infrastructure in the United States. The task force will
develop terms of reference and a workplan with the aim of informing the
national dialogue on S&E infrastructure and highlighting the role of NSF
as well as the larger resource and management strategies of interest to
Federal policymakers in both the executive and legislative branches.

The workplan should enable an assessment of the current status of the
national S&E infrastructure, the changing needs of science and
engineering, and the requirements for a capability of appropriate
quality and size to ensure continuing U.S. leadership. It should
describe the scope and character of the assessment and a process for
including appropriate stakeholders, such as other Federal agencies, and
representatives of the private sector and the science and engineering
communities. The workplan should include consideration of the following
issues:

-   Appropriate strategies for sharing the costs of the infrastructure
    with respect to both development and operations among different
    sectors, communities, and nations;

-   Partnering and use arrangements conducive to insuring the most
    effective use of limited resources and the advancement of discovery;

-   The balance between maintaining the quality of existing facilities
    and creation of new ones; and

-   The process for establishing priorities for investment in
    infrastructure across fields, sectors, and Federal agencies.

**APPENDIX B**

**Bibliography**

##### 

# NSF/NSB PUBLICATIONS

1.  *Revolutionizing Science and Engineering through
    Cyberinfrastructure*, Report of the Blue Ribbon NSF Advisory Panel
    on Cyberinfrastructure, Dan Atkins (Chair), 2002.

2.  *The Scientific Allocation of Scientific Resources*, NSB-01-39,
    March 2002.

3.  *Facilities Funded Through the Major Research Equipment and
    Facilities Account* (A report to the U.S. Congress), National
    Science Foundation, February 2002.

4.  *Science and Engineering Indicators- 2002*, NSB-02-01, National
    Science Board, January 2002.

5.  *Statement on Guidelines for Setting Priority for Major Research
    Facilities* (NSB 01-204) January 17, 2002.

6.  *Scientific and Engineering Research Facilities, 2001, Detailed
    Statistical Tables*, NSF Division of Science Resources Statistics,
    NSF 02-307, January 2002.

7.  *Federal Research Resources: A Process for Setting Priorities*, NSB
    Final Report, October 2001, NSB-01-156.

8.  *Large Facility Projects Management and Oversight Plan*, NSF,
    September 2001.

9.  *Toward a More Effective U.S. Role in International Science and
    Engineering,* NSB, November 15, 2001, NSB-01-187.

10. *Science and Engineering Research Facilities at Colleges and
    Universities: 1998*, NSF Division of Science Resources Statistics,
    NSF-01-301, October 2000.

11. *EU Conference on Research Infrastructures, Strasbourg, 18-20
    September 2000*, NSF Europe Office Update 00-03.

12. Bordogna, Joseph, \"[*Visions for Engineering
    Education*](../jb00911davos.htm),\" Address to the IEEE
    Interdisciplinary Conference EE & CE Education in the Third
    Millennium, September 11, 2000.

13. *Reinvestment Initiative in Science and Engineering (RISE),*
    Advisory Committee for the Directorate for Mathematical and Physical
    Sciences, May 2000.

14. *Environmental Science and Engineering for the 21^st^ Century: The
    Role of the National Science Foundation*, February 2000, NSB-00-22.

15. *National Science Foundation, Celebrating 50 Years: Resource Guide
    2000,* NSF 00-87.

16. *SRS Data Brief*: "Total Stock of Academic Research Instruments Tops
    \$6 Billion in 1993," NSF Division of Science Resources Studies,
    June 6, 1997, Vol. 1997, No. 6.

17. *Academic Research Instruments: Expenditures 1993, Needs 1994,* NSF
    Division of Science Resources Studies, 1994, NSF-96-324.

18. *Infrastructure: The Capital Requirements for Academic Research*,
    NSF Division of Policy Research and Analysis, May 1987, PRA Report
    87-3.

19. *The Scientific Instrumentation Needs of Research Universities*, a
    Report to the National Science Foundation, Association of American
    Universities, June 1980.

# OTHER AGENCIES REPORTS

20. OMB Circular No. A-11, Part 3: Planning, Budgeting and Acquisition
    of Capital Assets.

21. *A Report to the Advisory Committee of the Director, National
    Institutes of Health*, NIH Working Group on Construction of Research
    Facilities, July 6, 2001.

22. *Infrastructure Frontier: A Quick Look Survey of the Office of
    Science Laboratory Infrastructure*, U.S. Department of Energy,
    April 2001. This report can be read on-line at
    [**http://www.er.doe.gov/production/er-80/er-82/labs21/**](http://www.er.doe.gov/production/er-80/er-82/labs21/).

23. *Workshop on a Future Information Infrastructure for the Physical
    Sciences*, Department of Energy, NAS, May 30-31, 2000.

24. *Best Practices: Elements Critical to Successfully Reducing Unneeded
    RDT&E Infrastructure, GAO/NSIAD/RCED-98-23.* General Accounting
    Office (GAO), January 1998.

**REPORTS OF THE NSTC/NRC AND SPECIAL COMMISSIONS**

25. *Road Map for National Security: Addendum on Structure and Process
    Analyses (Hart-Rudman report),* U.S. Commission on National
    Security, January 31, 2001.

26. *US Astronomy and Astrophysics: Managing an Integrated Program*,
    Committee on the Organization and Management of Research in
    Astronomy and Astrophysics, National Research Council, August 2001.

27. *Astronomy and Astrophysics in the New Millennium (2001),* Survey
    Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics, Board on Physics and
    Astronomy, Space Studies Board, National Research Council.
    [http://books.nap.edu/catalog/9839.html](http://books.nap.edu/catalog/798.html)*.*

28. *Finding the Path: Issues of Access to Research Resources (1999),*
    Commission of Life Sciences, National Research Council.
    [http://books.nap.edu/catalog/0309066255.html/](http://bob.nap.edu/html/infrastructure)*.*

29. *Funding a Revolution: Government Support for Computing Research
    (1999)*, National Academy Press. [http://bob.nap.edu/reaing
    room/books/far/ch3.html/](http://bob.nap.edu/html/infrastructure)*.*

30. *Information Technology Research: Investing in Our Future*,
    President's Information Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC),
    February 1999.

31. *Investing in Research Infrastructure in the Behavioral and Social
    Sciences (1998),* Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences
    Commission, NRC. <http://bob.nap.edu/html/infrastructure>*.*

32. *Interim Assessment of Research and Data Analysis in NASA's Office
    of Space Science, Appendix D: NASA/OSS Response,* NRC Space Studies
    Board, 1998.
    [http://www.nationalacademies.org/ssb/rda2000appendd.htm]{.underline}

33. *The Unpredictable Certainty*: White Papers, National Information
    Infrastructure (NII) Steering Committee, NRC, 1998.
    [http://bob.nap.edu/html/whitepapers/ch-39.html.](http://bob.nap.edu/html/infrastructure)

34. *Biotechnology for the 21^st^ Century, Chapter 6: Infrastructure
    Needs*, Biotechnology Research Subcommittee, National Science and
    Technology Council (NSTC), July 1995.
    [http://www.nal.usda.gov/bic/bio21/infrastr.html/.]{.underline}

35. *Final Report on Academic Research Infrastructure: A Federal Plan
    for Renewal.* National Science and Technology Council, March 17,
    1995 (Nathaniel Pitts, Chair).

36. *Infrastructure for the 21^st^ Century: Framework for a Research
    Agenda (1987)* Committee on Infrastructure Innovation, NRC.
    [http://books.nap.edu/catalog/798.html/](http://bob.nap.edu/html/infrastructure)*.*

37. *Science -- The Endless Frontier, A Report to the President on a
    Program for Postwar Scientific Research,* Vannevar Bush, Director
    OSRD, July 1945 (NSF 90-8).

# OTHER PUBLICATIONS

38. Solow, Robert, "Let's Quantify the Humanities," *The Chronicle of
    Higher Education,* p. B20*,* April 19, 2002.

39. Feller, Irwin , *The NSF Budget: How Should We Determine Future
    Levels?*, Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives, House
    Committee on Science, Subcommittee on Research, March 13, 2002,
    Washington, DC.

40. Georghiou, Luke, et al. "Benchmarking the Provision of Scientific
    Equipment," *Science and Public Policy*, August 2001.

41. Rippen, Helga, *A Framework for the Information Technology
    Infrastructure for Bio-terrorism* (Draft), RAND, December 7, 2001.

42. *Morris, Jefferson, "*NASA Considering Closing, Consolidating
    Centers As Part of Restructuring Effort"*, Aerospace Daily,* October
    17, 2001.

43. "Europe Urged to Set Up Advisory Body on Research Infrastructure,"
    [Nature]{.underline}, Vol. 407, September 28, 2000, pp. 433-434.

44. Aberersold, Reudi, Hood, Leroy, and Watts, Julian, "Equipping
    Scientists for the New Biology," *Nature Biology*, Vol. 18, April
    2000.

45. Goldman, Charles A., Williams, T., *Paying for University Research
    Facilities and Administration*, RAND, (MR-1135-1-OSTP), 2000.

46. Langford, Cooper H., "Evaluation of Rules for Access to Megascience
    Research Environments Viewed From Canadian Experience,"
    [Elsevier]{.underline} (University of Calgary), Research Policy
    29 (2000) 169-179.

47. *Information Technology and Research Overview*, UCLA Information
    Technology Retreat, December 9-10. 1999.

48. Kondro, Wayne, "Making Social Science Data More Useful,"
    [Science]{.underline}, Vol. 286, October 29, 1999.

49. "Drowning in Data," [Scientific American Explore!:
    Databases]{.underline}, October 4, 1999.
    http://www.sciam.com/explorations/1999/100499data.

50. Rich, R.H., *The Role of the National Science Foundation in
    Supporting Advanced Network Infrastructure: Views of the Research
    Community,* American Association for the Advancement of Science,
    July 26, 1999.

51. Schmidt, P., \"A Building Boom for Public Colleges,\" [Chronicle of
    Higher Education]{.underline}, June 12, A29-A30. (1998)

52. Narum, Jeanne L*., "*A Better Home for Undergraduate Science*,"*
    [Issues in Science and Technology]{.underline}, Fall 1996.

53. Davey, Ken, "The Infrastructure of Academic Research," Association
    of Universities and Colleges of Canada ([AUCC) Research
    File]{.underline}, August 1996, Vol. 1, No. 4.

54. *US National Innovation System,* David C. Mowery and Nathan
    Rosenberg in "National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis"
    ed. Richard R. Nelson, Oxford University Press, 1993.

**INTERNATIONAL REPORTS**

55. UK Office of Science and Technology, *Large Facilities Strategic
    Road* Map, 2002.

56. *Study of Science Research Infrastructure, A Report to the UK Office
    of Science and Technology*, JM Consulting LTD, December 2001.

57. *Annual Summary Report on the Coordination of Activities in Support
    of Research Infrastructures*, European Commission, Brussels, January
    2000.

58. European Commission Conference on \"*Research Infrastructures*.\"
    Strasbourg, September 19-20, 2000, Commissioned Panel Reports:

-   *The Role of Infrastructures in Research*

-   *Infrastructure Networking*

-   *International Dimension*

-   *Role of Human Resources*

-   *Evaluation and Monitoring of Access to Research Infrastructures*

-   *How to Develop a European Research Infrastructure*

-   *Technological Innovation, Industrial and Socio-Economic Aspects of
    Research Infrastructures*

**WEBSITES**

59. Laboratories of the 21st Century:
    <http://www.er.doe.gov/production/er-80/er-82/labs21>[.]{.underline}

60. NSB Reports:
    [http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/reports.htm.]{.underline}

61. The Space and Aeronomy Collaboratory (SPARC):
    [http://www.windows.umich.edu/sparc.]{.underline}

62. AAS Decadal Study: [http://www.aas.org/decadal.]{.underline}

63. Harvard Information Infrastructure Project:
    [http://ksgwww.harvard.edu/iip.]{.underline}

64. Large Facility Projects Best Practices Workshop (copies of
    presentations): <http://www.inside.nsf.gov/bfa/lfp/start.html>.

**\*\* Comments please send email to: <nsb-inf@nsf.gov>**

[^1]: As used in this report, research infrastructure does not include
    the academic scientists and engineers, and their students, i.e. what
    is commonly referred to as the "human infrastructure."

[^2]: *Revolutionizing Science and Engineering through
    Cyberinfrastructure*, Report of the Blue Ribbon NSF Advisory Panel
    on Cyberinfrastructure, Dan Atkins (Chair), October 2002.

[^3]: The seven directorates are: Biological Sciences (BIO); Computer
    and Information Science and Engineering (CISE); Education and Human
    Resources (EHR.); Engineering (ENG); Geosciences (GEO); Mathematical
    and Physical Sciences (MPS); and Social, Behavioral, and Economic
    Sciences (SBE).

[^4]: This history is based heavily on two sources: (1) "U.S. National
    Innovation System" by David C. Mowery and Nathan Rosenberg in
    *National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis*, ed. Richard
    R. Nelson, Oxford University Press, 1993; and (2) *Science -- The
    Endless Frontier, A Report to the President on a Program for Postwar
    Scientific Research,* Vannevar Bush, Director Office of Scientific
    Research and Development (OSRD), July 1945 (NSF 90-8).

[^5]: More recent data on the sources of academic instrumentation
    funding are not available.

[^6]: Goldman, Charles A. and T. Williams, *Paying for University
    Research Facilities and Administration*, RAND, (MR-1135-1-OSTP),
    2000.

[^7]: *Science and Engineering Indicator-, 2002*, National Science
    Board, January 2002.

[^8]: *Final Report on Academic Research Infrastructure: A Federal Plan
    for Renewal.* National Science and Technology Council, March 17,
    1995.

[^9]: *Science and Engineering Research Facilities at Colleges and
    Universities, 1998*, NSF Division of Science Resources Statistics,
    NSF-01-301, October 2000.

[^10]: *A Report to the Advisory Committee of the Director, National
    Institutes of Health*, NIH Working Group on Construction of Research
    Facilities, July 6, 2001.

[^11]: Dan Goldin, *Aerospace Daily*, October 17, 2001.

[^12]: Infrastructure Frontier: A Quick Look Survey of the Office of
    Science Laboratory Infrastructure, U.S. Department of Energy, April
    2001.

[^13]: Unpublished internal survey.

[^14]: *Revolutionizing Science and Engineering through
    Cyberinfrastructure*, Report of the Blue Ribbon NSF Advisory Panel
    on Cyberinfrastructure, Dan Atkins (Chair), December 2002.

[^15]: *Toward a More Effective U.S. Role in International Science and
    Engineering,* NSB, November 2000, NSB-00-206.

[^16]: U.S. *Astronomy and Astrophysics: Managing an Integrated
    Program*, Committee on the Organization and Management of Research
    in Astronomy and Astrophysics, National Research Council, August
    2001.

[^17]: A teraflop is a measure of a computer\'s speed and can be
    expressed as a trillion floating-point operations per second.

[^18]: UK Office of Science and Technology, *Large Facilities Strategic
    Road* Map, 2002.

[^19]: Examples of large data sets include large genomic databases, data
    gathered from global observations systems, seismic networks,
    automated physical science instruments, and social science
    databases.

[^20]: R.H Rich, The Role of the National Science Foundation in
    Supporting Advanced Network Infrastructure: Views of the Research
    Community, American Association for the Advancement of Science, July
    26, 1999.

[^21]: NSF Act of 1950 (Public Law 81-0507)

[^22]: Although NSF research centers are part People, part Ideas and
    part Tools, for budget convenience they are classified in the IDEAS
    category.

[^23]: For example, the amount of data that will be produced by the
    Large Hadron Collider at CERN will be colossal and require major
    advances in GRID network technology to handle it.

[^24]: *Revolutionizing Science and Engineering through
    Cyberinfrastructure*, Report of the Blue Ribbon NSF Advisory Panel
    on Cyberinfrastructure, Dan Atkins (Chair), October 2002. The report
    estimates that an increase of about \$1 billion per year is required
    by FY 2008.

[^25]: A number of these studies are listed and referenced on page 18 of
    this report.