**National Science Foundation**

**Advisory Committee for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE
AC)**

**April 19-20, 2006**

**National Science Foundation**

**Stafford I, Room 1235**

**Arlington, VA**

**National Rural Electric Cooperative Association**

**Arlington, VA**

### **MEETING SUMMARY**

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

**Dr. Robert Groves, Chair**, SRC Research Center, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI

**Dr. Cynthia Beall**, Department of Anthropology, Case Western Reserve
University, Cleveland, OH

**Dr. Cecilia Conrad**, Department of Economics, Pomona College,
Claremont, CA

**Professor Shari Diamond**, Departments of Law and Psychology,
Northwestern University, Chicago, IL

**Dr. Michael Goodchild**, Department of Geography, University of
California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA

**Professor William Hall**, Department of Psychology, University of
Maryland, College Park, MD

**Dr. Ira Harkavy**, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA (Day 2
only)

**Professor Guillermina Jasso**, Department of Sociology, New York
University, New York, NY

**Dr. John King**, (CISE AC Liaison) University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
MI

**Dr. Jon Krosnick**, Department of Communication, Stanford University,
Stanford, CA

**Dr. Ruth Delois Peterson**, Department of Sociology, Ohio State
University, Columbus, OH

**Dr. David Poeppel**, Department of Linguistics, University of
Maryland, College Park, MD

**Dr. Paula E. Stephan**, Professor of Economics, Georgia State
University, Atlanta, GA

**Dr. Judith Tanur**, Department of Sociology, State Univ. of New York
at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY

**[Ex Officio Members Present:]{.underline}**

**Dr. David Abrams**, Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research,
National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD

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

**Dr. Lila R. Gleitman**, Institute for Research in Cognitive Science,
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA

**Dr. Claude M. Steele**, Department of Psychology, Stanford University,
Stanford, CA

**[Ex Officio Members Absent:]{.underline}**

**Professor Gun Semin**, Department of Psychology, Free University,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands

**[SBE Senior Staff Present:]{.underline}**

**Dr. David W. Lightfoot**, Assistant Director, SBE

**Dr. Wanda E. Ward**, Deputy Director, SBE

**Dr. Richard Lempert**, Division Director, Social and Economic Sciences
(SES)

**Dr. Marguerite (Peg) Barratt**, Division Director, Behavioral and
Cognitive Sciences (BCS)

**Dr. Lynda Carlson**, Division Director, Science Resources Statistics
(SRS)

**Mr. Tyrone Jordan**, Budget Officer, SBE

# 

The spring meeting of the Advisory Committee for Social, Behavioral and
Economic Sciences (SBE AC) was held April 19-20, 2006, at the National
Science Foundation (NSF) and at the National Rural Electric Cooperative
Association in Arlington, Virginia.

# 

# Tuesday, April 18, 2006

The Science Resources Statistics (SRS) Division held a breakout session
from 1:00 -- 5:00 p.m.

# 

# Wednesday, April 19, 2006

Dr. Robert Groves, Chair, called the meeting to order at 9:12 a.m.

#### Introduction of Committee Members and Staff, Directorate Update and Review of Minutes

Dr. Groves welcomed everyone and introductions were made. Dr. David
Lightfoot, Assistant Director, SBE introduced new SBE AC members and new
SBE staff.

Dr. Lightfoot gave an update on activities within SBE. The President's
FY 2007 budget requests a 7.9% increase. The FY2007 budget was
formulated in the context of the American Competitiveness Initiative
(ACI) with NSF, Department of Energy's Office of Science, and the
National Institute for Standards and Technology within the Department of
Commerce (Core Research Programs) identified as key players in this
initiative. Details on the NSF FY 2007 budget request were provided. SBE
is proposed for a 6.9% increase in funding that will strengthen core
disciplinary research, support the Science Metrics Initiative, and
maintain the Innovation and Organizational Change (IOC) Program.
Proposed funding for the NSF priority areas was shown in comparison to
FY 2000--FY 2006 amounts. Across NSF, new FY 2007 investments include
International Polar Year (FYs 2007-2008), Cyberinfrastructure (i.e.
Networking and Information Technology Research and
Development/CyberTrust), and Sensors for the Detection of Explosives.

The bi-annual *Science and Engineering Indicators 2006* was published
since the last meeting.

In NSF, a new Office of Cyberinfrastructure (OCI) was formed. Dr. Daniel
Atkins has been appointed as the first Director of OCI. SBE looks
forward to collaborations with the new office. NSF has been working to
develop a vision for Cyberinfrastructure (CI) with four emphasis
areas: 1) High Performance Computing (HPC), 2) Data and Data Analysis,
3) Collaboratories, and 4) Education and the Workforce. Within SBE, a CI
workshop was held last year.

Internationally, SBE signed an agreement with the [UK European Economic
and Social Research
Council](http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geuqzPlk9FuKUAyEhXNyoA/SIG=181et0mps/EXP=1162930255/**http%3A/search.yahoo.com/search%3Fp=UK%2BEuropean%2BEconomic%2Band%2BSocial%2BResearch%2BCouncil%26sp=1%26fr2=sp-top%26fr=yfp-t-501%26toggle=1%26cop=mss%26ei=UTF-8%26ei=UTF-8%26SpellState=n-555404449_q-4IVK2nRlXen2KWwUZb10LwAAAA%2540%2540)
(ESRC). A brief overview of the nature of the agreement and parallel
funding was given.

SBE is looking to make an appointment for a person to lead the Science
of Science Policy Initiative by May 2006. In this area, \$6.8M is
proposed for FY 2007 through existing programs to strengthen work NSF is
already doing in this area.

Dr. Groves moved for approval of the November 3, 2005 meeting minutes.
With the corrections noted, the minutes were approved by the SBE AC.

#### Human and Social Dynamics (HSD) Priority Area Update

Dr. Keith Crank, Coordinator for the Human and Social Dynamics (HSD)
Priority Area, provided a brief review of upcoming events that included
workshops (Networks, HSD and the Physical Sciences, HSD and CI, and
Cross-governmental Funding for Disaster Research), a PI Meeting (Sept.
14-15, 2006), and Review Panels (May -- June 2006). Approximately 180
awards will be funded. Details on the FY 2006 competition were provided.
FY 2007 proposal deadlines will be January/February. Dr. Crank asked the
SBE AC for help in identifying a possible new HSD emphasis area for the
FY 2007 solicitation. Currently, the scientific focus areas are Agents
of Change; Dynamics of Human Behavior; and Decision Making, Risk and
Uncertainty. SBE is considering adding another component, Science of
Change, calling for research on how people adapt to change as well as
predicting the impact of change and understanding the impact of those
changes. Recent tsunamis and hurricanes were given as examples of
change.

In the discussion that followed, the SBE AC asked how the HSD program
would be evaluated. Dr. Crank said there is a COV planned, but NSF hopes
to conduct a more in-depth evaluation of the program. A concern was
expressed that if there were too many specific emphasis areas for HSD
fewer proposals would be received.

The SBE AC identified several other topics in the HSD research area such
as:

-   Social dynamics linked to other fields like physics or computer
    science (i.e. network analysis).

-   Health issues such as the intended and unintended consequences of
    factors such as tobacco; how marketing has impacted society;
    patterns of change and counter-change that cannot be explained at
    the biological level. It would be useful to look at human
    system-level impacts of change, not just sudden change.

-   An integrated study on large frameworks of migration phenomena to
    include a large model of all the different cultures and players and
    how their actions affect each other.

-   Emerging sensor research: There is a rapid rate of sensor
    development which will impact the way science is done/viewed.

The SBE AC suggested that the HSD solicitation have a list of topics as
examples to stimulate activities. Dr. Crank said there are pros and cons
to providing more details. SBE wants to be general in terms of being
open to different areas of study and various disciplines and careful not
to use phrases that have predetermined ideas. The HSD program staff will
continue to document success stories of projects as the program evolves.

Dr. Grove thanked Dr. Crank for his presentation.

#### International Polar Year

Dr. Anna Kerttula, Program Manager for Artic Social Sciences within the
Office of Polar Programs (OPP), provided an update on the International
Polar Year. During the 1881-1883 IPY, the Barrow Research Center was
established. During the 1957-1958 IPY, the first satellite was launched
and the Antarctic research base was established. The FYs 2007-2008 IPY
will include the human component for the first time.

The IPY International Council for Science (ICSU) theme related to human
societies (Theme #6) was shown. The background on IPY was reviewed with
the vision for IPY. Details about the latest of Expressions of Intent by
the IPY Secretariat were shown. Response to the FY 2006 solicitation
will guide the development of the FY 2007 solicitation. Details on the
IPY activities (and web sites) were provided in handouts and are
available on OPP's web site.

Specific SBE and Arctic Social Science Program IPY collaboration areas
include:

-   Documenting Endangered Languages

-   General Social Survey -- International

-   Rural Sociology of the Arctic

-   Human Adaptations to the Polar Regions

-   Arctic Community Observing Network

-   Social-Cultural Aspects of Infectious Diseases

-   Studies of Polar Science

**Discussion:**

-   Can you say more about the Arctic Community Observing Network? The
    Arctic Community Observing Network is to improve the network in the
    Arctic to better monitor and observe changes. A Study of
    Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH) implementation plan has been
    generated and IPY is helping to bring together this Arctic-focused
    observing network. Discussions include how to involve social
    scientists. Two ways are through community observing networks and
    through traditional knowledge observations to utilize knowledge of
    local people in their environments. Community wellness is another
    aspect that can be monitored.

-   One primary aspect of a social agenda concern is the people that
    live and work in the Arctic versus attitudes and perceptions on the
    part of people that don't live there but guide policy. Dr. Lightfoot
    said SBE has plans to incorporate these kinds of questions into the
    General Social Survey.

-   Scientists need time to develop relationships and approvals for
    human studies. The OPP program has small grants for Arctic community
    communication and for SGER grants to go into communities and share
    research interests and ask what the communities are interested in
    too.

-   It is exciting that the Arctic Network Community is talking to
    sensor, National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON), and nano
    people. Scientists can make observations of how people are exposed
    to and respond to the environment.

Dr. Barratt asked the SBE AC to email Dr. Kerttula additional ideas for
ways social scientists can participate in IPY activities.

#### International

Dr. Thomas A. Weber, Director, Office of International Science and
Engineering (OISE), provided an update regarding OISE activities. In
October 2004, the Division of International Science and Engineering
(INT) within SBE was transferred to the Office of the Director and was
renamed to the Office of International Science and Engineering. Dr.
Weber is newly appointed as the Director of OISE. The goals of OISE were
listed. The OISE budget is just above \$34 million. OISE acts as a
catalyst to foster partnerships with NSF's directorates and offices to
engage in international collaborative research and educational
activities and serves as the focal point for international issues within
and outside NSF. OISE also supports and advises the NSF leadership on
international issues and activities. Specific details on regional
groups, overseas offices, and budget were provided. Investments in
"people" through international research fellowships, international
research experiences for students, doctoral dissertation enhancement
projects, Pan-American advanced studies institutes and graduate student
summer institutes were shown. The new program, Partnerships for
International Research and Education (PIRE), helps to fund
institution-focused models and larger awards. OISE also co-funds
projects in the NSF priority and cross-cutting programs that have an
international component. OISE will be involved in IPY and is looking for
ideas on ways to foster this participation.

It was discussed how SBE could become more involved in international
programmatic investments. Dr. Weber said that though not specifically
mentioned in his presentation, there are examples of the SBE sciences.
In particular, he mentioned a recently funded OISE/SBE PIRE award. Dr.
Lightfoot encouraged SBE AC members to spread the word to their research
communities about applying to NSF's international programs.

Dr. Weber thanked the SBE AC for inviting him to present.

#### Transborder Movement of Research Materials

Mark Weiss provided an update on Transborder Movement of Research
Materials. Realizing the desirability of expediting the process of
transfer and making the system as transparent and navigable as possible,
the National Science and Technology Council's Committee on Science
formed an Interagency Working Group on the Trans-border Movement of
Research Materials. This group is working to put together a website (to
go live soon) that coordinates information and resources among
approximately 15 different US government agencies that are
participating. The website will assist researchers in the movement of
materials across borders. Dr. Weiss demonstrated the current website
prototype and reviewed the kinds of information that will be available.
This resulted as a part of the SBE AC initiation to take action in this
area.

The SBE AC was impressed with the website. They noted that the SBE AC
involvement in this is a concrete example of how the SBE AC advice has
been useful.

#### Interagency Collaborations (National Security)

##### Security Evaluation Workshops and Regional Stability Update

Dr. Peg Barratt was asked to run six workshops cosponsored by the Office
of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and NSF on security evaluations
(border crossings, airport security, job applicants etc.). The data
talked about in these workshops were organized into common themes and
the report is working through the clearance process at both agencies.
There is not a lot of theory driving the work and researchers want to
see more theory. There are also vendors selling products that they "say"
will work, but it was suggested a testbed is needed to assess these
products. Public money is being spent for various approaches that have
little science behind them. Data on the use of language in actual cases
of breached security need to be studied. Cultural differences as they
relate to deception also need to be addressed. The report from the
workshops will be distributed at the fall SBE AC meeting.

Dr. Lempert talked about the working group on Regional Stability.
Members tend to be physical or military scientists with little
background in the SBE sciences and many see the key to stability as
building walls, etc. and not the human dimension of regional stability.
The group has met only sporadically and there is not much to report at
this point. What should the NSF's role be in working with and
cooperating with these other agencies and what should SBE's role be? NSF
is a basic science organization. It seems that everything will be
presented at a level requiring a security clearance. How does one deal
scientifically with this kind of world? Should NSF participants get
top-security clearances? How deeply can NSF get involved and maintain
our commitment to basic science?

##### Homeland Security

Dr. Wanda Ward said SBE has been talking for some time about
collaborations with the relatively new department of Homeland Security.
Program Officers carried this on in very short time and have made much
progress. DHS is a mission-oriented agency. SBE is working to identify
complimentary and synergistic areas to collaborate.

Dr. Ward gave a PowerPoint presentation that highlighted several
activities underway. A workshop is planned on *Disaster Reduction:
Theory and Practice* for May and June to develop insights into
fundamental relationship between mission-oriented and basic science
components of the research enterprise. Questions that will be addressed
at the workshop were shared with the group. Some of the topics were
listed. A planning meeting on *Research on Disaster and Terrorism* was
held March 20, 2006. It was very exciting to see this take off. Although
PIs are steeped in these communities, they have not talked to one
another very much. Possible topics for DHS/NSF collaboration were shown.
The NSF Program Officer is Patricia White.

**Discussion**:

-   The SBE AC asked if there were examples of SBE research in response
    to Katrina, such as dynamics of volunteers. Dr. Ward said SBE
    participated in the Foundation-wide solicitations in response to
    Katrina, including the Divisions' Dear Colleague Letter and Small
    Grants for Exploratory Research (SGER) awards. Dr. Lempert provided
    specific examples of some of the projects that were funded. There
    was one project that looked at refugees in Houston, TX.

-   Dr. Ward said she was pleased with NSF/DHS planning meeting. PIs
    from NSF and DHS awards were well-prepared. Volunteerism was a
    topic. Mechanisms for using national platforms will allow assessment
    of future questions. Both sides were interested in this. They are
    fleshing out how these collaborations might proceed.

-   Avian Bird Flu is a forward-looking topic that SBE is exploring with
    discussions for a workshop with cultural anthropologists and
    epidemiologists being planned.

-   The SBE AC suggested having SBE representation on the DHS board of
    advisors, or vice versa.

-   The SBE AC said the collaborations between NSF and mission-agencies
    should be a general topic. In order to address social science
    questions (i.e. to study immigration or tax payers) researchers need
    to rely on DHS for a sampling frame. The collaboration needed is not
    only direct monetary support but also access to the sampling frame
    and expertise that the mission agency can add to the basic science
    research project.

-   One recommendation was to make sure that OSTP is aware of activities
    such as Dr. Susan Cutter's workshop and invite people from OSTP's
    Division of Science and Division of Homeland and National Security
    to hear the considerations discussed and the social and behavioral
    science perspectives. Dr. Ward said this is a very good suggestion.

-   With regard to working with DHS, the National Academy has set up a
    committee to look at the relationship of academic research and
    security issues. Three regional meetings will be held (May 15 at
    MIT, June in Atlanta and California). NSF will continue to pay
    attention to this and there should be an NAS report.

-   The SBE AC suggested NSF/SBE consider identifying a subset of people
    that have security clearance from the research community that can
    act as a liaison in situations where security information is being
    discussed. The restrictions now could pose a threat in identifying
    areas of collaborative research. Dr. Ward also thought this was a
    good idea but also noted that obtaining a security clearance can
    take time.

#### FY2008 SBE Budget Initiatives

Dr. Lightfoot distributed a document that summarized potential SBE FY
2008 budget initiatives. Continuing priority areas would be funded to
include: Documenting Endangered Languages, HOMINID, Coupled Natural and
Human Systems, Innovation, Cyberinfrastructure, and International Polar
Year.

New areas for possible budget initiatives include:

-   Science of Science Policy to include Science Metrics, Programmatic
    Research, Center Awards, and Community Building. The goal is to
    establish two centers that require significant investment of the FY
    2008 budget.

-   Emergent Phenomena in Human Systems and Networks. In this area, much
    is going on within NSF but with a focus on showing what is new about
    these areas now.

-   Cognition and Neuroscience -- hoping to set up a workshop -- to
    identify research needed, but no funding for it.

-   National Security

-   Science of Broadening Participation

Dr. Lightfoot asked for suggestions from the SBE AC on these topics.

**Discussion:**

-   Dr. Abrams said the National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH) is
    hoping to be involved in the Science of Broadening Participation.
    This topic is one that the "need" can be demonstrated as it can
    serve as a bridging and energizing effort.

-   The SBE AC congratulated Dr. Lightfoot for including a category for
    Broadening Participation. A concern is that the focus will be overly
    social and psychological and the research will not attract the
    attention of research related to broadening participation in the
    social context and social structures. It is important not to limit
    the research areas. NSF has been holding a lecture series on the
    Science of Broadening Participation and there has been a very broad
    spectrum of activity represented to date.

-   Another potential topic may be the emerging idea of science around a
    service sector.

-   CISE is interested in research on the significant drop in women's
    participation in their field. No one has looked at this very
    systematically.

-   Adult learning a second language is superb topic and falls into
    several categories.

-   The US is good at producing people for a middle-range of skills, but
    it is not very good at producing people with skills at the very
    high-end and very low end. Examining this is something that needs to
    be done.

-   The SBE AC asked what topics could be feasibly solved in the next 10
    years. This may be a way of relating them to each other. Another
    important question to ask is what constitutes success of these
    programs and how will they be evaluated?

-   In terms of national security and declassification of information,
    in the areas of terrorism, there are clearly issues of
    classification that will arise.

-   Globalization is another consideration. In ten years, the world and
    science will be interconnected at a multi-country, multi-language
    level on a much larger scale. Methodologies and standards will be
    needed. Currently, the US is falling behind in this area.

-   Terms like complexity and change can be interpreted differently.
    While strategic ambiguity can be very useful for SBE, there are also
    instances where terms become concrete around salient issues. The
    intersection of complexity and broadening participation is an area
    to consider. The University of Michigan (John King) recently held a
    workshop on Complexity and Diversity.

-   What are the hooks to mission agencies and opportunities for
    collaborative funding? What unique data do they have that can enable
    basic research and what intellectual resource can they provide?

-   Specific to NIH collaboration, NIH is forming a trans-NIH
    interdisciplinary "incubator" for high-risk, high-reward research
    that will eventually be 5% of its budget. Within that is
    neuroscience research with 14 of 27 NIH institutes providing
    funding. SBE may want to consider collaborating with this working
    group. The three common themes identified over the next 10 years
    are: neurodegeneration and the aging process; neuroplasticity; and
    knowledge integration and knowledge management with cyber tools.

-   Looking 10 years down the road and the big issues that SBE can
    figure out, one area is the creation of stable, sustainable, and
    peaceful communities and how to keep them going or create them in
    other places. This tie in with globalization and broadening
    participation.

SBE AC members were encouraged to email additional comments to Dr.
Lightfoot. The FY 2008 budget will be written starting in June 2006.

#### Interagency Collaborations

##### Obesity

Dr. Peg Barratt read a lengthy list of SBE-related questions regarding
Obesity. It is more than just a health issue. Some research areas are
being funded within SBE. Various parts of the federal government have
formed an Interagency Agency Working Group on Obesity and Overweight
with several NSF staff participating. Within this IWG there is a task
group on food choices and life style research. NSF is interested in
having SBE sciences involved.

##### Science of Science Policy

Mark Weiss, Senior Advisor, SBE, said the FY 2007 OSTP/OMB budget memo
listed federal science policy as an investment area. An informal
interagency working group has been formed and has started to put
together what might be called a charter for the activities of this
group. Initially, there was discussion of making this a formal
Interagency Working Group (IWG), but there is a standing subcommittee on
SBE sciences under the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC)
that seemed a natural fit for this area. There has been broad appeal of
this topic across the federal government. Dr. Weiss briefly touched on
the identified objectives of the group that includes identifying who is
doing research and an inventory of US government activity in this area.
The goal is to develop a road map for government activity and they may
sub-divide the group and divide up tasking.

##### 

##### Scientific Collections (non-digital)

There is an IWG established on scientific collections and digital data
and the importance of scientific collections as a resource with
representation from NSF. The group decided a separate working group
would be established to focus on just digital data. This group focuses
on just scientific collections. A survey has been developed and piloted
with two federal agencies to gather information as to what holdings they
have and the size, description, and status of curation. This will go
online in April 2006 and then all US government agencies will be asked
to complete the survey. The IWG hopes to aggregate and analyze data in
the near future.

##### Digital Data

The draft *Cyberinfrastructure Vision for 21^st^ Century Discovery*
document is available on the NSF website and in the meeting materials.
Dr. Daniel Newlon provided an update on Digital Data and the ambitious
goals were laid out in this CI vision. Dr. Newlon noted the co-chairs
and participating agencies of the NSF CI working group as well as the
topics they are hoping to address.

#### SBE Prospectus

Dr. David Abrams, subcommittee member, talked about the SBE Prospectus
that focuses on grand challenges for SBE sciences. It is not a strategic
plan, but instead a prospectus that identifies six grand challenges. The
idea is that the document will be used to raise visibility,
appreciation, and respect for the value of SBE sciences and help to
demonstrate the return on investment. The six areas were:

-   Brains and Behavior

-   Complexity and Social Systems

-   Conflict and Cooperation

-   Health

-   Creativity and Innovation

-   Managing Risk and Disaster

Cross-cutting themes included CI. One recommendation was the SBE
sciences should be more represented on high-level committees---at the
highest level of decision making in the government. SBE scientists
should be some of first responders to things like natural disasters. The
SBE Prospectus is hoped to be a document that will have impact on
Capitol Hill and in the public domain. The document soon will be
approved by the subcommittee members and will be presented to the SBE AC
for approval.

#### Report from SRS Breakout Group

Judith Tanur provided a summary of the breakout group discussions. The
post-doc data project was the main topic. Approval was received to add a
field of degree and salary question to the Survey of Earned Doctorates.
SRS talked about activities taking place in the last two years to
collect more information on post-docs, especially more longitudinal
data. SRS is able to collect data from the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) on immigrant PhDs that will enable comparisons between
the US and other countries. The group also talked about the survey frame
for the Post-Doc Survey.

Following on a recommendation from the SBE AC on international
statistics, SRS is engaged in numerous activities to redesign the
Industrial Survey, working with the Census Bureau. SRS reported they
were successful in having field of degree question added to the American
Community Survey (Census Bureau). They are working to define the
question and how it will be listed (open ended or value list) and ways
to structure the salary question on the Survey of Earned Doctorates.

#### SRS Committee of Visitors (COV)-like Activity

Dr. Lightfoot provided a background on NSF's Committee of Visitor's
process. The COVs review the processing aspects. SRS is unique and not
subject to the same kind of review. A review procedure was adapted for
SRS. The group met in March 2006. The report and the SRS response were
provided in the meeting materials. The SBE AC's role is to accept or
reject the COV report and provide it on to SRS for an official response.
These documents are then sent to the senior management at NSF.

Paula Stephan walked the group through the *COV-like Review of SRS Final
Report* in the meeting materials. She expressed appreciation on behalf
of the committee to the SRS staff and complimented SRS for their
professionalism and outreach efforts. Major recommendations from the
report were summarized in four areas: Regarding Continuous Review and
Renewal; Regarding Becoming a Statistical Agency; Regarding Data
Collection on the S&E Labor Market; and Regarding Division Staffing,
Resources, and Management.

In summary, Dr. Stephan said SRS has done a good job in operating like a
federal statistical agency. A concern is one of getting balance and
proportion of staff in different areas and timeliness issues. The SBE AC
requested an update from SBE on the yearly SRS implementation plan and
the Post-Doc Survey.

Dr. Carlson provided the SRS response. She thanked the SRS staff for
pulling together all of the data for the committee and to the committee
members for their review. The SRS draft response was also provided in
the meeting materials. In terms of survey methodology, there have been
improvements made to data quality and now it is time to balance out how
the data are used. Dr. Carlson went through the major recommendations
step-by-step as outlined in the written response. SRS intends to set up
a panel for academic review of the Human Resources Surveys as a subgroup
of the SBE AC. They are now able to track individuals who received
doctoral degrees in the US and they are working on tracking US
individuals that get their doctorate overseas. Over the last five years,
funding has gone up nearly 70% in SRS but staff numbers have been
relatively flat. Workloads are exacerbated by e-government (with Program
Officers now entering much of their own data). Production of the
*Science and Engineering Indicators* has a major impact on SRS workload.
SRS has taken the review to heart and is moving forward.

**Discussion:**

-   The report and the response stressed timeliness and the amount of
    work that is being done. The expectation was that the response would
    note the inconsistency in the two recommendations. Is one person
    enough to alleviate the problem? Dr. Carlson said SRS has three
    pending hiring actions. The SBE AC endorsed the need for additional
    staff resources in SRS.

-   Do you envision having an advisory group for each survey? SRS
    envisions an advisory group for the personnel surveys and an
    industry experts panel for the Industry R&D survey. SRS is planning
    workshops for the academic R&D surveys and is looking at redesigning
    them. The current breakout group is heavily weighted toward
    methodology and suggested names for more subject matter experts were
    encouraged.

-   The subcommittee did not intend to imply that there was a tradeoff
    between current programs and adding a dissertation grant program.
    They anticipate there will be a greater demand for resources and
    more interest.

-   The language in the SRS competition should be modified to better
    ensure full participation. Jon Krosnick offered to help provide some
    language based on his experience.

-   Timeliness concerns in the 2000 report have become more of an issue
    rather than less of an issue. There are a number of things that can
    be done to have things occur in a more timely fashion. It is
    important to communicate to the user community the timing of when
    data are available. Tables are released and then microdata are
    released. It seems that releasing the microdata would have a higher
    priority than the detailed tabulations. The report provided some
    detail on this process but SBE AC members found this confusing. It
    was suggested to review this section in the COV-like report and
    provide some edits.

-   If there are different types of data, there are also different types
    of users. It is not a monolithic community. How we link data and
    users should be the driving force behind the prioritization. Dr.
    Carlson said often users are policymakers that don't want the
    microdata.

-   It is clear there is work to be done and now is time to do it as SBE
    articulates the Science of Science Policy.

Dr. Lightfoot thanked the Committee for their work and the SRS staff for
their cooperation and support for the review.

#### NSF Strategic Plan Update

Dr. Ward said the NSF Strategic Plan submitted to Congress is important
as the NSF's budget is tied to the approval of strategic plans. Dr.
Bement has asked Dr. Olsen to oversee the development of the Strategic
Plan. The Plan covers a five-year period and must be updated and
submitted to Congress every three years. It is also tied into the
National Science Board's *20/20 Vision for the National Science
Foundation* (Dec 2005). The mission, vision and goals of the current NSF
Plan was compared to the proposed mission, vision, and goals for the
revised strategic plan. Feedback on the former plan dictated it to be
more concise. The Strategic Plan will also contain side bars that
highlight the sciences. A number of science highlights are being
considered, including SBE activities. Characteristics of the NSF
Strategic plan were noted and the themes from the public and internal
NSF comments were briefly reviewed.

The draft mission, vision and strategic goals for FYs 2006-2011 plan
were shown. The bottom-up approach is now to the point where senior NSF
management will consider the draft document and a draft is presented to
the NSB for discussion at their May 2006 meeting and is being discussed
with AC groups. Comments will be incorporated into a new draft by June
2006. Public comment is planned for the June-July timeframe. NSB
approval is needed at the August 2006 meeting and the new plan must be
submitted to OMB and Congress by September 2006.

#### Preparation for Meeting with NSF Director and Deputy Director

Dr. Grove asked the SBE AC for input on potential discussion topics for
the session with Drs. Bement and Olsen. They wanted to be sure to thank
them for progress made on Transborder Movement of Materials

With no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m.

# Thursday, April 20, 2006

The meeting reconvened at the National Rural Electric Cooperative
Association in Arlington, VA at 9:05 a.m.

Drs. Groves and Lightfoot recognized SBE AC members Judith Tanur and
William Hall who would be rotating off the advisory committee.

#### Cyberinfrastructure

Dr. Daniel Atkins, Director, Office of Cyberinfrastructure (OCI),
provided an update on the newly formed NSF Office. He provided a brief
background on his career in CI and the Upper Atmospheric Research
Collaboratory (UARC) in Sondrestrom, Greenland. Dr. Atkins shared some
vignettes from the UARC/SPARC project and the insights and
accomplishments. He provided the background of activities and reports
that led to the formation of OCI. The SBE AC was asked to provide input
to NSF on the draft NSF *CI Vision for the 21^st^ Century Discovery* and
(<http://www.nsf.gov/oci> ).

NSF will lead the development and support of a comprehensive CI
essential to 21^st^ century advances in science and engineering. Dr.
Atkins presented CI in the context of CI-enhanced Knowledge Communities
(Networks). Components include: Specific Cyber Environments;
Cyberinfrastructure Services; and Computation, Storage, Communication
and Interface technologies.

In the Vision 21 document, there are 4 strategic plans related to:

1.  Distributed scalable up to petaFLOPS HPC

2.  Data, Data analysis visualization

3.  Collaboratories, observatories, virtual organizations

4.  Education and Workforce

OCI is engaging a wide range of stakeholders in developing this
strategic plan and vision. Dr. Atkins elaborated on the types of
activities, strategic goals and stakeholders. The international network
and community is extensive. Dr. Atkins provided more details on each of
the four areas of the CI Vision document. There was a recent NSF CI and
the Social Sciences workshop and the SBE AC members were encouraged to
review the workshop report (<http://vis.sdsc.edu/sbe/>).

In the area of Learning and Workforce issues, the emphasis is on
learning supported by CI and CI-enhanced knowledge communities and
learning requirements (human capacity building) for the socio-technical
design and evaluation and transformative application of CI to science
and engineering research. Dr. Atkin's hope is that NSF will not do just
CI for science (stovepipe) but create CI that will develop synergy and
support research, learning, and societal engagement.

**Discussion**:

-   The Global Environment for Network Innovations (GENI) project is a
    concept of the successor to the Internet. The current Internet does
    not have the robustness needed and does not enable networking across
    mobile and wireless virtual worlds. A new architecture is needed for
    networking (programmable, etc.). Users could use it as a production
    system or an experimental system and it would be modular for
    reconfigurability and scalability. The project is funded under the
    Major Research Equipment Facilities and Construction (MREFC) account
    with a target amount of about \$300M. GENI poses a profound shift in
    the way this kind of work is done. There are already questions on
    how to organize work like this and function effectively. There is an
    opportunity for SBE to support this effort. If successful, it will
    constitute a turning point. In many ways this is building the
    apparatus that will be the CI of the future and substrate in which
    we do work on a routine basis.

-   Dr. Atkins said in a similar vein, NSF has already invested funding
    in collaboratories but lacks the appropriate investment in
    evaluating these collaboratories to assess why they are working and
    failing. The hope is that as a result of more systemic evaluation
    and participation of SBE sciences, NSF will start to develop some
    principles of design and architecture that don't address just
    technical performance, but also human performance and social
    factors. At a minimum, research has a responsibility to do a better
    job of understanding the effectiveness of these environments.

-   There is a role for SBE to play in helping to foster the culture
    change that you are talking about. Some of the issues are things
    that create synthesis and create new models. There is work being
    done in studying why some transdisciplinary teams work well while
    others work in disciplinary ways.

-   Dr. Atkins clarified that CI will be used for inquiry within SBE but
    also that CI should be an object of inquiry for SBE. They need to
    share and work to get information into a receivable form to science
    leaders in the CI field and make the information accessible and
    useable.

Dr. Groves said that SBE AC could be helpful. Dr. Atkins offered to talk
off-line and point the SBE AC to people who are working on this.

Dr. Groves thanked Dr. Atkins for presenting.

#### Discussion with Director an Deputy Director of NSF

Dr. Arden Bement, Jr., NSF Director, and Dr. Kathie Olsen, NSF Deputy
Director, met with the SBE AC. Dr. Bement updated the group on the
status of the FY2007 budget. NSF has been proposed by the President for
a 7.9% increase. NSF is formulating priorities to be included in the
budget and also how they will respond to the President's American
Competitiveness Initiative (ACI). Dr. Bement clarified that the
commitment of the Administration for a doubling of the budget in the
next 10 years is for R&D in basic science research (not just for NSF).

**Discussion**:

-   There is a very strong role for SBE sciences in the ACI activities.

-   The SBE AC expressed their appreciation to Drs. Bement and Olsen for
    the leadership of Dr. Lightfoot.

-   There are abundant opportunities for SBE sciences to interface with
    CI.

-   The SBE AC expressed its gratitude and appreciation for the efforts
    of Drs. Bement and Olsen and their support of SBE sciences. They
    have demonstrated responsiveness to issues such as transborder
    movement. Dr. Bement recognized Mark Weiss for his role.

-   The area of Organization Innovation and Change is also an area for
    appreciation. Dr. Bement mentioned the Malcom Balridge Performance
    Excellence principles.

-   Dr. Groves summarized the discussions of the group. The HSD program,
    though a rocky start, is off and running indicating a large demand.
    There are opportunities to end the program on a strong note with
    proper funding and focus. Dr. Bement said NSF is proud of this
    program.

-   In Psychology, there have been some shocks. Within the social
    sciences, some disciplines tend to feed others. Psychology tends to
    be a feeding discipline and sends messages, tools, and theories out
    to other groups. Basic research in psychology has traditionally been
    supported by NSF/NIMH. There is a different focus at NIHM. There is
    a concern about what will happen to basic research in neuroscience
    with NIHM shifting focus. The challenge is that the social and
    psychology budget has not grown in a dramatic way to support this.
    Researchers are now looking for ways to collect data for free (only
    from undergrads). Dr. Bement said NSF is aware of this issue and
    have had discussions with NIMH. Dr. Olsen said that she has a
    behavioral background. Several studies have been done that have made
    recommendations. NIMH still feels responsible for behavioral
    science. NSF is looking at ways that it can partner and come in with
    a stronger budget. They are having discussion with OMB and are
    looking at collaborations with several agencies.

-   The SBE AC talked about building effective CI collaboratories. There
    has been a lot of progress in the last year or two. The next
    interesting step is getting the SBE community started with its own
    ideas. The Innovation Change Initiative and CI will have interesting
    roles for SBE. Dr. Bement said there are common areas with OCI and
    SBE. NSF is looking at these interfaces and where the gaps are. The
    nature of collaboration and virtual research has provided new
    opportunities and new social and behavioral issues. What are the
    roles dealing with international collaboration?

-   The Science of Science Policy is an important research area. SBE can
    move forward hand-in-hand with NSF and serve as a potential catalyst
    to enrich SRS and NSF. The SBE AC also received a COV-like review of
    SRS. Since the case was made with budgets in SRS going up 70% and
    staff remaining static, the COV recommended staffing as a critical
    issue. Dr. Olsen said in the FY 2007 budget there are additional
    positions. Dr. Olsen has asked all the Directorates and Offices to
    present where they see their staffing plans next year and for the
    future to look at balance between permanent and visiting scientists
    and senior leadership. Dr. Ward is on the working group that is
    looking at this.

-   SRS has a different culture than typical grant divisions and there
    is an opportunity to enhance and bridge the research community with
    this statistical group. In the survey community, the change over
    time in response rates makes for additional challenges.

-   The SBE AC had a presentation on the new OISE and was impressed with
    the success of programs and noted the oversubscription and huge
    demand. They want to add voice to NSF's convictions already and
    offered their support. Dr. Bement commented on the changing nature
    of science and the world. Other countries come to the NSF not only
    for advice, but they want collaborations as well.

-   Impressed with the level of activity that is going on within NSF
    with Interagency Working Groups and how NSF staff is having an
    impact on these partnerships/influence. Dr. Bement said NSF is doing
    this very well.

-   Dr. Atkins presentation shows that CI penetrates every part of our
    professional and personal lives increasingly. Is there still room
    for newness? This requires a competency in CI for everyone from K-12
    to the aging population. Broadening Participation is an important
    issue. SBE can help to strengthen community in a dramatic way for
    what may otherwise be a sharp divide. Dr. Bement said it is a
    two-way pull; Getting experts that understand software/hardware to
    link up with social scientists, but also educating the disciplines.

-   The SBE AC is very pleased to see the emphasis on the
    [science]{.underline} of broadening participation. This will give us
    knowledge about what is needed to really broaden participation, and
    will also have impact. Dr. Bement said part of it is turning over
    misconceptions with regard to elementary school, curriculum, and
    social behavior in early grades.

-   Latin America and Africa are unconnected in CI. Dr. Bement said
    there are some initiatives and NSF is making some investments there.

Dr. Groves thanked Dr. Bement for spending time with the SBE AC.

#### The World is Flat 2.0

Dr. Bement welcomed author and columnist, Mr. Tom Friedman. *The World
is Flat 2.0* calls to action and creates awareness of the breadth,
depth, and velocity of globalization. This is needed in the science and
technology disciplines.

Mr. Friedman said the newly released *The World is Flat 2.0* focuses on
what he means by saying the world is flat and then talks about
education. Ok the world is flat, what do we tell our kids? The question
is "what is the right education?" -- not just more education. He shared
his personal experiences that led to the formulation of the ideas of the
book. While on a trip to India, he was impressed with the level of
outsourcing to Americans. In discussing this phenomenon, he was told the
global economic playing field is being leveled and the Americans were
not ready. He realized that what he was really hearing was that the
world is flat and decided to write a book on how it happened.

Mr. Friedman shared his ideas on three major shifts in globalization of
the economy from countries globalizing to companies globalizing to the
globalization of individuals where the dynamic agent is the individual.
You can and MUST go global as an individual and think of yourself
competing against other global individuals.

How did we get here? The "ten forces that flatten the world together" as
described in the book were summarized. The first three create a platform
for collaboration.

1.  11/9/1989 - The Berlin wall fell and 6 months later Windows was
    released. *Windows enabled PC allowed individuals to become authors
    of their own content in digital form.*

2.  8/9/1995 -- The startup company Netscape went public. *Now* *people
    could send digital content anywhere in the world virtually for
    free*.

3.  1990s - The workflow revolution in software to make software
    interoperable. *People could all suddenly work together on more --
    collaborating like never before on each other's content*.

The next 6 flatteners were new forms of collaboration:

4.  Outsourcing -- empowered by new platform.

5.  Off-shoring

6.  Uploading -- and most revolutionary. When world is flat, you as an
    individual can upload and globalize.

7.  Supply Chain (i.e. WalMart doesn't make anything)

8.  In-sourcing

9.  Informing (i.e. Google). People can inform themselves to a depth and
    breadth unimaginable a decade ago.

10. The Steroids -- wireless technology, voice over technology and file
    sharing -- now totally mobile.

All ten flatteners converged right around 2000 and all supported each
other in complementary ways. This created a global web-enabled platform
for sharing knowledge, entertainment, etc. (and also terrorism). Mr.
Freidman said he is convinced we are living through a point in time that
will be historically as significant as the printing press. Wealth will
go to countries and communities that get three things right:
infrastructure, people with the right education to be collaborators on
the platform, and the right governance to manage the platform. The
second thing about the platform: When the world is flat, "whatever can
be done will be done". Will it be done by you or to you?

Adding to this convergence is learning to change habits to use the new
platform and the arrival of India, China and the Soviet Empire on the
playing field. There are 3 billion new players that can participate more
cheaply and directly than the US. This whole inflection point, most
important in our life, has been disguised by three events: 9/11, Enron,
and the .com bust. We were looking the other way while all this was
going on. In a flat world, there will no longer be anything like "An
American Job", there will just be "a Job".

What does this mean for education? What do middle class jobs look like
in a flat world? The untouchables are the highest class -- people whose
job cannot be outsourced, automated or digitized, etc. They are people
that are very special and specialized. Second, they are people who are
really localized (butcher, baker, etc.). In the middle is everything
else. Over the last year, Mr. Friedman came up with categorization of 8
jobs:

1.  Great collaborators (people who can work as part of a global 24/7
    service knowledge or supply chain).

2.  Great leveragers (people who can leverage technology so 1 person can
    do the job of 20)

3.  Great localizers (people who understand the global platform and can
    take its power and create a small, strong local business -- i.e.
    eBay).

4.  Passionate personalizers -- people who can bring a passion and
    personal touch to any vanilla matter. They will never be outsourced.

5.  Great synthesizers -- people who can take A and B and produce C.
    (i.e. Steve Jobs and ipod music store).

6.  Great explainers -- going into world of great complexity. If you can
    explain complexity to 10 people so they can explain it to 100 and
    they can explain to 1000, great leverage.

7.  Anything Green -- need alternative to fossil fuels. Green technology
    will be the growth industry of the 21^st^ century.

8.  Great Adapters -- people good at adapting to opportunity.

Mr. Friedman concluded with three things about the "right" education to
focus on:

-   The ability to learn how to learn. It is not what you know, but how
    you learn. The first place you learn how to learn is loving to learn
    and most people get that from great teachers.

-   CQ + PQ is always greater than IQ. A person with a high Curiosity
    and Passion quotient will learn better than someone with a high IQ.
    How do we instill high CQ and PQ in our kids?

-   It's a right brain world (everything on the left brain can be done
    digitally) and how do we nurture this?

America's unique skill and role is to keep inventing the future. As long
as we are doing that with our education system and industry, we will be
OK.

The group applauded Mr. Friedman for his presentation.

#### Collaborative SBE and BIO Session

The BIO AC joined the SBE AC for a collaborative session to discuss
topics of mutual interest. Dr. James Collins, Assistant Director,
Biology Directorate, and Dr. David Lightfoot, Assistant Director, SBE,
expressed their enthusiasm for the opportunities to work together.
Introductions were made.

Susan Stafford, Chair, BIO AC, introduced the panel discussions.

##### Ecology of Infectious Diseases (EID)

Dr. Samuel Scheiner, BIO/EF, provided a brief overview of the Ecology of
Infectious Diseases Program. He reviewed the mission. In light of
potential threats like Avian Bird Flu, this program is particularly
important. The program is jointly managed within BIO, GEO and NIH's
Fogarty International Center and Allergy and Infectious Diseases at
Environmental Health Sciences. To be able to control disease,
researchers need to understand the complexity of ecology, pathogen
dynamics, environmental change, socio-economics, transmittal agents, and
host biology. Dr. Scheiner provided an example of a funded project with
various scales, multidisciplinary, and international collaboration on
*Transmission Ecology of Dog Tapeworm in Western China*. To prevent
infectious disease, a more comprehensive and rigorous science is needed.
A partial list of research funded demonstrated the diversity of the
program. Challenges for EID research were listed: Communication between
biomedical, social, and ecological scientists; changing the way of
thinking that prevention = vaccines and control = drugs; and the
difficulty in implementing socio-ecological solutions (compared to
individual-based medicine).

The SBE AC said the example given was one where anthropologists could
add an additional component. Adding data on what the local community
thinks the causes and transmission for disease are could add new points
of intervention to the model. The group encouraged more behavioral and
social science in this area.

##### 

##### Coupled Natural/Human Systems

Dr. Thomas Baerwald, SBE/BCS, summarized the integrated research
activities on Coupled Human and Natural (CNH). He provided the context
and background for the program and noted the major reports that called
for a more thorough understanding of the complex interactions among
human and natural systems. Dr. Baerwald provided the background on the
Biocomplexity in the Environment (BE) and CNH competition that ran from
FYs 2001-2005. As the BE priority area was coming to an end, CNH was
continued because of the significance of the topic from research and
societal perspectives, the high quality of awards and significant new
findings, and other strong rationale to continue the program.

A CNH competition for FY 2006 and FY2007 was approved. A broader NSF
team has been formed with BIO, GEO, and SBE leading the team. Details on
the plans and scope for the FY 2007 competition were summarized. Plans
are to focus on a broader range of projects than in previous
competitions. Dr. Baerwald highlighted the CNH team's recommendations
for CNH in FY 2008 and beyond. This is still under review and the plan
is under development to bring the research forward effectively.
Competitions for FY 2008 through FY2010 are proposed with a
team-approach for managing the program across the participating
directorates. A list of other NSF-related activities to be coordinated
with the CNH program was shown. Dr. Baerwald said the community is
excited about the activities taking place in the CNH.

##### 

##### Biology and Society

Dr. Ronald Rainger, SBE/SES, provided the prospective topics of interest
in the general area of biology and society, a program that does not yet
exist. BIO has identified several existing projects: Long Term
Ecological Research (LTER), National Ecological Observatory Network
(NEON), and the planned GENOME projects that provide opportunities for
SBE sciences to collaborate. This collaboration effort is primarily in
the formative stages. Dr. Rainger is working to develop a Dear Colleague
letter.

Dr. Rainger expanded on opportunities for SBE scientists to play a role
in the biological sciences:

-   Impact of science and technology on the environment

-   Biology and Science policy

-   Intellectual Property and Patent Issues

-   Societal and Ethical Implications of Genomics and Biotechnology --
    interested in how new fields get developed and how new practices are
    developed/new tools, etc. are developed.

-   History, Philosophy, and Social Studies of Biology

The details for collaboration are still being worked out.

##### National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON)

Dr. Elizabeth Blood, NEON Program Director, provided an update. NEON is
focused on answering questions in the ecological realm and how systems
are interconnected among themselves and in the larger earth systems. The
conceptual framework for the design of NEON was shown. Data and images
were shown to illustrate interrelationships in several contexts to
demonstrate global, regional and local impacts. NEON research is a
continental project at a regional and local scale. At a result of the
NRC study in 2004, NEON has a more focused effort. The Community
Planning efforts involved in NEON have been significant.

The leading scientific questions:

-   How are ecological systems affected by changes in land use and
    climate across a range of spatiotemporal scales?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   How do the patterns and movement of genes and organisms across the
    continent affect biodiversity and the spread of infectious diseases
    and invasive species?

The experimental design challenge is to balance the minimum number of
observatories with maximum data. NEON divides the US into 20
climate-similar zones with instrumentation deployed in three human and
land use situations (wild, managed, and urbanized). Dr. Blood provided
details on how instrument packages and infrastructure deployment were
identified. The instrument "package" is a fully-functioning sensor
platform that connects the infrastructure using CI. A pictorial
representation of what a site location might look like was shown.

Dr. Blood noted some of the scientific questions that can be studied by
the NEON project. From a social-science perspective, we know there are
large areas of the country that have gone through significant changes.
What is the impact of populations/development on ecosystems? What are
policy implications of this? How might residents value differently the
water and ecological resources?

NEON held a Coupled Human-Environment Workshop in January 2006 to look
at the NEON platform to identify issues of interest for social
scientists. A copy of the workshop report can be provided to the SBE AC.
Questions identified during the workshop were listed.

The program is nearing the first review of the NEON infrastructure, what
it will cost, what it will take to deploy. A request has been included
in NSF's budget to Congress to start that construction in FY 2007. There
are still several reviews and opportunities to make sure social sciences
are embedded in the design. Partnerships are being developed with
federal agencies. The research community is poised and ready and
technology has advanced to support this effort.

The group asked how the social questions and the experimental design
came together. Dr. Blood said at this stage the questions posed formed
the framework for the design but the actual science that will be done
will be funded through the traditional NSF process. There would be
access to data, sensor systems, and individuals working in this arena.
This is one way those coupled questions can still evolve.

The group suggested determining the physical location of the sensors
could provide an opportunity for SBE and the NEON project to work
together. A workshop may be needed to help ensure these connections are
made. Dr. Blood said part of the NEON plan has a citizen's science
component to get citizens engaged in the science enterprise, not just in
outreach and education, but also having them gather data. To seed this,
they funded a workshop with USGS, EPA, and NASA to look at developing a
national phenology network that is cyber-enabled to engage citizens in
collection of biological phenomena that can be used in peer reviewed
publications.

##### Neuroscience and the Biological Basis of Behavior

Dr. Lightfoot and Dr. Collins jointly presented the topic. NSF was a
major funder for work in cognition and neuroscience and social
psychology. In the 1980s, this work migrated more to the NIMH. Three
years ago, the NIH Director introduced his road map that called for NIH
research to be more translational. This left the neurosciences area
"orphaned" for the basic science research. There are people doing this
research with no place to go. The question is, can NSF pick up some of
that slack? Can they define niches that are important for NSF work in
the neurosciences? This affects SBE and BIO in particular. Dr. Olsen, a
neuroscientist, also has an interest in this. There was a meeting with
NSF senior staff to discuss this topic and NSF is moving fast on this.

Dr. Collins said that there is participation from every directorate in
this topic (except GEO). They have asked the initial group to function
as a working group and will call together outside experts for a workshop
in July 2006 to identify the niches where there are PIs that are falling
in between NIH and NSF where a focused investment on the part of NSF
will move the frontier research forward. NSF is planning the FY 2008
budget now and it is possible neuroscience will have a place there for
suggesting context in this area that comes out of the workshop. Dr.
Collins said he is grateful for the response and support of the group of
people at NSF that have come forward.

The group said they were glad to hear about support for this program.
NSF adds diversity in the intellectual enterprise and brings a
comparative flavor. Dr. Lightfoot added that NSF wants to do this in
collaboration with NIH.

Dr. Lightfoot thanked the BIO AC members for joining the SBE AC. Dr.
Collins thanked the group as well. They look forward to doing this
again.

#### Identification of Agenda Items for Next Meeting

Dr. Groves asked the group for identification of topics for the next
meeting:

-   Discussion of Emerging Programs

-   More on funding for undergraduate research opportunities for faculty
    and students which seems to be a problem in SBE.

-   CI/NEON-- using ecological approach and seeing the relevance of that
    to CI is a powerful thing we might want to consider. Issue-oriented
    data policy issues.

-   People and sensors/security evaluation

-   Department of Homeland Security

-   Relationships with Industry (identify some interesting
    presentations)

-   There were a lot of presentations but not a lot of time for
    discussion. Difficult to get this balance.

-   Look back on nuggets and gather portfolio

-   

-   New York Times article on Science of Service Industry (ties to
    industry)

-   COV will be on agenda

-   National defense issues where SBE science has played a role (i.e.
    small group dynamics, networks of people)

Dr. Lightfoot presented Dr. Tanur a token of appreciation for her
service and also thanked Dr. Barratt and Dr. Lempert for their service
to NSF as Division Directors. Dr. Groves thanked the SBE AC members for
their participation. With no further discussion, the meeting was
adjourned at 3:00 p.m.

**SBE AC April 19-20, 2006 Summary of Action Items**

-   The SBE AC suggested the People and Society web link be included on
    NSF's home page.

-   One suggestion was to make sure that OSTP is aware of activities
    such as Dr. Susan Cutter's workshop and invite people from OSTP's
    Division of Science and Division of Homeland and National Security
    to hear the considerations discussed and the social and behavioral
    science perspectives.

-   The SBE AC requested an update from SBE on the yearly SRS
    implementation plan and the Post-Doc Survey.

-   SRS is planning workshops for the academic R&D surveys and is
    looking at redesigning them. The current breakout group is heavily
    weighted toward methodology and suggested names for more subject
    matter experts were encouraged.

-   SBE AC members were encouraged to submit feedback on the NSF
    Strategic Plan when it is available for public comment.

-   The SBE AC was asked to provide input to NSF on the draft NSF *CI
    Vision for the 21^st^ Century Discovery* and
    (<http://www.nsf.gov/oci> ).

-   There was a recent NSF CI and the Social Sciences workshop and the
    SBE AC members were encouraged to review the workshop report
    (<http://vis.sdsc.edu/sbe/>).