# . National Science Foundation

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

**June 1-3, 2005**

**National Science Foundation**

**Arlington, VA**

### **MEETING SUMMARY**

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

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

**Professor Jeanne Altmann**, Department of Ecology and Evolution,
Princeton University, Princeton, NJ

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

**Dr. Stephen J. Ceci**, Developmental Psychology, Cornell University,
Ithaca, NY

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

**Mr. Jack Dangermond**, Environmental Systems Research Institute,
Redlands, CA

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

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

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

**Dr. Ira Harkavy**, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA

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

**Dr. John King**, 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. Carol Halpert Schwartz** (CEOSE Liaison), School of Management,
New York Institute of Technology, Old Westbury, NY

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

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

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

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

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

**Dr. Virginia Cain**, Acting Associate Director of the Office of
Behavioral and Social Sciences Research (OBSSR), National Institutes of
Health, Bethesda, MD

**Professor Christopher Whelan**, The Economic and Social Research
Institute, Dublin, Ireland

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

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

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

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

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

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

**Dr. Mary Frase**, Deputy Division Director, Science Resources
Statistics

# Dr. Rachelle Hollander, Senior Science Advisor, SBE

**Dr. Keith Crank**, on detail from Mathematics and Physical Sciences

The spring meeting of the Advisory Committee for Social, Behavioral and
Economic Sciences (SBE AC) was held June 1-3, 2005 at the National
Science Foundation in Arlington, Virginia.

# 

# Wednesday, June 1, 2005

The Science Resources Statistics (SRS) Division held a breakout session
from 1:00 -- 5:00 p.m. to discuss recent activities within SRS. The
following topics were discussed: the American Community Survey, the SRS
Committee of Visitors (COV), the R&D Survey redesign, measuring
innovation, and the SRS data repository.

# 

# Thursday, June 2, 2005

Dr. Robert Groves, Chair, called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. The
SBE AC approved the minutes of the November 4-5, 2004 meeting.

#### Introduction of New Staff and Committee Members, Directorate Update

Dr. Groves welcomed David Lightfoot, who was a former Dean at Georgetown
University, as the new Assistant Director for SBE. Dr. Lightfoot
provided a brief background on his academic career. Additionally, he
said that the Human and Social Dimensions (HSD) priority area is a great
opportunity for the SBE sciences. In the second half of the 19^th^
century, change was a central theme of intellectual life in many fields
(biology, political science, and linguistics) and the nation is now
poised to think about change differently.

New members of the SBE AC were introduced. Guests of the SBE AC also
were introduced: Dr. Christopher Whelan, Research Professor for the
European Science Foundation's Economic and Social Research Program and
Dr. Fred Gault, Director of Science Innovation for OACD in Canada. Dr.
Galt also chairs the Committee of Science and Technology Indicators for
Canada. Brief highlights of the international organizations activities
in the social and behavioral sciences were provided.

Dr. Lightfoot introduced new SBE staff. He said that Dr. Kathy Olsen has
been nominated to succeed Dr. Joseph Bordogna as Deputy Director of NSF.
He thanked Dr. Bordogna for six years of outstanding service to the NSF.

The NSF Fiscal Year (FY) 2005 budget was approved. The FY 2006 budget
request has been submitted to Congress with a \$38M proposed increase
over FY 2005. Budget preparations for FY 2007 will be underway soon.
This is an important time for the SBE AC to meet as NSF is working to
establish priorities for FY 2007. It will be challenging to find ways to
thrive in times of constrained resources. Collaborations and
partnerships will be even more important.

Dr. John Marburger, Office of Science and Technology Policy, gave a
speech to AAAS where he called for a "science of science" policy.
Factors other than economic ones need to be recognized (other aspects of
well-being). This represents a challenge for the social sciences to
identify research priorities that will affect most, if not all, of the
social sciences. Adequate responses to the questions that Dr. Marburger
has raised will require greater national investments if we are going to
model complex social relationships.

SBE has taken steps to include a joint Computer Information Science and
Engineering (CISE) and SBE Cyberinfrastructure (CI) solicitation. There
is also a subcommittee on Social Sciences of the National Science and
Technology Committee, which has a goal to coordinate social sciences
across federal agencies. Dr. Lightfoot co-chairs this committee with Dr.
David Abrahams (NIH) and Joseph Kielman (DHS).

#### Information Technology Research (ITR) Committee of Visitors (COV) Report 

Dr. Daniel Newlon, of the SBE Economic Program, Director and Cluster
Coordinator, provided a summary of the ITR Priority Area Committee of
Visitors (COV) report. He briefly reviewed NSF's performance assessment
process, which included input from the advisory committee. The COV was
held March 8-10, 2005 and covered FYs 2001 through 2003. Data on funding
by Directorates per year and success rates were shown. Dr. Newlon also
summarized the COV process and results.

Dr. Robert Groves presented the following recommendations and
observations from the COV report:

-   NSF must recognize the problem of assembling a strong, diverse
    conflict of interest-free pool of reviewers when almost the entire
    community is submitting ITR proposals.

-   Look for ways to ensure that proposers, reviewers, panels, and NSF
    Program Officers address both merit review criteria.

-   Look for ways to measure (as part of the review processes) \-- which
    are high risk, high payoff proposals and which are truly
    multidisciplinary proposals.

-   Evaluation and continuing oversight of larger awards are needed.

-   There are concerns about diversity in students, leadership, and
    participants.

-   Many "best of breed" ideas were enabled by ITR.

-   Many tools have been developed and best practices are beginning to
    evolve.

-   It is critical to capture lessons learned and to incorporate proven
    business practices in order to prevent future problems.

Other topics among the aforementioned recommendations included how to
staff large program initiatives within NSF, integration of an ITR web
site of projects; appropriate staffing for large scale projects like
ITR; and ways to capture and transfer what PIs learned about working on
large projects. ITR has played a key role in launching interdisciplinary
projects within NSF.

Future initiatives and ways to support projects post-ITR need to be
discussed. The SBE AC requested "nuggets" on the successful ITR projects
when they were available. They also recognized the challenge in
conducting interdisciplinary panel reviews. There was concern expressed
that it was difficult to assess SBE's full involvement in ITR and it
would be helpful to measure the true impact and level of involvement of
the SBE sciences in the ITR research projects. SBE was successful in
leveraging funding from CISE for ITR projects during the program's
duration.

#### 

#### Cyberinfrastructure and the SBE Sciences

Dr. John King provided a brief background on NSF's Cyberinfrastructure
activities. A workshop was held March 15-16, 2005, which was sponsored
by CISE and SBE. Dr. King also sits on the CISE advisory committee. He
introduced Dr. Dan Atkins who chaired the Blue Ribbon Panel that
produced the "Atkins" report on CI for NSF.

Dr. Atkins, of the University of Michigan, thanked the SBE AC for the
opportunity to meet with them. The marriage of computing and
communication is an important aspect of knowledge-based activities and
social sciences is a critical component. The University of Michigan has
launched a school that focuses on integration of social and human
aspects with computing. NSF is seeing increased funding going into IT
activities by all directorates. Although NSF knew how to fund other
kinds of infrastructure, it did not know how to fund infrastructure
based on information. The Blue Ribbon Panel worked for a year and a half
collecting information and conducting testimonies. They issued a report
over two years ago that has stirred a lot of discussion with over
one-half a million copies distributed. There still is a long way to go
in establishing IT as a legitimate infrastructure. CI infrastructure is
as important to modern day society as railways and other types of
infrastructure were for an industrialized society. Sharing resources and
identifying new uses for CI are also important.

Dr. Atkins said that research continues to enjoy expediential growth in
the underlying raw technology in CI. Now growth in understanding human
impacts and adoption of this technology are needed. CI has a dual
property of being an object of study and an object for study. SBE has a
multifaceted role as a users and potential greater user of CI, but also
it has a central role needed in the synthetic and analytic activities in
creating and using CI. It is a "science for science" activity. SBE
scientists need to be members of interdisciplinary teams to help direct
and evaluate these systems.

The SBE-CISE workshop report is excellent and a rich set of deep
intellectual issues has been identified. SBE can be partners in the
design of CI-enabled environments. Dr. Atkins encouraged SBE to see this
as an essential part of the core research.

Dr. King highlighted three suggestions from the CISE/SBE CI workshop
report:

-   CISE and SBE have the opportunity going forward to involve SBE in CI
    in vast ways.

-   The technical side needs help in making things that enhance life
    rather than making it more difficult. There have been recent big
    breakthroughs on the application side, but not in the development of
    technical equipment.

-   This is a chance for SBE to help the Nation move forward and change
    the world in sensible and enlighten ways.

The SBE "moment" in CI has arrived. The President's Information
Technology Advisory Council (PITAC) report listed social and workforce
impacts as a forth element. CI has grown to the point where it has taken
hold in all fields of inquiry and explanation.

There are two CI-related solicitations at NSF: Education and Outreach
Training for Supercomputing, which will support workforce development
and public outreach awards and the SBE Next Generation for Cybertools,
which will support data integration and data analysis awards. NSF hopes
to leverage additional funding to supplement these awards. By the end of
FY 2005, awards will be complete.

John Jankowski gave an update on data collection. Since 1986, SRS has
conducted a survey on engineering research facilities that has data on
US colleges and biomedical research hospital facility space and
conditions. For FY 2003, 465 academic institutions and 191 biomedical
institutions have responded. This was a 92% and a 94% response rate
respectively. Collected data are limited to research space. The last
survey cycle covered networks and configurations, computational
capabilities, wireless capabilities, and IT resource planning. Data from
the FY 2003 survey will be available in June or July 2005. The types of
questions that will be listed on the FY 2005 survey were shared and
included several geared toward assessing CI.

The SBE AC asked Dr. Atkins for advice on what makes a successful
collaboration. Dr. Atkins said the CISE/SBE CI workshop report contained
valuable information to help formulate future research agendas and
initiatives. In his experience, successful collaborations involve three
types of personnel: 1) people whose principal interest is in creating
underlying technology, 2) people that represent a human-centered
perspective and analysis of impact longitudinally, and 3) people
interested in application disciplines. In terms of what the CISE AC can
do, it can become aware of successes in CI and learn what to implement
from them. The creation of large CI-enabled systems allows
knowledge-based communities to work in new ways. Embedded in that
aspiration are new principles and ways of designing environments that
would have a higher chance of success.

Dr. King shared an example to illustrate the need for social scientists
to be involved in CI. The Federal Highway Administration has about 400
civil engineers and 1 electrical engineer employed. The electrical
engineer is working on intelligent systems. A project to help reduce the
number of passenger deaths involves a Cyberinfrastructure design that
will have wireless devices on vehicles with sensors at intersections to
determine if the operators have the vehicles under control. If not, the
vehicle will slow down. There are many interesting social dimensions,
yet there are no social scientists working on this project. The project
is planned for deployment in a few years despite the fact that issues
related to authority migration between human and systems are unresolved.
Other industries also have questions embedded in CI that have not been
under a social science perspective. This is a huge opportunity.

Internationally, there are opportunities for CI as major philanthropies
are starting to recognize the potential for CI to benefit underserved
communities and developing countries, which perceive CI as a way to
create critical mass within disciplines and overcome geographic
distribution issues.

The SBE AC thanked Dr. Atkins for participating presenting to them. Dr.
Grove thanked the participants and noted the SBE AC will likely talk
about this again at future meetings.

#### CEOSE Report to the Congress

Dr. Carol Halpert Schwartz provided background on the CEOSE committee
that was established in 1980 by Congress. CEOSE reviews and provides
advice to NSF on programs and activities within and outside NSF that
promote and broaden the full participation of women, minorities, and
persons with disabilities. The group meets three times a year and has
representatives from all the NSF Directorates and Major Offices. Members
meet with NSF's senior staff, sponsor workshops and symposia, and
promote other activities.

CEOSE has influenced programs and policies at NSF. This past year, CEOSE
focused on issues related to Tribal colleges and in the upcoming year,
it will examine issues concerning community colleges.

CEOSE is required to submit biennial reports on NSF's activities and its
proposed plans to the Congress. Additionally, in FY 2002, it also was
required to complete a decennial report that covered findings from 1994
to 2003. The Decennial Report is being printed and will be submitted to
the Congress in a few weeks.

This report shows data on STEM bachelor and PhD degrees awarded by race
and ethnicity from 1990 to 2001. It was pointed out that these data
included temporary residents, which skew data compared to overall US
population. Additionally, this report contained data on masters and
doctoral degrees and data by discipline and ethnic groups in the social
sciences.

A summary of the trends observed by CEOSE follows:

-   Modestly broader and greater participation: The sign is right, but
    the magnitude is disappointing after more than 25 years;

-   Proposal success rates for underrepresented populations comparable
    to NSF overall rate, including minorities is marginally lower;

-   Increased diversity in review panels; and

-   Boarder participation in NSF STEM staff.

Findings from CEOSE Reports to Congress:

-   Vast majority of findings about barriers encountered by
    underrepresented groups in STEM remained unchanged since the first
    CEOSE biennial report in 1982.

-   The lack of adequate disaggregated demographic and other data on
    underrepresented groups persists, limiting understanding of the
    issues and barriers for these groups.

-   Two common themes recur in CEOSE's recommendations to NSF: 1) pay
    greater attention to removing barriers faced by women, minorities,
    and persons with disabilities who enter the STEM professions, and 2)
    collect more data on underrepresented groups.

The report recommendations could not be shared with the SBE AC until it
has been formally submitted to Congress. The recommendations to NSF fall
into areas of accountability, research, policy, and tribal colleges.
Recommendations to CEOSE focus on widening pathways to STEM,
institutional transformation, evaluation, and communication.

In summary, Dr. Schwartz said that the challenges facing NSF include
pipelines to pathways; individual support to institutional
transformation; tightening visa requirements for foreign students; the
supply-side myth (meaning - that there are no qualified underrepresented
candidates for faculty positions when in fact the greatest pipeline leak
appears to be between PhD and faculty appointment); and ownership and
action are needed at all levels in the US STEM community.

Dr. Lightfoot said that there are tough issues underlying these figures,
which are somewhat discouraging. It may be worthwhile to look at the
CEOSE report when it is public and then look for ways that the SBE AC
can provide input. Dr. Altmann suggested it might be possible that SBE
is reaching a diminishing return in one area and now has to move to
other areas. Dr. Lightfoot said SBE may want to look at ADVANCE for
examples and what kinds of changes it has led to.

#### Interagency Partnerships -- Department of Homeland Security

Dr. Melvin Bernstein, Director of University Programs, Science and
Technology Directorate, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), was the
invited guest speaker to talk about the roles and opportunities for
research in Homeland Security. Dr. Bernstein has participated in a
number of NSF activities and understands the important role for SBE
sciences. There is enormous curiosity about what is happening in
Homeland Security. It is an agency that has been formed by merging 22
other agencies, most of which are operational with a near-term view. Dr.
Bernstein is trying to help instill a place for research in this agency.
The university community needs to play a critical role to help address
the challenging problems that face Homeland Security. DHS's budget is
\$40 billion. The S&T budget is \$1 billion and the University Programs
budget is \$70 million, but other agencies also contribute to HS issues.

By culture, DHS is a security enforcement agency whose job is to 1)
identify treats, 2) protect the nation, and 3) build national
resiliency. How does the country respond to a catastrophe?

The DHS Strategic goals are: 1) Awareness: identify and understand
threats and vulnerabilities, 2) Prevention: detect, deter, and mitigate
threats, 3) Protection: safeguard people, property, infrastructure and
the economy, 4) Response: lead, manage and coordinate national response
to terroristic events and other emergencies, and 5) Recover: lead
efforts to restore services and rebuild communities.

The DHS goals lead to formulation of a research agenda (which was
originally built around threats):

-   Bio-countermeasures

-   Chemical countermeasures

-   Radiological and nuclear countermeasures

-   Standards

-   SAFECOM

-   Threat and vulnerability, testing and assessment

-   Critical infrastructure protection

-   Mission

Needed Results:

-   New technology deployed

-   New mission-critical capabilities created

-   Strong S&T workforce

-   Anticipate and defeat new and emerging threats

-   Interoperability

-   R&D generated through international cooperation

-   Intellectual property generated through stewardship of RDT&E

-   Expansion of US global market share for homeland security
    technologies

S&T is the force multiplier -- the job is to make DHS operations
intelligence informed, science-based, and technology enabled. Dr.
Bernstein said this is an important opportunity to build a program from
the ground up and they are maintaining a commitment to the peer review
selection process. The Science and Technology Directorate has three
divisions: Office of R&D, Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects
Agency, and Systems Engineering and Development. Dr. Bernstein said that
collaborations with laboratories and universities and industry are key.

DHS partners with universities for a number of reasons:

-   Technical expertise -- state of the art research

-   Force multiplier -- broad outreach to experts

-   Flexible inclusiveness -- easy access to broad range of expertise

-   Open environment -- cross-disciplinary programs encouraged and
    unconstrained access to federal/state/local government agencies

-   Entrepreneurial culture -- other engagements with industry
    encouraged

-   Decentralized organization -- encourages extensive interactions at
    individual level

-   Extensive connectivity -- encourage outreach and networking among
    broad base of individuals locally and nationally

-   Diverse Responsibilities -- faculty serve many roles: educators,
    researchers, mentors, professional society leaders, and technical
    expert advisors to federal/state/local governments

The DHS University Programs seek to utilize the intellectual capital
within the academic community to address current and future homeland
security challenges and to provide educational support and relevant
experiential learning opportunities to diverse and highly talented
individuals in order to enhance the scientific leadership in areas of
importance to DHS. DHS Centers of Excellence (multi institutional)
engage the academic community. There are currently four centers: Center
of Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events (CREATE); National
Center for Food Protection and Defense (NCFPD); National Center for
Foreign Animal and Zoonotic Disease Defense (FAZD); and Center of
Excellence for Study of Terrorism and Response to Terrorism (START).
Other initiatives include collaboration with EPA to establish a
cooperative center in microbial risk assessment and proposals for a
5^th^ center "Center for the Study of High Consequence Event
Preparedness and Response".

The DHS University Programs also have scholar and fellow programs to
harness the future of science to include a DHS scholarship and
fellowship program, AAAS postdoctoral program, and summer faculty and
student programs. They give out about 100 scholarships a year in
graduate and undergraduate programs with a requirement that they spend
one summer in a DHS related area. DHS will continue to talk to NSF about
finding the right investment opportunities.

Dr. Bernstein shared some examples of activities underway at the DHS
centers. One challenge they face is how to deal with sensitive but
unclassified information. There is a tension between academic freedom
and information that might be potentially dangerous for the country.
Everything viewed as fundamental research is exempt from oversight. They
need to find common ground, but don't have an answer yet.

Dr. Groves thanked Dr. Bernstein for presenting to the group and said
the AC is looking for ways that SBE can form alliances. Social sciences
will play an increasingly direct role in many of these areas.

#### Broadening Participation in SBE Sciences

Dr. Wanda Ward, Deputy Assistant Director, SBE, presented on Broadening
Participation: Building Bridges and Getting Over Them. Strategy is to
build on strength and leveraging as much as they can across the
Foundation and within the community. At the November 2004 SBE AC
meeting, a presentation was made from a consortium at the University of
California. Dr. Ward reviewed the role of the SBE Sciences. The NSF SBE
directorate is the primary steward for federal support for federal basic
research and academe**.** For FYs 2005 and -- 2006, NSF Investment in
Broadening Participation guiding principles are to: 1) capitalize on
strategic, programmatic investments with a proven track records of
developing the potential of those underrepresented in the S&E workforce,
and 2) premise program designs on research findings.

SBE has formed a Regional Social/Behavioral Science Consortia (RSBS)
with the NSF Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate
(AGEP) program. We are also forming and enhanced SBE activity to
integrate Research and Education -- Comprehensive Research. The
RSBS-AGEP consortium is identifying existing SBE-AGEP projects and
filling gaps. SBE also is forming a cross-regional/national network with
a monitoring and evaluation component for these programs. SBE brought in
the top 25 people in the programs to look at how they would infuse AGEP
into their institutions at home. The meeting had good geographic
representation and SBE is likely to begin implementing this consortia
arrangement by end of summer/early fall. Updates will be provided at the
fall SBE AC meeting.

The Comprehensive Research Experiences for Undergraduates (C-REU)
program provides research methods, training experience, and expanded
research experiences combined with networking and socialization
experiences. Several pilot programs are planned for FY2005 in economics,
political sciences, psychology, geography, and environmental sciences.

Dr. Peterson led the discussion. In her experience, individual programs
are putting forth a lot of effort that does not always pay off or move
us forward as the efforts are isolated, often even within an
institution. The consortia idea is a very positive step forward. It
should make for a larger momentum overall in a number of ways: 1)
information sharing across universities and across units within
universities, 2) more status and legitimacy will be brought to the issue
(with NSF behind it) with benchmarks to compare, and 3) it may help to
broaden notions of success (not just the count if a student comes to a
specific university). Point persons are critical for the success of this
endeavor. Resources for dedicated people to push this agenda and to keep
the activity on the minds of the larger leadership at the universities
are critical. The idea of focusing on multiple points in the pipeline is
good. The group learned that for many groups, it came down to the
individuals (students/faculty) feeling isolated (from people, resources,
networks, each other).

The SBE AC mentioned a program called ACIS that is designed to promote
women, which may be able to be leveraged as well. Dr. Ward said that SBE
houses the ADVANCE program. The SBE AC stressed the importance of
hearing things from other disciplines and getting support from other
areas (like training in how to deal with social isolation issues if you
are an economist mentoring a student). Additionally, it was said that
the consortiums for C-REU are working well. Dr. Ward welcomed
suggestions and thoughts for SBE.

#### International Collaborations

Dr. Ward presented on "International Collaborations: SBE Engagement in
International Social Science". In 2001, the National Science Board (NSB)
produced a report on International Science and Education. Dr. Ward read
a portion from the report. Dialog with the SBE AC at the May 2004
meeting focused on: International Flow of Talent, Scientific Material,
and Data. Dr. Bement took the concerns raised by the SBE AC to the
National Science and Technology Committee (NSTC) and an internal working
group was formed at NSF. Dr. Ward was impressed with the progress and
the involvement of 15-16 agencies.

At the November 2004 SBE AC meeting, SBE had an International Social
Science Panel with four international science agencies presenting.
Issues included what comprises collaboration and what it takes to form
genuine collaborations. SBE has been building on the discussion since
that time. Dr. Ward said she speculates that a more strategic build up
of international social science is needed. The former SBE International
Division was elevated to an International Office at the NSF directorate
level as well. There are 5 "Cs" to consider in international science:
connections, convergences, coordination, comparability, and
compatibility.

Key issues that came out of the discussions were talent flow
(cross-national training and visa), research, infrastructure (surveys,
data issues), and regional centers. Strategic windows of opportunity in
research include the Human and Social Dynamics (HSD) and Science of
Learning Centers (SLC) in addition to the core programs. For
infrastructure, there are opportunities in the area of
Cyberinfrastructure. Near-term mechanisms for collaboration include:
workshops (staff and researchers), PI meetings, coordinated/parallel
reviews, research collaborations (e.g. supplements), organization staff
exchanges, and SBE staff/researchers as observers to other organization
committees (e.g., AC).

Dr. Ward briefly highlighted recent developments that SBE has been
engaged in with senior staff and program officers to include exchanges
with the European Commission Directorate General for Research (EC
DG-Research); the Economic and Social Research Council; the European
Science Foundation; and the Human and Social Research Council, National
Research Foundation. SBE is working to strategize and coordinate
activities yet allow for flexibility. Natural convergences are
occurring. Additional recent developments include an NSF SBE delegation
to China and the Social Science Research Council meeting of funders. On
a recent trip to China, SBE delegates were informed that while the
talent flow issues are easing in some parts of the world, it remains a
huge issue in China.

SBE's future direction is the clear articulation of its strategic intent
of vision, mission, and principles of international science. This should
include a statement of international context, goals (short, mid- and
long-term) and strategies; milestones; and inventory of SBE investments
internationally.

Dr. Jasso thanked Dr. Ward for her presentation. The SBE community wants
a visible string of quick successes they can build on. She suggested a
two-word template to help focus thoughts on Who and What. Who can think
about promoting individual researchers and relationships across
institutions? It might be worth thinking if some topics are riper than
others for international collaborations. Three that come to Dr. Jasso's
mind include: 1) Fairness and inequality -- links between inequalities
across different countries. What happens to ideas of justice when the
rates of inflation are increasing drastically? 2) Migration at the very
beginning. Partnerships with original countries and destination
countries that can build research designs; and 3) The scale of the
difficulty of learning a particular language.

The SBE AC discussed the interesting changes happening in Europe around
language to include digitization of written materials in other languages
that will be available globally. This frontier research is expanding
rapidly. The group also talked about international students at US
institutions and the efforts to galvanize international collaborations.
They stressed the importance of monitoring changes for unanticipated
consequences.

The group enjoyed hearing a summary of the international activities SBE
is engaged in. The breakthrough will occur when there is shared funding
and shared peer review for collaborative work and hopes international
collaboration will reach that level.

Dr. Ward said SBE wants to move forward with this strategic articulation
and asked SBE AC members that would like to participate in the efforts
to let her know.

#### SES/BCS Breakout Session

The SBE AC held a breakout session of the Social and Economic Sciences
(SES) and Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences (BCS) division. Planned
topics of discussion included: Homeland Security and Security
Evaluation, Health of R&D, Organizational Research, Human Subjects, and
Qualitative Research. Drs. Marguerite (Peg) Barratt and Richard Lempert
led the discussion.

#### Discussion of SBE AC Operations

Dr. Grove requested guidance from the SBE AC on how they would like to
organize themselves. Discussion issues included:

-   SBE AC members would like to have input in shaping the meeting
    agendas.

-   It was suggested that designated AC members be prepared to comment
    on presentations, though it was important to maintain spontaneity of
    discussions as well.

-   Opportunities to have breakouts or sessions without NSF staff may
    lead to more candid discussions.

-   There tends to be information overload. It was suggested that the
    meeting materials contain summarized action items or specific
    questions for the AC members to discuss/consider during the meeting
    and or note if materials were for background purposes only.

-   For new AC members, an orientation session could include a glossary
    of acronyms and a brief paragraph of the history behind the SBE AC
    agenda topic with recommendations/outcomes made at previous
    meetings.

-   The SBE AC website should be utilized more.

-   Some SBE AC members wanted to see more smaller breakout groups to
    allow discussion to focus on individual topics. Others felt this
    limited participation in more than one group and it was redundant to
    participate, and then report back to the larger group.

-   Some SBE AC members would like to see the meeting last only one day
    with subgroups doing some of the work before/after the meeting.

Dr. Groves suggested the SBE AC digest the input and provide feedback to
him via email prior to the next SBE AC meeting.

#### Preparation for Meeting with NSF Director

The SBE AC identified questions to pose during their discussion Dr.
Arden Bement, Jr. They noted the importance of pointing out the positive
changes that have happened in NSF/SBE.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:35 p.m.

# 

# Friday, June 3, 2005

The meeting was reconvened at 8:40 a.m.

#### Human and Social Dynamics Priority Area

Dr. Rachelle Hollander provided an update on the NSF Human and Social
Dynamics (HSD) program. The goals of the program were reviewed.
Accomplishments in FY2004 were listed that included 37 awards. In
FY2003, there was a small competition within SBE that helped to launch
the FY 2004 program. Examples of projects were shown. The FY 2005
competition has increased funding available of approximately \$38
million. The infrastructure component was dropped from this round.
Changes in the submission requirements helped to reduce the number of
proposals received. The research areas for exploratory and research team
proposals being solicited are: Agents of Change; Dynamics of Human
Behavior; and Decision-Making, Risk and Uncertainty.

SBE has been hosting an on-going HSD seminar series. New awards will be
announced in the fall of 2005 with potential for a higher success rate.
A principal investigators meeting will be held September 15-16, 2005.

Dr. Keith Crank, HSD Competition Coordinator, provided additional
details on the FY2005 solicitation and deadlines. The SGER competition
was announced in response to the recent tsunamis and six awards were
made out of 33 received. The other funding vehicles include Exploratory
Research Projects and HSD Research Community Development Projects for up
to \$125,000 across 1-2 years. Of the 66 proposals received, 17 were
highly recommended. For full research projects, up to \$750,000 for 3
years could be requested. A new requirement was to have at least three
senior personnel representing at least two disciplines. Of 386 proposals
received, 44 were highly recommended. NSF hopes that awards will be made
starting in mid-July 2005.

Dr. Hollander asked the SBE AC to brainstorm about the role and
potential role of HSD within SBE and within NSF more broadly. At the
last SBE AC meeting, the issue of evaluation of the program was raised.
The SBE AC had raised a question of productivity of these large programs
versus small individual grants. Dr. Hollander asked the group if this
was the right question or if instead they should be asking how to
evaluate if the goals have been achieved.

During the discussion, the SBE AC asked what combinations of fields are
coming together in proposals. Dr. Krank said there is a broad mix that
crosses all of NSF. A suggestion was made to look at outcomes of the
research to see if publications are co-authored across disciplines or if
they appear in interdisciplinary or a-typical \[for SBE\] journals.

Dr. Krank said panel areas were Hazard Risk Management, Individual vs.
Collective Decisions, Cognitive and language Dynamics, Environmental
Activities, Technical Aspects of HSD, Modeling Aspects of HSD, Social
and Political Economic Dynamics, and Social Dynamics. The SBE AC
requested to see data (when available) on the results of the HSD
competition to include number of resubmissions, newly formed teams, and
existing teams.

The SBE AC asked what plans were in place to evaluate or measure if the
partnerships really took place. Dr. Krank responded that at the
September PI meeting, SBE would have small groups that focus on issues
related to managing interdisciplinary research to support the teams.
Other suggested "measures" of success might include: articles that
appear in journals not normally thought of; new lines of research that
build a critical mass; university-based centers that focus on these
issues; and the creation of databases and infrastructure. Educational
aspects include course or curricula development in graduate and
undergraduate programs.

Dr. Groves thanked Drs. Rochelle and Krank and said the HSD Priority
Area is an issue the SBE AC cares about deeply and wants to assist in
any way possible. Dr. Lightfoot added it is clear there is a large
demand for HSD research and the program should be expanded and the
visibility increased. A Center could be a model of the process and place
of ongoing activities. Dr. Ward said that SBE would look at this
seriously.

#### Behaviorally Realistic Analysis of Complex Systems

Dr. Baruch Fishoff, Carnegie Mellon University, presented his research
on the skills that people use in making decisions. Dr. Fishoff's
research is funded in the FY 2004 HSD. Key features of complex systems
include distributed knowledge, multiple interactions, deep
uncertainties, and frequent updating. The approach and models used in
the research were discussed. The point was made that any analysis of a
complex system needs to factor in the nature of the humans that
participated in the creation and design of the system. Dr. Fishoff
walked through the complex set of questions in beginning an analysis
project and provided an example of a project for analyzing behavior (and
predicting response) with contamination of drinking water. Communication
of the plan of action is an important aspect of the analysis. The
process for developing analysis includes: Initiation, Preliminary
Analysis, Risk, Estimation, Risk Evaluation, Risk Control, and
Action/Monitoring.

The approach to integrating analysis and communication focused on
communication for behavioral decisions. In conclusion, Dr. Fishoff said
systematically applying social and behavioral science research could
drastically simplify tasks of informed consent, formalize materiality
standard, and set research priorities.

The group thanked Dr. Fishoff for his presentation.

#### Report of Breakout Sessions and Discussion of Recommendations

Judith Tanur summarized the group discussions from the SRS breakout
session. Dr. Lynda Carlson updated the group on *Science and Engineering
Indicators*, the 2003 SESAT Surveys, and work on the 2006 version.
Efforts to generate better data on the doctoral workforce include
collecting data from people that have left the US. There was a
pioneering project linking Census and the Bureau of Economic Affairs
(BEA) data that was successful. A big benefit was finding new firms that
were known to be carrying out R&D to add to this sample. SRS hopes to
use the American Community Survey (which will replace the Census) as its
frame for science and technology degrees and science and technology
occupations. They are hoping to add a field to survey for "Field of
Occupation". Congress must approve this.

A COV will be held for SRS in the fall of 2005, chaired by Irwin Feller.

The breakout group discussed efforts to improve survey data and possible
enhancements to the Innovation and Industrial R&D Survey. The SBE AC
suggested partnering with several agencies that are in the archiving
business. Maintaining data on the data collection process was valuable
in improving the survey process and SRS might want to require
contractors to preserve such data in a comparable form. The SBE AC
endorsed the importance of getting the "field of occupation" added to
the American Community Survey.

#### Discussion with Dr. Arden Bement, Jr., Director, NSF

Dr. Bement Jr., Director, National Science Foundation, met with the SBE
AC. Dr. Groves thanked Dr. Bement for the support of SBE and for his
personal and very visible support at budget time. The SBE AC is
overjoyed with David Lightfoot's appointment and thanked Dr. Ward for
service beyond the call as Acting Assistant Director. The group had a
very positive discussion on CI and opportunities for SBE to work with
other directorates are strong. The CISE/SBE CI workshop report could be
a framework for this. Dr. Bement said this was an excellent report and
the grand challenges were right on target. NSF is pulling this
information into their plans for CI.

Highlights of the discussion topics posed to Dr. Bement are below:

-   [International Students.]{.underline} Research fields are becoming
    globalize and there are pressures/burdens of doing international
    research. What is happening with visa issues? Dr. Bement said that
    some of the problems are beginning to taper off. The US has
    benefited greatly in the past from having international students.
    Other countries are not working to attract international talent and
    they are facing similar problems as the US. Some of the NSF
    initiatives in broadening participation are addressing this but they
    are also exploring new approaches and need advice from the SBE AC
    for what works in the SBE sciences. NSF is putting more investment
    in exchange programs and is working with foundations and other
    organizations to give students an experience abroad. This helps
    plant seeds for sustainable communication over time and provides
    links to build on for international collaboration.

-   [Cross-national Movement of Research Materials.]{.underline} Dr.
    Bement said an interagency group has been formed with 12 federal
    agencies participating to address issues related to the transport of
    research materials cross-nationally. The more they look into it, the
    more complex they find the issues to be. The group has identified
    some opportunities and areas where early improvements can be made.
    One challenge is that issues tend to be country-by-country specific.
    They are working with US/Mexico now. Progress is being made and it
    will take a year or so for the group to gear up and recommendations
    to be presented.

-   [European Funding Sources.]{.underline} The SBE AC encouraged NSF to
    continue to build bridges with European funding agencies in the SBE
    sciences. Dr. Bement said the OISE office would help promote and
    increase these types of collaborations.

-   [Cyberinfrastructure.]{.underline} There is a growing use of CI
    tools and research facilities, which is providing new capabilities
    for research, but also requires new resources. There is an impetus
    to share tools and make CI more global, centered around Centers for
    Excellence to take advantage of CI to build virtual infrastructure
    and networks. This is an ongoing opportunity/necessity.

-   [Support from the SBE AC.]{.underline} The SBE AC asked what they
    could do to help promote NSF and the SBE fields to Congress. SBE
    research is central to almost every policy issue and social,
    behavioral and political issues are seen in response national
    disasters and in understanding public policy. Many people on Capitol
    Hill do not understand this.

-   [NSF Staff.]{.underline} Dr. Bement said staffing is a major issue
    across NSF. The latest study showed there was over 100 additional
    staff needed to maintain a status of excellence. It is a question of
    balance. In a time of constrained resources, increases requested in
    the Salaries and Expenses (S&E) budget often result in decreases in
    the Research and Related Activities (R&RA) account. NSF is trying to
    assess what is really needed to serve the research community and how
    it can prioritize and communicate the need to Congress.

-   [NSF's Role for the Nation.]{.underline} Dr. Marburger's remarks
    indicate that it is felt NSF could have a leadership role in serving
    the nation. Dr. Bement said there is a national policy issue in
    determining how much investment of research is enough? There are no
    metrics for this. It used to be asserted, whether it was true or
    not, that the US dominated every field of science, but this is no
    longer feasible. Hard choices need to be made and metrics are needed
    to help inform these choices. There is a tension between what is
    needed now, national needs, and what should be set aside for the
    future. The investment of the US has been relatively constant about
    (11%) for non- defense spending over the years, but the percentage
    for applied versus basic research funding is skewed. Many questions
    arise. How do you inform policy dealing with that balance? How do
    you deal with lead time issues (conception to market)? What are
    intangible effects? There are all kinds of hidden capital
    contributions that are factors that we do not have a good way of
    measuring. In a generation of new knowledge, education and IT are
    believed to be big drivers in economics. The Foundation is the
    premiere federal agency working in this field. The SRS is the
    principle tool. NSF is not funded to take this on for the Federal
    government yet.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [NSF Budget]{.underline}. The guidance from Congress is that for the
    next four years, budgets will be flat funded. Dr. Bement said he is
    optimistic that NSF can do better than flat funding, but it will be
    constricted.

-   [Peer Review Process]{.underline}. There are attacks on the peer
    review process. Dr. Bement said that he did not think it would ever
    go away, but the merit review process is the heart and soul of NSF
    and the research community really supports the process. NSF also
    maintains a percentage of discretionary funds that is also under
    attack. NSF has outstanding Program Officers with great judgment and
    knowledge and they use it very selectively. There are also checks
    and balances in place and a good peer review process. Because of the
    high standing of NSF in the government, everyone wants to manage it.
    We will constantly be challenged but will continue to make the point
    that NSF is a merit review organization that pays attention to input
    from the community and the primary objectives are to meet the best
    interests of the community.

-   [Broadening Participation]{.underline}. The SBE AC heard a review of
    CEOSE, ITR, and SBE efforts to broaden participation. It is a tough
    issue that needs constant vigilance. Dr. Bement said that NSF is
    working to build capacity at minority serving institutions and they
    are encouraged that this is happening, but it needs to be supported.
    Problematic areas are the interface between secondary school and the
    university, particularly among minorities and women. There is a
    mismatch in the gap between preparation and expectations and lack of
    alignment with universities. Another problematic area is in the
    training of PhDs. The AGEP Program is starting to break down these
    structures, but it is still problematic.

-   [International Review Boards]{.underline}. Issues related to IRBs
    need NSF's continued support. Dr. Bement said NSF supports this and
    there is an international working group also focused on this. He
    regrets that is still has not been cleaned up and they are working
    to eliminate the need for IRBs by each organization on
    multi-investigator programs.

Dr. Bement briefly talked about NSF proposal success rates and efforts
NSF is making to improve them. There are challenges and tradeoffs that
they are working to identify. They group also talked about ways to
communicate the fun and rewards of scientific research to attract new
students and engage the public. The SBE AC offered to support and assist
NSF in this effort.

The SBE AC thanked Dr. Bement for meeting with them.

#### Identification of Agenda Items for Next Meeting

Dr. Grove asked the SBE AC for input on the next SBE AC meeting format
and agenda and activities between now and the next meeting.

Suggested topics for the next SBE AC meeting included:

-   International Issues: A subcommittee of those interested could meet
    before the next meeting and further discussion and strategies
    discussed as a full SBE AC item.

-   Ask someone from the Office of International Activities (INT) to
    provide an update on the transition from SBE to an NSF office and
    ways the SBE AC can work with the INT Office. Dr. Altmann also
    participates as a liaison on the INT AC and would send out a brief
    summary of the INT AC meeting discussions to the SBE AC members.

-   Far reaching activities in CI that will set the tone for the future
    grand challenges.

-   Important issues going on at NSF for information/input.

-   Broadening participation both within SBE and overall for NSF.

-   Follow-up on discussion/action items from the previous SBE AC
    meeting.

-   Resources for evaluation of interdisciplinary activities.

Invited guests of the SBE AC might include the successor to Chris Whelan
(to participate on a regular basis), the National Academy of Science to
talk about international activities, and research leaders from China and
the Middle East.

Other SBE AC activities suggested were:

-   Organizing a "Hill Day" for Congress. Interested SBE AC members
    should e-mail Dr. Groves. COSA may be a good vehicle to help promote
    such an event and would not pose a legal conflict for NSF.

-   Potential SBE AC subgroups that could convene via email and
    conference calls between the SBE AC meetings included: International
    Review Board, SRS Resources, Cyberinfrastructure, HSD, and
    International. Dr. Groves will send out an email with subtopics and
    ask for SBE AC members to volunteer to list committees they would be
    willing to serve on and then allocations would be made.

Dr. Lightfoot thanked the SBE AC for their contributions. With no
further discussion, Dr. Groves adjourned the meeting at 1:00 p.m.