**National Science Foundation**

**Directorate for Biological Sciences**

**BIO ADVISORY COMMITTEE**

**Room 375 Stafford I**

**October 18-19, 2007**

**Summary Minutes**

**Welcome and Approval of Minutes**

Dr. Michael Mares, Chair of the Advisory Committee for Biological
Sciences (BIO AC), convened the Fall 2007 meeting at 8:00 am with a
welcome to the members and guests. Dr. Mares noted that all of the
members were in attendance, with the exception of Dr. Robert Robbins who
was available via phone. Dr. James P. Collins, Assistant Director for
the Biological Sciences (BIO) greeted the BIO AC and asked the AC
members to introduce themselves. The minutes for the April 2007 meeting
were unanimously approved by the Committee.

**Presentation -- "Advancing Innovation and Competitiveness at the
Convergence of the Life and Physical Sciences and Engineering"** *Dr.
James P. Collins, Assistant Director, BIO*

Dr. Collins presented an overview of the BIO directorate's continuing
mission as it aligns with the National Science Foundation's (NSF)
strategic goals and the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI). He
emphasized three main strategic areas of focus within BIO: origins,
looking at how, where and when life begins; energy, examining how
systems gain the fuel to sustain life; and adaptation, studying how life
changes to adjust to environmental impacts. Dr. Collins noted the
current continuing resolution in regards to the NSF budget, but
expressed optimism for the 6.8% increase over last year's fiscal
request. If passed, the \$6.43 billion budget will fund 7.7% more
research-related activities. As Biology moves ahead through the 21^st^
century, the NSF faces challenges to managing the scientific community
infrastructure in the context of long-term priorities. The BIO
directorate is working to create avenues of communication to aid the
scientific community through novel centers and networks.

*The BIO AC discussed:*

-   How the second criterion in the NSF merit review process, broader
    impacts, is being evaluated and whether or not there is a
    quantitative and/or qualitative assessment either in BIO or
    throughout the Foundation

-   The nature of transformative research and how to evaluate it

**Update on Undergraduate Education in the Biological Sciences,** *Dr.
Penny Firth, Program Officer BIO/DEB*

Dr. Firth noted that there have been two special working groups
established to help focus on the issues that surround transforming
biological science education. One of the working groups, in cooperation
with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), is concentrating on
evaluating the effectiveness of textbooks and possible teaching
alternatives. The other working group has been formed to maintain and
manage the Research and Teaching Coordination Networks. Dr. Firth also
remarked on the upcoming Vision and Change meeting, taking place in the
summer of 2008.

**Presentations on Biology Education**

*Dr. Carol Brewer, University of Montana, Missoula - "Training the Next
Generation of Biologists and Biologically Literate Citizens"*

Dr. Brewer discussed the need to foster scientific literacy in the
American public. The growing gap between what scientists and the general
population understand about biology and basic science is becoming a
chasm. In order to increase fundamental scientific knowledge, Dr. Brewer
argued for change in both the pedagogical and curricular strategies that
the current education system employs. She highlights several different
strategies: 1) identifying the audience and targeting on a "need to
know" basis; 2) linking thinking skills and conceptual understanding
through effective curriculum and pedagogical approaches; 3) training
K-20 educators and giving them the tools necessary to keep up with the
leading edge of science; 4) creating opportunities at cross-discipline
interactions with peers; and 5) evaluating the influence of new training
models through assessment. Dr. Brewer's ending remarks centered around
creating tools to evaluate the real-world application of the broader
impacts criterion.

*Dr. Vincent Cassone, Texas A&M University - "The Schizoid Aspects of
Biological Education: History Dependence, Disciplinary Intransigence,
and Just Plain Laziness*

Dr. Cassone spoke about the reasons for the stagnation of biological
science education and offered suggestions for improvement. These ideas
included: 1) teaching a limited number of basic principles each
semester; 2) removing canned laboratory lessons from curricula and
creating a lab experience to inspire experimental science; 3) Adhering
to a central dogma in terms of teaching concepts; and 4) tailoring other
disciplines (e.g.: chemistry, physics, math, and statistics) to biology
majors. By implementing these strategies, Dr. Cassone contended that
institutes of higher education can begin to alleviate the current
problems associated with education in the biological sciences.

*Dr. Jo Handelsman, University of Wisconsin, Madison -- "Scientific
Teaching"*

Dr. Handelsman's presentation began with a short film highlighting the
lack of science literacy in the American public. Following the video, Dr
Handelsman emphasized the need for a reform in science education, so
that all citizens will understand basic scientific principles and the
process and necessity for scientific advancement. She pointed out the
touchstones of the Wisconsin Program for Scientific Teaching, supported
by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, which is working to foster a new
generation of undergraduate biology teachers. The program focuses on
teaching graduate students and faculty to effectively mentor students
and monitor classroom and laboratory learning.

*The BIO AC discussed:*

-   Reforming the structure of typical lectures, specifically through
    team teaching, discussion, and problem-based learning

-   How to support students from community colleges, who may not have
    the same level of scientific understanding

-   Creating a reward system for good teaching, not just for successful
    research

    -   By more thoroughly integrating teaching aspects into grants

    -   Or by evaluating criterion 2 and making sure that the broader
        impacts get disseminated and rewarded

-   The need to standardize incremental changes and scale-up new
    teaching methods

-   How to utilize online tools to compliment teaching effectively, not
    to replace it

-   Incentives for post-docs and grad students to teach, getting them
    out of the lab and incorporating teaching into their schedules

**Presentation on Science and the Media**

*Dr. Matthew Nisbet, American University -- "Presenting Science to the
Public"*

Cheryl Dybas, Public Affairs Specialist in the Office of Legislative and
Public Affairs (OLPA), commented on the importance of science in the
media and introduced Dr. Matthew Nisbet, a well-known expert in the
field of framing science. Dr. Nisbet spoke about how political
strategists, scientists, and the news media selectively define science
in ways that shape policy decisions, public opinion, and political
culture. Nisbet argued that the lack of general public knowledge of
basic science creates a disconnect between fact and opinion. Framing
science in the right way helps to alleviate this disconnect. By
targeting frames to specific social identities, opinions become
reinforced. Likewise, by targeting an audience with heuristic images
that provide a broader understanding of a very specific topic,
scientists can reach those that might not otherwise understand the
technical aspects of an issue.

*The BIO AC discussed:*

-   Examples of graduate programs that effectively teach communication
    tools

    -   Pilot programs at Cornell and U. Wisconsin

-   Strategies for creating a clear message about specific research

    -   Interacting with local media outlets

    -   Institution-sponsored media training workshops

-   Changes in framing strategies

    -   Example: the recent history of the debate on climate change

**Committee Reports**

*Long Term Ecological Research Network (LTER)*

Phil Robertson discussed the progress of LTER. Its five core areas focus
on primary production, biodiversity, organic matter change, nutrient
movement and availability, and disturbance across a variety of
ecologically diverse climates. There are currently twenty-six worldwide
sites where this fundamental science takes place. Spread across both
urban and agricultural environments, studies examine long term
processes, episodic or infrequent events, trends, and multifactor
processes. The *Decadal Plan for LTER* comes in response to the
twenty-year review of 2001-2002. The Plan reflects a community consensus
that was established through three years of workshops and discussions.
It establishes an integrated research framework as well as an integrated
research plan. Dr. Robertson highlighted points from the Plan and
responded to the Committee's questions about site review; research sites
get reviewed every six years, and several have been dropped over the
course of LTER.

*Broadening Participation Working Group*

Celeste Rolfing spoke about the progress of the Broadening Participation
Working Group. The group was established in April, 2007, to evaluate the
effectiveness of NSF's goal to incorporate underrepresented groups in
the science community and throughout the Foundation. A draft report of
the findings has been created and will be available for comment within
the next few months. The report indicates six recommendations for
enhancing broadening participation goals: 1) diversify the reviewer
pool; 2) increase training on NSF priorities and the mechanisms for
broadening participation; 3) clearly disseminate information; 4) promote
accountability; 5) enhance coordination; and 6) expand the knowledge
base. Next steps for the working group will be to incorporate comments
to the draft report, finalize the report, and create a timeline for
implementation of the recommendations.

**Discussion with Dr. Arden Bement, Director of NSF**

Dr. Bement opened the discussion by noting that the NSF is currently in
a continuing resolution with regards to budget. He opened up the floor
for discussion.

*The BIO AC and Dr. Bement discussed:*

-   The tension between research and education

    -   Establishing a reward system to recognize successful teaching,
        or to augment the research reward system

    -   Creating and/or supporting workshops to educate on effective
        teaching techniques

    -   Enforcing vertical continuity when it comes to the importance of
        science education reform

    -   Reaching out to children at an earlier age to establish a strong
        foundation for science learning and creating opportunities for
        individual research

-   Reaching out to the general public to foster scientific literacy

    -   Engaging people through the NSF website

    -   Utilizing popular tools like YouTube to capitalize on public
        outreach opportunities

-   Eliminating the drive to perform research for the sake of research
    -- generating a relevance to real-life impact

**Report on the Impact of Proposal and Award Management Mechanisms
(IPAMM)*, ***

*Dr. Joanne Tornow*

The IPAMM review was initiated to analyze impact of the increase in
proposal submissions across the Foundation, coupled with the decline in
funding rates. Several factors were found to be responsible for these
trends, including but not limited to: the restriction and elimination of
funding opportunities at other national sources, the Foundation-wide
movement towards larger awards, and NSF congressional funding barely
keeping pace with inflation. The impact of these trends was found to
have several deleterious effects. These included, among others: a
stressed reviewer pool, frustrated Principle Investigators (PI), and an
overworked Foundation staff. After analysis of the results, NSF is
currently looking for ways to effectively alleviate some of the issues
that have arisen. Some recommendations consist of: running a pilot
program within several divisions across the Foundation to try new
proposal processing strategies; triaging proposals that have no merit;
and/or modifying the money distribution across some areas to alleviate
tension in under funded programs. The Foundation welcomes input and
suggestions for further solution suggestions.

*The BIO AC discussed:*

-   The proposal ratio per PI and the success rates associated with
    multiple proposals per investigator

-   The impact of reduced funding on other things such as education and
    materials

-   Proposal resubmissions, currently no way to track this

-   Initiating a task force of Program Officers and other interagency
    officials to look at current methods of proposal review and come up
    with some best-practices

-   Broadening the reviewer community

**NRC Report: The Role of Theory in Advancing 21^st^ Century Biology,**
*Dr. Dr. James P. Collins, Assistant Director, BIO*

Dr. Collins spoke about the importance of theory in biology, especially
in its role to catalyze transformative research. Theory helps the
scientific community to understand biological phenomena through all
scales of life. He spoke about the challenges of linking structure and
function within interacting networks as well as incorporating adaptive
dynamics and feedback into research. He also pointed out highlights from
the National Academies handout. In addition, he noted that the recently
developed program, Advancing Theory in Biology, just held its first
panel and new awards were made prior to the fiscal year closeout. The
BIO Directorate is enthusiastic about the possible developments of this
new research.

**Plant Genome Research Program Committee of Visitor Report,
Recommendations, and the BIO Response** *Susan Bryant*

In June, 2007, a Committee of Visitors met to review the practices and
procedures of the Plant Genome Research Program (PGRP). The PGRP began
in 1998 as part of national plant genome initiative, and an interagency
working group was established by the Office of Science and Technology
Policy. The Committee was very enthusiastic about this program and the
report reflects this positive response, with a few recommendations for
improvement. Some of the topics highlighted were: the need to include
research of the impact of global climate change on plant systems; the
call for a greater emphasis on genomics research; the burden of work on
the program staff; and the importance of fostering communication and
collaboration within the scientific community. The BIO Directorate was
very receptive to the COV's report and took many of their
recommendations into consideration in their response. The motion to
accept the COV Report and the BIO Directorate's response was unanimously
approved.

**Division of Biological Infrastructure Committee of Visitor Report,
Recommendations, and the BIO Response** *Barbara Wakimoto*

In June, 2007, a Committee of Visitors met to review the practices and
procedures of the Division of Biological Infrastructure. The Committee
was happy with the division's efforts and the report shows this. Some of
the topics touched on were: the need to encourage mechanisms for
sustainability once the award expires; an emphasis on elucidating and
evaluating broader impacts; balancing program staff workload; and
recognizing the importance for maintaining already-established
infrastructure within the scientific community. The BIO Directorate was
responsive to the COV's report and addressed their recommendations in
the reply. The motion to accept the COV Report and the BIO Directorate's
response was unanimously approved.

**Follow-up Reports**

*Division of Environmental Biology Committee of Visitors*

In June, 2006, a Committee of Visitors met to review the practices and
procedures of the Division of Environmental Biology (DEB). Of the thirty
recommendations made by the COV, DEB took action on twenty-five of them.
Most significantly, more funding was allocated for small grants and
supplements across the division. Additionally, a cross-cluster panel was
established to review integrative proposals. DEB is also happy to
announce that they are fully staffed.

*Office of Emerging Frontiers Committee of Visitors*

In September, 2006, a Committee of Visitors met to review the practices
and procedures of the Office of Emerging Frontiers (EF). This office was
originally a virtual division, with programs shared among the other
divisions in BIO, but with a centralized budget. However, increasing
demand on division staff mandated a need for EF to become a more
established entity. Staff were added, and programmatic responsibilities
continue to be shared across the Directorate. Working groups for EF
programs include both rotating and permanent staff. Transformative
research and broadening participation remain the cornerstone of EF
activities. Additionally, all of the Science and Technology Centers
within BIO are housed in EF and several new ones are on the way.

**Around the Table Comments:**

-   Possibilities for key-note speaker to address BIO AC and other
    Directorates

    -   Suggestions included Newt Gingrich and Jeff Nisbet

-   Suggestion to have lectures on synthetic biology at the next
    Advisory Committee

-   Recommendation for talks on long-term infrastructure at the next
    meeting

    -   Looking into database management and funding

    -   Movement towards free access might mandate for libraries to
        house these

-   Dr. Collins solicited help for finding candidates for new positions
    across BIO

-   Date for the Spring Advisory Committee Meeting set for April 17-18,
    2008

**The Fall Advisory Committee meeting was adjourned at 12:00 pm.**

APPROVED:

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

Michael Mares, Chair Date