Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences

**Advisory Committee Meeting Draft Minutes**

**May 9-10, 2002**

**Thursday, May 9, 2002**

Morning Session

# Welcoming Comments 

The MPSAC Chair, Dr. Billy Joe Evans, called the Mathematical and
Physical Sciences Advisory Committee (MPSAC) meeting to order at 8:30
A.M. He discussed the agenda briefly and asked that Fiona Goodchild give
her presentation, scheduled for 5:45 pm Thursday, as the concluding item
on the morning agenda.

The draft of the minutes of the April, 2001 meeting was approved subject
to some minor edits.

The Committee then adjourned and broke up into smaller groups to meet
with MPS Divisional staff.

# Learning Science and the Science of Learning 

At the conclusion of the meetings with MPS Divisional staff, Goodchild
gave a talk entitled "*Learning Science and the Science of Learning*".
She described a conference that she helped organize on "*Bringing
Research into Science Classroom*." This was the first national
conference on Research Experiences for Teachers (RET) and brought
together researchers and science teachers. The meeting focused on
outcomes of the RET program, best practices, and common lessons learned,
with presentations by K-12 teachers and by university faculty and
researchers. There were a number of hands-on demonstration lessons, as
well as poster presentations. The quality of all the presentations was
very high, and the work by the RET K-12 teachers was outstanding. The
program is having a very positive impact on K-12 teachers and how they
teach in the classroom.

In concluding her talk, Goodchild raised the issue of the parallel
investment by NSF in the science of learning by cognitive psychologists
and educational researchers (as evidenced by the recent National
Research Council (NRC) Report "*How People Learn*." While this research
presents a potentially rich opportunity to improve understanding, she is
concerned that this focus be integrated with the MPS interest in
learning science in specific disciplines, both at the K-12 and higher
education level. Educational research indicates that domain-specific
strategies have been more successful in educational settings, so she
expressed the hope that new proposals (such as those being submitted
through the current Mathematics and Science Partnership (MSP) Program
would pursue a balanced agenda.

During the discussion period following her presentation a question was
asked regarding the effect of RET experiences on career paths. After an
RET experience did teachers want to change from teaching to working in a
research or technology environment? Goodchild responded that there did
not appear to be a resultant drain on teaching, although the statistics
were not very good. Once again, there was sentiment for stronger
communication between MPS and the EHR directorate.

The Committee adjourned for lunch.

**Thursday, May 9, 2002**

## Afternoon Session

The Committee reconvened at 1:00 P.M.

*Update on NSF and MPS Activities*

Dr. Robert Eisenstein, Assistant Director for MPS, provided an update on
NSF and MPS activities.

Eisenstein outlined MPS activities associated with the NSF response to
the September 11, 2001 events. He noted that:

-   All NSF Directorates were asked for a list of the contributions to
    homeland security made by their communities.

-   Directorate inventories were assembled.

-   The MPSAC had provided a draft report for the MPS response to the
    Hart-Rudman report.

-   The MPS "*Reinvestment in Science and Engineering*" (RISE) document
    has evolved into a draft NSF-wide "RISE-N", where the N stands for
    national defense.

-   There have been a number of meetings between NSF/MPS and
    intelligence and defense agencies.

-   An inter-agency and community workshop is planned.

-   There will likely be additional joint initiatives, still to be
    determined.

Eisenstein then turned to a discussion of NSF's strategic goals, and
described MPS activities in the NSF Strategic Outcome Goals of *People*,
*Ideas*, and *Tools*.

*Ideas*: A number of emerging opportunities were being actively
explored. As examples Eisenstein discussed new physics of the universe,
quantum information science, laser manipulation of single molecules,
few-dimensional quantum systems, complexity and emergent behavior, the
physical sciences in biology and medicine, soft condensed matter
physics, and simulation (climate, environment).

*Tools*: Eisenstein provided updates on current facilities projects.
These included:

-   The National High Magnetic Field Laboratory (NHMFL). This received
    an in-depth review in mid-May, and the Laboratory is currently
    searching for a new director.

-   The Centre des Etudes de la Recherche Nucleaire (CERN) and the Large
    Hadronic Collider (LHC).

-   The Gemini Observatory.

-   The upgrade to the Very Large Array (VLA), just initiated.

-   The Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO). LIGO
    should obtain its first science observations in late 2002.

-   The Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA), which is entering the
    construction phase this year.

-   A detector for high-energy neutrinos emitted from events taking
    place in galactic or extragalactic sources (ICECUBE) to be located
    at the South Pole. This project received development funds in 2002.

Projects under consideration for future starts include the Rare Symmetry
Violating Processes (RSVP) at the Brookhaven Laboratories, the National
Underground Science Laboratory, the Grid Physics Network (GriPhyN), and
projects recommended by a recent National Research Council study on
"*Connecting Quarks with the Cosmos*."

*People*: Eisenstein noted that approximately 20,400 individuals are
supported by MPS. MPS spends over \$300,000,000 on graduate student and
post-doctoral training. MPS and the Education and Human Resources
Directorate (EHR) support the *Director's Awards for Distinguished
Teacher-Scholars*. Five recent recipients were from MPS disciplines.

There are a large number of education-related activities in MPS, some
carried out within MPS and some in cooperation with EHR. Examples of
activities primarily within MPS include Research Experiences for
Undergraduates (REU), Research Experiences for Teachers (RET), Research
in Undergraduate Institutions (RUI), Research Sites for Educators in
Chemistry (RSEC), MPS International Research Fellows, Math postdocs, and
Astronomy & Astrophysics postdoctoral fellowships. Some examples of
cooperative investments with EHR are: Centers for Learning and Teaching,
Digital Libraries, Distinguished Teaching Scholars, and Graduate K-12
activities.

Eisenstein reviewed some noteworthy activities in MPS Divisions and
across NSF. With respect to personnel, Dr. G. Wayne van Citters, Jr. had
recently been named the Division Director for Astronomical Sciences. Dr.
Art Ellis will join NSF this summer as the Division Director for
Chemistry. Dr. Philippe Tondeur, the Division Director for Mathematical
Sciences would be leaving in July 2002, and a search was underway for
his replacement.

The Division of Materials Research (DMR) is heavily occupied with a
Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers (MRSEC) competition.
Awards would be made by September 1, 2002. Eisenstein highlighted DMR's
international activities to enhance materials research in a number of
areas around the world.

Within the Division of Astronomical Sciences (AST) the recompetition for
the management of the National Optical Astronomy Observatories (NOAO)
and the National Solar Observatories (NSO) had just been completed. The
Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA) would
continue to manage the observatories for NSF, but there would be changes
in the oversight and governance structures. There had also been a review
of the Associated Universities, Incorporated (AUI) management of the
National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO). This had resulted in a very
strong recommendation to continue with AUI and not have a recompetition.

The National Research Council (NRC) Committee on the Management of
Research in Astronomy & Astrophysics (COMRAA) had submitted its report
in September 2001. NSF and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) had provided responses to the COMRAA
recommendations to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). There will
be enhanced cooperation and partnering between NSF and NASA, and a joint
advisory committee will be established.

Within the Division of Physics (PHY) four new Physics Frontiers Centers
(PFC) had been awarded in 2001. A competition is now underway for
centers that would start in 2002.

Eisenstein then discussed the NSF and MPS budget requests for FY 2003.
The FY 2003 budget request is up by \$21,000,000 (+2.3%) over FY 2002.
However, the budgets for most of the Divisions within MPS would be down
by a few percent in order to accommodate a 20% increase to Division of
Mathematical Sciences (DMS) for the NSF-wide Mathematical Sciences
priority area. Other NSF-wide priority areas in FY 2003 where MPS was
participating are: Biocomplexity, Information Technology Research (ITR),
Nanoscale Science and Engineering, and Learning for the 21^st^ Century
Workforce. Within the NSF-wide Mathematical Sciences priority area, the
emphasis is on connecting mathematics to other disciplines.

Eisenstein noted that MPS has not fared well over the years compared to
other organizational components of NSF.

He concluded his remarks by thanking those MPS/AC members who would be
departing after this meeting.

*Presentation and Discussion of the Division of Astronomical Sciences
Committee of Visitors Report*

The Chair of the Committee of Visitors (COV), Dr. Joseph Salah,
presented the COV report for the Division of Astronomical Sciences
(AST).

The COV had met for three days in early April to review FY 1999-2001
activities of AST. The COV was composed of a mix of university
researchers and members of National Laboratories. The Committee met with
Van Citters, AST's Division Director, (who provided an overview of
divisional activities and presented the AST strategic plan), Dr. Eileen
Friel, AST's Executive Officer, Dr. Robert Dickman, Head of AST's Radio
Astronomy Unit, and Dr. Vernon Pankonin, Head of AST's Grants Program
Unit. The COV also met with the rest of the AST staff. Salah noted that
the current AST Budget is about \$150,000,000 annually with
approximately \$50,000,000 being invested in individual investigator
awards.

Salah noted that the first impression made on the COV was the large
number of activities each staff member was involved with and had to
oversee. The COV felt that AST staff was spread very thin and this
over-commitment of staff resources was a vulnerability of the AST
division.

Salah then described activities within AST in terms of NSF's strategic
outcome goals.

*Ideas*: Some major discoveries made by the Astronomy community under
AST support included:

-   The observation of extra-solar planets, including the recent
    observation of two planets in a single extra-solar system.

-   The imaging of the cosmic microwave background emission.

-   The first detection of stellar acceleration near the galactic
    center, providing compelling evidence for a black hole at the center
    of our galaxy.

-   The discovery of a satellite orbiting an asteroid.

-   The seismic mapping of the surface of the Sun.

*Tools*: Salah noted that powerful observational tools had been brought
into service during the period 1999-2001. These included:

-   The Robert C. Byrd Green Bank 100-meter telescope.

-   The Gemini 8-meter telescopes in Hawaii and Chile, equipped with
    adaptive optics. In some wavelength regimes the Gemini telescopes
    have the resolving power of the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) but
    were built at a fraction of the cost of HST.

-   The upgraded Arecibo 305-meter telescope in Puerto Rico.

-   The Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA) 12-meter prototype had
    been built and NSF has approved construction of a 64-element array
    in Chile.

*People*: Salah noted that AST annually supports approximately 150
postdocs at universities or facilities. He described the Astronomy and
Astrophysics Fellowships, which were portable and included an
educational component. Ten awards had been made last year. The Division
supports approximately 300 graduate and 430 undergraduate students, and
he noted that 125 students were supported at 14 Research Experiences for
Undergraduates (REU) sites in the last year. Of these students, 50% were
women and 15% were from underrepresented minorities. He commented that
undergraduate students had made significant discoveries; including the
first discovery of radio emission from a brown dwarf (at Table Mountain
Observatory) and that a newly discovered asteroid was found to be, in
fact, a new comet.

In commenting on AST's public outreach efforts, Salah noted that AST had
provided support (jointly with the Physics Division) of an exhibit at
the Smithsonian entitled "*Exploring the Universe*." The Smithsonian has
approximately nine million visitors per year. There was heavy attendance
at visitor centers at all National Observatories, and AST had supported
the development of a small radio telescope that introduces radio
astronomy to students. The cost of this telescope was approximately
\$5,000, and 70 had been built.

The principle findings of the COV were that the integrity of the review
process was verified, the documentation within proposal jackets is
excellent, and the review panel system works and is effective, although
panelist selection is challenging. The COV felt that AST Division
Management is in good hands.

AST Staff are over-committed and spread thinly.

The COV had the following recommendations:

> *Recommendation 1:* An increase in staff for AST is urgent. Many new
> projects are starting within AST that will require staff support.
> Additional travel support is also needed. He noted that recruiting
> visiting scientists was difficult, and the COV endorsed the proposal
> for senior fellowships in science and public policy. These fellowships
> would provide two years of service at NSF followed by a two-year grant
> to the individual.

Salah noted that AST faces a number of challenges, including satisfying
the community priorities recommended in the National Academy of Sciences
Decadal Study. The new projects that are recommended require
technological development. In addition, there is a need for support of
other astronomical instrumentation (costing between \$5,000,000 and
\$10,000,000), and no mechanism for such support exists. In fact, there
is a need to develop a new process to deal with the funding of such
tools. This led to the second major recommendation of the COV:

> *Recommendation 2:* AST should develop an implementation plan with the
> funding required to support the prioritized initiatives.

Salah then discussed the AST response to NSF "broader impact" proposal
review criterion. The COV noted that some improvements had taken place
with respect to response by proposers and panelists to this criterion.
Program directors were more sensitive to this criterion, and there was
better documentation than in the past. This led to the third major
recommendation:

> *Recommendation 3:* AST should explore ways to enhance the community's
> response to the "broader impact" criterion. AST should clarify its
> meaning, emphasize its usefulness and importance, and encourage panels
> to consider this criterion.

With respect to program balance, the COV was favorably impressed. The
organizational changes within the Research Grants Program now allowed a
response to changing needs and program pressures. The research grants
show some increase in budget and success rates, but the size of grants
is still too small (approximately \$75,000 per year) and the
instrumentation needs of moderate size optical telescopes (diameters
less than four meters) remained a concern. There was a need for a common
travel policy to national astronomy facilities. This led to the fourth
major recommendation:

> *Recommendation 4:* A vital instrumentation program must be maintained
> for telescopes in the 4-meter class of national telescopes.

Finally, it was important that the astronomical community be aware of
the NSF-wide initiatives, which led recommendation 5:

> *Recommendation 5*: Clarify information about NSF initiatives for the
> community.

In the discussion that followed Salah's presentation, concern was
expressed about the credit accorded junior team members who may do the
bulk of the work in many grants. The concern involved the career
development and professional satisfaction of these "junior" team
members.

Eisenstein noted that staffing levels are a huge problem across the NSF.
The workload is near the breaking point. In many cases, proposals are
larger and more complex than they were in the past. This year there will
be an approximately 5% increase in staff across the NSF.

*Presentation and Discussion of the Division of Materials Research
Committee of Visitors Report*

Dr. Ralph Nuzzo of the University of Illinois presented the report. Dr.
Venky Narayanamurti, the Chair of the DMR COV, was unable to attend the
meeting.

In his overview, Nuzzo noted that issues that concerned the COV included
the integration of research and education, the participation of
underrepresented groups, the infrastructure for research and education,
the demonstration of the value of this research to society, the
Divisional program mix and progress made in the sciences supported by
DMR, and how DMR was addressing national needs.

The COV felt that DMR and its program officers were doing an outstanding
job, that DMR had responded to the issues raised by previous COVs, that
there had been progress on merit review process, and that the second NSF
merit review criterion (broader impact) was being addressed more
consistently. Program officers had met their responsibilities in a
magnificent manner, and additional staff had to be added to DMR staff.

Nuzzo noted that the COV did not have enough time to discuss the balance
of programs, *i.e*. individual investigators versus large centers. This
needed attention at the next COV meeting. He discussed the Division
Director's use of reserve funds, which are meant to foster broader
goals, encourage high-risk multidisciplinary projects, increase award
size, and encourage diversity. He described the COV process and noted
that the strict interpretation of the conflict-of-interest rules greatly
complicated the review process. In fact, it was the opinion of the COV
that it made the COV review process less effective.

Nuzzo then discussed the Nanotechnology Initiative and gave examples of
its applications in numerous scientific fields as well its potential
applications to national security, including sensing and response
systems.

Nuzzo noted that DMR had exhibited leadership in outreach to
international colleagues. With respect to award size and duration, there
had been an improvement over the past three years, but the median grant
size had remained approximately constant or had declined slightly. DMR
had a goal for a medium annual grant size of between \$130,000 and
\$150,000 per year, and a goal for grant duration of four years. This
should be implemented as soon as possible.

In the discussion that followed Nuzzo's presentation, it was noted that
a grant duration of three years was too short, as it compressed the
time-scale for discovery. On the other hand, a five-year grant matched
the "lifetime" of a graduate student. It was felt that the
conflict-of-interest rules were too restrictive, and detrimental to the
review process. The suggestion was made that presentations be
distributed prior to the COV meeting in order to give the COV an early
start. It was felt that DMR has done well at transferring the results of
its research programs to educational programs via the Materials Research
Science and Engineering Centers and the Research Experiences for
Undergraduate programs. But could one do better? Nuzzo commented that
scientists in this discipline did a good job of recruiting students, but
did not do such a good job at retention. There was a need for better
statistics.

*The Status of the NSF "Reinvestment Initiative in Science and
Engineering (RISE)" document.*

Mr. Curt Suplee, Head of the Office of Legislative and Public Affairs
(OLPA), reviewed the history of RISE. He noted that NSF could have
published the RISE document in the form in which it had originally be
presented, but the decision had been made to show other NSF Directorates
the document and ask them to provide equivalent information in order to
create an NSF-wide RISE. A mix of material was received that OLPA had to
try to merge. As a result of the terrorist attach in New York and
Washington on September 11, 2002, it was decided that a section on
homeland security had to be added. As a result, a first draft entitled
"*Reinvestment in Science, Engineering, and National Defense"* (RISE-N)
was created, and it had been distributed to NSF's advisory committees
for review. Suplee indicated that all reasonable suggestions would be
incorporated within the document.

A comment was made concerning the section in the draft RISE-N document
on the humanities, namely, that the emphasis seemed to be toward brains
and heredity. It was felt that another important thrust should be the
sociology of demographics and changing cultural evolution of global
populations.

Evans asked if the MPSAC could just publish the original RISE document.
Suplee thought that this would be inconsistent with FACA rules. Evans
asked if it would be okay to submit RISE and the Advisory Committee
report on recommendations for an MPS response to the Hart-Rudman report
to NSF leadership as a matter of record. Suplee offered to check with
OGC on this. Aizenman noted that the reports would be appended to
minutes of the meeting. It was pointed out that GEO has published an
"Opportunities" document, but it does not ask for budget enhancements.

The question was raised as to whether the MSPAC should improve the
submitted documents, or submit them in their current form. A discussion
ensued, and the sense of the committee was to proceed with submission of
both documents without further corrections.

Suplee asked that any changes to the broader RISE-N be sent to him for
inclusion. In conclusion he pointed out that the document is supposed to
be a consensus of all the advisory committees. Mathias asked what the
status of the MPSAC recommendations on responding to the Hart-Rudman
report would be if the MPSAC were to have rejected the report. The
document would then have had no standing and would have to be published
outside the context of the advisory committee.

Eisenstein said that MPS planned to submit the RISE document to the
Director and Deputy Director and indicate that it is now in its final
form. Therefore, it is a complete, on-the-record document that can be
referred to. If the MPSAC white paper on a recommended response to the
Hart-Rudman report were accepted, it would also be forwarded to the
Director and Deputy Director.

Discussion of the MPSAC recommendations for response to the Hart-Rudman
report was deferred until the following morning.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 P.M.

**Friday, May 10, 2002**

## Morning Session

The meeting reconvened at 8:30 A.M.

# Concluding Discussion on the COV Reports 

There was no further discussion of either of the two COV reports
presented the previous day, and the MPSAC accepted both reports as
presented.

Continuing Discussion of MPSAC Recommendations for the MPS Response to
the Hart-Rudman Report

Pemberton, a member of the subcommittee that drafted the
recommendations, led the discussion of the report. She commented that
within the draft a discussion of international aspects was missing, and
deserved consideration at some point. Bronson thought that the draft was
near final, and should be put out for discussion. Blandford felt there
should be discussion of differences between the draft and previous
versions. Pemberton responded some material had been added to the
report, but there had been no change in the recommendations. Salah
wondered about how other areas of NSF were discussing the Hart-Rudman
report, and perhaps it was worth coordinating the response from NSF.
Evans noted that the MPSAC RISE report actually preceded the Hart-Rudman
report. Both Appelquist and Eisenstein commented that the draft
recommendations took account of where there were interfaces with respect
to the Hart-Rudman report.

Pemberton asked for a motion that the draft recommendations be accepted.
Appelquist moved that the draft should be accepted, and Salah seconded
the motion. The motion was unanimously approved.

# Discussion of the Draft NSF "RISE-N" Report

The discussion then turned discussion of the first draft of the NSF-wide
"RISE-N" document. Goodchild felt that the education section was not
comprehensive. Bronson thought that the document should look to the
future, and not discuss past history. Blandford thought the organization
of the draft was confused. Weber said that the section on materials
research discussed nanotechnology, but areas of this field were missing.
Blandford felt that areas other than cosmology should be included in the
discussion about astronomy, and Pemberton noted that there was no
discussion of the field of chemistry. Evans was concerned about the lack
of vision within the document. Salah felt that this was an important
document about NSF, but the present draft did not do a good job of
articulating NSF contributions to different areas such as national
security. Tyson concurred, noting that the document should describe how
past NSF basic, fundamental research leads to the next layer of creative
products, how NSF has contributed to national security, etc.

Evans turned to the questions of MPS involvement in international
programs. Mathias felt that it was appropriate to give attention to this
at the next meeting MPSAC meeting.

### Update on GPRA Activities

Aizenman thanked the Advisory Committee for its contributions to the
GPRA report. He provided the MPSAC with an update on current Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) activities within NSF. NSF intended
to create an Advisory Committee for GPRA Performance Assessment (ACGPA)
that would review performance of all of NSF with respect to the NSF GPRA
Strategic Outcome Goals. MPSAC and other NSF Directorate Advisory
Committees would no longer be doing an assessment of the performance of
the Directorate with respect to NSF's Strategic Outcome Goals. At
present, OMB was considering whether to permit NSF to adopt this
approach, but there have been no negative comments on this approach at
this point. Committees of Visitors would continue to review Divisional
activities with respect to process, quality, and other Divisional
activities, but would not be doing an assessment of performance with
respect to Strategic Outcome Goals. OMB was also looking into
alternative forms of science and engineering assessment. Blandford
acknowledged the need for assessment and suggested that a international
viewpoint should be considered, i.e. what is the assessment of
individuals who have no involvement with NSF?

# Reports on Division Meetings

*Division of Astronomical Sciences (AST):* Tyson stated that he had
little to report beyond what had been noted in the COV report. He
commented on the severity of staffing issue, the concern about budget,
the impact of NSF initiatives on the core programs, and the recently
completed astronomy decadal survey. With respect to the survey,
Blandford, commenting on the survey, pointed out that it is primarily a
matter of going down a priority list and doing what can be done within
budget and staff constraints. Siegmund noted there was tension between
the budget approaches, with positive and negative aspects in promoting
new funds and keeping the core basic research on a solid footing.

*Division of Physics (PHY):* Appelquist expressed similar concerns to
those given during the AST discussion. The core budgets within the
Physics were feeling stressed.

*Division of Chemistry (CHE)*: Brisbois noted that workload was an issue
within the division and CHE staff was overloaded. FastLane has helped to
reduce the support staff workload, but not the Program Directors'
workload. Two key themes had been raised during the divisional
discussion:

> 1\) Building and fostering agility for emerging opportunities.
>
> 2\) Building stronger ties to the chemistry community and related
> areas through the use of workshops as well as developing cross-agency
> partnerships.

CHE was considering bringing reviewers together via teleconferencing to
assist with proposal decisions. As in AST and PHY, there was concern
over preservation of core research while participating in targeted
areas. There was a need to evaluate and compare single Principal
Investigator awards compared to collaborative, multiple Principal
Investigator projects. The success rate in CHE was at a very low level,
approximately 30%. There was concern about how NSF-wide goals of larger
grant size and longer grant duration would affect the success rate for
grants.

Brisbois commented that CHE needs to think about how the chemistry
community can/should participate in MRE projects. Undergraduate
institutions need to be reminded about instrumentation opportunities and
the positive effects of having low cost, small size, robust equipment
such as spectrometers and gas chromatographs. The NSF broader impacts
criterion is still an issue within the chemistry community; and CHE can
do more to help the community understand it as an opportunity rather
than a barrier. CHE could probably do more to facilitate interactions
between potential employers and students. He noted that one could
improve on the chemistry curriculum by introducing nanoscale phenomena
in early courses, that a lot of modern molecular science could be
introduced early to inspire more interest in a career in chemistry.
Finally he discussed the need for definition of a vision for operation
of the CHE Division. The concept that had been discussed was a plan to
develop this through the enumeration of grand challenges in chemistry,
and then to relate program actions to these grand challenges.

# MPS Interactions with EHR

Dr. John Hunt, Deputy Assistant Director for Integrative Activities
within the Education and Human Resources Directorate (EHR) presented an
overview of opportunities in learning research, and the need for
stronger connections and involvement between educators and science and
mathematics faculty. He felt there is much taking place in the
in-service aspect of teaching and learning, but not nearly enough
activity of MPS-related academics in the pre-service part of teaching
and learning. He noted that there was a request for \$40,000,000 for
this in the budget next year, and there was a need to have top-line
researchers involved in modifying current courses, setting the agenda,
and conducting learning research. EPSCoR co-funding is available and
being utilized. Good cooperation there, but need to go further. There
was a need for increased funding for research in undergraduate education
in mathematics and science. EHR spends the bulk of undergraduate
education funds on curriculum development. Research on how people learn
is badly needed. Collaborative research among physical scientists and
psychologists would be welcomed. There is a need to work together to get
more funds allocated to undergraduate education research. However, at
present very few collaborative proposals are being received.

Bronson asked about the participation of first-tier research
institutions in these activities. Hunt said he would provide data at a
future meeting. Tyson asked whether society would ever be happy with
contemporary teaching and went on to note that the individual teacher is
probably the most important factor in inspiring learning. Hunt agreed.
Goodchild noted that it is important for MPS to be involved in setting
the research agenda, rather than just reacting to one set by EHR. Hunt
responded that EHR is striving to go in that direction as well.

Mathias noted that it would be desirable to have physical science
researchers on education proposal evaluation panels, and many would be
willing to serve. Hunt agreed. With respect to the MPS Research
Experiences for Teachers (RET) activity, Hunt noted that it provides
teachers with a feeling of being part of the research community and this
aids in their teaching effectiveness. There was a need to expand to give
this excitement, and identity building, to many more teachers. Evans
noted that education and research should be raised to equivalent levels
in our thinking and activities. Goodchild said that exchange of advisory
committee members could help in improving the EHR/MPS connection.
Pemberton pointed out that the research communities feel that there are
important educational issues not being addressed, and there is a need
for more jointly defined educational activities involving disciplinary
inputs.

Following this discussion the Advisory Committee turned to a
determination of topics it would discuss with its meeting with NSF's
Deputy.

## *Luncheon Meeting with NSF Deputy Director Dr. Joseph Bordogna*

Evans welcomed Dr. Joseph Bordogna, Deputy Director of the National
Science Foundation. Evans noted that the topics they wished to discuss
with him included the COV reports for the Division of Astronomical
Sciences and the Division of Materials Research, the MPS budget, MPS-EHR
interactions, staffing issues, the MPSAC RISE document and MPSAC
recommendations on an MPS response to the Hart-Rudman reports, the
status of the NSF-wide RISE-N document, and data issues.

Evans said that the COV reports on the Division of Astronomical Sciences
and the Division of Materials Research were excellent. Significant
levels of achievements are noted in both reports. The MPSAC has accepted
these reports.

Bordogna commented on the importance of the COV process and stated that
external review by the community is very much appreciated.

Appelquist expressed the concerns of MPS about the relatively small size
of the FY03 request for MPS. He asked Bordogna about what the prospect
was for future NSF budgets and about the relations between NSF and the
Congress.

Bordogna agreed that the budget request was not as high as he would like
it to be, but noted that the recent authorization bill passed by the
House included a15% budget increase aimed at a doubling of the NSF
budget. He said that the attitude of Congress towards NSF was positive
and it was likely that any funds in excess of the current 5% increase in
the budget request would be allocated to core activities. He felt that
the budget passed by Congress might be 9% to 10% over the current fiscal
year 2002 budget. Typically, Congress wants to increase the budget over
the amount allocated in the President's budget. The NSF Director must
present the President's budget as adequate.

Salah wondered why the MPS request was so low. Bordogna responded that
the doubling of the mathematics budget was one reason. Salah stated he
understood that the increase in the mathematics budget was from
additional funds, not from funds allocated to other divisions. Bordogna
replied that this was a management decision that should not be precluded
by the actual increase in the budget authorized by Congress. It was not
a reflection of any selective interest but reflected a general interest
across NSF in increasing the budget for mathematics. Additional funds
might come from the announced transfer of new programs to NSF. This
transfer may not happen, but NSF may get to keep the money for such
transfers. A member of the MPSAC noted that the MPS request was an
increase is 2.3% compared to an overall increase in the NSF of five
percent. Bordogna stated that the five percent figure included funds
from programs that were proposed to be transferred to NSF (EPA
fellowships, Smithsonian, *etc*.). Without the transfer the actual
increase in the request for NSF is three percent.

Siegmund asked what would happen if NSF were to get a 10% increase.
Bordogna said that funds in excess of the current budget allocation
would go to core activities, as opposed to priority areas. The budget is
split roughly 52% core and 48% priority areas.

Tyson asked about the political dynamics in the coming years. Bordogna
said we needed to make the point that the budget for the entire NSF
budget should be increased. We needed to make the case that the U.S.
needed world-class scientists, engineers, and educators.

Tyson asked how NSF could influence the Executive Branch. Bordogna
replied that the Executive Branch was very positive about NSF.

Evans noted that here were not enough interactions between EHR and MPS.
Goodchild commented that today there is more focus on the science of
learning. The MPSAC was concerned that within NSF there was a generic
approach being applied to the agenda in this area without input from
mathematicians and scientists. After the fact, they are asked to join in
to show that the approach is credible.

Bordogna responded that all of NSF must be involved in the integration
of research and education. This is not easy and the difficulties are
sometime exacerbated in the budget process since EHR is given a special
status. He noted that Eisenstein had done an excellent job as Assistant
Director in this area. NSF is interested in integrating Research and
Education. EHR activities had to be integrated but, unfortunately, this
is not always reflected in the budget. He noted that while the EHR
budget was about \$700 million, the People Strategic Outcome Goal budge
was \$1 billion. The mathematics and science partnerships initiative had
involved all of NSF, not just EHR. In the last 15 years, many
disciplines have collaborated to produce substantial advances in the
science of learning. This was a focused intellectual research issue
different from other education issues and MPS should be involved in the
Science of Learning Centers.

The discussion than turned to staffing issues within MPS. Salah told
Bordogna that he had chaired the Astronomy Committee of Visitors and
that he was impressed by the process and by the high quality of the
staff. The role of the Program Officers today was much more complex than
it used to be. Not only do they have to deal with proposals, they must
deal with large facilities and national and international interactions.
The level of staffing was inadequate.

Bordogna agreed. He said that while proposal processing used to be the
principal activity of Program Officers, their duties have become much
more complex. Several years ago, during the Clinton administration,
there was a drive to reduce the number of personnel. However, Congress
has now asked NSF whether it required more staff. In the current budget
request NSF has requested an increase of 50 persons, and the budget
request includes an increase in the Staff and Expenses line item of nine
percent. NSF may get an additional 17 FTE from the proposed agency
transfers.

The discussion then turned to a discussion of the MPS RISE and the
NSF-wide draft reports. Evans noted that the MPSAC had formally
transmitted the RISE to the MPS leadership. The MPS had also formally
transmitted to the MPS leadership the white paper making recommendations
to MPS on how to respond to the Hurt-Rudman Report. A team led by Dr.
William Pulleyblank had prepared the MPSAC recommendations.

Siegmund applauded the NSF-wide effort shown in the preparation of the
draft RISE-N document. However, it was still far from being a finished
document. It needed more scientific input. He suggested that it should
go to a subcommittee made up of members from advisory committees across
the NSF. The document needed added perspective in structure and
examples. Tyson asked what the document was trying to do? Was this more
on "science is good for security?" He said that NSF needed to show a
reaction to the September 11 events that was much more than just the
usual "science is good for security." He suggested that NSF point out
examples of activities that had started out as basic research and are
now protecting the US. Siegmund was in favor of the original RISE
document with the 9/11 modifications, and Evans commented that was
needed was a team of people with a vision to produce a document in a
short time.

Tyson argued that NSF must look engaged, and not irrelevant.

Bordogna asked that these views be articulated in the minutes.

Bronson commented on the lack of demographic student data and felt that
NSF needed to gather such data. For example, how many students who are
graduate students become graduate students, or how many graduate
students become postdocs? He noted that he had recently been on a search
committee for a faculty member. They had received 150 applications, of
which they considered 125. There was only one U.S. citizen. Bordogna
noted that the collection of demographic data was difficult.

# Search for a new Assistant Director of MPS

Bordogna said that the MPS Assistant Director, Bob Eisenstein, was
stepping aside after almost five year as MPS in order to return to
research. NSF needed to begin a search for a new Assistant Director, and
the MPSAC should be involved in the search process. NSF needed to build
upon Eisenstein's leadership, his holistic MPS vision, his role
establishing partnerships with other federal agencies and his leadership
role within senior NSF management. Personnel searches of this type were
always difficult. NSF and MPS needed an Assistant Director respected
within the NSF and MPS community.

Evans thanked Bordogna, and said that MPS has been a team, an organism,
headed by Bob Eisenstein. He thanked Eisenstein for his gifted
leadership, inspired commitment, high standards, and the effective
management that characterized his work at NSF.

Eisenstein responded that he had been grateful to have had the privilege
of serving NSF and the MPS community. The work had at times been
exhausting, but it had also been fun and rewarding. When he had come to
NSF ten years ago, he had been convinced that the public money invested
in science by the NSF was the best public money spent by the Federal
Government. He now had an even deeper believe that this was the case.
The science community was an unparalleled national resource and it was
absurd that sometimes one had to work hard to justify science. He had
worked with a truly wonderful and dedicated staff and was delighted with
the Committee of Visitors recognition of the quality and dedication of
MPS staff. The success of MPS was due to the extraordinary people who
work here. He thanked the MPSAC and MPS staff for ten years of effort
and friendship.

# Continuation of Reports on Divisional Meetings

# Division of Materials Research (DMR): Goodchild noted that since the COV report had been presented, and since the COV had three MPSAC members, no further discussion was needed on the DMR COV. She did note that the GPRA format was not easy to execute. It was pointed out that there is a new plan to assign the GPRA evaluation to a new NSF-wide committee, thus freeing the COVs to focus on the audit of actions, balance issues, and a review of other factors involved in a division's business.

Goodchild discussed the enhanced interactions between MPS and the
Directorate for Biological Sciences (BIO), including the MPS-BIO working
group, a new program for interdisciplinary postdocs, an idea related to
mid-career sabbaticals and more co-reviews.

Goodchild discussed the issue of "focus area" versus "core" funding. In
particular, DMR had benefited from the Information Technology Research
(ITR) and Nanotechnology initiatives. Weber commented that programs
outside the focus areas were experiencing declining budgets. Goodchild
added that initiative solicitations were not explicit about education.
The solicitations could have presented a better case for education and
workforce.

Dr. Hollis Wickman, a Program Director within DMR, described the
database he had developed describing summaries of accomplishments by
grantees and centers.

# Division of Mathematical Sciences (DMS): Chan reported that mathematics is an NSF priority area and there were now many new activities and initiatives. During the divisional meeting, the group had discussed how DMS would use the new resources. These investments would be made in fundamental math, interdisciplinary math, and education, all of which are connected.

In FY 2002, the investment of the additional \$30 million will be
distributed as follows: \$10 million would go into grants to individual
principal investigators (PIs), \$10 million into the Vertical
Integration of Graduate Research Education (VIGRE) program for graduate
students and postdocs, and \$10 million into grants for
interdisciplinary products. The average grant award size would be
increased.

It was noted that, relative to 10 years ago, the scope of DMS program
activities had increased, but that the number of DMS staff had not.
About one-third of the DMS staff is new to NSF, and DMS has been
successful in recruiting people to serve as IPAs.

Another urgent issue discussed was the search for a new division
director. An search committee with Tony Chan as chair had been
appointed.

Chan discussed the new Mathematics Institutes. A competition had just
been completed, and four new proposed institutes have been selected.
Approximately ten percent of DMS funds (about \$15 million per year)
were being invested in Mathematics Institutes.

A major activity within DMS is support of the 31 VIGRE sites. Each is
supported at a level of up to \$1,000,000 per year. The funds go
primarily for graduate students and postdocs. The VIGRE program seeks to
stimulate education and culture changes needed to renew the field. There
was much skepticism initially, because it was seen as a drain on PI
grants. However, it has been shown that VIGRE already has had
significant human resources in the field. Now, US students graduating
with doctorates in mathematics can get junior positions at highly rated
institutions. Although the trend in the enrolment of mathematics
graduate students still showed a decline, partly because of the economy,
the VIGRE program has had an impact by enabling graduate students to
become research assistants rather than teaching assistants. This has had
a very positive effect on students entering the field.

Chan noted that DMS was involved in many interdivisional,
inter-directorate, and interagency initiatives. He also discussed
planned increases in grant size and success rates in CAREER proposals.
Tondeur pointed out that DMS is discussing a project to digitize the
entire mathematics literature of the world. This project could be a
pilot for other MPS disciplines.

#### The Environmental Research and Education Decadal Plan

Dr. Margaret Cavanaugh began the discussion indicating that she was
representing Stephanie Pfirman and the NSF Advisory Committee on
Environmental Research and Education (AC/ERE). This committee has been
developing a *Ten Year Agenda for NSF Environmental Research and
Education*, which provides the basis for bringing in ideas from the
various scientific communities in order to chart future directions that
will enhance the NSF portfolio in environmental research and education
over the next decade. NSF currently has a fairly extensive portfolio of
approximately \$825M both within and across its various divisions.

The Agenda represents the interests of NSF and will avoid overlap with
other federal funding agencies. The Agenda will build on existing
guidance available to NSF including the NSB report on the *Environment
in the 21^st^ Century* and the NRC enunciation of the *Grand Challenges*
affecting the environment. The intent of the Agenda is to set up a
framework for various communities to participate to eventually generate
specifics pertaining to programs and budgets. The purposes of the agenda
are to provide a framework plan that will: 1) describe the current NSF
environmental portfolio, 2) identify ways NSF-wide integration can
enhance its current investments, and 3) identify opportunities for
future investments.

The timeline for development of the *Ten Year Agenda for NSF
Environmental Research and Education* is to post an initial discussion
draft on the web as early as May 13, 2002, which will be vetted by the
various scientific communities involved in environmental research and
education over a period of 90 days. Discussions will involve the
National Science Board and the NSF Advisory Committees, other federal
agencies (the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy,
the National Institutes of Health, *etc*.), scientific professional
societies, nongovernmental organizations, international organizations,
and NSF staff. The web document will also allow members of the general
public to submit comments online. In the following two months (mid
August to mid October), a written report and brochure will be prepared
for printing. The AC/ERE will then spend several days reviewing and
approving these documents, which will then be discussed with the NSF
Advisory Committees. The documents will then be submitted to the NSF
clearance process.

The draft outline, which will shortly be available on the Internet,
consists of four parts:

1\) An introduction that outlines why NSF should act now, provides the
context and framework for the agenda as an effort to formulate what NSF
considers important in the environmental area in order to synthesize
ideas in environmental research and education and to integrate
interdisciplinary approaches.

2\) Environmental research frontiers for 2003-2012 including the human
impact on natural systems, biological and physical systems, and the
interaction between people and technology. Four of the broad areas at
the frontiers of environmental research include land, human health,
freshwater resources and environmental change, and environmental
services and valuation. In each frontier area, current disciplinary
and/or current portfolio examples will be provided followed by an
indication of some of the opportunities for integrated approaches.

3\) Building capacity to address environmental research challenges
including environmental education and the environmental workforce as
well as the scientific infrastructure and technical capacity.

4\) Conclusion. The Agenda will endeavor to couple intellectual
endeavors that cross disciplinary boundaries and foresee the development
of an infrastructure that would raise all the boats in environmental
research.

In concluding, Cavanaugh pointed out that disciplinary work remains
important and is necessary to assist interdisciplinary activities.
Members of the AC/ERE have stated that the educational component of the
Agenda be strong and address diversity issues. It is likely that the
Agenda will include significant opportunities for participation by NSF
Divisions such as Chemistry, Mathematical Sciences, Materials Research
and others in addition to the geological sciences and biology.

In the discussion that followed, Dr. Donald Burland of the Division of
Chemistry said that he found the AC/ERE to be very open to input from
various organizations. Brisbois said that the Agenda was both readable
and of a reasonable length and urged those present to encourage their
friends and colleagues to read it and submit comments. Goodchild
wondered whether ERE would address curriculum issues in environmental
education. Where in the curriculum would ERE match current standards?
California is considering raising earth science to a legitimate
laboratory science course.

Cavanaugh indicated that ERE was exploring areas of curriculum as well
as public outreach including that to museums. There is also the question
of whether environmental education should be spread throughout the
curriculum or concentrated in courses.

Tyson asked how NSF would avoid the problem of environmental endeavors
becoming a political football. Cavanaugh said that environmental issues
have generally not been associated with NSF and basic science. The issue
as to how NSF identifies its research with the environment is an
important one. NSF will have discussions with Congress and other
agencies to clarify how NSF can stay clear of "hot button" issues and
provide the pertinent research that would be relevant to informed public
decisions.

Tyson asked if there would be a funding program, and, if so, where it
would reside. Cavanaugh responded that it was an important question that
would be discussed by NSF staff in the Fall. NSF will have to determine
which programs will need enhancement. Environmental education
discussions are already underway. There are interactions between social,
biological, geological, and other science issues. Hopefully, there will
be community workshops to flesh out major areas.

Eisenstein asked if international participation would be included.
Cavanaugh replied that international participation would be included
through partnerships. There is direct language about this in the draft
concerning global collaboration networks, regional cooperation and
efforts to enable students to work on environmental research worldwide.

*Other Business*

Dr. Eisenstein thanked the four members of the MPSAC who were departing
after having concluded their terms of service on the MPSAC. MPSAC
members were asked to recommend candidates willing to be considered as
replacements for those leaving the MPSAC. Philippe Tondeur was thanked
for his three years of service as Division Director/DMS. Agenda topics
for the next MPSAC meeting would include international activities within
MPS, and MPS liaison with EHR.

# Adjournment

The MPSAC meeting was adjourned at 3:15 P.M.