Title:  Preliminary Report of the May 6,7, 1999 Meeting
Date:   May 7, 1999

NSB-99-90

May 7, 1999

MEMORANDUM TO:  National Science Board Members and Consultants

SUBJECT:  Preliminary Report of the May 6,7, 1999 Meeting

The major actions of the Board at its 353rd meeting on May 6,7, 1999,
are summarized for the information of those members and consultants
absent and as a reminder to those present.

1. Board Actions

a. Five Board members were sworn in to terms ending in 2004:  Dr. George
Langford, Dr. Joseph Miller, Dr. Robert Richardon, Dr. Maxine Savitz,
Dr. Luis Sequeira.

b. The Board elected Dr. Claudia Mitchell-Kernan and Dr. Warren
Washington to the Executive Committee.

c. The Board approved a statement on cost-sharing principles (NSB 99-80)
as revised (Attachment).

d. Subject to additional information on the issue, the Board authorized
the Executive Committee to approve a Board Statement in opposition to
Senate Bill 887, a proposal to establish a moratorium on foreign
visitors to the Department of Energy Nuclear laboratories.

e. The Board adopted a recommendation allowing the NSF Director to seek
Congressional approval to present more than one Alan T. Waterman Award
each year.

f. The Chair of the Executive Committee, NSF Director Rita R. Colwell,
presented the annual report of the Executive Committee to the Board.

g. The Board agreed to approve the calendar for meetings in 2000 after a
final review at the July NSB meeting.  Members were urged to review
their calendars and notify the NSB Office of dates in 2000 with
conflicts.

h. The Board approved the Closed and Open Session minutes of the
February 17,18, 1999 meeting and the March 25,26, 1999 meeting.

Awards

The Board approved the following awards:                     Amount not
                                                             to exceed

Mathematical and Physical Sciences

Division of Mathematical Sciences
Operation of the Mathematical Sciences Research
Institute (MSRI)
Berkeley, California                                        $17,000,000
(NSB-99-72)                                                for 60 months

Division of Astronomical Sciences
Operation of the National Astronomical
and Ionosphere Center (NAIC)                                $58,926,000
Cornell University                                          for 60 months
(NSB 99-77)

Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences

Division of International Programs
The U.S. Civilian Research and Development                   $10,000,000
Foundation for the Independent States of the              for five years;
Former Soviet Union (CRDF)                                not to exceed
$2,500,000 in any one year.  Any NSF-appropriated
funds transferred to CRDF should be directed so that there is clear
traceability to the specific research supported.

1.  NSB Committees

(Materials for committee summaries are provided by executive
secretaries.)

The Chairman established a new committee, the Committee on Communication
and Outreach, chaired by Dr. Greenwood, with members Drs. Langford,
Menger, Savitz, Suzuki and Tien, with Ms. Mary Hanson of the Office of
Legislative and Public Affairs as Executive Secretary.  The Committee is
asked to report a plan of action to the Board at its November 17, 18
1999 meeting.

Committee Reports

a. Executive Committee

The Executive Committee discussed items related to the May meeting
agenda, approved the committee's annual report, as required by law, and
discussed changes proposed by the Director to the Alan T. Waterman
Award.  The committee discussed the NSF FY 2001 budget preparations and
reviewed plans for Executive Committee approval of the FY 2001 budget
during the July-August timeframe.

b. Audit & Oversight (A&O)

i. Supervisory

The committee discussed the Inspector General's Semiannual Report for
the period ending March 31, 1999, with the Chairman and committee
members.  The committee took no exception to the IG's report and agreed
on the contents of the NSB Management Letter, which will transmit the
report to the Congress on or before June 1, 1999.  Mr. Sunshine gave an
overview of the Inspector General Act and described OIG's Mission,
Vision, and Goals for the benefit of new Committee members.

Regular

Ms. Linda Massaro provided a Y2K Update: NSF systems are on track and
compliant.

Dr. Bordogna reviewed the background for the NSF Cost Sharing Policy
Action Item.

The A & O committee recommended NSB approval.  (Item approved by full
NSB with minor change.)

Mr. Kull provided copies of the recently issued 1998 NSF Accountability
Report.  It is akin to a "Shareholders' Report" to the Congress, OMB and
the public, including both performance and accounting information.  He
also noted that NSF's financial statements received a clean accounting
opinion from the independent auditors and praise from Congress.  Mr.
Herer,

Dr. Hopkins and Mr. Sunshine provided a detailed briefing on NSF's GPRA
efforts.  The first official GPRA Performance Report is due in March,
2000.  The committee wants to assure that the NSB has adequate time to
review the draft report.  NSF staff will make material available for
review as soon as feasible.

c. Education and Human Resources (EHR)

After discussion, the committee unanimously recommended approval of the
EHR Hearings Summary Report and recommended a wide distribution.  A
briefing on funding and review profiles was presented to the Committee
and the NSF cost sharing policy was outlined.  Dr. Williams discussed
unmet needs and opportunities with the committee in a presentation that
focused on the "21st Century Workforce."

The committee discussed a draft framework for NSB/EHR committee
priorities and workplan as part of its consideration of the EHR
Strategic Plan.  The policy area: K-16 Education Strategies was given
top priority.  The committee charged NSF staff with the task of
preparing a concept paper that could lead to a symposium on the topic.
In executive session, the committee was briefed on student achievement
data set analyses from EHR's Division of Educational System Reform and
on changes in the organization of the EHR Directorate.

d. Programs and Plans (CPP)

The committee discussed the draft findings and recommendations of the
Task Force on the Environment.  CPP discussed eleven keystone
recommendations ranging across research, education, scientific
assessment, physical infrastructure, technological infrastructure, and
information infrastructure.  The task force is also refining
recommendations on partnerships and on international aspects.  CPP
accepted the summary of findings and recommendations, with minor edits,
and recommended that they be shared with the NSB along with the full
report of the task force, for comment, as soon as available.

The committee reviewed and approved two action items for consideration
by the NSB:  Operation of the National Astronomy and Ionospheric Center
(NAIC) (NSB-99-77), and the Mathematical Sciences Research
Institute(NSB-99-72).  CPP also reviewed and approved the action item
for the U.S. Civilian Research and Development Foundation for the
Independent States of the Former Soviet Union (CRDF), with a revised NSB
resolution to provide that any NSF-appropriated funds transferred to
CRDF should be directed so that there is clear traceability to the
specific research supported.

The committee received a presentation on the NSF cost sharing policy
statement, which had been discussed in the Audit and Oversight
Committee.  The committee agreed that it would be good to review the
effect of the policy after it has been implemented, perhaps in three
years.

CPP continued its discussion of infrastructure planning, which has been
a topic at recent Committee meetings.  Presentations included brief
descriptions of ongoing projects in the Major Research Equipment (MRE)
account, projects proposed for MRE funding in FY 2001, and potential
future projects.  There was also a presentation and discussion on
proposed changes in the definition of infrastructure.

The committee's final item of business was a presentation on planning
for the initiative on Information Technology for the Twenty-first
Century (IT2).

e. Task Force on the Environment (TFE)

Dr. Jane Lubchenco said that the report of the Task Force on the
Environment is nearing completion, and members will be receiving a copy
for comment.  The task force intends to bring a final report to the
Board at the July NSB meeting for approval.

g.	Science and Engineering Indicators (SEI)

Ms. Jennifer Bond led a discussion of external peer review for S & E
Indicators-2000.  Dr. William Blanpied briefed the committee on the
draft of Chapter 1-Science and Technology in Times of Transition: the
1940's and 1990's, including comments received from external reviewers.
The subcommittee recommended that more information be provided on
Science in the National Interest and the Ehlers Report.  Also discussed
were possible ways to incorporate into Chapter 1 more of the actual
progress in selected areas of basic scientific research.  SRS staff is
investigating possibilities, which could include coverage of Nobel Prize
winning areas of research.

The report Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science
and Engineering: 1998 (NSF 99-338) (released on May 6) was provided to
Board members.  The report documents both short- and long-term trends in
the participation of women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in
science and engineering education and employment.

h. International S&E Issues (ISE)

The Task Force on International Science and engineering Issues approved
a work plan that will make it possible to present a draft report to the
NSB at its May 2000 meeting.  An initial information gathering phase
will be followed by hearings.  The first hearing will be scheduled for
July 30, coinciding with the next NSB meeting, on the theme, "modes of
interaction".  Due to the absence of several task force members, no
decision was made on specific dates for future hearings.

The task force reviewed other studies relating to international S&E and
discussed what the Task Force report should address.  The task force
decided to focus first on what should be done, and then on the context
for implementation.  Hearings with other U.S. Government agencies will
pay special attention to how other agencies integrate international
concerns with other programs.  Hearings will be organized thematically,
and the selection of speakers will represent a wide diversity of
perspectives, including, for example, academia, industry, science
counselors from foreign embassies and representatives of multilateral
organizations.

i. Ad Hoc Committee on Strategic S&E Policy Issues (SPI)

The committee heard a presentation from Dr. Bruce Don, Director of the
Science and Technology Policy Institute at RAND, on the RaDiUS database
as it might be employed for budget coordination and priority setting.

Donna Fossum and David Trinkle from STPI provided a short demonstration
of the RaDiUS database.  They discussed with committee members the
potential for using RaDiUS to measure the status and outputs of Federal
research funding.  The committee next discussed the scope of the study
and agreed to a draft framework for the report on the first phase of the
committee's work.  A proposed timetable was discussed and accepted.

Members agreed to review the draft workplan distributed at the meeting
and to submit their comments to the committee's Executive Secretary.

j. NSB 50th Anniversary Task Force

Dr. Warren Washington reported in the absence of Vera Rubin, Chair, that
the Task Force held a April 29, 1999 conference call at which the Task
Force approved (1) the statement of work for a commemorative report on
the 50th anniversary of the NSB.  The commemorative will be written by a
science journalist and will include a celebration of the Board's
accomplishments and showcase the returns on the Nation's investment in
research.  The commemorative will be completed and distributed by
December 2000; (2) the idea that a historian of science write the NSB
historical monograph, which will take 2-3 years to complete.  The
project will be initiated in FY 2000; (3) received an update on the
naming of an asteroid to commemorate the NSF/NSB 50th anniversary.  Vera
Rubin is working with Carolyn Shoemaker to obtain approval of a proposed
name.  In the absence of that approval, there will be a NSF-wide contest
to name the asteroid; and (4) approved the location of the December 2000
50th anniversary celebration (at the Carnegie Institution of Washington)
and the general concept of the event.

Other Business

The Director announced that on May 6 the Senate confirmed Dr. Chang-Lin
Tien as a member of the National Science Board, and Dr. Joseph Bordogna
as Deputy Director of the National Science Foundation.

________________
Marta Cehelsky
Executive Officer
Attachment:  NSB-99-92

NSB-99-92
Attachment to NSB-99-90
PROPOSED

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
POLICY STATEMENT on COST SHARING

DEFINITION

Cost sharing is defined in OMB Circular A-110.1  For NSF purposes, and
consistent with A-110, it  also includes and is synonymous with the term
"matching."  For NSF, cost sharing should be used with reference only to
quantifiable and auditable contributions from non-NSF (and non-Federal)
sources to NSF-supported activities.   In the case of in-kind
contributions, a quantifiable and auditable value must be established.

NSF has a variety of informal ways in which it partners and leverages
resources from other sources.  While necessary and important in many
programs, these do not constitute "cost sharing" as NSF defines the
term.

POLICY

In accordance with Congressional requirements, NSF requires that each
grantee share in the cost of NSF research projects resulting from
unsolicited proposals. These requirements may be met by the recipient
through cost sharing a minimum of one percent on the project or by cost
sharing a minimum of one percent on the aggregate costs of all
NSF-supported projects subject to the statutory requirements. The Grant
Proposal Guide (GPG)(Sec. II.7.l) and the Grant Policy Manual (Sec. 330)
provide additional information as to these requirements.

In addition to the statutory requirements, NSF can require cost sharing
when we believe there is tangible benefit to the award recipient(s)
(normally beyond the immediate term or scope of the NSF-supported
activity).  Benefit is defined in terms of capacity building, potential
dollar revenues, time frames, or third party users.  NSF-funded
activities that are characterized by such benefits are awards for
infrastructure-building purposes (instrumentation/equipment/
centers/facilities) or for awards where there is clear potential to make
profit or generate income (e.g. curriculum development).

PRINCIPLES

NSF-Required (Non-Statutory) Cost Sharing

        -NSF cost sharing requirements beyond the statutory requirement
        will be clearly stated in the program announcement, solicitation
        or other mechanism which generates proposals to the program.
        NSF-required cost sharing is considered an eligibility rather
        than review criterion.  Language will be specific so that
        eligible institutions will understand the parameters within
        which cost sharing is expected.

        - Requirements for cost sharing may take into account the type
        of institution, institution size, level of other research
        support, population served, etc.

- Any negotiation with proposers as to the level or amount of NSF
required cost sharing will occur either prior to the review process to
establish the project's eligibility for consideration or after merit
review has been completed to adjust cost sharing to the agreed-upon
amount of the award.  These negotiations will occur only within
parameters stated in the covering program announcement or solicitation
and in accordance with GPG "bottom line" guidance.

Unsolicited Proposals

        -For unsolicited research and education projects, only statutory
        cost sharing will be required.  This includes all proposals
        submitted solely in response to the GPG.  (Note:  some programs
        have special "flyers," for equipment/instrumentation proposals
        for example, which reference GPG requirements but have special
        provisions on cost sharing.  For these purposes, such proposals
        are not submitted "solely" in response to the GPG.)

Budget Negotiations

        -In GPG proposals and all others not covered by special cost
        sharing requirements,  NSF program officers must follow the
        current GPG guidance (III.C.) which states that they may discuss
        with principal investigators the "bottom line" award amount, but
        may not [re]negotiate or impose cost sharing or other
        institutional commitments. "Bottom line" funding amounts should
        be commensurate with the effort supported.

-In "bottom line" budget determinations, only those resources
specifically included either as direct or facilities/administrative
costs in the budget or formally proposed as cost sharing are assumed to
be available for the project.  They must be adequate to support the
project.

        -In budget negotiations, any reduction of 10% or more from the
        amount proposed should be accompanied by a corresponding
        reduction in the scope of the project, unless the program
        officer, principal investigator, and institution clearly agree
        that the project as proposed can be carried out at a lesser
        level of support from NSF with no expectation of any
        uncompensated institutional contribution beyond that formally
        reflected as cost sharing.

1
OMB Circular  A-110 (May, 1996) sets forth Uniform Administrative
Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher
Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations.  It defines
cost sharing (Sec. .23) as "all contributions, including cash and third
party in-kind" which meet seven criteria: verifiable, not included as
contributions for any other federally-assisted project or program,
necessary and reasonable for accomplishment of objectives, allowable,
not paid by the Federal Government under another award (except where
authorized by statute), provided for in the approved budget when
required by the Federal awarding agency,  and conform to other Circular
provisions.  The Circular goes on to prescribe parameters for
establishing the value of recipient contributions of services and
property, and buildings or land.