U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

40–817PS 2008

OVERSIGHT OF THE

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND

SCIENCE EDUCATION

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

FEBRUARY 26, 2008

Serial No. 110–77

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science

(II)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

MARK UDALL, Colorado

DAVID WU, Oregon

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

NICK LAMPSON, Texas

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona

JERRY MCNERNEY, California

LAURA RICHARDSON, California

PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana

BARON P. HILL, Indiana

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,

Wisconsin

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

TOM FEENEY, Florida

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia

VACANCY

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION

HON. BRIAN BAIRD, Washington, Chairman

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

JERRY MCNERNEY, California

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

BARON P. HILL, Indiana

BART GORDON, Tennessee

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

JIM WILSON Subcommittee Staff Director

DAHLIA SOKOLOV Democratic Professional Staff Member

MELE ́ WILLIAMS Republican Professional Staff Member

MEGHAN HOUSEWRIGHT Research Assistant

(III)

C O N T E N T S

February 26, 2008

Page

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Brian Baird, Chairman, Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S.

House of Representatives .................................................................................... 9

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10

Statement by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers, Ranking Minority Member,

Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, Committee on Science

and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................... 10

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 12

Prepared Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Member, Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, Committee on Science and

Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ....................................................... 13

Witnesses:

Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director, National Science Foundation

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 14

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 16

Biography .......................................................................................................... 22

Dr. Steven C. Beering, Chairman, National Science Board

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 23

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 24

Biography .......................................................................................................... 30

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 30

Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director, National Science Foundation ...................... 50

Dr. Steven C. Beering, Chairman, National Science Board ................................. 64

(1)

OVERSIGHT OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE

FOUNDATION

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2008

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brian Baird

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

2

3

HEARING CHARTER

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE

EDUCATION

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Oversight of the

National Science Foundation

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2008

10:00 A.M.–12:00 P.M.

2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

1. Purpose

On Tuesday, February 26, 2008, the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education of the House Committee on Science and Technology will hold a hearing to

receive testimony from the Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF) and

the Chair of the National Science Board (NSB) regarding NSF’s fiscal year (FY)

2009 budget request and related policy issues.

2. Witnesses

• Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director of the National Science Foundation.

• Dr. Steven C. Beering, Chairman of the National Science Board.

3. Overarching Questions

• How does the FY 2009 budget request address the NSF programs authorized

in the America COMPETES Act, including math and science education activities? How is NSF responding to the policy directives in COMPETES, including those regarding mentoring and ethics training for young scientists?

• On what basis should NSF make decisions about how to allocate budgets

across education programs, including K–12, undergraduate, and graduate programs? How will NSF’s new teacher education initiative balance priorities

across the programs that support K–12 education? Is there an appropriate

balance among the different modes of support for graduate students (fellowships, traineeships, and research assistantships)?

• The American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) set a 10-year doubling path for

the physical sciences, engineering and computer sciences, which had been

flat-funded for several years. What is NSF doing to ensure that the social, behavioral, economic and biological sciences are appropriately integrated and

sufficiently funded under the often multi-disciplinary research initiatives supported under ACI?

4. Summary of NSF FY 2009 Budget Request

The National Science Foundation is the primary source of federal funding for nonmedical basic research conducted at colleges and universities and serves as a catalyst for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education reform

at all levels. NSF is one of the research agencies that the President, in his 2006

State of the Union Address, proposed to double over ten years (beginning in FY

2007) as part of the American Competitive Initiative (ACI). The America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110–69) called for an even more rapid, seven-year doubling path

for NSF and responded to a critical shortage of well-trained K–12 STEM teachers

by increasing funding for two flagship NSF teacher education programs: The Noyce

Teacher Scholarship Program and the Math and Science Partnerships Program

(MSP).

Both ACI and COMPETES have yet to be realized. The FY 2007 Appropriations

CR resulted in only a 4.2 percent increase for NSF in the first year of ACI—a ten

year doubling requires approximately seven percent/year growth. The FY 2008 omVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:14 Jul 05, 2008 Jkt 040817 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\R&SE08\022608\40817 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
4

1The FY 2008 estimate is $33 million below the appropriated level due to a rescission required by the Appropriators in the FY 2008 omnibus bill.

nibus appropriations bill provides $6.032 billion,1 a 2.5 percent increase over FY

2007. The Administration’s FY 2009 request for NSF is $6.854 billion, $822 million

(13.6 percent) above the FY 2008 estimate, reflecting a determination to keep NSF

on the 10-year doubling path proposed under ACI. (COMPETES authorized $7.326

billion for FY 2009, $472 million more than the request.) However, the Administration provided only a nominal increase for MSP and reduced the Noyce Program

below the FY 2008 omnibus appropriations level.

Research and Related Activities (R&RA)

Scientific research programs and research facilities (which comprise the R&RA ac- count) receive a $773 million (16 percent) increase from FY 2008. In keeping with

the Administration’s emphasis on the mathematical and physical sciences, engineering and computer sciences under ACI, those directorates, in addition to

cyberinfrastructure, each receive an approximately 20 percent increase over FY

2008, while the biological sciences (+10.3 percent) and social, behavioral and economic sciences (+8.5 percent) receive more modest increases. The COMPETES Act

specifically called on NSF not to disinvest in the biological and social sciences over

the long-term, but did not assume that all fields would receive equal increases each

year.

NSF’s contribution to the multi-agency National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) increases by only $8 million (2.1 percent) to $397 million, $30.6 million of which is

directed toward research on the environmental, health and safety aspects of

nanotechnology. The Committee will be taking up a reauthorization of the NNI this

spring. NSF’s contribution to another multi-agency program, the Networking and Information Technology R&D Program (NITRD), increases by $159 million (17 percent) to $1.09 billion. The entire budgets of both the Computer Sciences and

Cyberinfrastructure directorates are counted toward the NITRD total.

As part of the FY 2009 request, NSF is launching three new cross-Foundation initiatives: Science and Engineering Beyond Moore’s Law ($20 million), Adaptive Systems Technology ($15 million) and Dynamics of Water Processes in the Environment

($10 million). An initiative launched in FY 2008, Cyber-enabled Discovery and Innovation (CDI), will be doubled to $100 million. All of these initiatives repackage existing research under new headings and it is unclear to what extent they create new

research directions or provide more money for existing research. CDI and S&E Beyond Moore’s Law are both captured within the NITRD portfolio.

The COMPETES Act put special emphasis on increasing support for young investigators, whose funding success rates sit about 10 percent lower than more established investigators. The Administration request includes $182 million (+$14 million) for CAREER grants, less than $2 million below the amount authorized in

COMPETES. The Act also created a new Pilot Program for Young Investigators to

help provide seed funding to first time principal investigators who, despite being

recognized as outstanding, are still disadvantaged by not having a track record of

previous funding. Based on staff conversations with NSF officials, NSF is taking

this new program seriously and is in the process of deciding how best to implement

it.

Since FY 2006, under a Memorandum of Agreement, NSF has been responsible

for reimbursing the U.S. Coast Guard for the costs of the icebreakers that support

scientific research in the Polar regions. The request for FY 2009 is $54 million, a

reduction of $3 million under a recent agreement in which NSF is no longer supporting the Polar Star in caretaker (i.e., mothballed) status. NSF will also continue

to purchase back-up ice-breaking services on the open market at a cost of approximately $9 million in FY 2009.

Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC)

The MREFC activity funds the construction of large research facilities, such as

telescopes and research ships. Funding for the design, operation and management

of these major user facilities is included in the R&RA budget.

The fiscal year 2009 MREFC budget is down by 33 percent to $147 million, in

small part because of projects that were completed in FY 2008 and in much larger

part because three design-stage projects: The Alaska Region Research Vessel

(ARRV), the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) and the Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI) are on hold pending the establishment of rigorous cost

and schedule baselines. As recently as last year, NSF put place-holders for these

projects in MREFC, but they have since established a ‘‘zero-tolerance’’ policy for

5

2http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2008/nsf0824/nsf0824.pdf

cost-overruns. The only new project receiving funding in FY 2009 is the Advanced

Technology Solar Telescope (ATST), which will receive $2.5 million for late-stage design work. This is the first time that any design funds are requested from the

MREFC Account, and NSF is reviewing the policy for funding preconstruction design work in general, as requested in COMPETES. In another break with prior

practice, the MREFC budget request does not include out-year funding estimates for

ATST and the newly available 2008 Facility Plan2 does not include any horizon or

‘‘readiness stage’’ projects.

Education and Human Resources (EHR)

EHR funds most of NSF’s activities that support K–12 STEM education and the

majority of activities that support undergraduate STEM education. EHR also funds

most of NSF’s graduate fellowship and traineeship programs. The FY 2009 request

for EHR is $790.41 million, an increase of $64.81 million (8.9 percent) over FY 2008,

but $205 million short of the level authorized in COMPETES. The single biggest increase of $28.6 million (32.5 percent) goes to the Graduate Research Fellowship program. Overall, programs that support K–12 education, including the Noyce Program, MSP, and Discovery Research K–12, increase by only 4.6 percent, half of the

total increase for EHR. NSF programs to broaden participation, which includes programs in both R&RA and EHR, increase by only $18.8 million (2.9 percent).

K–16 Programs

The Administration flat-funded or provided only meager increases for a number

of K–16 education programs slated for increases in COMPETES, including the

Noyce Program, MSP, the Advanced Technological Education Program (ATE), and

the STEM Talent Expansion Program. Moreover, the Administration intends to fund

the Noyce Program below the appropriated level of $15 million in FY 2008. The rationale given for flat-funding these programs (with the exception of MSP) is that

they have not yet undergone the rigorous evaluation required under the Administration’s Academic Competitiveness Council (ACC) process. (For background on ACC,

see the charter from the June 6, 2007 Research Subcommittee hearing on Federal

STEM Education Programs.) Discovery Research K–12, which supports applied research aimed at improving STEM education at the K–12 level, fares the best of the

three K–12 programs, with an $8.5 million (8.5 percent) increase.

Graduate Research and Education (R&RA and EHR)

The two major NSF programs that support graduate students, the Graduate Research Fellowships Program (GRF) and the Integrative Graduate Education and Research and Training Program (IGERT) take funds from both R&RA and EHR. Both

of these programs received special attention in the COMPETES act for their role

in nurturing the best and brightest science and engineering students. While GRF

is important for the independence it affords graduate students to choose a research

advisor who might not otherwise be able to support another student, IGERT is also

an extremely well regarded and effective program that by design supports cuttingedge interdisciplinary science through its support for graduate students. In the FY

2009 request, NSF increases GRF by 30 percent to $125 million while flat-funding

IGERT at $64 million. The reason for this unbalanced treatment of two equally important and effective graduate student programs is unclear. Another large program

that NSF lists under graduate education is the Graduate Teaching Fellows in K–

12 Education (GK–12).

Broadening Participation

The single biggest increase for programs to broaden participation goes to the Centers of Research Excellence in Science and Technology Program (+ $5.5 million or

22 percent), which supports research and education infrastructure at minority-serving institutions. Three other programs designed to increase participation by minority students, HBCU–UP, LSAMP and TCUP, will receive a combined $3.5 million

increase after having received a $10.5 million increase to $83.4 million in FY 2008.

The ADVANCE program, which seeks to increase the numbers of tenure-track

women faculty in science and engineering disciplines, will receive a 2.5 percent decrease to $20.8 million after having received a 25 percent increase in FY 2008.

6

3The widespread problem being addressed through this provision is addressed in detail in a

2000 (but still relevant) report from the National Academies: Enhancing the Post-doctoral Experience for Scientists and Engineers. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record¥id=9831 4http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2008/rprt¥congress¥cs¥policy.pdf

Agency Operations and Award Management

This NSF account funds the internal operations of NSF. The FY 2009 request pro- vides an increase of $23.3 million (8.3 percent) over FY 2008. AOAM was the one

account that was nearly fully funded in the FY 2008 omnibus appropriations bill.

Dr. Bement made it clear to Congress that AOAM was his number one priority for

funding in FY 2008. The NSF workforce has been under increasing pressure as research budgets increased, and the electronic system used to receive and process

grant applications is undergoing an upgrade in preparation for implementation

across the federal research enterprise.

5. Additional Policy Issues Addressed in COMPETES

The COMPETES Act contained a number of policy directives and report requests

not addressed in the FY 2009 budget request:

• Sec. 7007 requires an NSB report, due in August, evaluating the role of NSF

in supporting interdisciplinary research. The key issues are whether NSF has

a clear policy for the review of unsolicited interdisciplinary proposals, and

whether the research community is sufficiently informed about where to submit such proposals.

• Sec. 7008 requires that all NSF grant applications that include funding to

support post-doctoral researchers include a description of the mentoring activities that will be provided for such individuals.3

• Sec. 7009 requires universities funded by NSF to provide appropriate training

and oversight in the responsible and ethical conduct of research to students

and trainees at all levels, including post-doctoral researchers. The Manager’s Statement accompanying COMPETES directed NSF to provide written guidelines to universities on what constitutes appropriate training.

• Sec. 7010 requires that NSF make summaries of research results publicly

available in a timely manner. NSF was already moving in this direction before COMPETES.

• Sec. 7011 requires NSF to enforce its policy regarding the sharing of research

results by making any researcher who fails to comply ineligible for future

funding.

• Sec. 7013 required NSB to evaluate NSF’s policy on cost-sharing. The Board

has already responded with a report presented to NSF in February.4 In short,

NSB recommended reinstating cost-sharing by industry for certain Centers

programs with significant industry participation, as well as cost-sharing by

states under the EPSCoR program. They also issued a series of recommendations regarding management and oversight of cost-shared grants. NSF is currently reviewing NSB’s recommendations.

• Sec. 7014 required NSB to review NSF’s policies for pre-construction funding

and maintenance and operation costs of MREFC projects. The Board also

completed this report in February (#NSB–08–15) and it should be online

shortly. The gist of the recommendations is that NSB should be more integrated into the large facilities planning process and that MREFC funds

should be available for late-stage design activities. NSF is currently reviewing

the Board’s recommendations.

• Sec. 7018 requires NSF to consider the degree to which grant proposals address critical national science and innovation needs.

• Sec. 7020 requires a plan, due this month, to ensure broadband access for all

institutions of higher education participating in NSF programs that require

high-speed networking.

• Sec. 7022 requires a report, due in August, on the impact and scope of the

‘‘Broader Impacts’’ grant review criterion used by NSF.

• Sec. 7032 requires a National Academies report, due in August, on barriers

to and strategies for greater diversity in STEM fields.

• Sec. 7033 authorizes NSF to establish a Hispanic-Serving Institutions Undergraduate Program similar to a program for Historically Black Colleges and

Universities.

• Sec. 7034 authorizes a new Professional Science Masters program at NSF.

7

6. Questions for Witnesses

Dr. Bement

• How does the FY 2009 budget request address the NSF programs authorized

in the America COMPETES Act, including math and science education activities?

• How has the planning and budgeting process changed for major research facilities? Why doesn’t the FY 2009 MREFC budget request contain any outyear budget requests for the FY 2009 new start, the Advanced Technology

Solar Telescope? Furthermore, there are no horizon projects listed in the 2008

Facility Plan. Are there any projects in readiness stage for FY 2010? If not,

when can we expect to see a proposal for FY 2010 new-starts?

• Please elaborate on the three new cross-Foundation initiatives for FY 2009:

Science and Engineering Beyond Moore’s Law, Adaptive Systems Technology,

and Dynamics of Water Processes in the Environment. How did these initiatives come about? To what extent do they repackage existing efforts? What

new research directions are being funded under these initiatives?

• What is the role of NSF in promoting international science cooperation? To

what extent do you coordinate your international efforts with the Department

of State or other federal agencies? In particular, what role do you have in promoting scientific exchange with scientists in countries whose research infrastructure lags behind that of United States?

Dr. Beering

• How has the planning and budgeting process changed for major research facilities? How will the role of the Board change in this process?

• What is the appropriate role of NSF in promoting international science cooperation? How should NSF coordinate its international efforts with the Department of State and other federal agencies? In particular, what role does

or should NSF have in promoting scientific exchange with scientists in countries whose research infrastructure lags behind that of United States?

• Is the Board satisfied with the current funding level for the Foundation’s education programs and with the priorities among categories of programs (K–12,

undergraduate, and graduate)? On what basis should NSF make decisions

about how to allocate budgets across education programs? In particular:

Æ What are the highest priority NSF programs that address K–12 STEM

education, and in particular, please comment on whether the Board has

a view on the adequacy of the FY09 budget request for the Robert Noyce

Teacher Scholarship Program and the Math and Science Partnerships?

Æ Does the Board believe there is an appropriate balance among the different modes of support for graduate students (fellowships, traineeships,

and research assistantships)?

8

9

Chairman BAIRD. Our hearing will come to order now and good

morning. Welcome to this Research and Science Education Subcommittee hearing on the National Science Foundation’s fiscal year

2009 budget request and related policy issues.

I am happy that despite the disappointment of the fiscal year

2008 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, the Administration remains determined to keep NSF on a doubling path, something this committee has long and strongly advocated for. The strong budget request for basic research at NSF is something that this committee

commends and fully supports and will work to advocate with our

colleagues.

I am happy to see that the education programs at NSF are getting an increase, however, and this is a sentiment I believe is

shared by the overwhelming majority of my Committee colleagues

on both sides of the aisle, I am once again dismayed at the treatment of the K through 12 education in the budget request.

The top recommendation of the National Academies of Science’s

Gathering Storm report was to place teachers who have strong content knowledge and effective teaching skills in math and science

classrooms across America. The report cited a 10-year old University of Texas UTeach Program as an example of best practices for

STEM teacher education.

Based on that success UTeach has already been taken as a model

by the State of California, as well as the private sector. The COMPETES Act, passed by this committee and the House last year,

used the Academy’s recommendations and UTeach as the basis for

restructuring NSF’s Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program. It

set out a funding trajectory that would enable the program to reach

the goal of 10,000 new STEM teachers per year.

I am disappointed that the fiscal year 2009 budget request for Noyce not only fails to reach the $103 million authorized in COMPETES Act, but is actually below the fiscal year 2008 appropriations level.

I am also interested in learning more about NSF’s decision to

apply all of the increases in Graduate Research and Education to

the Graduate Research Fellowship Program rather than the Integrative Graduate Education and Research Training Program, since

IGERT is also an extremely well-regarded and effective program.

Beyond education, I would like to talk about the proposed

changes to the major research equipment and facilities construction

budget, as well as some changes proposed with respect to the icebreaker fleet.

Finally, as a social scientist, I also want to say a word about the

social and behavioral sciences. While I understand that not all

fields will get an equal increase every year, I want to reiterate the

importance of social sciences to all of the major challenges our nation is facing, including energy, water, health, national security,

and competitiveness. Parenthetically I would mention that Dr.

Marburger was here last, two weeks ago, and underscored himself

the importance of social science.

I am interested in hearing from you today the justification for

the budget request for social, behavioral, and economics directorate

and to what extent, if any, the social sciences are integrated into

NSF’s major research initiatives.

10

Finally, let me end on a positive note. I was pleased with the request for a significant increase for the Office of International

Science and Engineering, and I look forward to Dr. Bement’s participation in an upcoming hearing which will explore the role of

federal agencies, including NSF, in supporting international science

and engineering cooperation.

I thank our outstanding witnesses, first of all, for your great

service to the country in the name of science, and also for being

here with us today.

And now it is my pleasure to recognize my dear friend and colleague, Dr. Vern Ehlers, for an opening statement. Dr. Ehlers.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Baird follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BRIAN BAIRD

Good morning. Welcome to this Research and Science Education Subcommittee

hearing on the National Science Foundation’s fiscal year 2009 budget request and

related policy issues.

I am happy that, despite the disappointment of the Fiscal Year 2008 omnibus appropriations bill, the Administration remains determined to keep NSF on a doubling-path. The strong budget request for basic research at NSF is something that

this committee commends and supports.

And I am happy to see that the education programs at NSF are getting an increase. However—and this is a sentiment shared by the overwhelming majority of

my Committee colleagues on both sides of the aisle—I am once again dismayed at

the treatment of K–12 education in the budget request.

The top recommendation of the National Academies of Science’s Gathering Storm

report was to place teachers who have strong content knowledge and effective teaching skills in math and science classrooms across America. The report cited the 10-

year old University of Texas UTeach program as an example of best practices for

STEM teacher education. Based on its success, UTeach has already been taken as

a model by the State of California as well as the private sector.

The COMPETES Act used the Academies’ recommendations and UTeach as the

basis for restructuring NSF’s Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship program. It set out

a funding trajectory that would enable to program to reach the goal of 10,000 new

STEM teachers per year. I am disappointed that the Fiscal Year 2009 budget request for Noyce not only fails to reach the $103 million authorized in the COMPETES Act, but is also below the Fiscal Year 2008 appropriations level.

I am also interested in learning more about NSF’s decision to apply all of the increases in the graduate research and education to the Graduate Research Fellowship Program, rather than the Integrative Graduate Education and Research and

Training (IGERT) Program since IGERT is also an extremely well-regarded and effective program.

Beyond education, I would like to talk about the proposed changes to the Major

Research Equipment and Facilities Construction budget, as well as some changes

proposed with respect to the icebreaker fleet.

Finally, as a social scientist, I also want to say a word about the social and behavioral sciences. While I understand that not all fields will get equal increases every

year, I want to reiterate the importance of the social sciences to all of the major

challenges our nation is facing, including energy, water, health, national security

and competitiveness. I’m interested in hearing from you today the justification for

the budget request for the Social, Behavioral and Economics directorate and to what

extent, if any, the social sciences are integrated into NSF’s major research initiatives.

Finally, let me end on a positive note. I was pleased with the request for a significant increase for the Office of International Science and Engineering and I look forward to Dr. Bement’s participation in an upcoming hearing during which we will

explore the role of federal agencies, including NSF, in supporting international

science and engineering cooperation.

I thank you for being here today and I look forward to your testimony. I now recognize my colleague Dr. Ehlers for an opening statement.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome.

In the fiscal year 2009 budget request, the Administration has

requested increases for both the research and educational mission

11

of the National Science Foundation. However, the proposed increases fall short of the authorizations provided in the COMPETES

Act of 2007, which established a seven-year doubling path for the

NSF. After a below-inflationary increase provided in fiscal year

2008, due to no fault of the witnesses or of those on the dais here,

the NSF has fallen off the doubling path. With a 13 percent increase requested for the agency, coupled with less generous budgets

for other agencies, some even within the same funding subcommittee, NSF is going to have to work hard to defend and justify

the reasoning behind the substantial increase. In order to return

to the doubling path in fiscal year 2009, I believe NSF should be

funded at the level authorized by the COMPETES Act.

Unfortunately, we know first hand what shortfalls means for

NSF. For the remainder of fiscal year 2008, NSF must defer solicitations and facilities maintenance, will award 1,000 fewer research

grants, fund 230 fewer research fellows, and negatively impact

more than 3,000 students and teachers. These are just a few of the

known impacts of the unanticipated shortfall created by the fiscal

year 2008 Omnibus. I am very concerned that federal apathy to

NSF is encouraging young scientists to choose another career.

Finally, while I recognize NSF has defended the successes of the Math and Science Partnerships, I am disappointed that only a $2.5

million increase is requested for this program. As reauthorized by

the COMPETES Act, the Math and Science Partnership Program

has the potential to make a great impact on science, technology,

engineering, and math education in this country. This is simply not

possible within its current budget.

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the new initiatives proposed in the fiscal year 2009 budget, the thriving programs bearing consistent fruit, and how we can work together to

implement the COMPETES Act.

Now, let me add a personal note here, and that is I recognize

that the objectives of the two witnesses are largely the same as the

objectives of those of us sitting up here. We are a victim of forces

beyond our immediate control, particularly the passage of the Omnibus Bill last year. And that is an issue that has to be addressed.

I am very disappointed with the results of the Omnibus Bill. I

vowed to vote against it no matter what was in it because I suspected mischief. This happened a few years ago the last time we

passed an Omnibus Bill. NSF was one of the principle victims of

that. I do not know what the reasons are for, in the appropriations

process or within the committees within the House and the Senate,

but I am afraid that NSF appears to be an easy victim to pilferage

during an Omnibus appropriations process.

And I will do all I can, and I suspect my colleagues here will join

me, in saying we will never, ever support another Omnibus Bill.

We will do whatever we can to fight it.

I also have encouraged the White House and various members

working in the White House, including the President, to, if another

Omnibus is presented, to flatly reject it and tell the Appropriations

Committees to go back and do their work the way they are supposed to do it.

It is unconscionable to me that a small group of individuals succeed in destroying an excellent organization such as the National

12

Science Foundation by arbitrarily cutting the funding without considering all the factors that go into the operation of the organization.

So you have our sympathies. You are here defending the indefensible in the sense that the budget presented is based largely on

what was passed last year, and you have our sympathies. We are

with you. It is essential for us to work together to make certain

that the funding increases and that we do not have another Omnibus Bill disaster this coming year.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE VERNON J. EHLERS

In the fiscal year 2009 budget request, the Administration has requested increases for both the research and educational mission of the National Science Foundation. However, the proposed increases fall short of the authorizations provided in

the COMPETES Act of 2007, which established a seven-year doubling path for the

NSF. After a below-inflationary increase provided in FY08, NSF has fallen off the

doubling path. With a 13 percent increase requested for the agency coupled with

less-generous budgets for other agencies, some even within the same funding subcommittee, NSF is going to have to work hard to defend and justify the reasoning

behind the substantial increase. In order to return to the doubling path in FY09,

I believe NSF should be funded at the level authorized by the COMPETES Act.

Unfortunately, we know first-hand what shortfalls mean for NSF. For the remainder of FY08 NSF must defer solicitations and facilities maintenance, will award

1,000 fewer research grants, fund 230 fewer research fellows, and negatively impact

more than 3,000 students and teachers. These are just a few of the known impacts

of the unanticipated shortfall created by the FY08 omnibus. I am very concerned

that federal apathy to NSF is encouraging young scientists is to choose another career. Finally, while I recognize NSF has defended the successes of the Math and Science Partnerships, I am disappointed that only a $2.5 million increase is requested for this program. As reauthorized by the COMPETES Act, the MSP program has the potential to make a great impact on science, technology, engineering

and math (STEM) education in this country. This is simply not possible with its current budget.

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the new initiatives proposed

in the FY09 budget, the thriving programs bearing consistent fruit, and how we can

work together to implement the COMPETES Act.

Chairman BAIRD. Dr. Ehlers, thanks for your comments and your

passion in this. I share that, you know. It is—if we look at this

budget and it is posing some substantial increases, but as we all

know here, the budget that proposes increases without the weight

of an Administration fighting to sustain those increases really

won’t mean anything down the road, and indeed, the result of the

appropriations process and the Omnibus, which I also did not support, was because of an Administration mandate to reduce 20 some

billion dollars out of that. Much of that cost, unfortunately, fell to

NSF and some other agencies.

So it is a nice thing to put forward a budget that calls for increases. It certainly beats the reverse. So we are happy about that,

but in and of itself is not enough. And so we share the concern

about that and the gentlemen here are not responsible for that.

You worked very hard to put forward a sound budget, and we are

grateful for that.

I want to acknowledge the presence of Dr. McNerney and Dr. Lipinski. Thank you for joining us, gentlemen. As is the custom of

the Committee, if there are any Members who wish to submit opening remarks for the record, we are happy to introduce those.

13

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to also welcome Drs. Bement and Beering

today to testify on the National Science Foundation budget plans for fiscal year 2009

and how those plans will fund programs in the America COMPETES Act, as well

as current NSF initiatives.

The National Science Foundation is our nation’s premier supporter of research

and development in the physical sciences. NSF also plays a key role in math and

science education programs.

Over the years, NSF has enabled under-represented and minority populations to

attain degrees in these fields and to excel. I want to commend the foundation for

this work.

When the President signed the America COMPETES Act into law and expressed

interest in investment into American competitiveness initiative programs, a new era

began.

NSF is now tasked with utilizing limited financial resources to support an expanded number and size of programs.

Members of this committee are interested in a dialogue with you on how you will

accomplish funding objectives, and we support your efforts.

I would like for you to particularly keep the ‘‘Broadening Participation’’ programs

in mind, like the Noyce Teacher Scholarship, and others that I will submit in my

written testimony today and as additional budget ‘‘Views and Estimates’’ published

by this committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.

Supplemental material: key NSF programs that broaden participation by underrepresented groups.

• Science, Technology, Engineering and Math Talent Expansion Program

(STEP)

• Advanced Technology Education (ATE)

• Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR)

• Partnerships for Access to Laboratory Science—Sec 7026 of COMPETES Act

• Hispanic-serving Institutions Undergraduate Program—Sec 7033 of COMPETES Act

• Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) Program

• Informal Science Education (ISE)

• ADVANCE Women’s Program

• Broadening Participation in Computing (BPC)

• Graduate Research Fellowships—Women in Engineering and Computer

Science

• Opportunities to Enhance Diversity in the Geosciences (OEDG)

• Minority Post-Docs

• Graduate Research Diversity (GRD)—ENG

• Significant Opportunities in Atmospheric Research and Science (SOARS)— GEO

Chairman BAIRD. The Chair will now introduce our witnesses,

and if ever there is a case where the introduction I am giving is

understated, giving the distinguished careers of these two gentlemen, please forgive us. In the interest of hearing your wisdom we

will keep the introductions brief.

But Dr. Arden Bement is the Director of the National Science

Foundation. Dr. Steven Beering is the Chairman of the National

Science Board. Very brief introductions for some extraordinary careers.

As our witnesses should know well from prior testimony here,

spoken testimony is limited to five minutes, but that is really designed to hit the highlights and then we will have a good exchange.

And always I want to invite, especially gentlemen such as yourselves, if there are things that we don’t cover in our questions but

14

you feel you want to elaborate on, please, this is a friendly process

and feel free to elaborate on that.

We will start our testimony with Dr. Bement. Thank you again.

STATEMENT OF DR. ARDEN L. BEMENT, JR., DIRECTOR,

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Dr. BEMENT. Yes, Mr. Chairman. If I may before reading my prepared remarks, I want to reflect on your opening remarks.

In spite of the ’08 Omnibus Bill I want to express on behalf of

the National Science Foundation our deep gratitude for the very

strong support this committee gave our entire budget but also the

programs within the budget.

I also want to express our appreciation for the confidence you

have shown us in increasing the education authorization and the

specific programs in the America COMPETES Act. I believe that

we have outstanding programs, and they are very much in the interest of the Nation, and I appreciate your support.

Going on with my remarks, I am pleased to present the National

Science Foundation—— Chairman BAIRD. We won’t count that against you. We don’t

count compliments of the Committee against your time, your fiveminute time. Doctor, I should acknowledge, also, the various directorates that are along here with you today. We want to thank them

for their work. They probably won’t be testifying, but thank you for

coming and for your work.

Please proceed, Dr. Bement.

Dr. BEMENT. Thank you. Chairman Baird, Ranking Member

Ehlers, and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to present

the National Science Foundation’s budget for the 2009 fiscal year.

NSF proposes an investment of $6.85 billion to advance the frontiers of science and engineering research and education. Our budget request includes an increase of $789 million or 13 percent over

fiscal year 2008. This increase is necessary to put NSF back on the

course that was chartered by the America COMPETES Act and the

President’s American Competitiveness Initiative.

This budget reflects the Administration’s continued resolve to

double overall funding for the NSF within 10 years.

I would also like to thank you for recognizing the importance of

our Agency Operations and Award Management account in the

2008 Omnibus appropriation. Our stewardship activities allow us

to serve award recipients with tools such as the new grants management website, research.gov, and this is a tough account to get

strong support.

The timing of this testimony coincides with a period of economic

uncertainty in our country. I have come here today to tell you that

an investment in the National Science Foundation is an investment

in America’s economic security. NSF provides two essential ingredients of a healthy, high-tech economy; basic research discoveries

and a highly-trained work force.

For over 50 years NSF has been the foundation of innovation,

fostering great ideas and the great minds who discover them. NSF

discoveries have led to many of the technological innovations you

and I take for granted today, and yet for fiscal year 2008 NSF’s

budget increase fails to keep up with inflation.

15

By contrast, other nations of the world are steadily increasing

their investments in STEM education and basic R&D. I assure you

multi-national companies will have no problem relocating their operations to the countries where they can find the best-trained

workforce and the latest research ideas.

The world is changing. Lead times for new products are shrinking. Now more than ever basic research discoveries are essential to

keeping the wheels of innovation turning in America’s high-tech

companies. It is not nearly enough to maintain the federal R&D investment status quo. It is our solemn obligation to keep up with

corporate America’s demand for innovative people and ideas.

At NSF we are responsible to emerging potentially transformative areas of research. I would like to highlight some of our

new cross-cutting, multi-disciplinary initiatives. We created these

initiatives in response to the input we received from the research

communities we serve.

We request $100 million to continue Cyber-enabled Discovery

and Innovation, our bold five-year initiative to apply revolutionary

computational tools and concepts to all fields of science, engineering, and education. Our request includes $20 million for Science and Engineering beyond Moore’s Law. This initiative aims to position the United

States at the forefront of communications and computation, moving

us beyond the limitations of current systems. We are requesting $15 million to fund Adaptive Systems Technology, our new effort aimed at using all aspects of biological

science to inspire transformative new technologies. Our request of $10 million for the Dynamics of Water Processes

in the Environment initiative will bring together researchers from

various disciplines to enhance our ability to understand the complexities of fresh water systems at regional and local levels.

In addition to our ongoing efforts in transformative research, we

believe that a truly competitive workforce is one that reflects the

full potential and diversity of the American people themselves. Our

efforts to broaden participation in science and technology targets

students at all education levels and from all geographic areas. We

train the Nation’s skilled workforce by providing research opportunities for undergraduates, graduate students, and post docs.

We research and evaluate effective STEM curricula for the Nation’s K to 12 classrooms and provide opportunities for teacher education, and we develop innovative programs for informal science

and technology learning for students young and old in museums,

through the mass media, and through other outreach activities that

touch the imaginations of millions of Americans.

Mr. Chairman, time does not permit me to describe the many

other numerous activities NSF sponsors to strengthen and support

our nation’s science and technology research and education. NSF’s

relatively small size belies its catalytic impact on all sectors of the

economy. I am hard pressed to think of another example in which

the taxpayers derive such a tremendous return on investment.

Thank you for extending me the invitation to speak with this

subcommittee today, and I look forward to answering your questions.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Bement follows:]

16

1http://www.oecd.org/document/26/0,2340,en¥2649¥201185¥37770522¥1¥1¥1¥1,00.html 2http://www.tpac.gatech.edu/hti2007/HTI2007ReportNSF¥012208.pdf 3http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf07319/pdf/nsf07319.pdf

4 Ibid.

5 Augustine, Norman. Is America Falling off the Flat Earth? National Academies Press.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ARDEN L. BEMENT, JR.

Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers and Members of the Subcommittee, I

am pleased to present the National Science Foundation’s budget for the 2009 fiscal

year.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) proposes a fiscal year 2009 investment of $6.85 billion to advance the frontiers of research and education in science and

engineering. Our budget request includes an increase of $789 million—or 13 percent—over the current fiscal year 2008 amount. This increase is necessary to put

NSF back on the course that was charted by the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) and by the America COMPETES Act. This year’s budget reflects the Administration’s continued resolve to double overall funding for the ACI

research agencies within 10 years.

An investment in the National Science Foundation is a direct investment in

America’s economic security. In fact, without a solid basic research foundation for

our high-tech economy, no economic security is possible. Basic research under-pins

all of the technology that constitutes the lifeblood of today’s global market. America’s sustained economic prosperity is based in part on technological innovation resulting from previous fundamental science and engineering research. Innovation

and technology are engines of the American economy, and advances in science and

engineering provide the fuel.

While the United States still leads the world in its level of public and private

R&D investment, our counterparts around the globe are well aware of the importance of funding R&D. A string of recent reports have found evidence that China

is rapidly accruing global technological standing, including an OECD finding that

China was set to become the second-highest investor in R&D among world nations

in 2006, behind only the United States.1,2,3 Over the last two decades, U.S. federal

support of research in the physical sciences, mathematics, and engineering has been

stagnant when adjusted for inflation. As a percentage of GDP, the U.S. Federal Government has halved its investment in physical science and engineering research

since 1970. Conversely, the Chinese government has more than doubled its GDP

percentage expenditure in R&D since 1995.4

More than a dozen major studies have now concluded that a substantial increase

in federal funding for basic scientific research is critical to ensure the preeminence

of America’s scientific and technological enterprise.

Just recently, Norman Augustine, former CEO of Lockheed Martin, released a follow-up to ‘‘The Gathering Storm’’ report entitled, ‘‘Is America Falling Off the Flat

Earth?’’ His message is clear: ‘‘Unless substantial investments are made to the engine of innovation—basic scientific research and development—the current generation may be the first in our country’s history to leave their children and grandchildren a lower sustained standard of living.’’ 5

For over fifty years, NSF has been a steward of the Nation’s science and engineering enterprise. NSF investments in discovery, learning, and innovation have been

important to increasing America’s economic strength, global competitiveness, national security and overall quality of life.

With its relatively small size, NSF delivers an enormous ‘‘bang for the buck’’ of

Federal Government research and development (R&D) investment. NSF represents

just four percent of the total federal budget for research and development, but accounts for a full fifty percent of non-life science basic research at academic institutions. NSF is the research funding lifeline for many fields and emerging interdisciplines at the frontiers of discovery. In fact, NSF is the only federal agency that

supports all fields of basic science and engineering research.

NSF relies on a merit-based, competitive process that is critical to fostering the

highest standards of excellence and accountability—standards that have been emulated at other funding agencies around the world.

NSF Supports American Innovation

The Foundation of Innovation

NSF often funds a technology in its earliest stages, frequently before other agencies or industries get involved. NSF funding was involved in the developmental

phase of the technology used in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) now ubiquitous

in diagnostic medicine, the research that led to the development of silicon-coated

17

6Freeman, Richard. The Market for Scientists and Engineers. NBER Reporter, 2007 No. 3,

pp. 6–8.

glass used in flat panel displays, and the early investigations that led to green and

blue light-emitting diodes used in cell phone displays and traffic lights. In 1952,

Caltech Professor Max Delbruck used one of NSF’s first grants to invent molecular

biology techniques that enabled one of his students, James Watson, to discover the

molecular structure of DNA, and another Nobel laureate, David Baltimore, to unravel some of its mysteries.

In a more recent example, NSF CAREER awardee Jay Keasling, now the head

of the NSF-sponsored Synthetic Biology Engineering Research Center at the University of California–Berkeley, and two post-doctoral researchers from his lab founded

Amyris, a company that is taking a revolutionary approach to chemical manufacturing by harnessing metabolic processes in microorganisms. Through genetic engineering, the researchers ‘‘program’’ the microbes to churn out useful chemicals, bypassing traditional, more expensive methods. Amyris has engineered a strain of

yeast that can produce large quantities of artemisinic acid, a precursor to a compound found naturally in a plant that fights malaria but is currently in short supply. Amyris is also developing a fermentation process to deliver a biofuel gasoline

substitute. NSF funding of the early research conducted at Berkeley enabled the

discoveries that led to this promising new company, named 2007 ‘‘Business Leader

of the Year’’ by Scientific American magazine.

NSF as an agency is itself the origin of transformative practices. One new NSF

innovation is Research.gov, which is fulfilling our vision of a seamless interface between government funding agencies and the investigators we support. Research.gov

is a one-stop shop, where researchers can go to manage their existing portfolio of

grants and explore new opportunities. Research.gov is a tool that streamlines the

process of applying for federal grants, making it easier and more cost-effective for

the Federal Government to serve its customers.

Educating Tomorrow’s Workforce

Beyond all of our efforts to advance the frontiers of knowledge and spur innovation, NSF is dedicated to educating and training the Nation’s skilled labor force.

NSF plays a role in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education

at every educational level. Our contribution to education may ultimately be NSF’s

most profound and meaningful legacy.

The scientists, technologists, engineers, and mathematicians trained through

NSF’s integration of research and education transfer the latest scientific and engineering concepts from universities directly to the entrepreneurial sector when they

enter the workforce.

Our graduate research fellowship (GRF) program has supported several notable

technologists and scientists early in their professional training. Prominent economist Steven Levitt, co-author of the popular book Freakonomics, was an NSF GRF

recipient from 1992 to 1994. Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google, was an NSF graduate research fellow in the mid-1990s when he began thinking about how to create

an Internet search engine. NSF’s GRF program is as old as the foundation itself,

and gives young scientists an early career charge, allowing them to go on to greatness. At least three Physics Nobel Prize winners are former NSF GRF recipients.

We are extremely pleased with the proposed $29 million increase in the GRF program’s funding for fiscal year 2009 which will enable us to fund an additional 700

promising young American investigators. A recent article from the National Bureau

of Economic Research suggests that an increase in the number of GRF awards

would help to supply an increased demand for talented individuals in the American

science and technology workforce that will result from an increase in R&D spending.6

At some point in their careers, nearly 200 Nobel Prize-winning scientists received

NSF funding for research in chemistry, physics, medicine, and economics. And

scores of NSF-supported scientists shared a measure of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize

as members of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

To strengthen the educational institutions that benefit from NSF awards, the Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR) program, Innovation through

Institutional Integration (I3), challenges institutions to think strategically about the

creative integration of NSF-funded awards. This provides the opportunity for NSFgrantees at particular institutions to cooperate and share a common vision for improved educational excellence at their institution.

18

America COMPETES Act Compliance

The America COMPETES Act contains several requirements for NSF. We are actively processing those directives and devising plans to implement them in a timely

manner. In the FY 2009 request, activities that overlap with the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative receive top priority. These priority areas do include

strong links to other fields, and our request includes across-the-board increases for

all directorates.

We are currently evaluating how to best ramp up the Robert Noyce Teacher

Scholarship Program to bring an infusion of talented teachers into the Nation’s K–

12 education system. To launch such a large-scale program, we will carefully evaluate what we need to do to maximize its societal impact and success. We will apply

what we have learned from our other successful scholarship programs to ensure the

program is administered in the best possible way.

We are also working how best to evaluate grant applicants’ plans for training undergraduates, graduate students, and post-docs in responsible and ethical conduct

of research. A number of our programs including our Centers and the Integrative

Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT) program already contain

ethics components. We will add a new certification requirement for institutions,

which will require the institution to have a plan in place to provide appropriate

training and oversight in the responsible and ethical conduct of research for all undergraduates, graduate students, and post-docs participating in the NSF-funded research project.

Open access to research results is an essential component of a strong and healthy

scientific enterprise. We currently make available the citations of NSF-funded research on both the NSF website and on Research.gov. To further the goal of disseminating the results of NSF-funded research, we will develop revised reporting guidelines for NSF principle investigators (PIs). These guidelines will enable the PIs to

summarize the key accomplishments of their NSF-funded work, including scientific

findings, student training, and professional development activities. This information

will be made available on the NSF website.

2009 Budget Request Highlights

At NSF, we understand that new discoveries are the main driving force behind

societal progress. As the Nation’s premier funding agency for basic research, our

mission is to advance the frontiers of knowledge, where high-risk, high-reward research can lay the foundation for revolutionary technologies and tackle complex societal problems. The NSF budget for 2009 reflects this vital agenda, and I’m pleased

to present it to you today.

Let me begin with the big picture. As noted earlier, the President is requesting

$6.85 billion for the NSF in FY 2009. That’s an increase of almost $789 million, or

13 percent above the current 2008 appropriated amount. While it seems like a large

increase, this level is necessary to fulfill the President’s vision for physical science

and basic research set forth in the American Competitiveness Initiative. The FY

2009 request is squarely in line with the goal of doubling of ACI research agency

budgets over 10 years. This increased investment will reinforce NSF’s leadership in

basic science and engineering and allow us to preserve America’s preeminence in

the global technology economy.

In this year’s proposed budget, funding levels increase for every major NSF appropriations account. Research and Related Activities investments increase by 16 percent, and our Education and Human Resources account is increased by 8.9 percent.

We need rapid progress in these areas to stimulate the discoveries in research we

need to maintain our standing in the global marketplace, and to keep our students

engaged and ready to perform in the global workforce. Our budget includes increases for every Directorate and Office within NSF.

Here are highlights of some of the key investments we are emphasizing in our

2009 budget.

Cyber-enabled Discovery and Innovation

Cyber-Enabled Discovery and Innovation (CDI) is expected to create revolutionary

science and engineering research results using ‘‘computational thinking’’—thinking

that encompasses all possible computational concepts, methods, models, algorithms,

and tools. Computational thinking is relevant to all fields of science, engineering

and education, and promises to have a profound impact on our nation’s ability to

generate and apply new knowledge. We expect CDI research to produce paradigm

shifts in our understanding of a wide range of science and engineering phenomena,

and we anticipate socio-technical innovations to create new wealth and enhance the

national quality of life. By investing in CDI, NSF continues its leadership in enaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:14 Jul 05, 2008 Jkt 040817 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\R&SE08\022608\40817 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
19

bling the United States to preserve its role as the world leader in information technology. Requested Funding Level: $100 million

Science and Engineering Beyond Moore’s Law

‘‘Moore’s Law’’ refers to the empirical observation made in 1965 by Intel co-founder Gordon Moore that the speed of computer processing based on semiconductor integrated circuits doubles about every 18 months. With current silicon technology, we

expect to reach the physical and conceptual limits of Moore’s Law within 20 years.

If we are ever to solve the computational challenges inherent in today’s great scientific questions, we must find a way to take computing power and communications

beyond Moore’s Law. To get there, we’ll need entirely new scientific, engineering,

and conceptual frameworks. Fundamental research across many disciplines will be

called upon to deliver the new hardware, architectures, algorithms, and software of

the computers of tomorrow. Requested Funding Level: $20 million

Adaptive Systems Technology

Recent progress in probing the secrets of biological systems has been explosive.

We are only just beginning to see the application of these new and transformational

discoveries to the development of engineered systems, especially at the interface between human and machines. We call our new interdisciplinary endeavor—research

at the convergence of human and mechanical systems—Adaptive Systems Technology (AST). New applications and technologies resulting from AST have already

demonstrated substantial economic potential. Artificial retinas and cochlea, electronic language translators, and smart hand-held electronics are just a handful of

the products that have already come to market at the human-machine interface.

NSF’s broad portfolio encompasses the diverse research areas involved in this new

interdisciplinary effort. Biologists uncover nature’s progression from simple to complex nervous systems; physicists and chemists explain the fundamental processes

underlying complex neural organization and communication pathways; mathematicians, computer scientists and cognitive scientists explore how systems compute;

learning and behavioral scientists provide insights into how organisms learn and

adapt to their environment; while engineers allow the design, analysis and construction of systems that mimic living nervous system networks. By working together,

these scientists and engineers can benefit from the knowledge and experience of experts in other fields, developing new concepts through collaboration and idea-sharing. Requested Funding Level: $15 million

Dynamics of Water Processes in the Environment

This activity will build upon NSF’s considerable track record on fundamental

water research, while utilizing our unique ability to cross disciplinary boundaries

to bring together the separate communities of researchers working on the varying

aspects of water science. Water is fundamental to every economic activity in the

country, and yet, we do not have a full understanding of the effects of human interventions and changing environmental conditions on the availability and quality of

fresh water. The economic driving forces for understanding water processes are compelling: droughts alone cause average damages of $6 to $8 billion dollars annual in

the United States. Understanding water dynamics is also essential to understanding

climate and environmental change. NSF’s investment in Dynamics of Water Processes in the Environment will enhance our ability to understand complex freshwater

systems at regional and local levels, taking advantage of advanced observation networks, cyberinfrastructure, and integrated databases.

Requested Funding Level: $10 million

National Nanotechnology Initiative

NSF leads the U.S. nanotechnology research effort, and we remain strongly committed to supporting this vital emerging industry. Our goal is to support fundamental research and catalyze synergistic science and engineering research and education in emerging areas of nanoscale science and technology. We are also committed to research directed at the environmental, health, and safety impacts of

nanotechnology. Novel materials, devices, and systems—with their building blocks

designed on the scale of nanometers—open up new directions in science, engineering, and technology with potentially profound implications for society. With the capacity to control and manipulate matter at this scale, science, engineering, and technology are realizing revolutionary advances in areas such as individualized pharmaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:14 Jul 05, 2008 Jkt 040817 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\R&SE08\022608\40817 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
20

ceuticals, new drug delivery systems, more resilient materials and fabrics, catalysts

for industry, and order-of-magnitude faster computer chips. Requested Funding Level: $397 million

Climate Change Science Program

Scientists predict that the climate of the Earth is changing rapidly, and we have

much to learn about how climate affects human activities, how human activities affect climate, and what we can do to protect human life and health in the face of

disruptive climate events. The Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) was established in 2002 in response to the challenge of understanding climate and climate

variability. Science-based knowledge is absolutely essential to our ability to predict

the changes that are likely to take place, and devise informed plans to mitigate the

negative impacts of climate change on humanity. The CCSP engages thirteen U.S.

agencies in a concerted interagency program of basic research, comprehensive observations, integrative modeling, and development of products for decision-makers.

Consistent with the FY 2009 Interagency Implementation Priorities memo, NSF

provides support for the broad range of fundamental research activities that form

a sound basis for other mission-oriented agencies in the CCSP, and the Nation at

large.

Building on our agency’s particular strengths, NSF encourages interdisciplinary

activities and focuses particularly on Earth system processes and the consequences

of change. Our priorities include the management of enormous amount of data necessary for accurate global change modeling and research, the refinement and improvement of computational models, and the development of new, innovative Earth

observing instruments and platforms. Requested Funding Level: $221 million

International Science and Engineering

International collaboration is essential to the health of the Nation’s research enterprise. The importance of international partnership continues to increase as

globalization ‘‘shrinks’’ our world. Consequently, our funding request for the Office of International Science and Engineering is increased by nearly 15 percent to $47.4

million. A major focus in our budget is the Partnerships for International Research

and Education (PIRE) program, which increases by $3.0 million to $15.0 million.

This program funds innovative, international collaborative research projects that

link U.S. institutions and researchers at all career levels with premier international

collaborators to work at the most promising frontiers of new knowledge.

Broadening Participation

NSF remains a leader in efforts to broaden participation in science and engineering, so that America’s science and engineering enterprise is as diverse as the Nation

from which it draws its workforce. Our 2009 request for the Experimental Program

to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) program increases to $113.5 million.

We are also increasing our request for several programs designed to reach out to

under-represented groups, including Alliances for Graduate Education and Professoriate (AGEP), the Historically Black Colleges and Universities–Undergraduate Program (HBCU–UP), the Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation (LSAMP),

and Centers of Research Excellence in Science and Technology (CREST).

Enhancing Opportunities for Beginning Researchers (CAREER)

The 2009 request provides an increase of approximately $14 million for funding

of the CAREER program. This increase will allow us to award some 34 more CAREER awards than in FY 2008. CAREER awards support exceptionally promising

college and university junior faculty who are committed to the integration of research and education. Our experience with previous CAREER awardees has proven

that these faculty become the research leaders of their respective fields, and this

program is vital to fostering the success of emerging science and technology leaders. Requested Funding Level: $182 million

Stewardship

NSF’s Stewardship goal, to support excellence in science and engineering research

and education through a capable and responsive organization, remains a priority in

the 2009 budget, with a 13 percent increase to $404.3 million. Our request increases

the NSF workforce by 50 staff to enable us to manage our growing and increasingly

complex workload. Investments in information technology (IT) increase by 32 percent to $82.0 million, with an emphasis on increasing the efficiency, productivity,

and transparency of NSF’s business processes. In this request, NSF’s IT portfolio

21

is realigned to tie funding for mission-related activities more directly to NSF’s programs.

Requested Funding Level: $404 million

Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) account

NSF will continue to support a portfolio of ongoing projects in the Major Research

Equipment and Facilities Construction account (MREFC), including the Atacama

Large Millimeter Array, Ice Cube, and Advanced LIGO.

The Foundation continues to be committed to the Alaska Regional Research Vessel (ARRV), the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON), and the Ocean

Observatories Initiative (OOI). However, in keeping with new NSF policies, Administration and Congressional mandates, and guidance from the National Science

Board, NSF has adopted more stringent budget and schedule controls to improve

our stewardship of taxpayer dollars. We are postponing requests for additional funding for those projects until they have undergone a final design review, completed

a risk management plan, and developed a rigorous baseline budget, including carefully considered contingencies.

NSF’s MREFC portfolio includes late-stage design-phase funding for the proposed

Advanced Technology Solar Telescope (ATST), which if carried into the construction

phase would be the first large U.S. solar telescope built in the past 30 years. ATST

would reveal critical information needed to explore crucial mysteries such as: What

are the mechanisms responsible for solar flares, coronal mass ejections and space

weather, with their associated impact on satellites, communications networks, and

power grids? What are the processes that cause solar variability and its impact on

the Earth’s climate and evolution? The ATST project is managed by the National

Solar Observatory, which administers the world’s leading collection of solar telescopes.

Requested Funding Level: $2.5 million

Concluding Remarks

Mr. Chairman, I’ve touched on just a handful of programs found in NSF’s diverse

and vibrant portfolio. NSF’s research and education activities support the Nation’s

innovation enterprise. America’s present and future strength, prosperity and global

preeminence depend directly on fundamental research. This is not merely rhetoric;

the scientific and economic record of the past 30 years is proof that an investment

in R&D is an investment in a secure future.

NSF may not be the largest agency that funds science and engineering research,

but our size serves to keep us nimble. Our portfolio is continually evolving as we

identify and pursue new research at the frontiers of knowledge. An essential part

of our mission is to constantly rethink old categories and traditional perspectives.

This ability is more important than ever, as conventional boundaries constantly

shift and disappear—boundaries between nations, between disciplines, between

science and engineering, and between what is basic and what is applied. NSF, with

its mandate to support all fields of science and engineering, is uniquely positioned

to meet the needs of researchers exploring human knowledge at these interfaces,

whether we’re organizing interdisciplinary conferences, enabling cyber-sharing of

data and information, or encouraging new collaborations and partnerships across

disciplinary and national borders. No other government agency comes close to our

flexibility in STEM education and basic research.

In today’s high-tech economy, the supply of new jobs is inextricably linked to the

health of the Nation’s innovation endeavor. NSF is involved in all aspects of innovation; NSF not only funds the discoveries that directly become the innovations of tomorrow, we also fund discoveries that lead to still more discoveries that lead to the

innovations of tomorrow, and, perhaps most critically, we train the technologists

who dream up the discoveries that lead to the discoveries and innovations of tomorrow.

Industry increasingly relies on government support for high-risk, high-reward

basic research. If we fail to provide adequate support of the technological sector

now, we may well reduce our own economic security. It is no accident that our country’s most productive and competitive industries are those that benefited the most

from sustained federal investments in R&D—including computers and communications, semiconductors, biotechnology, and aerospace.

As we look to the century ahead of us, we face the reality that the other nations

in this world are eager to create jobs and robust economies for their citizens. In this

context, ‘‘globalization’’ is shorthand for a complex, permanent, and challenging environment that calls for sustainable, long-term responses, not just short-term fixes.

Regardless of our action or inaction as a nation, the world is full of highly motivated

22

and increasingly skilled workers who are working hard to improve their economic

standing and well-being. We can either innovate, and keep our economic prosperity,

or stagnate, and suffer the consequences of inaction.

Despite some of the more pessimistic forecasts of some observers, I believe that

America can continue to be on the leading edge of ideas and research. Through

strong federal leadership, we can maintain the standing of our businesses and universities. We must not only maintain our position, we must actively seek to increase

our strengths: leadership in fundamental discovery, including high-risk, high-reward

transformational research, state-of-the-art facilities and infrastructure, and a worldclass S&E workforce. With a firm commitment to these fundamental building blocks

of our high-tech economy, we can solidify America’s role as the world leader in innovation.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I hope that this brief overview has

given you a taste of just how very important the National Science Foundation and

its activities are to the future prosperity of the United States. I look forward to

working with you in months ahead, and I am happy to answer any questions you

may have.

BIOGRAPHY FOR ARDEN L. BEMENT, JR.

Arden L. Bement, Jr., became Director of the National Science Foundation on November 24, 2004. He had been Acting Director since February 22, 2004.

He joined NSF from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, where

he had been Director since Dec. 7, 2001. As head of NIST, he oversaw an agency

with an annual budget of about $773 million and an on-site research and administrative staff of about 3,000, complemented by a NIST-sponsored network of 2,000

locally managed manufacturing and business specialists serving smaller manufacturers across the United States. Prior to his appointment as NIST Director, Bement

served as the David A. Ross Distinguished Professor of Nuclear Engineering and

head of the School of Nuclear Engineering at Purdue University. He has held appointments at Purdue University in the schools of Nuclear Engineering, Materials

Engineering, and Electrical and Computer Engineering, as well as a courtesy appointment in the Krannert School of Management. He was Director of the Midwest

Superconductivity Consortium and the Consortium for the Intelligent Management

of the Electrical Power Grid.

Bement came to the position as NIST Director having previously served as head

of that agency’s Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology, the agency’s primary

private-sector policy adviser; as head of the advisory committee for NIST’s Advanced

Technology Program; and on the Board of Overseers for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award.

Along with his NIST advisory roles, Bement served as a member of the U.S. National Science Board from 1989 to 1995. The board guides NSF activities and also

serves as a policy advisory body to the President and Congress. As NSF Director,

Bement now serves as an ex officio member of the NSB.

He currently serves as a member of the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO

and serves as the Vice-Chair of the Commission’s Natural Sciences and Engineering

Committee.

Bement joined the Purdue faculty in 1992 after a 39-year career in industry, government, and academia. These positions included: Vice President of Technical Resources and of Science and Technology for TRW Inc. (1980–1992); Deputy Under

Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (1979–1980); Director, Office of

Materials Science, DARPA (1976–1979); Professor of Nuclear Materials, MIT (1970–

1976); Manager, Fuels and Materials Department and the Metallurgy Research Department, Battelle Northwest Laboratories (1965–1970); and Senior Research Associate, General Electric Co. (1954–1965).

He has been a Director of Keithley Instruments Inc. and the Lord Corp. and was

a member of the Science and Technology Advisory Committee for the Howmet Corp.

(a division of ALCOA).

Bement holds an engineer of metallurgy degree from the Colorado School of

Mines, a Master’s degree in metallurgical engineering from the University of Idaho,

a doctorate degree in metallurgical engineering from the University of Michigan, an

honorary doctorate degree in engineering from Cleveland State University, an honorary doctorate degree in science from Case Western Reserve University, an honorary doctorate degree in engineering from the Colorado School of Mines, and a Chinese Academy of Sciences Graduate School Honorary Professorship. He is a member

of the U.S. National Academy of Engineering and a fellow of the American Academy

of Arts and Sciences.

23

STATEMENT OF DR. STEVEN C. BEERING, CHAIRMAN,

NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD

Dr. BEERING. Good morning, Chairman Baird, Ranking Member

Ehlers, and Members of the Subcommittee. I very much appreciate

the opportunity to address you today. My name is Steven Beering,

and I am the Chairman of the National Science Board. I am honored to represent the 24 members of this Board before you today.

Let me first thank the Members of the Subcommittee for your

long-term commitment and support of the National Science Foundation and its investments in a broad portfolio of research and education. We also applaud your strong bipartisan support for legislation over the past year that will bolster U.S. leadership in science

and technology, including the passage of H.R. 2272, the America

COMPETES Act.

The National Science Board and the broader science and engineering community were surprised and disappointed by the actual

appropriations in the fiscal year 2008 Omnibus Bill, which erased

most of the anticipated increases in support for research. In such

an uncertain funding climate we are concerned with the signal this

sends to our potential partners in international science projects,

but also the message we send to international and American students who may be deterred from pursuing science and engineering

careers in this country.

As many other countries invest heavily in science and engineering research, graduate a record number of scientists and engineers,

and increase incentives to attract outstanding international students and scholars, it is a dangerous time for the U.S. to neglect

our science and engineering enterprise.

The National Science Board is committed to helping this country

maintain our leadership in science and technology. In addition to

its policy and oversight role at NSF, the Board has also addressed

a number of significant policy issues for U.S. science and engineering. The Board is working, for example, with NSF to implement

recommendations in several recent education reports, including a

‘‘National Action Plan for Addressing the Critical Needs of the U.S.

Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Education System,’’ ‘‘Moving Forward to Improve Engineering Education,’’ the ‘‘Hurricane Warning, the Critical Need for a National Hurricane

Research Initiative,’’ ‘‘Enhancing Support of Transformative Research at the National Science Foundation,’’ and the ‘‘Science and

Engineering Indicators 2008,’’ which includes the ‘‘Digest of Key

Science and Engineering Indicators’’ and the companion piece policy statement entitled, ‘‘Research and Development: Essential Foundation for U.S. Competitiveness in a Global Economy.’’ We will be introducing an additional report next month on ‘‘International Science and Engineering Partnerships, A Priority for U.S.

Foreign Policy and Our Nation’s Innovation Enterprise.’’ In response to the America COMPETES Act, the Board has undertaken a number of actions. We recently sent reports to Congress

to make recommendations on NSF policies regarding cost sharing

and on pre-construction and management and operations cost coverage under the Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction Account and will be preparing a final report for Congress

on this subject this year.

24

1The National Science Board was established by Congress in the National Science Foundation

Act of 1950 to oversee the activities of the National Science Foundation and to serve as an independent advisory body to the President and Congress on national policy issues related to science

and engineering research and education. The twenty-four members of the Board are national

leaders in diverse areas of science and engineering research and education from around the

country, who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to serve six-year

terms. The NSF Director also serves as an ex-officio member of the Board.

The Board is also reviewing the impacts of NSF policies on interdisciplinary research and on limiting the number of proposals per

institution of higher education for some awards. The Board will report back to Congress on both of these issues by August of this

year. Finally, the Board will evaluate a pilot program of grants for

new investigators at NSF and report the findings to Congress by

August of 2010.

For fiscal year 2009, the request for the National Science Board is $4.03 million, an increase of 1.5 percent over fiscal year 2008.

Next year’s budget will allow the Board to strengthen its oversight

in policy duties for NSF and provide independent scientific advice

for the President and Congress.

In addition, the Board will continue to increase communication

and outreach with all of our stakeholders. For example, we continue to engage with numerous stakeholders to implement recommendations from our STEM Education Action Plan.

The National Science Board supports the fiscal year 2009 budget

for NSF and for basic science research in other agencies at the

President’s request, so that we can begin to make up for the opportunities that we will miss this year under the fiscal year 2008 Omnibus Appropriations Bill.

You have my pledge on behalf of the Board that we will continue

to work closely with the NSF Director to insure that funding decisions continue to provide maximum returns on the taxpayers’ investment and our nation’s future.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Beering follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVEN C. BEERING

Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers and Members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to address you today. My name is Steven Beering, and I

am the Chairman of the National Science Board. I am honored to represent the

twenty-four members of the National Science Board before you today.

On behalf of the entire National Science Board,1 I would like to thank the Members of this Subcommittee for your long-term commitment in support of the National

Science Foundation and its investments in a broad portfolio of research and education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. We also applaud your

strong bipartisan support for legislation over the past year that will bolster U.S.

leadership in science and technology, including the passage of H.R. 2272, the America COMPETES Act, last August. The science and engineering communities were

also encouraged to see that this committee recommended increases in funding for

basic scientific research in the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act last year. With the President and Congress in agreement about the

importance of science and engineering research and education for U.S. innovation

and competitiveness, the stakeholders in science and engineering research and education looked forward to advances in discovery and innovation that would be enabled by the promised budget increases.

The National Science Board and the broader science and engineering community

were surprised and disappointed by the actual appropriations in the fiscal year 2008

omnibus bill, which erased most of the anticipated increases in support for research.

Now, instead of expanding research activities as planned, we are confronted with

the possibility of layoffs for outstanding researchers in our National Laboratories

and the frustrating reality that our federal research funding programs will be forced

25

to turn away many innovative ideas that would have received awards if funding had

been in keeping with the objective of doubling over 10 years for NSF, National Institute of Science and Technology in Department of Commerce, and the Office of

Science at the Department of Energy.

The 2008 omnibus bill has significantly impacted the National Science Foundation’s mission to support basic research in the United States. The 1.3 percent increase in the research and related activities budget is below the rate of inflation,

and thus represents a decline in support for these activities. If the FY 2008 omnibus

were in line with the budget doubling that was supported by the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative and the America COMPETES Act, NSF estimates

that they would have been able to award 1,000 more grants and 230 more graduate

research fellowships this year. NSF has also shelved several program solicitations

that were planned for 2008, including a new program in Computer and Information

Science and Engineering for the development of a competitive workforce and the Office of Polar Programs’ program on Climate Change and Changing Seasonality in

the Arctic program.

In such an uncertain funding climate, we are concerned with the signal this sends

to our potential partners in international science projects but also the signal sent

to international and American students who may be deterred from pursuing science

and engineering careers in this country. As many other countries invest heavily in

science and engineering research, graduate a record number of scientists and engineers, and increase incentives to attract outstanding international students and

scholars, it is a dangerous time for the U.S. to neglect our science and engineering

enterprise.

Although the United States is still the world leader in science, technology, and

engineering, the findings of the National Science Board and of many other eminent

bodies representing a wide range of perspectives, from think tanks, industry, academia, and government, indicate that urgent and sustained action is required to

maintain our leadership. During these difficult economic times, when industry may

be forced to cut back basic research investments for short-term survival, it is particularly critical for the Federal Government to ensure our innovative capacity

through basic research and workforce training in science and engineering. The

American public agrees: the National Science Board’s Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 reports that according to the most recent NSF survey, in 2006, public

support for federal investments in basic scientific research is at its highest level

since inception of the survey in 1979.

Overview of National Science Board Activities in FY 2007–2008

The National Science Board is committed to helping this country maintain our

leadership in science and technology. Over the past year, in its oversight role for

NSF, it has reviewed and endorsed the Office of Inspector General’s Semi-annual

Reports to Congress and approved the NSF management response; we approved the

Foundation’s Budget Submission for transmittal to OMB; reviewed the Foundation’s annual Merit Review Report; and provided review and decisions on major awards

or proposal funding requests for 13 awards, with a total approved funding of over

$1.08 billion.

The Board also addressed a number of significant policy issues for U.S. science

and engineering, in accord with our statutory mission—far more than I will have

time or space to describe here. I would like to briefly outline the Board’s conclusions

from a number of reports it has issued, and also to present our priorities for the

upcoming year.

First, I will highlight some of our major accomplishments, including those activities that specifically address Congressional concerns.

NSF Oversight and Policy Directions

Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Education—The

Board is working with NSF to implement recommendations in several recent education reports. In October, the Board released A National Action Plan for Addressing the Critical Needs of the U.S. Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education System in response to a request from Congress. The report outlines a number of actions that local, State, and federal stakeholders can take to improve the Nation’s STEM education system. In that report, the Board first recommends greater coherence in the STEM education system, vertically across grade

levels and horizontally across States. The second priority recommendation is to ensure that students are taught by well-prepared and highly effective teachers. A

number of NSF programs are identified specifically as contributing to the development of human capital in the science and engineering workforce, including STEM

teachers. These include Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation (LSAMP),

26

Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU), the Robert Noyce Scholarship program, and the Math and Science Partnerships program as examples of NSF programs that prepare effective teachers. We are pleased to see that the budget provides additional funds for MSP, the Noyce Scholarship and other programs that contribute to the Board’s objectives for the STEM teaching workforce.

Another report, Moving Forward to Improve Engineering Education, recommended

a number of actions for NSF to build upon its innovative programs in engineering

education to attract, retain, and train American engineers from diverse backgrounds

to meet domestic needs and growing international competition.

Transformative Research—Occasionally in the course of scientific research endeavors, a new finding revolutionizes a field or creates new sub-fields of discovery. The

willingness of review panels to take risks on potentially transformative proposals is

an area of continual attention at the National Science Foundation in keeping with

its mission to support discovery through funding basic research. We recognize that

risk aversion in recommendations for funding by review panels is likely to increase

as funding becomes increasingly competitive. However, we also recognize that our

nation cannot afford to miss out on revolutionary ideas. Therefore, the Board formed

a task force on transformative research, which issued a report last May entitled Enhancing Support of Transformative Research at the National Science Foundation. In

the report, the Board recommends that NSF implement a Transformative Research

Initiative, and is currently working with the NSF to implement this recommendation.

Implementation of the America COMPETES Act—In response to the America

COMPETES Act, the Board has undertaken a number of actions. The Board recently sent reports to Congress to make recommendations on NSF policies regarding

cost-sharing and on pre-construction and management and operations cost coverage

under the Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) account,

and will be preparing a final report for Congress on this subject this year. To briefly

summarize the findings of these reports:

• The National Science Board has statutory responsibility for the oversight of

activities funded from the MREFC account. It is a substantial challenge to

prioritize and manage MREFCs, and the Board is exploring the best solution

for ensuring solid analyses of science needs, construction costs, and operations

and maintenance (O&M) costs in the ‘‘MREFC process’’ and to define how the

Board can contribute in the oversight process. In particular, the Board recommends that better estimates of lifetime costs be obtained in the pre-construction planning phase of a project.

• A 2004 NSB policy eliminated the cost-sharing requirement for research

grants and cooperative agreements. The Board recommends changes in the

2004 cost-sharing policy, including reinstatement of mandatory cost-sharing

for certain programs.

I would be happy to meet with you at a later date to elaborate on the Board’s

policy activities or respond to any questions concerning any or all of these important

policy concerns.

The Board is also reviewing the impacts of NSF policies on interdisciplinary research and on limiting the number of proposals per institution of higher education

for some awards. The Board will report back to Congress on both of these issues

by August 2008. Finally, the Board will evaluate a pilot program of grants for new

investigators at NSF and report the findings to Congress by August, 2010.

Advice to the President and Congress

Science & Engineering Indicators—One of the highlights of the year was the recent release of Science and Engineering Indicators 2008, which the Board transmits

to the President and Congress every even numbered year. It is the most comprehensive series of indicators on the state of the U.S. science and engineering enterprise

in a global context. The 2008 Indicators tell a mixed story. A sample of findings include:

• The U.S. is the largest, single, R&D-performing nation in the world supplying

an estimated $340 billion for R&D in 2006, a record high. However, federal

obligations for all academic research (basic and applied) declined in real

terms between 2004 and 2005 and are expected to drop further in 2006 and

2007. This would be the first multi-year decline for federal support for academic research since 1982.

27

• Basic research accounted for 18 percent of total R&D, or $62 billion. The Federal Government supplied about 60 percent of all basic research funds, industry about 17 percent, with private foundations, academic institutions and

other governmental entities supplying the rest.

• U.S. grade school students continue to lag behind other developed countries

in science and math, although fourth and eighth grade U.S. students showed

steady gains in math since 1990. Only fourth graders showed gains in science

compared to 1996.

• The U.S. sustained a relative economic advantage over other developed and

developing economies. The U.S. is a leading producer in high-tech manufacturing and knowledge-intensive services, but several Asian countries, led by

China, have rapidly increased their global market share. The U.S. comparative advantage in exports of high-technology products has eroded: the U.S.

trade balance in advanced technology products shifted from surplus to deficit

starting in 2002. Information and communications products geographically

concentrated in Asia—particularly China and Malaysia—account for this deficit.

• U.S. public support for government funding of scientific research is strong

and growing. In a 2006 survey, 87 percent of Americans supported government funding for basic research, up from 80 percent in past surveys dating

back to 1979. Also, Americans who said the government spends too little on

scientific research grew from 34 percent to 41 percent between 2002 and

2006.

• Diversity has increased in the academic science and engineering labor force.

From 1973 to 2006, in the academic, doctoral labor force the share of women

increased from nine percent to 33 percent, of under-represented minorities

(African-Americans, Hispanics, and American Indians/Alaska Natives) from

two percent to eight percent, and of Asian/Pacific Islanders from four percent

to 14 percent.

Along with Science and Engineering Indicators 2008, the Board has prepared two

additional reports: Digest of Key Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 and a

Companion Piece policy statement: Research and Development: Essential Foundation

for U.S. Competitiveness in a Global Economy. The first report was developed to encourage broad use of Indicators data. It includes a set of 20 important indicators,

and is structured for ease of understanding and to provide linkages to more extensive discussions and data in the main Indicators volumes that are related to the selected indicators. The second, Companion Piece, report expresses Board concerns

with industry and federal investment in U.S. R&D, especially basic research and

academic research, and offers recommendations on improving our understanding of

global trends in industrial science and technology and implications for the U.S.

economy and jobs.

International Partnerships

The Board’s Task Force on International Science conducted a series of roundtable

discussions and meetings to examine the role of the U.S. Government in international S&E partnerships. The task force prepared a report on their findings,

which was approved at the December 2007 meeting and will be released in March

2008. The report, International Science and Engineering Partnerships: A Priority for

U.S. Foreign Policy and Our Nation’s Innovation Enterprise (NSB–08–4), recommends that the U.S. strengthen S&E partnerships with other countries.

The NSF Office of International Science and Engineering should be more active

in encouraging international partnerships between NSF funded Principal Investigators and scientists and engineers in other countries, especially developing countries.

In a global world, such partnerships enable us to leverage growing basic research

investments in other countries. For example, partnerships would help to share costs

of research on common global challenges such as sustainable energy, climate

change, natural disasters, disease pandemics, and the fight against terrorism. In addition, the Board believes that S&E partnerships could be utilized more broadly for

diplomacy. We also would like to see more formal, high level cooperation in S&E

among federal agencies through NSTC. Opinion polls show that countries with very

unfavorable views of the U.S. in general still overwhelmingly admire U.S. science

and technology. For example, scientific collaborations with Russia improved goodwill

between the countries after the Cold War and helped to ensure that nuclear technology was adequately protected; collaborations with countries such as Iran could

serve a similar purpose today.

28

Hurricane Research—Hurricanes account for over half of total weather-related

damage in the U.S. Stimulated by the devastation after Hurricane Katrina, the National Science Board convened a Task Force on Hurricane Science and Engineering.

In January of 2007, it unveiled the National Hurricane Research Initiative (NHRI)

in the report, Hurricane Warning: The Critical Need for a National Hurricane Research Initiative. The proposed NHRI would establish highly focused priorities that

involve industry, academia, and government in addressing research gaps and in applying research findings to operations that could help us to mitigate the destructive

impacts of future hurricanes.

FY 2009 Budget Request

National Science Foundation

The National Science Board reviewed and approved the FY 2009 budget request

that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget. The Board supports

the President’s budget request. The $6.85 billion request represents an increase of nearly $789 million, or 13 percent, above FY 2008 levels. The request is the first

step toward doubling the budgets of several agencies including NSF, the National

Institute of Science and Technology, Department of Commerce, and the Office of

Science, Department of Energy, over 10 years and is critical for realizing the goals

of the bipartisan competitiveness agenda that will help to maintain U.S. leadership

in scientific and engineering research and education.

The NSF already receives many more outstanding research proposals that we can

fund, so I assure you that the budget increase will be put to good use. The proposed

13 percent budget increase will provide funding for 1,370 more outstanding research

proposals and 3,075 more Graduate Research Fellowships to support our most promising young American scientists—tomorrow’s innovators. Support for graduate education is one of NSF’s fundamental responsibilities. The Board continues to examine

the best ways to financially support the future generation of scientists and engineers during graduate education. Although it is clear that financial support in any

form—whether scholarship, assistantship, or traineeship—is important for success

in graduate school, the Board continues to consider how the mechanisms for support

contribute to the achievement of a range of objectives for graduate education, including adaptations to ensure American scientists and engineers can compete with scientists and engineers from around the world.

National Science Board

For FY 2009, the request for the National Science Board is $4.03 million, an in- crease of $61,000, or 1.5 percent, over the FY 2008 estimate of $3.97 million. The

FY 2009 budget will allow the Board to strengthen its oversight and policy duties

for NSF and to provide independent scientific advice for the President and Congress.

In addition, the Board will continue to increase communication and outreach with

universities, industry, the science and engineering research community, Congress,

federal science and technology agencies, and the public. For example, we continue

to engage with numerous stakeholders to implement recommendations from our

STEM education action plan.

This year, the Board will continue to expand our role in approving MREFC

projects, address the topic of sustainable energy through a series of roundtables, review the NSF cost-sharing policy, review the impact of multiple proposals on institutions, and analyze support for interdisciplinary research. In addition, by August

2010, the Board will submit to Congress a report of findings and recommendations

on the NSF pilot program of grants for new investigators that was established by

the America COMPETES Act.

The Board also has been re-examining the policy for recompetition and renewal

of awards at NSF. In 1997, the Board approved a statement on competition, recompetition, and renewal of NSF awards. The Board assessed the implementation of the

statement, and issued a statement to reaffirm the 1997 statement at their last

meeting. The Board endorses strongly the principle that all expiring awards, including major facility awards, are to be recompeted, and believes that peer-reviewed

competition and recompetition is the process most likely to assure the best use of

NSF funds for supporting research and education.

One of the most significant activities over the next two years is to plan content

for Science and Engineering Indicators 2010 and to consider whether we should prepare a second round of the Digest of Key Science and Engineering Indicators (that

was pilot tested with Indicators 2008) for the 2010 volume of Indicators. The Board

is already soliciting input on the 2008 Indicators and Digest to determine how we

can improve the 2010 version to address the concerns of the various communities

who rely on this comprehensive and objective set of data to craft policies that foster

29

discovery and innovation through science and engineering. We will also be presenting the findings of our policy Companion Piece to Indicators to a range of stakeholder audiences to discuss possible responses to our recommendations. To this

point we have held two roll-out events for Indicators 2008, on Capitol Hill and at

the Chamber of Commerce. We have held additional discussions with spokespersons

from the Department of Commerce and with the members of the Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable at the National Academies on data issues and

policy concerns highlighted in our Companion Piece, Research and Development: Essential Foundation for U.S. Competitiveness in a Global Economy.

A priority for the Board during the upcoming year is sustainable energy. In October 2007, the Board established the Task force on Sustainable Energy to address

the science and engineering challenges related to sustainable energy. The Task

Force held the first of a series of roundtable discussions earlier this month on the

role of the Federal Government, businesses, non-profits, and other U.S. stakeholders

in addressing the S&E challenges of sustainable energy. The Task Force will continue to meet with stakeholders in order to inform a forthcoming report that will

contain recommendations for implementing a nationally coordinated initiative in

S&E research and education for sustainable energy.

Closing Remarks

The Board strongly recommends that Congress fund in full the President’s budget

request for the National Science Foundation and for basic scientific research at

other agencies. Amidst the great economic and political uncertainty of the moment,

the importance of research and development for innovation and economic growth is

undeniable. NSF-funded research and education provides the foundation for American scientific and technological greatness. The economic growth and the quality of

life that we enjoyed in the 20th century were made possible in large part by technological discoveries and innovations. In addition, we need science and engineering advances more than ever to tackle some of the greatest challenges that we have ever

faced, including climate change, national security, and sustainable energy production.

I understand that investments in science and technology compete with a host of

other funding priorities. Though it might be tempting to forego the long-term investments in the face of short-term challenges, neglecting scientific research and education now will have serious consequences for the future of our country. We must

bear in mind that investments in our scientific and technological workforce, infrastructure, and basic research are not luxuries—they are critical for long-term prosperity and security. As other countries now actively seek to emulate our success by

building their own innovation infrastructures, we must be ever vigilant to enhance

our own innovative capacity.

Based on the President’s budget request and the appropriations bill from this

committee last year, it appears that both parties of Congress and the White House

appreciate the importance of scientific research and education for our country. The

FY 2009 budget for NSF and for basic science research in other agencies at the level

of the President’s request can begin to make up for the opportunities that we will

miss this year under the FY 2008 omnibus appropriations bill. You have my pledge

on behalf of the Board that we will continue to work closely with the NSF Director

to ensure that funding decisions continue to provide maximum returns on the taxpayers’ investment in our nation’s future.

Cited Board Documents

Digest of Key Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 (NSB–08–2), http://

www.nsf.gov/statistics/digest08/, January 15, 2008.

Enhancing Support of Transformative Research at the National Science Foundation

(NSB–07–32), http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2007/tr¥report.pdf, May 7,

2007.

Hurricane Warning: The Critical Need for a National Hurricane Research Initiative

(NSB–06–115), http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/committees/hurricane/final¥report.pdf

International Science and Engineering Partnerships: A Priority for U.S. Foreign Policy and Our Nation’s Innovation Enterprise (NSB–08–04) (forthcoming, March

2008).

Moving Forward to Improve Engineering Education (NSB–07–122), http://

www.nsf.gov/pubs/2007/nsb07122/nsb07122.pdf, November 19, 2007.

‘‘NSB Statement on Competition, Recompetition, and Renewal of NSF Awards’’

(NSB–08–16), http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2008/

nsb0816¥statement.pdf

30

Research and Development: Essential Foundation for U.S. Competitiveness in a

Global Economy (NSB–08–3), http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsb0803/start.htm,

January 15, 2008.

‘‘Report to Congress on Cost-sharing Policies at NSF’’ (NSB–08–17), http://

www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2008/rprt¥congress¥cs¥policy.pdf, February 7,

2008.

Report to Congress on Pre-construction Funding and Maintenance and Operations

Costs Associated with Major Research Equipment and Facilities at NSF’’ (NSB– 08–15) (Forthcoming).

‘‘Resolution: National Science Board-Competition and Recompetition of NSF

Awards’’ (NSB–08–12), http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2008/

nsb0812¥comp¥recomp.pdf

Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 (NSB–08–1), http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/, January 15, 2008.

BIOGRAPHY FOR STEVEN C. BEERING

Steven C. Beering received B.S. and M.D. degrees and an honorary Doctor of

Science degree from the University of Pittsburgh. Before becoming President of Purdue in 1983, he served for a decade as Dean of Medicine and Director of the Indiana

University Medical Center. He holds appointments as Professor of Medicine at Indiana University and Professor of Pharmacology at Purdue University. He retired

from the Purdue presidency in 2000.

He served on active duty with the USAF Medical Corps from May 1957 to June

1969, achieving the rank of lieutenant colonel.

Beering has held numerous national offices, including the chairmanship of the Association of American Medical Colleges and the Association of American Universities. He is a former regent of the National Library of Medicine.

He is also a Fellow of the American College of Physicians and the Royal Society

of Medicine, a member of Phi Beta Kappa, the Institute of Medicine of the National

Academy of Sciences, and the Indiana Academy.

He serves on a number of national and corporate boards, including NiSource Inc.,

Central Indiana Corporate Partnership, Inc., Community Foundation of Northern

Indiana, CID Corporation, and Marquis Who’s Who. He is a Trustee of the University of Pittsburgh, and the Universities Research Association, and is Director Emeritus of the Purdue Research Foundation.

Beering was appointed to the National Science Board in 2002, reappointed in

2004, and elected Chairman in 2006.

DISCUSSION

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you both. We have been joined by Eddie

Bernice Johnson from Texas. Ms. Johnson, thank you for joining

us, who has been a champion of women and minority issues in

science and actually that is a nice segue to one of the questions I

wanted to ask.

We had a very informative hearing awhile back on issues pertaining particularly to women’s role in science. Donna Shalala was

here, Dr. Olsen as well, testified, and I noted with some concern

I think as I read the budget, a proposal to reduce funding for ADVANCE, and ADVANCE was one of the programs that had been

cited that if used well, particularly effective in changing, making

the kind of institutional-wide cultural changes that lead to retention. One of the issues that came up clearly in our hearing was

that we have a fair number of women in the science pipeline coming out of high schools, fair number entering college, but at the

upper levels we have a dramatic drop off, and ADVANCE seems to

do some of the cultural things to change that.

Could you comment a little bit about that, if you would, and

what else is being done as manifested in the budget to address

women and the minority role in science?

31

Dr. BEMENT. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

ADVANCE is a program that is jointly funded by our Research

and Related Activities Account and also our EHR account. We do

plan a solicitation in ’08, in spite of the reduced funding in ’08. We

have some funding flexibility in ’09, that if we have meritorious

awards that we would like to fund, we will try and find additional

funding to do that.

Chairman BAIRD. So it sounds like you feel fairly committed to

the program as well still.

Dr. BEMENT. Yes, we are very committed to the program.

Chairman BAIRD. Talk to us a little bit, if you would, about the

role of international science. One of the things this committee, I

mentioned earlier, is going to focus a great deal on is scientific diplomacy and international scientific collaboration. If you could address some of those programs as reflected in this budget and in

your perspective on their role in the mission. Dr. Beering and Dr.

Bement. Either.

Dr. BEERING. Thank you. As I mentioned, we are going to have

a full report forthcoming very shortly, we hope by the 28th of

March. Our first priority in the International Science Taskforce has

been to generate a clear, coherent, and integrated National strategy. Our second priority is to balance U.S. foreign policy with the

R&D policy, and the third priority is to enhance global mobility of

scientists and engineers.

When our taskforce met in Brussels on the occasion of the 50th

anniversary of the European Union, and I must admit I hadn’t realized they had been at it for 50 years, we were thrilled by their

openness and their willingness to share scientific knowledge across

national boundaries. Science is an international language, and

knowledge has no boundaries. And it wasn’t a question of financial

support. It was a question of willingness to share and to work together.

And so we would like to see that our international science efforts

can be coordinated to become a true instrument of international

policy.

Dr. BEMENT. Yes. Thank you. The international activities of the

National Science Foundation are not only very broad but also very

appreciated throughout the world. And it is very difficult to summarize briefly the full scope of activities in our international programs, so with your permission I would like to submit for the

record a summary report on those activities. [Please refer to NSF’s

response to questions for the record submitted by Subcommittee

Chairman Baird. For reference, the specific question is: Please provide a summary of all international science and engineering cooperation activities at NSF, including the relevant budget allocations.]

But they include a broad range of research collaborations, not

only with the developed economies but also with the developing

economies throughout the world. It includes institutional interactions. I should also say up front that we only fund the U.S. part

of those interactions on a true partnership basis. We engage in exchanges of undergraduate, graduate, and post-doc students to give

them a research experience in different parts of the world. We engage in international organizations such as UNESCO and OECD

32

and the World Bank to help promote capacity building in the developing world.

And we are also a principle player on most of the bilateral exchanges that are coordinated by the State Department. In fact, in

just the last three or four weeks I have spoken to the science counselors of all the major embassies here in Washington, and I have

had two luncheons with key ambassadors, especially in Europe,

hosted by Under Secretary Dobriansky.

So a good bit of my time and my Deputy’s time and also our Assistant Director’s time is spent engaged in these types of international activities.

Chairman BAIRD. We applaud that, and we look forward to the

hearing.

Two other quick comments and then I will recognize my friend,

Mr. Ehlers. You mentioned, Dr. Beering, hurricane warning process

and clearly we need to make improvements in that area and improve our accuracy and location, magnitude, et cetera.

But this is chance for me to also raise a question I asked earlier

about the social sciences as well. I have spoken to some hurricane

forecasters, and actually, if you look at Katrina, we were pretty

good. They were pretty good, not we, but they were pretty good in

terms of saying where it was going to hit, what its magnitude was,

what the potential impacts were, et cetera. The challenge was not

so much the accuracy of the prediction of timing, location, and

magnitude, it was partly getting people to pay attention. And that

seems to me to be a social science issue.

And I note that the budget for social science research is actually

a good bit less in terms of its increase than is the budget for other

areas of the overall budget proposal. If you, either of you would

care to talk about that, I would appreciate that.

Dr. BEMENT. Yes. Thank you. Social science at the National

Science Foundation is integrated throughout the Foundation. It

threads through the Foundation. And it is especially important in

areas of national need. You mentioned disruptive storm events like

hurricanes, but it also plays a critical role in terrorism, homeland

security, and most of our cross-foundation initiatives. You will find

it in environmental health and safety with regard to

nanotechnology.

And you are correct that it is important to understand how decisions are made because Katrina, after all, was not just a natural

disaster. It was a human disaster as well, and it fell far short of

adequate performance among the key decision-makers.

So we very much support social science. With regard to the allocation of resources, social science in terms of dollar amount has in

the ’09 budget one of the largest incremental increases in years.

Biosciences has the largest increase in about eight years. We not

only had to pay attention to their role throughout all of our programs in the Foundation, but alignment of our overall program to

the goals of the American Competitiveness Initiative and the America COMPETES Act.

So the main objective is to be sure we have healthy increases in

all the programs but also to pay attention to the alignment.

Chairman BAIRD. I respect and understand that. I will just underscore that the America COMPETES Act was explicit that social

33

sciences should share in the increase. It has to a degree, but I have

concerns.

Dr. BEMENT. I agree.

Chairman BAIRD. I will recognize my distinguished colleague, Dr.

Ehlers.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I do want to comment the majority for the beautiful

redecoration of this room. It looks very nice. I assume we will soon

return the portraits and perhaps disturb the de ́cor.

Chairman BAIRD. We are looking for an alternative to Tennyson

by the way if anyone wants to offer that.

Mr. EHLERS. Just don’t try changing the Bible quote.

Anyway, I think it would be nice, however, if you could turn the

heat back on.

Chairman BAIRD. We are lowering our carbon footprints.

Mr. EHLERS. Anyway, Dr. Bement, an essential element in this

submission is support for science and engineering education from

pre-K through grad school and beyond. I would appreciate if you

could explain why your new budget, fiscal year 2009 budget, does

not include funding for many of the NSF STEM education activities

authorized in the COMPETES Act?

And I know you are short of money, but I would just like to know

the rationale.

Dr. BEMENT. Yes. We are short on money. First of all, let me

take the Math and Science Partnership Program. I think the increase there was about two and one-half million, which in some of

these terms, doesn’t look like a lot, but it is a turnaround from

where we were two or three years ago, where we were declining at

the rate of our mortgage payments with very little flexibility for

new starts.

Now, the budget in ’09 will allow us to not only cover our con- tinuing grants but to invest $15 million in new starts. So we expect

to have about 15 to 17 new awards. Now, that is a big change, and

most of that change came about as a result of our assessments over

the last two years that demonstrated very clearly that we are making tremendous headway in our math and science partnership

school districts and schools in improving math education and also

science education at almost all levels. The only problem is at the

middle school level for science, but in all other categories there is

very positive improvement.

In some of the other programs the assessments either haven’t

been completed, or they are still in progress, and under the Deficit

Reduction Act of 2005, and the establishment of the Academic Competitiveness Council, the philosophy is ‘‘show me.’’ Show me that

these programs are effective through rigorous third-party assessments before the funding increases.

And so that is the environment under which we are currently operating. I am very optimistic, however, that our programs are

strong and the assessments that are currently underway will be

positive, and we will be able to grow those budgets and get them

closer to the authorization levels.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you. And Dr. Beering, you have put a lot of

work into developing the National Action Plan for STEM Education, and I am curious what feedback the National Science Board

34

has received on that report and to what extent the Board is still

involved with implementing some of its recommendations. In particular, how the fiscal year 2009 budget reflects any role that NSF

might have in that.

Dr. BEERING. Thank you. First of all, we get personal support

and encouragement. I think by and large there has been a National

consensus that we need to have a change in attitude and commitment and to bring education, particularly science education, into

the curriculum very early on.

The big problem is the logistics of 95,000 different school board

members, and that is where the pushback has also come. We had

a hearing in this very room here a few months ago where that

came out, as you recall, and nonetheless, I feel that there is broadbased support for the major recommendations of having horizontal

and vertical alignment and having the teachers better prepared

than they are now.

There is concern that teachers don’t stay in the profession long

enough. There is concern that they are not paid at the level of their

counterparts in business and industry with similar preparation,

and I have had a lot of reactions from business and industry that

is in agreement with that perception and that hopes to be helpful

to us.

So the early results of that have been very pleasing to us, and

I think we will continue to make progress.

Mr. EHLERS. Let me ask you, though, vertical and horizontal

alignment of standards. That brings forward another issue that I

have been preaching about for several years, and in fact, Senator

Dodd and I have introduced a bill trying to develop voluntary National standards for the sciences.

I think we have tremendous problems in this country because of

the diversity of governments of the schools with the local school

boards, the state boards of education, and so forth. But then in addition beyond that, because we are such an incredibly mobile society, a student can take classes in one school building, move 10

miles, and find the sequence of subjects is different.

Do you think the vertical and horizontal alignment will take care

of that, or do you think we should develop these voluntary standards, which I would hope would at least take care of the sequencing and the major components. These would not be mandatory but

at least would be good suggestions.

I would appreciate your comments on that.

Dr. BEERING. I think, again, there is agreement that voluntary

standards would be quite helpful. There is a concern that any proposed legislation would mandate a federal coordinating council

rather than a voluntary coordinating organization as we have proposed, and I think that is the single issue that I have had the most

comment on from people, wondering are we really serious about

having a non-federal coordinating council, and if so, that would be

alright, and that would be helpful.

Mr. EHLERS. Yeah, and I think there would be general agreement in the Congress that that would be good as well, as long as

it is established well, and it has the ability to operate in a way that

will produce results.

I see my time is expired. I yield back.

35

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers.

Dr. McNerney.

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Beering, in your

written testimony you indicate that there is a growing public support for increasing federal funding for research, for scientific research. Do you attribute that to awareness of the link between that

kind of expenditure and our national economic well-being? And if

so, and even if not so, what do you propose or what do you recommend in terms of keeping that enthusiasm alive and growing for

public support?

Dr. BEERING. I think people are increasingly aware of the scientific advances that are being publicized through the media, and

they are hopeful that this will produce Nirvana and long life and

health and happiness, and it is more a hope than a reality in many

instances.

But I am happy that there is this positive support rather than

the opposite.

Mr. MCNERNEY. There are no recommendations how to continue

to grow that public support?

Dr. BEERING. I don’t have any special ones. No.

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, okay. Dr. Bement.

Dr. BEMENT. Yes.

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you for coming here today, and I, certainly you will find fewer people, you will find nobody that is more

sympathetic toward funding for science education than myself and

members of this committee here.

You indicated that since 1970, the federal investment in physical

sciences has been halved as a percentage of GDP. At the same time

we know that our competitors like India and China are increasing

their support. And in fact, an often repeated phrase, the Chinese

are putting out more English-speaking engineers per year than the

Americans are now.

So do you believe there is a direct correlation between federal

funding and the number of engineers and scientists that we are

turning out?

Dr. BEMENT. Absolutely. I should point out that almost all the

funding provided to the National Science Foundation supports our

innovation system one way or the other. For example, our research

grants are actually used to train and educate graduate students

who go right into the innovation system. Our graduate fellowships

and traineeships have very much the same purpose.

The problem is that the growth in demand for scientists and engineers is increasing at about five percent per year, but the growth

in degrees is only increasing at about one and one-half percent per

year.

Furthermore, we are reaching a period where baby boomers are

retiring at an ever-increasing rate, so that many of our federal

labs, whether they are defense or non-defense are going to start

hollowing out before too long.

Mr. MCNERNEY. So by supplying the men, then you would expect

there to be increasing salary offers for these types of trained people.

Dr. BEMENT. I think over a career you would find that these are

very lucrative career paths. China and India have gotten the mesVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:14 Jul 05, 2008 Jkt 040817 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\R&SE08\022608\40817 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
36

sage that what is driving the economy in a knowledge environment

is education and investment in research. So both India and China

are investing quite substantial sums in improving the quality of

their education, especially at the graduate levels, masters and

Ph.D. programs.

And the equation there is very simple. If you produce the highlevel talent, industry will find their way to your doorstop. And if

you look at the writings of Craig Barrett, Norm Augustine, they

are the Cassandras that see the future quite clearly because they

are in the process of seeing this migration begin to take place.

And I believe we only have a reasonable period of time before we

address this question. That is why our budget for ’09, is highly

skewed to train the graduate students and to provide the fellowships and traineeships that will begin to address this in the nearterm rather than the longer-term.

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, that sort of segues into my next question

was that the COMPETES Act does authorize a new pilot program

for young investigators that don’t have the reputation to get the big

grants. Do we expect to see that program implemented in some

form in the coming fiscal year?

Dr. BEMENT. We currently have working groups working on all

the sections of the America COMPETES Act to figure out, first of

all, how to come into compliance with all the requirements in the

Act, and we are making good progress on that. Also to begin designing the new programs that are called for in the Act. Some of

those I think we can start in ’08, but we need the flexibility in ’09

to really bring them up to a decent level.

With regard to young investigators, if you look at the distribution

curve of funding and numbers of grants, as a function of years from

last degree, namely the Ph.D. degree for most, what you will find

is distribution that is skewed very strongly towards younger investigators. In fact, the peak of the curve is at about six to seven years

after the Ph.D., and then it trails off over time. And what we are

discovering is that about 30 percent of all new investigator grants

go to young investigators that are about five years from their Ph.D.

And that comes as a result of our paying attention to young investigators through our CAREER grants, through many other grants,

that favor young investigators.

But I think more than anything else is the fact that we reserve

a healthy fraction of our core program to fund unsolicited grants,

and young investigators would normally apply for unsolicited

grants in order to support their particular interests.

Mr. MCNERNEY. So you are talking about numbers of grants or

numbers of dollars when you say that the, when you talked about

the skew?

Dr. BEMENT. Both. We thought of it both ways.

Chairman BAIRD. Mr. Bilbray from California.

Thank you, Mr. Bilbray.

Dr. Lipinski.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank Dr.

Bement and Dr. Beering for their testimony and for all the work

that they do. This is one of the most critical areas for our country

and doesn’t really get the attention I think that it deserves.

37

I have some, probably some further questions. I am, as you

know, a political scientist and have some further questions on that

in writing, but I want to, a couple other things I want to ask you

here.

First of all, when the Administration, it used the Academic Competitiveness Council’s assessment of the effectiveness of federal

STEM ed programs as part of its justification for its budget decisions for NSF’s Education and Human Resources Directorate. The

Academic Competitiveness Council, ACC, was carried by Education

Secretary Spellings, and the ACC found that a number of NSF programs did not have adequate evaluations.

So I want to ask Dr. Bement, would you agree with the report’s

conclusions that NSF’s education programs are not properly evaluated?

Dr. BEMENT. No. I disagree and disagree quite strongly. Evaluation is a very critical part of all of our education programs in EHR,

our Education Human Resources Directorate. And starting in 1997,

we required assessments and evaluations on every one of our programs, and even now with all incoming grants, we require an assessment plan as part of the grant. And that is considered in

awarding a grant.

Now, there is quite a difference of opinion on whether random

control testing is the gold standard. I think you would recognize

that in the Noyce Program where you particularly select people for

scholarships, that is not necessarily a random process. So you violate external measures as well as internal measures statistically in

that kind of an evaluation.

Furthermore, to do a random control test you have to have sufficient numbers that are statistically significant, and if you are doing

research, it depends on the stage of the research. If you are doing

implementation, it depends on the stage of implementation. Now,

we work pretty much at the project and the program level, so that

in many cases a well-regulated comparison group study is a better

means of evaluation in the earlier stages of the program where

changes are occurring dramatically rather than just taking a snapshot through a random control test to see what the status is near

the stage of scale-up.

So I think we are using the proper instruments. I think we are

getting the results that we need in order to establish that our programs are effective, and we work very closely with the Department

of Education in scaling up our programs so that eventually they

will be proven effective through random control testing as well.

Mr. LIPINSKI. There is just basically a disagreement over the,

what good testing, what good evaluation is. I am concerned that

there is a—certainly a battle going on in terms of who is going to

do our STEM education. Is it the Department of Education——

Dr. BEMENT. Yeah.

Mr. LIPINSKI.—or the NSF. I certainly believe that the NSF has

shown, at least to me, that NSF has done a very good job of doing

this over the years.

Dr. BEMENT. I want to make one point clear, and that is that,

first of all, even though Secretary Spelling’s chaired the Academic

Competitiveness Council, I was a very vocal member on that council as are a number of other agency heads. Furthermore, in the

38

working groups that established the report that was presented at

Congress last May, those working groups were either chaired or cochaired by NSF staff. So we stand behind the recommendations in

that report, and you will note that the recommendations do provide

a flexibility for how to evaluate different types of programs. And,

again, I would assert that we are in full conformance with the recommendations of the report.

Mr. LIPINSKI. One other thing I wanted to raise. The National

Nanotechnology Initiative only gets a two percent increase, which

is actually below the inflation rate. Why is the NNI getting such

a low increase, actually a decrease considering inflation?

Dr. BEMENT. Well, we have a way of determining whether a program has begun to reach the flat part of a learning curve, and that

is based on the quality of proposals that we receive in the program.

And when the number of potentially transformative ideas or the

number of excellent proposals begin to taper off, that is the time

to start moderating the funding.

Now, most of the priority in the NNI Program, in this budget is

an increase in environmental health and safety research. And the

reason for that is pretty obvious, and that is that in any new technology one has to be aware of health and safety considerations.

NSF has been a leader in this program, in this regard for, since

the beginning of the program. We have always held apart something of the order of seven percent of our total budget in order to

look at EHS issues. And I feel the time has come to increase that

because we are seeing a lot of variability in the research results

and the test results on the effective engineered nano-particles on

human cells and other factors.

And a lot of that variability is just lack of rigorous characterization of the particles. And so we have to develop better instrumentation, better protocols, and better means and better standards. Incidentally, we are working with NIST in trying to back up some of

the standards to reduce that variability so that we can have confidence in the results.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. I see my time is up.

Chairman BAIRD. Thanks, Dr. Lipinski.

Dr. Bement, I applaud your defense of methodologies, and I will

recognize Ms. Johnson in one second. I would just, as someone who

used to teach statistics, to try to get folks to understand that the

very premise of a test of statistical significance assumes random

assignment and you are comparing the actual observed difference

in your two subject groups with what might occur through random

assignment, if you don’t have random assignments, the premise of

a test of statistical significance is really called into doubt. And

there is a rather slavish dependence on this I think by the Department of Education, which in itself maybe symptomatic of some of

the problems in our education system.

Ms. Johnson.

Ms. JOHNSON. I have always had great admiration for the National Science Foundation and felt that it was one of the most accountable agencies that we had and I think at this point one of the

most important since we need this America COMPETES Act implemented. As I think about the future of the space program, of our

39

high tech, all of the things that, even our air controllers, we need

so many more people than what we are training, involved.

Would you give me an idea of how much implementation you can

do with the current budget that you are defending?

Dr. BEMENT. Yes. Thank you. Our concern about this issue is

more than just the level of funding and the number of programs

but how those programs align themselves and provide synergy

among the different programs.

For example, in education in order to reduce wastes and leakage

in the pipeline, we feel that a two plus two plus two approach is

necessary, and this is recognized in our Innovation of Institutional

Integration program, which is a way of aligning different programs

by focusing on a particular strategy.

The strategy here is to focus on the last two years of high school,

the first two years of undergraduate training, and the second two

years of undergraduate training. That is the two plus two. And of

course, the first two years of undergraduate training also brings in

the community colleges as well, and what we want to do is look at

the critical junctures between those programs and get those programs aligned so that we can have greater success in retention but

also pre-college or preparation at the secondary school level.

So that is going to be a hallmark of our ’09 initiatives in the

budget, and we feel that this can be very effective.

Ms. JOHNSON. In other words what you are saying is you are

adequately funded for the beginning of the implementation.

Dr. BEMENT. I think in the ’09 budget we are happy with the

way we have aligned the budget to meet those objectives. Yes. It

will give us a good start.

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much.

Chairman BAIRD. Just a couple of further questions if I might.

My understanding is that there was a significant increase in the

administration, administrative budget of NSF, and that that was

very much needed to keep up with increasing demand and though

it came under some assault in the appropriations process, I would

urge my colleagues on this committee to not fall victim to that no

matter how seductive the offset may seem to be, because if we are

going to process these programs, we need people in the administrative offices. And I think NSF keeps its overhead relatively low.

Would either of you like to talk about the current status and

some of the changes that have been made in that area?

Dr. BEMENT. Thank you. Well, as a result of the good action we

had in the ’08 budget, we are going to be able to start immediately

in addressing some of the very critical staff shortages that we currently have, especially among program officers who are under tremendous pressure.

But the Agency Operations and Award Management budget is

more than just people and space. It deals with our pre-award activities as well as our post-award accountability for how programs

are actually carried out. And it also includes adequate travel so

that program officers can do post-award management.

In addition to that it also supports security and all of our information technology programs that deal with E-government, that

deal with the essential application programs that we use to operate, namely our FastLane process, the new website, grants.gov, and

40

also to try to automate the internal operations within the foundation in order to continually improve our productivity. And as the

productivity increases, it has been so dramatic over the years, our

proposal volume has gone up by almost a factor of three or so and

yet our staff costs have been held at only a slight increase.

Those are very worthwhile investments, and we get a lot of return on those investments, and we are still able to keep our overhead costs to within about five percent.

Chairman BAIRD. Given the complexity of the issues that your

folks have to deal with, the level of technical demand, the complexity of the programs that are put forward, the diversity of issues

that NSF deals with, I think the, that you should be acknowledged

and the appreciation extended from this committee.

And as I say, we will do whatever we can to try to make sure

the Administration, administrative budget stays——

Dr. BEMENT. It is very much appreciated. Thank you.

Chairman BAIRD. I want to also compliment you. I am pleased

to see the water initiative. It just shocks me how little we know

about water. We are made of water, the planet is largely made of

water, at least the part we live near, and I believe water will become a signature issue of this century. And the amount of fresh

drinking water available on this planet is very small, and it is diminishing through pollution, et cetera, and so I applaud NSF’s directive in that area.

I want to raise one question, and I don’t really expect an answer

here. I just want to, just for the record. First by way of compliment,

we had the great privilege of going down to Antarctica and golly,

the American people should see what a remarkable achievement

has happened down there, the science is world class. The conditions

under which it occurs is, are extraordinarily difficult, and your people are to be absolutely commended for the work, and I congratulate you on the opening of the new South Pole Center. It is quite

an accomplishment, and we are proud of what our country can do

in that area.

A slight negative note or question I guess it is better put. I noticed in the budget report I don’t know how much money was

spent, but some art project that consisted of putting spheres out on

the ice somewhere to simulate the heavens, I am probably one of

the few or last people in this Congress to demagogue against humanities and art spending, but I have a sense now having been

there of the logistics of getting equipment and people down to that

part of the world. And I just would query for future budgetary

needs whether or not such expenditures are maybe better left to

the National Endowment of the Humanities or maybe better left to

people who want to appreciate the heavens will look at the sky at

night, Rocky Mountains or something, and you will get a sense of

how they fairly much supercede the experience of a few spherical

objects placed on the ice.

So in future budgets you might want to have a look at what——

Dr. BEMENT. Chairman Baird, you raise an issue I should be concerned about, so with your permission I would like to look into it

and report back to you in writing.

[The information follows:]

41

INFORMATION FOR THE RECORD

Dr. Bement’s response to an inquiry by Chairman Baird regarding the Antarctic

Artists and Writers Program (AA&W):

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

ANTARCTIC ARTISTS AND WRITERS PROGRAM (AA&W)

The National Science Foundation has been responsible for managing the United

States Antarctic Program (USAP) on behalf of the Nation for many decades now,

pursuant to Presidential Memorandum 6646. As such, NSF supports research

projects supported by NSF and other federal agencies in the field, coordinates the

logistics support activities of DOD and several other agencies, and also maintains

a modest, merit-reviewed Antarctic Artists and Writers (AA&W) Program. The goals

of the USAP are to expand fundamental knowledge of the region, to foster research

on global and regional problems of current scientific importance, and to use the region as a platform from which to support research and education. The AA&W Program was established in 1980 in furtherance of these goals. It seeks to bring information about the USAP to the American public through the published work of artists and writers and therefore to complement the publication of scientific papers

that speak primarily to the research community.

Like all NSF programs, the AA&W Program subjects proposals to external review

by peers—in this case established writers or artists. The review process informs

NSF’s decision concerning the merits of each proposal. Unlike NSF’s regular programs, the AA&W Program does not provide funding for projects, but rather only

access to our stations, field camps, and scientists in Antarctica.

The project you asked about has resulted in a number of shows at art galleries

and has been the subject of a number of public presentations at other forums, bringing a perspective on Antarctica to the public that is somewhat unique. The more

typical result of an AA&W award has been the publication of books and articles in

widely read journals.

Chairman BAIRD. We are very proud and happy on this committee, Dr. Ehlers and myself, to steadfastly defend scientific

projects in peer review on the Floor of the House. It would be more

difficult for me to defend that particular project perhaps.

One question I have as we looked at the increase in funding, one

of the challenges NSF has faced and was acknowledged in the Rising Above the Gathering Storm is the growing disparity between

availability of grants that actually get funded to researchers and

applications. And I hear this from researchers in all branches of

science. When they apply to federal grants, their probability of success is going down.

Now, as we see an increase in funding, what happens, because

we are also seeing an increase in demand. Are we still losing

ground but losing ground at a slower rate than we used to lose it,

or are we keeping pace now with, if we were to enact the proposed

’09 budget?

Dr. BEMENT. Well, if we enact the ’09 budget, that will increase

our success rate by about two percentage points, so it is not a onebudget cycle issue. On the other hand, that would greatly reduce

the amount of churn in the system and churn is a very big issue,

not only for the investigators but also the people that devote time

for merit review. When they start seeing the same proposal over

and over again, they wonder whether their time is being well

spent.

There are provisions in the America COMPETES Act that will

help us in this matter, and we are also studying other ways in

which we can, near the end of a fiscal year, hold proposals that are

fundable over for funding in the succeeding fiscal year. And anyVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:14 Jul 05, 2008 Jkt 040817 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\R&SE08\022608\40817 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
42

thing we can do to reduce the amount of churn would, of course,

be in the right direction.

Chairman BAIRD. I think that is so important for Members of

this committee but for the entire Congress to understand is that,

is the impact of worthwhile projects competing against other worthwhile projects, and when they don’t get funded, especially early career investigators, really start, they actually give up at some point.

And very promising lines of research and promising investigators

may go in other directions that are probably damaging to our overall competitiveness.

Dr. Ehlers.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a few additional

questions.

Dr. Bement, during your testimony you mentioned several new

key investments. The Science and Engineering Beyond Moore’s

Law, Adaptive Systems Technology, and the Dynamics of Water

Processes, which we just discussed a moment ago. Could you give

us more details on how, what the projects are and how the money

is——

Dr. BEMENT. Yes.

Mr. EHLERS.—going to be spent?

Dr. BEMENT. The Science and Engineering Beyond Moore’s Law

recognizes that we are about to reach an endpoint because we are

reaching quantum limits in silicon technology. And our estimate is

that we will probably reach the end of Moore’s Law in about 20

years, maybe sooner.

So this is the time now that we should begin to look at alternate

technologies in order to get on a new law. And there are promising

technologies that will use, molecular electronics, for example, carbon nano-tube technology, quantum dot technology, even quantum

computing.

And so what we would like to do is increase our investment in

these alternate technologies so that when the time comes, we will

be prepared to keep going, and not only to make information systems more compact, but even more ubiquitous than they are today.

And the second initiative, Adaptive Systems Technology. The

human body can do things better than electrical and mechanical

systems with regard to interpreting sensor signals, nerve and

motor control, and also in terms of analytical thinking, which enables a human being to both anticipate and adapt to change.

As we learn more about the brain, the nervous system, and the

sensory systems, we feel that we can take that knowledge and, if

you will, reverse engineer it, although that is a crude term. But,

nevertheless, to embed some means of adaptation and anticipation

in engineered systems.

Let me just give you a couple of examples. We feel by using

smart agents we can develop a much more robust electric power

grid where it would be possible to anticipate upset conditions in

time to actually take corrective action, either by load shedding or

bringing on new capacity.

In our computing systems and also in our networks we could use

these adaptive technologies or anticipatory technologies to identify

intruders in the systems and to encounter intruders in a much

more natural and much more effective way.

43

In human prostheses we have already begun seeing development

of artificial retinas that will enable the blind to see and also artificial cochleas that will enable the deaf to hear. We already have

amazing developments in connecting the brain to the nervous system in order to restore muscular activity and also nervous activity,

to restore sensory activity.

Now, we feel that these are emerging technologies that are not

only being paid attention to in Europe and also Asia where the investments are going up, but I think we in this country have an opportunity to establish leadership and maintain leadership in these

areas, and because of the broad range of scientific and engineering

disciplines that NSF supports through interdisciplinary research, I

think we can really make good progress in this area.

In the case of the waters initiative, there are changing patterns

in our hydrological systems caused by ecological changes, climate

changes, and so forth. But also there are major changes in water

usage. For example, we aspire to produce ethanol fuels from biomass. That requires an enormous amount of water, not only for

growing the crops but also for processing the ethanol. Now, the

question is over time is that sustainable? Will the water be where

the biomass is, because the processing plants have to be reasonably

close to the source in order to make it economically feasible.

That is just one example, but there are many others. As we look

ahead on a National basis there is a great possibility that there

would be growing drought conditions in the central part of the

country. There will be more violent storms and more water deposited in the coastal regions where it runs off and flows into the

ocean. We don’t have effective catchment to hold onto that water.

So being able to do long-term forecasting, both on a regional

basis and also on a local basis of what these changes may amount

to, is critically important. Just another example would be the increasing flow of fresh water into the Atlantic Ocean from the Arctic

Ocean and the seas around the Arctic Ocean just due to the melting of ice. That could lead to disruptive climate change.

So the purpose of this initiative is to begin to put the computational tools in place to model these interactive events of the

changes in the ecology and climate with the changes in the

hydrological systems in order to inform other federal agencies that

are engaged in this area as well, what changes are likely to come

about and what meaningful strategies there may be for adaptation

and mitigation in some of these changes.

Mr. EHLERS. Is this new money or are you repackaging existing

programs to try to achieve this?

Dr. BEMENT. There are ongoing efforts in each of the directorates. This new money will link these together and form a more

interdisciplinary approach to the problem.

Mr. EHLERS. Okay. And so——

Dr. BEMENT. So it is not just reshuffling the cards. It is adding

another component to the overall program.

Mr. EHLERS. I will be very interested in seeing the details on

that. And I do have to add as a resident of the Great Lakes region,

that no matter what you do with water, don’t take a drop out of

the Great Lakes. They have a militia prepared to deal with that.

44

Dr. BEMENT. Maybe Michigan will be a biomass state of the future.

Mr. EHLERS. Probably.

Mr. BILBRAY. Don’t worry, Congressman. We will only take the

Canadian water. How about that?

Chairman BAIRD. Mr. McNerney. Dr. McNerney.

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. Speaking of climate change, one of

the objectives of the National Science Foundation in climate change

is to provide products for decision-makers. Could you describe what

products are available that have already been produced, what validation there is of those products, and—— Dr. BEMENT. Uh-huh.

Mr. MCNERNEY.—what sort of products you see coming up in the

future?

Dr. BEMENT. Yes. One of the most important products that we

support is the development of sophisticated climate models that are

used to measure not only the rate of climate change but also the

cause, the forcing functions that lead to climate change. A good bit

of that work is done at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, NCAR, but it is supported at other centers as well, at the

universities. And incidentally, that work feeds into the International Panel for Climate Change that got the Nobel Peace Prize.

So we feel that we have a piece of that prize. I think it is the first

peace prize that the National Science Foundation has supported.

But beyond that, the work that we do in the polar regions, which

was touched on in terms of looking at climate change over time,

looking back over the previous glacier cycles to understand what

regularity there may be in some of these changes is critically important. So we are investing in ice core drilling and also drilling

in sediment beds and at the ANDRILL Project, which was done

jointly with Germany and New Zealand, where we are drilling back

five million years. That is important. We are now joining with the

Russians to do similar drilling in El’gygytgyn Lake near Chokotka,

on order to also go back to that period of time.

But, you know, that just touches on a few areas of work and climate change. Our oceanography program is also engaged. Our neon

community is looking forward to developing a national system to

sense climate change through the National Ecological Observatory

Network.

And so it is not just the competition of models. It is the tools.

It is the Arctic Observing Network that we hope to put in place in

concert with a number of other nations to measure changes, not

only in the climate but also in ocean circulation that affects the climate. And try and understand why in Greenland, for example, the

center of the ice shield is growing because of more precipitation,

whereas it is eroding in the costal margins just due to warming effects. And we find those effects throughout the Arctic Ocean as well

as in Antarctica. So that is pretty much just a snapshot of some

of the things that we are doing in this area.

Mr. MCNERNEY. That was my only question.

Chairman BAIRD. Dr. McNerney. Mr. Bilbray.

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was glad you brought

up the artificial retina. Extraordinary breakthrough. And you think

about Star Trek and they, I forget the name of the character who

45

had the special glasses, and I actually had the privilege of breaking

bread with a young man who actually has that, those glasses and

that artificial retina, and I just hope we don’t become so jaded that

we start not being in awe of these breakthroughs.

But the Chairman talked about the water, and one thing we

have learned in southern California that water itself is not an answer. You have got to have clean, cheap electricity to either transport the water or to purify it like we are doing with reverse osmosis.

Dr. Beering, you mentioned in your testimony a taskforce on sustainable energy and about the meetings earlier this month and

with the various stakeholders here. I wonder if you could bring us

up to steam about if there is any preliminary statements or information with the forthcoming report, and give us an update on what

the task force is sort of hitting on.

Dr. BEERING. Well, the taskforce has had its first meeting, and

we are trying to find the dates where the group can get together

for another meeting. We heard testimony from a variety of subject

matter experts, and I am encouraged that there really is a great

deal of activity, both by the public and the private sector, that is

focusing on this entire set of issues. It isn’t just the popular notions

but some very scientific and fundamental things that are going on.

But it would be too early for me to give you any specific answers.

Mr. BILBRAY. I just had a meeting with Mary Nichols. It is kind

of funny we have switched roles. She was at EPA here, and I was

at the Air Resources Board in California. Now she is Chairwoman

at Resources and now I am over here. And one of the big—there

are some big concerns we have raised, and I don’t know if the Committee is looking at it or reviewing it, because we talk so much

about the challenges from a science and engineering point of view,

but is the Committee also looking at the challenges of the regulatory barriers to sustainable energy sources?

One of the biggest concerns we have in California is the fact that

we may have, as Californians tend to do, actually outlawed the

process that could be addressing our problems. Is that even being

discussed at all in this——

Dr. BEERING. I am glad you brought that to my attention. We

have not discussed that yet.

Mr. BILBRAY. Well, I would say sincerely that is a real challenge.

Mr. Chairman, when I hear people talk about the concept of sequestering carbon, I will tell you, as somebody who served on regulatory agencies, the concept of permitting a site two miles down

under three states, I just, it boggles my mind that people really

think that is doable under the existing process. And needing to understand that some of the challenges we are going to have with the

science is just getting government the hell out of the way and allowing people to accomplish their goals. And excuse the

terminologies but that is going to be the challenge.

And the other challenge that I hope you guys are looking at is

the political agenda getting in the way of scientific agendas, and

you are going to hear me screaming bloody murder about this hellbent run to go to corn ethanol as somehow it is sustainable, when,

in fact, I think everybody is shaking their heads and just saying,

well, everybody is jumping, so we might as well jump. And so I

46

hope that the Committee, again, looks at a lot of these things and

brings back a degree of sanity from the scientific point of view for

us who are forced to have to at least consider the political game.

Dr. BEERING. Thank you very much.

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you.

Chairman BAIRD. Are you suggesting that the NSF change the

Presidential caucus locations?

Mr. BILBRAY. Yeah. How about if we just change the primary

agenda or calendar so that certain parts of the country don’t dictate agendas for the rest of the Nation.

Chairman BAIRD. Your points are well taken about the merits

and the issues of regulatory concerns.

I just have one final question. I have got to leave shortly, and

I think others do as well.

Regarding the Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction lines in the budget, and you don’t necessarily have to answer this here, but we observe that there is, as far as we can tell,

no horizon projects listed in that section of the budget, and my understanding is typically one would look ahead and say, okay. So

what big things are down the road that we might want to look toward? Is there a reason for that and—— Dr. BEMENT. Yes.

Chairman BAIRD.—if there are some projects you are looking at,

when might the Committee and the Congress have a sense of what

you see as on the, the next big thing so to speak?

Dr. BEMENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We will be glad to share

that with you. There are horizon projects. Those are actively supported in our directorates, and they are actively discussed with the

members of the Board. We made a conscious decision not to publish

horizon projects in our facilities plan, primarily because it sets expectations that just because we are considering them that they are

going to be supported until they are actually constructed.

Now, some of these projects the Board may choose to accelerate,

along with the Foundation. Some of them they may choose to bury

in a shallow grave for awhile. Some they may decide to terminate.

We need to retain that flexibility in turning over opportunities for

major facilities until such time that we are ready to go through

conceptual design review, preliminary design review, and final design review, and readying these projects for submission to the Congress for funding.

Chairman BAIRD. I certainly respect the need for that flexibility.

I just would make sure that there is an effort to give Congress as

much heads up as——

Dr. BEMENT. Yes.

Chairman BAIRD.—especially on the budgetary front as we look

ahead to what, you know, you look at Hadron, and that is not a

cheap operation, and if we have some of those down the road, we

got to have a look at that.

Dr. BEMENT. Obviously it is in our best interest to do so, and we

will.

Mr. EHLERS. Just a quick one. I hate to harp on the temperature

of the room, but it did remind me of the ice breaker question. What

is the situation with the Coast Guard, and has all that been

worked out or not?

47

Dr. BEMENT. We still have a good working relationship with the

Coast Guard. We give them a forecast of our needs. They give us

their plan. We enter into negotiations on how we actually implement the plan. That is the ongoing process, and we will continue

to use that process.

Chairman BAIRD. Dr. Ehlers, I should interject. It is my hope

that we can have a discussion with Ice Serve also and the Coast

Guard Committee, and we could, we have sort of two main issues

met by the Ice Breakers as you know; the Scientific Mission but

also the National Security Mission and particularly with changes

in the polar regions, especially the North Pole. We plan to have

some meetings, probably informal meetings initially with the Coast

Guard, NSF, and see how we can work this out because I am not

the funding scheme makes a whole lot of sense.

Dr. BEMENT. Well, we will certainly contribute to the science part

of that discussion.

Chairman BAIRD. Committee Members if they had additional information they would like to submit or our panelists, witnesses,

and with that the hearing stands adjourned with the gratitude of

the Committee. Thank you very much for your work.

Dr. BEMENT. Thank you.

Dr. BEERING. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 11:27 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(49)

Appendix:

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

50

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director, National Science Foundation

Questions submitted by Chairman Brian Baird

Q1. For the Graduate Fellowship Program, for the most recent year for which data

are available and for the two preceding years, what percentage of total applications received were from women and from under-represented minorities, and

what percentage of the awards were made to each of those groups?

A1. The requested details follow:

Q2. Please provide a listing of the current staffing for the assistant director, division

director and deputy division director positions at NSF showing whether the incumbent is a permanent federal employee or a rotator.

A2. For the assistant director/office head positions, nine are permanent federal employees and seven are IPAs. All 13 deputy director/executive officer positions are

held by permanent federal employees. For Division Director positions, 22 are permanent federal employees, 11 are IPAs, and there are currently six vacancies. All 17

of the deputy division director/executive officer positions are held by permanent federal employees. There are four vacancies in this category.

51

Q3. Please provide an explanation of how the Research at Undergraduate Institutions (RUI) program is managed at NSF. How is the RUI program budget goal

determined for a particular fiscal year and is there an individual that is responsible for ensuring that the budget target is achieved? How much flexibility do

individual program officers have in encouraging and funding RUI grants? Is the

program administered differently by the different directorates? What is the variation in number and amount of funding for RUI awards across the directorates?

A3. RUI is fully integrated into NSF’s research programs. RUI proposals are evaluated and considered for funding in competition with all other proposals submitted

in the same areas of research, using the program’s usual merit review process.

52

RUI is not a stand-alone program. NSF senior management will issue guidance

in the budget process to highlight RUI and related activities. The FY 2009 Budget

Request includes $35.23 for RUI. NSF program officers have flexibility in determining the portfolio mix of RUI awards and research grants in their programs. An

NSF-wide coordinating committee ensures that program officers throughout all of

the directorates understand the RUI guidelines and program goals.

In addition to supporting research activities that include undergraduates, the RUI

program allows researchers at predominantly undergraduate institutions to access

state-of-the-art facilities that might otherwise limit their success in NSF competitions. Funding is provided for (1) individual and collaborative research projects, (2)

the purchase of shared-use research instrumentation, and (3) work with NSF-supported investigators at other institutions—these are Research Opportunity Awards

(ROA) supplements.

All of NSF’s research directorates provide researchers at predominantly undergraduate institutions with the opportunity to compete for RUI awards. Approximately 125–150 new RUI research project awards and about 20–40 new RUI equipment awards have been made each year over the past few years. BIO and MPS provide support for the majority of these awards. The majority of the approximately

100 ROA supplements made each year are supported by BIO. Over the past several

years, RUI funding has been approximately $35 million each year.

Q4. Please provide a summary of all international science and engineering cooperation activities at NSF, including the relevant budget allocations.

A4. International S&E research and education activities are funded by all NSF directorates and research offices. International implications are found throughout all

of NSF’s activities, from individual research awards and fellowships for students to

study abroad, to centers, collaborations, joint projects, and shared networks that

demonstrate the value of partnering with the United States.

NSF’s approach to international S&E is distributed and flexible, accommodating

differences across the spectrum of NSF-funded disciplines, the diverse needs of specific communities within the United States and with colleagues around the world.

A common element, however, is partnership with NSF’s research and education constituency. Areas and opportunities are identified through consultation and through

the proposal and merit review process. Proposals with international activities may

be submitted to any NSF research or education program and to the special programs of NSF’s Office of International Science and Engineering (OISE).

As a result of its international portfolio encompassing projects in all S&E disciplines, NSF effectively partners with almost every country in the world. In fiscal

year 2007, more than 4,200 NSF awards had an international component and these

awards involved cooperative activities with 145 countries.

Whereas it is not feasible to summarize all NSF-funded projects that have an

international component in this response, NSF’s international S&E cooperative activities generally fall into three broad categories:

Global research and education opportunities for U.S. students and early career scientists and engineers to gain professional experience in international teams

• For example, the Research Experiences for Undergraduates program, an NSFwide activity, gives undergraduate students the opportunity to engage in highquality research, often at important international sites. One of these sites is

CERN, the European Laboratory for Particle Physics in Switzerland, and one of

the world’s premier international laboratories. Undergraduate students work with

faculty mentors and research groups at CERN, where they have access to facilities unavailable anywhere else in the world.

Global-scale research alliances, partnerships and S&E networks focused on a complex problems or individual disciplines

• For example, NSF’s Division of Materials Research within the Directorate for

Mathematical and Physical Science supports the Materials World Network

(MWN), a global collaborative aimed at fostering partnerships between materials

science and engineering researchers at institutions around the globe, including institutions in Africa, Europe, Asia, and Australia. Through MWN, NSF and international partner agencies jointly solicit proposals for collaborative projects. Research is targeted at improving medical diagnosis, developing stronger materials

for the housing and transportation industries, and more.

Support for large or distributed research facilities and infrastructure serving numerous scientists and engineers

53

• For example, at the ends of the world, NSF coordinates nearly all of the U.S. scientific research in the Arctic and Antarctica through its Office of Polar Programs.

In fact, NSF was designated as the lead federal agency for the International Polar

Year (IPY) 2007–2008. During this campaign, more than 100 countries undertook

projects involving scientists, students, teachers, and the public to increase understanding of the polar region.

• Additionally, in today’s highly sophisticated, technology-driven science, many

international partnerships center around major, high-budget research facilities

made possible only by combining the resources of more than one nation. Such

international infrastructure projects play a key role in advancing S&E capacity

worldwide. NSF leadership and proactive involvement in large international research projects helps ensure that U.S. S&E stays at the frontier. For example,

NSF’s facilities budget includes construction funds for the following:

• The IceCube Neutrino Observatory—the world’s first high-energy neutrino observatory—offers a powerful example of an international, interagency research platform. Agencies in Belgium, Germany, and Sweden have joined

NSF and Department of Energy (DOE) in providing support for IceCube,

which will search for neutrinos from deep within the ice cap under the South

Pole in Antarctica. Neutrinos are hard-to-detect astronomical messengers that

carry information from cosmological events.

• The Atacama Large Millimeter Array, currently under construction near San

Pedro de Atacama, Chile, will be the world’s most sensitive, highest resolution, millimeter wavelength telescope. The array will make it possible to

search for planets around hundreds of nearby stars and will provide a testing

ground for theories of star birth, galaxy formation, and the evolution of the

universe. ALMA has been made possible via an international partnership

among North America, Europe, and East Asia, in cooperation with the Republic of Chile. NSF is the U.S. lead on this ground-breaking astronomical facility.

• As part of the aforementioned IPY activities, NSF serves as lead contributing

agency for the Arctic Observing Network (AON)—an effort to significantly advance our observational capability in the Arctic. AON will help us document

the state of the present climate system, and the nature and extent of climate

changes occurring in the Arctic regions. The network, organized under the direction of the U.S. Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee, involves

partnerships with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Department of Interior, Department of Defense, Smithsonian Institution, National Institutes of Health,

DOE, and USDA. NSF coordinates AON activities across the U.S. government, as well as with international collaborators, including Canada, Norway,

Sweden, Germany, and Russia.

Lastly, the Office of International Science and Engineering—the centerpiece of

NSF’s international activities—integrates Foundation-wide activities and manages a

broad range of programs that support U.S. scientists and engineers engaged in

international research and education. In FY 2009, NSF proposes a budget of $47.44

million for OISE.

NSF’s international office has implemented specific programs to stimulate innovative international partnerships. The East Asia and Pacific Summer Graduate Research Institutes (EAPSI), International Research Fellowship, and Partnerships for

International Research and Education (PIRE) Programs are examples of three

OISE-supported programs that facilitate partnership across institutions and countries.

The East Asia and Pacific Summer Graduate Research Institutes (EAPSI) Program enables U.S. graduate students to build collaborations with scientists and engineers working in the top research facilities in East Asia and the Pacific region.

The eight-week institute programs are held at top research institutions in Japan,

Korea, Taiwan, China, Australia, New Zealand, and Singapore. Over 1,600 U.S.

graduate students have participated in the program since its inception in 1990. The

program fosters a U.S. S&E workforce capable of operating in a global marketplace

increasingly impacted by scientific developments in Asia and the Pacific Region.

The International Research Fellowship Program supports approximately three

dozen U.S. postdoctoral fellows for nine to 24 months at foreign host institutions annually. The program’s objective is to introduce U.S. scientists and engineers to cutting-edge international research opportunities in the early stages of their careers.

Fellows’ research projects involve international collaboration, the use of overseas instrumentation, and access to unique research environments in a wide range of

54

fields, including biology, physics, engineering, geosciences, computer sciences, and

social and behavioral sciences.

In FY 2007, 39 fellowship recipients from 21 states were selected to conduct research in 21 foreign countries. After completion of the fellowship, the researchers

return to jobs in academia and industry in the United States. Past fellows have reported that their experiences positioned them to build new collaborations with colleagues in their host country. These collaborations have led to foreign hosts of NSF

International Research Fellows joining U.S. research teams.

The Partnerships for International Research and Education (PIRE) Program is an

example of a larger collaborative research activity supported by OISE. PIRE enables

U.S. institutions to establish collaborative relationships with international groups or

institutions to conduct research dependent upon international collaboration. The

program catalyzes a cultural exchange in U.S. institutions by establishing innovative models for international collaborative research and education. PIRE also

readies U.S. students to participate in international research collaborations.

To date, the PIRE program has supported the work of 32 institutions in 23 states.

Research collaborations with more than 40 countries have resulted. The U.S.–China

PIRE project on electron chemistry and catalysis was listed in the Chinese media

as one of the top ten S&T developments in China for 2006. The PIRE program supports research projects that nurture U.S. relationships with international counterparts.

The progress of humankind will depend increasingly on the new knowledge of

science and technology. The collaborative pursuit of new knowledge is a powerful

tool for bringing people together, and NSF activities will continue to stimulate global collaboration.

In response to a question from Congressman Lipinski on the rationale for providing only a 2.1 percent increase to funding for the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) in a year in which the directorates with the most significant role in the

initiative are getting 20 percent increases, Director Bement indicated that the leveling of funding results from a decline in the number of meritorious research proposals.

Q5. What have been the trends over the past three years in the numbers of proposals

received and in the proposal funding rates across the various NNI program component areas? Are there significant differences in proposal pressure or funding

rates among the directorates supporting research that is part of the NNI portfolio?

A5. Proposal and funding rates are available for a few solicitations related to NNI

over the past three years. These rates are comparable to those of the Engineering

Directorate which provides the majority of funding for these solicitations. There has

been a decline in proposals submitted, in part, because of submission limitations.

For the Nanoscale Interdisciplinary Research Teams (NIRT) program, 518 proposals

were received in 2005 and 260 in 2007; funding rate was 10 percent in 2005 and

11 percent in 2007. For the Nanoscale Exploratory Research (NER) program, 372

proposals were received in 2005 and 274 in 2007; funding rate was 22 percent in

2005 and 15 percent in 2007. In comparison, the Engineering Directorate had an

average proposal level of 6,800 and a funding rate of 14 percent during the same

three year period.

The funding level requested for NNI is the result of the priority setting process

that takes place among the participating directorates.

Information on funding rate by Program Component Area (PCA) is not readily

available, however, because the majority of NSF’s NNI funding is provided through

core programs. NSF Program Directors report that funding rates and proposal pressure for NNI research have been comparable to the overall levels in their respective

programs over the past three years.

NSF supports fundamental research, infrastructure, and education in all areas of

nanoscale science and engineering, excluding research involving clinical testing. Activities are guided by long-term objectives which may be used by industry, the community, and other agencies. NSF supports over 3,000 active awards, 24 large centers and trains over 10,000 students and teachers each year. The modes of support

include single investigator, multi-disciplinary team, center, and network awards.

Q6. Is there any significant difference from fiscal years 2008 to 2009 in the allocation of NNI funds or the focus of research supported within each of the directorates with NNI designated funding? Will NSF readjust priorities within the

NNI portfolio to address areas of greater research promise?

55

A6. NSF efforts within the NNI through the NSF Nanoscale Science & Engineering

Priority Area (FY 2001–FY 2006) were directed at establishing and fostering the

growth of a newly emerging nanotechnology community. As this community blossomed, nanotechnology research has been transitioned and is now embedded and

pervasive throughout NSF core programs. As a result of these efforts, other federal

agencies with a more applied research mission are now in position to partner with

industry to further the basic research knowledge gained from prior support.

NSF has an annual process of establishing its priorities on nanoscale science and

engineering (NSE) research that includes proposals from the internal NSE Working

Group, input from workshops and meetings with the grantee communities, interagency coordination through the National Nanotechnology Initiative—the Nanoscale

Science, Engineering and Technology Subcommittee (NSET) of the National Science

and Technology Council (NSTC), international context, industry, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). As a result of this input, an increase in focus for FY

2009 is planned in the following areas:

• Research on the application of quantum mechanics and self assembling

• Research on integrated nanosystems that:

• will support key applications of nanotechnology, such as petascale computing

• design-in properties by manufacturing materials from the nanoscale

• regenerate human tissue and organs from the nanoscale; designing systems

of nano-sized sensors

• selectively filter harmful particles from water; and manufacturing devices,

such as solar cells, that efficiently convert and store renewable energy

• The use of nanotechnology for addressing sustainable use of water, energy and

materials

• Nanoscale processes in the cell, at the intracellular level, in the neural systems,

at the interfaces between biotic and abiotic materials

• Developing the network around a planned center to study the environmental implications of nanotechnology

• Including environmental, health and safety aspects of nanotechnology in additional core programs

For the new initiative Science and Engineering Beyond Moore’s Law:

Q7. How does the initiative relate to current activities supported under NNI and will

funding now allocated to other areas within the NNI portfolio be reallocated to

this initiative?

A7. This initiative will be partially funded from the NNI funds allocated to

nanoelectonics and particularly beyond Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor

(CMOS), and partially new funds in MPS, ENG and CISE for the software,

cyberinfrastructure, and other related aspects. In ENG and CISE, this activity is an

extension of the existing activities beyond-CMOS initiated in FY 2004 in collaboration with the Semiconductor Industrial Association (SIA) and the Semiconductor Research Corporation (SRC).

A working definition of ‘‘nano’’ suggests a range of dimensions between about one

and 100 nm, with physical behavior arising as a consequence of the size. The bulk

of the current NNI science portfolio falls into the nanoscale region, within the context of the working definition, and will not be subject to reclassification. The approach by MPS will be to classify only newly funded activities as SEBML, with any

potential overlap with NNI only occurring for special cases that might satisfy the

working definition.

Q8. What are the current funding levels, by directorate, for activities in

nanoelectronics?

A8. NSF is currently investing approximately $100 million per year in

nanoelectonics and the related topics of nano-magnetics and nano-optics. It is estimated that the Directorate for Engineering (ENG) invests approximately $45 million, Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS) approximately $45 million, and

Computer Information Science & Engineering (CISE) approximately $10 million.

Q9. Will NSF issue a request for proposals for this initiative?

A9. Currently NSF has no plans for a specific SEBML solicitation in FY 2009. NSF

has been active in advertising this new potential investment to the science and engineering community and anticipates a large volume of unsolicited proposals.

56

Q10. Your office provided a summary of FY 2008 consolidated appropriations impacts. Please expand on facilities reduction impacts, including staff layoffs at

the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the National Superconducting

Cyclotron Laboratory, and any other NSF-supported facilities that are reduced

in FY 2008.

A10.

Directorate for Mathematical and Physical Sciences

Cornell Electron Storage Ring (CESR)

NSF provided support for the operations and maintenance of the CESR storage

ring at Cornell University and supported operations of the CLEO detector. Impacts

of omnibus funding include these areas:

• NSF support for CESR operations was scheduled for a phase-out over fiscal years

2008 and 2009. Staff reductions were anticipated as part of the phase-out plan.

The FY 2008 Omnibus bill resulted in a $1 million reduction over FY 2008 Request in CESR operations funding, which accelerated the phase-out, leading to the

reduction of 10 positions beyond those already planned.

• The CLEO detector at Cornell had been scheduled to cease operations at the end

of March, 2008. As a result of the Omnibus, operations were terminated on February 29, one month ahead of schedule. Additional calibration runs planned for

this period would have improved the assurance in the analysis of the data.

Large Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO)

LIGO operated at $33 million in FY 2007. The FY 2008 current plan level is $29.5

million. This funding decrease from FY 2007 to FY 2008 was planned as part of the

approved construction start of AdvancedLIGO (AdvLIGO). However, because

AdvLIGO did not begin until April 2008, LIGO continued to fully operate for six

months. Although planned ‘savings’ were available to support these operations dur- ing this time, due to the Omnibus, about $1 million of these funds were diverted

for other uses and not available for LIGO.

National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center (NAIC) and Arecibo Observatory

The FY 2008 current plan amount of $12.15 for NAIC is about level with FY 2007

funding. However, within this total the base operations budget for the Arecibo Observatory has been reduced in FY 2008 relative to FY 2007, following recommendations of the AST Senior Review. This reduction is not apparent because of the need

to cover personnel termination costs and other one-time costs required to implement

the recommendations of the Senior Review. The FY 2009 Request for NAIC is reduced to $11.40 million ($9.6 million from the Mathematical and Physical Sciences

Directorate and $1.8 million from the Geosciences Directorate).

National High Magnetic Field Laboratory (NHMFL)

The FY 2008 current plan for NHMFL is $26.5 million, or $2.5 million less than the FY 2008 Request. The FY 2009 Request increases funding by $5 million, for a

total of $31.5 million. This increase in FY 2009 would bring support back in line

with the funding schedule outlined in the cooperative agreement, or an estimated

$162.0 million over five years.

National Optical Astronomy Observatory (NOAO)

Impacts of FY 2008 omnibus funding include:

• Postponement of some infrastructure improvement projects recommended by the

recent Astronomy Senior Review and begun in FY 2007. For example, at Cerro

Tololo Interamerican Observatory in Chile, the construction of a mountaintop

clean-room, new detector array controllers (electronics) for some of the older instruments, and a new calibration system have all been postponed until funds are

available in future years. At Kitt Peak National Observatory in Arizona, modernization of telescope control electronics and improvement of the support system

for the Mayall 4–m telescope’s primary mirror, as well as the acquisition of new

guide cameras have been similarly delayed.

• Exhaustion of NOAO’s Director’s reserve funds. For example, the Director holds

a small portion of the Observatory budget in ’reserve’ to provide merit raises, promotion raises, peso/dollar exchange rate adjustments, and similar one-time uses.

By depleting this fund, the Director has reduced the merit raise pool modestly

and the promotion pool significantly and has lost the small but helpful capability

he had for addressing fluctuations in the Chilean peso/dollar exchange rate.

57

• Three to five vacant positions will be left unfilled.

• Reduction in the support of Giant Segmented Mirror Telescope (GSMT) activities

funded by the base NOAO program. This will result in the deferral of several

GSMT activities to future years. For example, one activity deferred until FY 2009

is the identification of technical areas (e.g., durable mirror coatings) in which design and development work would be helpful to both current U.S. project teams.

• Reduction in the support of Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) activities

funded by the base NOAO program. NOAO has both dedicated LSST funding from

NSF and allocated LSST funding in the base program budget. In FY 2008 NOAO

will direct its LSST expenses to the dedicated LSST account rather than use the

base budget account. This reduces base budget expenditures from those anticipated in the Congressional Request in accord with the level funding for FY 2008.

National Solar Observatory (NSO)

In FY 2008, the Advanced Technology Solar Telescope design project faces a short- fall of $700,000. While the Division of Astronomical Sciences (AST) is working to

find a solution, which may include reductions in other programs within the division,

AST will also need to delay or suspend several project-related contracts.

National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory (NSCL)

Substantial impacts include: reduction of six to eight staff positions, delayed procurements of cutting edge equipment, curtailment of already scheduled beam time

and investigator experiments, delay of final theses for Ph.D.s candidates, and cancellation of a summer workshop for promising undergraduates from eight collaborating colleges.

Directorate for Geosciences

Academic Research Fleet

The FY 2008 funding level constrains resources for the fleet; however, schedule

shifts in ocean sciences construction projects funded through the Research and Related Activities account, in particular the delay in construction of the planned Regional Class Research Vessels, has enabled the redirection of some funding to ship

operations and will allow NSF to support approximately 2,300 ship days at sea, approximately the same number as 2007.

Earthscope

NSF has implemented a phased funding plan to support the operation of

Earthscope that reduces the impact of the FY 2008 appropriations on this facility.

Earthscope operations support is awarded at the end of the year to support operations for the following year. NSF anticipates compensating for any potential shortfall with FY 2009 funding.

National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)

NCAR reduced its NSF-supported workforce by 30 positions. This reduction was

accomplished in several ways: terminating jobs, moving staff to other funding

sources, and not filling position vacancies.

Office of Polar Programs

OPP anticipates deferring several activities critical to ensuring resupply of the

Antarctic, leaving the USAP at risk for disruptions to the U.S. presence in Antarctica. These include:

• Delayed completion of additional fuel storage capacity at McMurdo Station that

would provide storage adequate to meet science and operations needs for two seasons in the event of a failure of the ship-borne resupply effort ($3.8 million);

• Delayed completion of the South Pole Traverse project that was instituted to diversify the means of delivering fuel and cargo to the South Pole, including delivery from locations other than McMurdo, and to reduce the cost of those deliveries.

As a result, the Traverse will operate at one third capacity until FY 2010 ($4.7

million);

• Delayed commencement of plans to replace the current pier at Palmer Station

that is critical to continuity of cargo and personnel embarkation/debarkation

($2.17 million).

Upgrades for science support at South Pole Station will also be deferred ($4.9 million):

58

• The planned TDRSS (Tracking and Data Relay Satellite System) upgrade at

South Pole Station will be deferred, delaying development of the back-up broad

bandwidth capabilities needed to transmit large data sets that are generated by

major science projects. Until this upgrade is completed, the USAP would not be

in a position to shift to TDRSS Flight–3 (F–3) if TDRSS F–1 were to fail. In that

case, communications capabilities at the South Pole would be severely limited.

• The 10m telescope has been completed and is operational. However, shielding the

telescope from ground ‘‘noise’’ will dramatically improve the sensitivity of the telescope. Planned construction of the shield will be deferred, reducing operational efficiency.

Across-the-board reductions ($6.85 million) were made in budgets for labor, maintenance, and equipment replacement. While operational requirements will be met,

there likely will be erosion in preventive maintenance and a degradation in equipment performance. Deferring portions of projects to replace day tanks, to provide

secondary containment for station and field fuel storage systems, for fuel piping systems and for the vehicle refueling facility at McMurdo will increase environmental

risks and delay the expected fuel conservation benefits of these projects. Funding for USCG icebreaker support will be reduced ($4 million). Attempts will

be made to limit the impact of a budget reduction on the Healy. Therefore it is likely

that some maintenance currently planned by USCG for the Polar Sea would be deferred.

The suite of software systems used to manage personnel and cargo movements in

the USAP was designed decades ago and is inefficient. Planned replacement of these

systems will be deferred ($1.0 million), increasing risks due to supportability and

security vulnerabilities.

The USAP will not be able to provide the advanced funding ($1 million) required

to secure contracts for planned additional aircraft support in the 2008/2009 season,

impacting International Polar Year projects that were scheduled to use these additional assets. For example, the Pine Island/Thwaites Glacier sector of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet study, and setting out instrumentation for PoleNet that would provide ground truth for satellite-based estimates of ice mass change will be deferred.

Both of these projects are related to identifying the contribution of ice sheets to sea

level, a major unknown for climate change models.

At Toolik Field Station in Alaska, deferral of planned upgrades ($750,000) will result in the continued use of non-code compliant facilities, thus limiting the ability

to perform winter science. The facilities are also inefficient, contributing to high fossil fuel usage and excessive environmental impacts. Deferred procurement of switchgear ($1.5 million) capable of supporting 50 percent of the (yet to be installed) renewable energy sources at Summit Station in Greenland will result in similar impacts and ever increasing costs. Additionally, reducing pollution from diesel generators would greatly enhance the quality of atmospheric observations taken at this

site that inform climate change model prediction.

Q11. Please provide a list and description of all horizon projects under consideration

as part of the current major research facilities plan.

A11. While the 2009 Budget Request does not include so-called horizon projects, the

items listed below represent ideas and possible future opportunities identified by the

research community for development of large-scale research infrastructure. Many of

these ideas may never mature and others not yet conceived will emerge.

Water systems: This explores environmental research on human-stressed water

systems that may lead to development of a distributed research facility comprising

interacting field sites and an integrating cyberinfrastructure.

Coherent X-ray light source: The energy recovery linac is a coherent x-ray light

source with the potential for enabling new types of scientific investigations that cannot be done using current x-rays sources, and impacting many scientific disciplines

such as chemistry, biology, condensed matter and materials physics, and geology

and geophysics.

Underground science: A facility to provide research opportunities in science and

engineering in the deep underground environment. The scientific program would

provide investigations in a wide array of subjects driven largely by physics, including nuclear physics, nuclear and particle astrophysics, and accelerator- and non-accelerator-based particle physics.

Giant telescope: This general purpose telescope of unprecedented size would provide significant improvements to current technologies and allow it to study galaxies

in formation, probe proto-stellar disks, and perhaps image planets orbiting nearby

stars. It was the highest priority ground-based recommendation in the 2001 NAS

decadal survey report ‘‘Astronomy and Astrophysics in the New Millennium.’’

59

Large survey telescope: The telescope would produce the deepest, widest-field

image of the sky ever taken along with daily catalogs of moving and transient objects. Among the principal science drivers are: understanding the physics of dark energy and dark matter; detection of moderate redshift supernovae; detection and cataloging of small bodies in the solar system; studies of the distances and motions of

stars in the solar neighborhood; measurement of the kinematics and structure of the

galactic halo; and opening the time domain. Construction of this instrument was the

third-ranked major initiative in the 2001 NAS decadal survey report ‘‘Astronomy

and Astrophysics in the New Millennium.’’

Next generation radio telescope: Key radio astronomy science drivers include: extreme tests of general relativity with pulsars and black holes; evolution of galaxies,

cosmology, dark matter, and dark energy; probing the ‘‘Dark Ages’’—the first black

holes and stars; searching for extrasolar planets and life; and the origin and evolution of cosmic magnetism. Technology development for this possible facility was

the third-ranked moderate initiative in the 2001 NAS decadal survey report ‘‘Astronomy and Astrophysics in the New Millennium.’’

South Pole Station communications: Sophisticated experiments, not envisioned

when the recently-dedicated South Pole Station was designed a decade ago, require

increased communications capability and reliability with a focus on moving from the

current 12 hours per day provided by aging satellites, to continuous high-bandwidth

connectivity, in order to fully realize the South Pole’s research potential and to be

able to more effectively respond to medical emergencies.

Questions submitted by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers

Q1. Would you please provide us with more specific details on the Teacher Initiatives

within the EHR Directorate?

A1. EHR proposed a new research and development thematic priority in the FY

2009 Request—Teacher Education in STEM: Enriching Knowledge and Practice. It

is designed to advance knowledge and practice in the preparation of K–12 STEM

teachers and to encompass the entire continuum—from pre-service education, to induction, to continuing professional development. Ideally, this strategic approach will

subsume many of EHR’s STEM programs under a rubric that creates linkages

among the four divisions, allowing shared responsibilities and programmatic management for the teacher education continuum. The effort will help NSF meet the

teacher preparation goals of the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), which

stress the criticality of replacing the Nation’s aging teacher corps, reducing attrition

of STEM teachers, and broadening participation in STEM teaching.

This integrative effort is grounded in research and practice, builds on current

knowledge while addressing critical issues and gaps in teacher education, and expands current and prior efforts to enable STEM teacher learning. It will address a

number of objectives, including assuring that our nation’s K–12 teachers are: proficient in STEM concepts and topics; confident in their own grasp of STEM content;

life-long learners of this content; aware of rapidly changing STEM disciplinary content; able to guide and assess STEM learning in age-appropriate ways; confident in

the use of cyber-enabled tools; prepared to engage an increasingly diverse student

population; and supported by STEM faculty, in collaboration with teacher education

faculty and practitioners.

All of these objectives require a research knowledge base about STEM teacher

learning that will serve as a foundation for improved models of teacher education.

A rigorous evaluation component, both at the project level as well as program-wide,

will measure outcomes in terms of increased production of well-qualified teachers;

knowledge and dissemination of proven strategies that contribute to this production;

and evidence of a relationship between teacher education components and improved

K–12 student learning. Research questions will address new areas of national importance concerning teacher preparation, induction, and professional development.

Examples of specific programs within EHR that support teacher education efforts

follow:

• The Robert Noyce Scholarship program (Noyce) directly addresses the need

to provide support that attracts students of the STEM disciplines into K–12

teaching and seeks to increase the number of K–12 teachers with strong

STEM content knowledge who teach in high-need school districts.

• The Math and Science Partnerships (MSP) engage school districts and higher

education in large scale efforts to improve K–12 STEM teaching, working primarily with in-service teachers, but providing programs for pre-service teachers as well.

60

• The NSF Graduate Teaching Fellowships in K–12 Education (GK–12) engage

STEM disciplinary graduate students in K–12 classrooms to provide content

support for the K–12 teachers.

Further, there are programs that have other principal objectives but also make

significant investments in teacher education, particularly the Louis Stokes Alliances

for Minority Participation (LSAMP) program, and the Advanced Technological Education (ATE) program. Teacher Education is also addressed through the Division of

Undergraduate Education’s core program, Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement (CCLI,) which seeks to improve STEM teaching and learning for all undergraduates, including the many prospective teachers who are part of the undergraduate population. Finally, there are two programs that aim to increase understanding of effective teaching at all levels as their core objectives: Discovery Research K–12 (DRK–12) and Research and Evaluation on Education in Science and

Engineering (REESE).

Additional Program Details:

Noyce

The Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program provides funding to institutions

of higher education to provide scholarships, stipends, and programmatic support for

undergraduate students majoring in science, mathematics, engineering, or technology and for STEM professionals to enter and complete teacher credentialing programs. Scholarship and stipend recipients are required to complete two years of

teaching in a high need school district for each year of scholarship or stipend support. Projects include partnerships with school districts, recruitment strategies, and

activities to enable the recipients to become successful elementary or secondary

math and science teachers. For example, Noyce Scholars are typically mentored by

master teachers and college faculty while they are preparing to become teachers and

as they begin teaching in the schools.

MSP

One of the key goals of MSP partnerships is to increase the number, quality, and

diversity of mathematics and science teachers. With MSP support, STEM faculty

and their departments, often in collaboration with colleagues in the School of Education, have developed new, coherent and long-term courses and programs to enhance the content knowledge of current and future teachers. Teachers-in-residence

(teachers on long-term leave and/or sabbaticals) have come on to college campuses

to broaden discussions of teaching and learning, and to support new efforts in teacher preparation. STEM professional learning communities, bringing together K–12

teachers and higher education faculty, are new exemplars in professional development. Schools have come to utilize the leadership skills of new Teacher Leaders, and

demonstrated stronger school-level achievement outcomes when the Leaders have

strongly defined roles and relationships with classroom teachers.

The 40 Comprehensive and Targeted Partnership projects report that over the life

of their awards they will impact 137,000 teachers of mathematics and science in the

576 school districts that are in their partnerships. By the 2005–2006 year, 58 of

their higher education partners had undergone pre-service teacher program revision

as a part of MSP. Three hundred forty courses have been changed or are being

changed to impact the future teacher workforce; over 21,000 future teachers are in

the pre-service courses modified as a part of the MSP effort.

Graduate Teaching Fellows in K–12 Education

Graduate Teaching Fellows in K–12 Education (GK–12 Fellows) spend up to 15

hours a week during a full academic year working closely with teachers in their

classrooms. The fellows bring cutting edge research and expertise in the newest instrumentation and technology into the classrooms. According to research on professional development, this type of embedded professional development that is both ongoing and that supports the curriculum is most effective. The fellows also model the

life of a scientist for younger students who might not know other scientists. The program has impacted more than 8,500 teachers and more than half a million K–12

students. Approximately 70 percent of the K–12 settings where Graduate Fellows

are placed as ‘‘scientists in residence’’ are rural and urban schools. For this reason,

GK–12 has the greatest impact providing high-end science content knowledge to

teachers and students in some of the neediest areas of education: inner-city schools

that are usually low performing and in need of resources and expertise; and, remote

schools far removed from ready access to supplies and specialists.

61

ATE and Teacher Education

Teachers are part of the technological workforce of the future. Many future teachers will receive STEM preparation in community colleges. Each year ATE supports

teacher preparation projects that help prepare a K–12 workforce that is skilled in

teaching science and mathematics, understands the technological workplace, and

can give a variety of approaches for solving real world, technology-related problems

using design processes and principles. For example, Normandale Community College in Minnesota collaborates with Minnesota State University Mankato to prepare

highly qualified K–8 teachers. Pellissippi State Technical Community College in

Tennessee is coordinating a statewide effort among seven community colleges and

two universities to develop a common core of technology, science, and mathematics

courses for future elementary school students. While teacher preparation has been

a small part of the ATE portfolio, the program has consistently supported several

such projects each year. There is now a significant portfolio involving many institutions. The American Association of Community Colleges plans to publish a compendium of these projects in summer of 2008.

LSAMP Bridge To Teaching (2006 Pilot Project)

The Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation Program ‘‘Bridge to Teaching (BT) Initiative’’ piloted a teacher education training program in FY 2006. The

initiative funded a graduate degree bridge activity at Arizona State University, University of Alabama–Birmingham, and City College in New York. The initiative

broadens participation through the attraction of LSAMP baccalaureate under-represented minority students in STEM disciplines. Additionally, this activity seeks to

remove minority students’ hesitancy about entering graduate school, and the fear

of creating additional financial indebtedness associated with initial graduate education. At the conclusion of the 12–24 month duration each successful participant

is awarded a Master’s degree and teacher certification.

Questions submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson

Q1. The America COMPETES Act created a program called, PALS, or the Partnership for Access to Laboratory Sciences. Will there be any grant solicitations

under this pilot program in the current fiscal year? If not, please provide a description of

• any current activities that meet the goals of PALS; and

• how you will implement the program as intended in fiscal year 2009.

A1. There will be no grant solicitations under this pilot program in FY 2008. Before

proceeding with a PALS program, it is important for NSF to determine the most

effective way to meet the intent of the PALS provision. Two existing programs that

have the capability for doing this are the National Science, Technology, Engineering

and Mathematics, Education Digital Library (NSDL) and the Information Technology Experience for Students and Teachers (ITEST).

This approach will allow NSF to address the objectives of PALS by initiating or

incorporating critical components into existing programs, once it has been determined how to proceed most effectively.

Q2. America COMPETES also directed the National Science Foundation to work

with the National Academies to publish a Rising Above the Gathering Stormstyle report on minority participation in STEM. Will you report back to the Committee on the status of this effort?

A2. Assistant Director Cora Marrett has already met with the Michael Feuer, National Academy of Sciences (NAS), to discuss an arrangement in which NAS provides expert guidance to NSF on mutually agreed upon topics via reports and studies. The report on diversity required in the America COMPETES Act was part of

this initial discussion.

In addition, NSF supports and produces two separate biennial reports on this

topic: the report from the Committee on Equal Opportunity in Science and Engineering (CEOSE) and a report entitled ‘‘Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering’’ (www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/about.htm).

NSF reporting on the latter topic is mandated by the Science and Engineering

Equal Opportunities Act (Public Law 96–516). The data on the web site are updated

frequently and a completely new report is issued every two years. NSF also provides

considerable support to CEOSE (The Committee on Equal Opportunity in Science

and Engineering), which uses this information to advise NSF on its efforts to promote diversity and equal opportunity in science and engineering as stipulated by the

62

Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act of 1980. A biennial report is made

to Congress. These reports make full use of NSF data.

Questions submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski

Q1. How does the NSF plan to implement recently authorized America COMPETES

programs in light of recent budgetary shortfalls? Can you point to tangible evidence, such as a projected decrease in the amount of NSF supported researchers

that is a direct result of the recent budget shortfalls?

A1. Immediately after the ACA was signed into law, a working group was assigned

to develop options and recommendations on how to implement the provisions of the

Act pertaining to NSF. The working group is developing plans for ramping up new

programs or redesigning existing programs, processes and procedures to implement

the statute.

To date, NSF has already implemented some of the Act’s provisions, such as:

Section 7036, Major Research Instrumentation: With regards to cost sharing for

the Major Research Instrumentation Program, implementation actions included

issuance of a Dear Colleague Letter to the community, revision of the solicitation,

and conducted briefings.

Section 7037(a), Limit on Proposals: For programs that require preliminary proposals as part of the selection process, and that also limit the number of pre-proposals that may be submitted by an institution, NSF allows the subsequent submission of a full proposal based on each pre-proposal that is determined to have merit.

It should be noted that this was already the Foundation’s policy and only one solicitation limited the number of full proposals that could be submitted based on the

outcome of the preliminary proposal competition. This solicitation will be corrected

when it is next issued. NSF is now in compliance with this provision of the Act.

We are also in the early stages of implementing several other sections, such as:

Section 7018, Meeting Critical National Science Needs: NSF will recommend to

the National Science Board (NSB) that the relevance of critical national needs be

made explicit in the NSB-approved criteria, and that reviewers assess this in the

review of proposals submitted to the Foundation.

Section 7008, Postdoctoral Research Fellows: NSF will implement the statute as

enacted and also plans to encourage Principal Investigators to apply this approach

to mentoring graduate students.

Section 7020, Cyberinfrastructure: NSF is beginning to identify the ‘‘scientific research requirements of broadband access,’’ and to collect recent data that describe

the current status of broadband access at relevant institutions. In fashioning a plan,

we are gathering input from academic institutions, State and local government, and

private sector organizations, as well as organizations like Educause, Internet2 and

NLR whose missions are directly relevant to support for broadband access at colleges and universities.

Section 7026, Laboratory Science Pilot Program: NSF will utilize its investments

in cyber-enabled learning to test effective ways for enabling authentic learning experiences for high school students. We have several existing programs that have the

capability for doing this, such as the National STEM Digital Library and Innovative

Technology Experiences for Students and Teachers.

Section 7030 and Section 10 A, Robert NOYCE Teacher Scholarship Program and

Teaching Fellowships and Master Teaching Fellowships: NSF will establish a pilot

program that would enable it to probe the features of the fellowship requirements,

connect these features with ones undertaken through our other fellowship programs,

determine what would be needed to implement the components of the new effort,

and establish the pathways through which such programs advance K–12 STEM

learning.

Section 7031, Encouraging Participation: This provision is an expansion of existing efforts (e.g., in the PAESMEM Program) and reflects NSF’s strong interest in

community colleges, STEM education, and the STEM workforce. We will seek to devise highly effective strategies for carrying out increased mentoring within the context of our community college and workforce programs. NSF has already negotiated

the metrics that we will use through the ACC process.

Regarding the FY 2008 appropriations, NSF estimates that 1,000 fewer research

grants will be awarded, impacting an estimated 3,000 senior researchers,

postdoctorates, graduate students, and undergraduates.

Q2. The FY 2009 request provides for a 16 percent increase for the Research and Related Activities overall and about 20 percent increases for the directorates that

support research in the physical sciences and engineering. In light of this, could

63

you please provide specifics on the proposed allocation for the National

Nanotechnology Initiative of only two percent growth, which is below inflation

and represents an actual decrease in level of activity? This lack of budget priority is puzzling since the NNI is a major cross agency research initiative in an

area that is generally regarded as critical to the future technological strength

and innovative capacity of the Nation.

A2. NSF has an annual process of establishing its priorities on nanoscale science

and engineering that includes NNI Working Group proposals with input from periodical workshops and meetings with the communities, coordination with other agencies through the National Nanotechnology Initiative, and consideration of the international and industrial contexts.

NSF efforts within the NNI over the years have been directed at establishing and

fostering the growth of the nanotechnology community. As this community blossomed, nanotechnology research has been transitioned and is now embedded and

pervasive throughout NSF core programs. As a result of these efforts, other federal

agencies with a more applied research mission are now in position to partner with

industry to further the basic research knowledge gained from prior support. NSF

will continue to support fundamental research, infrastructure, and education in all

areas of nanoscale science.

Q3. In your opinion, how essential is long-term, stable, and relatively predictable

funding to the NSF’s research activities?

A3. Long-term, stable, and relatively predictable funding enhances NSF’s ability to

engage in long range planning and provide accurate information to the scientific and

engineering community on anticipated funding levels for multi-year efforts. NSF’s

tasks are to keep scientists and engineers focused on the furthest frontier, to recognize and nurture emerging fields, to prepare the next generation of scientific talent

and leaders, to provide world-class facilities to advance research, and to ensure that

all Americans gain an understanding of what science and technology have to offer.

The Nation’s ability to innovate and compete, its strength and versatility, depend

in part on continued success in achieving these goals. NSF’s ability to meet these

goals is highly dependent on adequate funding levels that can be used as a basis

for developing program plans and priorities. Working at the leading-edge of the U.S.

science and engineering enterprise, NSF provides nearly half of the federal investment in non-medical basic research at academic institutions and supports science

and mathematics education at all levels. The nature of NSF’s programming gives

the agency an invaluable level of flexibility and agility. NSF has proven time and

again that it can respond decisively and proactively to emerging opportunities and

challenges.

Q4. The Administration cited the recently completed Academic Competitiveness

Council (ACC) assessment of the effectiveness of Federal STEM education programs as a part of its justification for budget decisions for NSF’s Education and

Human Resources Directorate. The ACC report, which was chaired by Education

Secretary Spellings, found that a number of NSF programs did not have adequate evaluations. Would you agree with the report’s conclusions that NSF’s

education programs are not properly evaluated? lf so, how do you plan to address this?

A4. The ACC recommends that ‘‘Funding for federal STEM education programs designed to improve STEM education outcomes should not increase unless a plan for

rigorous, independent evaluation is in place, appropriate to the types of activities

funded.’’ However, this does not mean that a specific form of evaluation is required.

Program funding relies on several factors. Importantly, evaluations should address

questions of program implementation and impact, and must be calibrated to match

the developmental changes that occur as programs become established. In 1992, performance monitoring and evaluation of education programs in EHR became a requirement. EHR has conducted numerous program evaluations since that time.

Since 2005, EHR has required that every proposed project include an evaluation

plan at the time of proposal submission. Evaluation plans and appropriately rigorous designs are developed for all EHR programs as they evolve.

64

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Steven C. Beering, Chairman, National Science Board

Questions submitted by Chairman Brian Baird

Q1. You mentioned in your testimony that the Board continues to consider appropriate mechanisms for support of graduate students. A report from the National

Academies in the mid 1990s suggested the need for an increase in numbers of

fellowships and traineeships relative to graduate research assistantships. The

2003 NSB report, The Science and Engineering Workforce, indicated the Board

would take no action due to ‘‘inadequate data to compel a recommendation of

a major shift in funding mode among fellowships, research assistantships,

teaching assistantships, and traineeships. . ..’’

Is the Board still gathering information on graduate student support mechanisms and do you expect the Board’s past position to be revised in the near-term?

A1. We do not plan to revisit this position in the near-term. However, we continue

to stay informed about all NSF programs to support graduate education and assessments of their effectiveness through the Board’s Committee on Education and

Human Resources and in discussions of the NSF budget.

Q2. What is the rationale for the FY09 budget proposal that increases the Graduate

Research Fellowships program by 32 percent while holding the IGERT

traineeship program at flat funding?

A2. The GRF and the Integrated Graduate Education and Research Traineeship

(IGERT) programs are very different with respect to purpose and established effectiveness. The Graduate Research Fellowship program (GRF) is NSF’s traditional fellowship support program for graduate students and has proven its effectiveness. According to the recent Committee of Visitor’s report (2003) GRF ‘‘has been a mainstay

of technical workforce development in science, engineering, technology and mathematics for many years. . .. The program is old enough now that former fellowship

holders can be found in many prominent places within the public and private sectors. . .all stated goals were being met. . .. Clearly, the students who are recipients

of these awards end up making significant contributions to the ‘scientific’ workforce

and as ‘global’ representatives of our scientifically trained citizenry (Committee of

Visitors Report, 2003). In FY 2009, 3,075 students would be supported under the

proposed budget.

The IGERT program was initiated in 1998. IGERT remains experimental, with results of extensive evaluations of the program effectiveness still under review. Both

the GRF and IGERT programs have experienced increases in this decade, but clearly the long-term, proven effectiveness of the GRF in achieving national goals for the

science and engineering workforce merits sustaining and expanding support to this

program. The IGERT program is focused on institutional innovation in graduate

education, and grants are to institutions rather than directly to excellent students.

The IGERT program, with funding for 1,425 students under the 2009 budget, would

support nearly half as many students as would be supported under the well established GRF program. This level of funding seems appropriate.

Questions submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski

Q1. How does the NSF plan to implement recently authorized America COMPETES

programs in light of recent budgetary shortfalls? Can you point to tangible evidence, such as a projected decrease in the amount of NSF supported researchers

that is a direct result of the recent budget shortfalls?

Q2. The FY 2009 request provides for a 16 percent increase for the Research and Related Activities overall and about 20 percent increases for the directorates that

support research in the physical sciences and engineering. In light of this, could

you please provide specifics on the proposed allocation for the National

Nanotechnology Initiative of only two percent growth, which is below inflation

and represents an actual decrease in level of activity? This lack of budget priority is puzzling since the NNI is a major cross agency research initiative in an

area that is generally regarded as critical to the future technological strength

and innovative capacity of the Nation.

A1 and A2. I refer you to the responses of the National Science Foundation Director

with regard to the implementation of the America COMPETES Act in NSF proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:14 Jul 05, 2008 Jkt 040817 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\R&SE08\022608\40817 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
65

grams and the specifics of the National Nanotechnology Initiative as implemented

in NSF.

Q3. At present approximately 12 percent of graduate student support from NSF

comes from fellowships and traineeships and the remainder from graduate research assistantships, which are tied to specific research grants. Several years

ago, a study by the National Academy of Sciences suggested that the balance for

such support should be relatively greater for fellowships and traineeships versus

assistantships in order to give a student greater freedom in selecting an area of

specialization. Has the Board revisited this policy and is the Board satisfied

with the current balance among these support mechanisms for graduate education?

A3. The Foundation and the Board continually review evidence of the most advantageous approaches to support for graduate and postdoctoral education toward

achieving federal goals for the science and engineering enterprise. In its 1996 Report

of the Task Force on Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, the Board found insufficient evidence to justify a change in the balance in its funding modes for graduate

education at that time. Moreover, though the 1998 report of the National Research

Council, Trends in the Early Careers of Life Scientists, urged, under Recommendation 3, that ‘‘All federal agencies that support life-science education and research. . .invest in training grants and individual graduate fellowships as preferable to research grants to support Ph.D. education,’’ it acknowledged that ‘‘There

is no clear evidence that career outcomes of persons supported by training grants

are superior to those of persons supported by research grants.’’

The Board has focused on improving outcomes, rather than balance of modes of

support, in its more recent studies. Its 2003 report, The Science and Engineering

Workforce—Realizing America’s Potential, recommends encouraging institutions to

‘‘promote a wider range of educational options responsive to national skill needs.’’

It goes on to recommend a realistic level of financial support for graduate and

postdoctoral students (stipends on NSF fellowships and traineeships have since been

raised to a $30,000 annually). In sum, the Board has not specifically focused on balance of support modes since the 1996 report, in favor of a broader focus on desired

outcomes and the best approaches to achieve them, which may include as a tool,

as appropriate, the modes of support for graduate education in science and engineering.

Æ