NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

REAUTHORIZATION: PART I AND PART II

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND

SCIENCE EDUCATION

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 20, 2007

and

MARCH 29, 2007

Serial No. 110–13

and

Serial No. 110–19

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology

(

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION REAUTHORIZATION

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

34–012PS 2007

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

REAUTHORIZATION: PART I AND PART II

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND

SCIENCE EDUCATION

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND

TECHNOLOGY

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 20, 2007

and

MARCH 29, 2007

Serial No. 110–13

and

Serial No. 110–19

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

PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

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

KEN CALVERT, California

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

JO BONNER, Alabama

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

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

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

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

March 20, 2007

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 .................................................................................... 12

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 14

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

Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, Committee on Science

and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................... 15

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

Prepared Statement by Representative Russ Carnahan, Member, Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, Committee on Science and

Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ....................................................... 16

Prepared Statement by Representative Brian P. Bilbray, Member, Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, Committee on Science and

Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ....................................................... 17

Witnesses:

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

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 19

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 20

Biography .......................................................................................................... 23

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

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 24

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 27

Biography .......................................................................................................... 40

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 41

Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Dr. Arden L. Bement, Director, National Science Foundation ............................ 60

Dr. Steven C. Beering, Chairman, National Science Board ................................. 68

C O N T E N T S

March 29, 2007

Page

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 72

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 73

Page

IV

Opening Statements

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

House of Representatives .................................................................................... 79

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 80

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 ............................................... 80

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 81

Prepared Statement by Representative Russ Carnahan, Member, Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, Committee on Science and

Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ....................................................... 82

Witnesses:

Dr. Phyllis M. Wise, Provost, University of Washington, Seattle

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 83

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 85

Biography .......................................................................................................... 93

Dr. Catherine T. Hunt, President, American Chemical Society

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 93

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 96

Biography .......................................................................................................... 101

Dr. Margaret F. Ford, President, Houston Community College System, Northeast

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 102

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 104

Biography .......................................................................................................... 112

Dr. Carlos A. Meriles, Assistant Professor of Physics, The City College of

New York, CUNY

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 113

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 115

Biography .......................................................................................................... 116

Dr. Jeffrey J. Welser, Director of the Nanoelectronics Research Initiative,

Semiconductor Research Corporation

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 117

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 119

Biography .......................................................................................................... 128

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 128

Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Dr. Phyllis M. Wise, Provost, University of Washington, Seattle ....................... 142

Dr. Catherine T. Hunt, President, American Chemical Society .......................... 144

Dr. Margaret F. Ford, President, Houston Community College System, Northeast ........................................................................................................................ 145

Dr. Carlos A. Meriles, Assistant Professor of Physics, The City College of

New York, CUNY ................................................................................................. 146

Dr. Jeffrey J. Welser, Director of the Nanoelectronics Research Initiative,

Semiconductor Research Corporation ................................................................. 148

(1)

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

REAUTHORIZATION: PART I

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:35 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

National Science Foundation

Reauthorization: Part I

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2007

10:30 A.M.–12:30 P.M.

2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

1. Purpose

On Tuesday, March 20, 2007, 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 pending legislation to reauthorize core activities, amend administrative laws and set new policy directions

for NSF.

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

• What are the budget, administrative and policy issues that should be addressed through a 2007 NSF reauthorization bill?

• What is the appropriate balance between funding for interdisciplinary and

disciplinary research? What are the best mechanisms for soliciting and funding interdisciplinary proposals? Is NSF doing a sufficient job of publicizing opportunities for funding in interdisciplinary research?

• The average success rate across the directorates is significantly lower for new

investigators than for investigators previously funded by NSF. What can NSF

do to narrow that gap? In particular, what funding mechanisms make the

most sense without undermining the merit-review process, and what additional steps can NSF take to nurture young investigators?

• NSF, unlike the mission agencies, is a mainly proposal-driven agency. However, there are significant issues of concern to our nation—competitiveness,

security, energy—that can be addressed, at least in part, through technology

enabled by solutions or answers to known scientific challenges and questions.

What is the appropriate role for NSF in such research motivated by national

needs? In fostering industry/university partnerships? Is this a valid application of Criterion 2 of NSF’s merit review process?

4. Brief Overview

• NSF currently has a budget of $5.9 billion and is the funding source for approximately 20 percent of all federally supported basic research conducted by

America’s colleges and universities. In many fields such as mathematics, computer science and the social sciences, NSF is the major source of federal backing.

• NSF also has a mission to achieve excellence in U.S. science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education at all levels and in all settings

(both formal and informal) in order to support the development of a diverse

and well-prepared STEM workforce and a well-informed citizenry.

• NSF is a proposal-driven (bottom-up) agency that operates almost exclusively

by competitive merit-review. Reviewers are asked to evaluate proposals based

4

on two criteria: What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity; and

what are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?

• Breakthroughs in science and technology that will have a near to mid-term

impact on society are increasingly requiring interdisciplinary teams of scientists and engineers willing and able to cross their traditional disciplinary

boundaries. NSF has begun to react to the pressure from the community to

re-evaluate its role in interdisciplinary research and education, but has not

yet articulated a coherent path forward.

• New investigators have a 17 percent funding success rate, compared to a 28

percent success rate for prior investigators and an overall rate of 23 percent.

The CAREER grant program was established explicitly to help find and fund

outstanding young investigators, but CAREER awards differ from standard

NSF awards in size, duration and evaluation criteria.

• The National Science Board recently eliminated cost-sharing for NSF awards,

but certain award types are particularly suitable for industry or university

cost-sharing. In addition, there are examples of industries eager to partner

with universities to help fund the science to keep U.S. companies competitive

and/or to solve particular technological challenges. The current policy appears

to present an obstacle to NSF leveraging private dollars to conduct research

in areas of national need.

5. Background

The National Science Foundation was established by Congress in 1950. The agency’s mission is unique among the Federal Government’s scientific research agencies

in that it is to support science and engineering across all disciplines. NSF currently

funds research and education activities at more than 2,000 universities, colleges, K–

12 schools, businesses, and other research institutions throughout the United

States. Virtually all of this support is provided through competitive, peer-reviewed

grants and cooperative agreements. Although NSF’s research and development

(R&D) budget accounts for only about three percent of all federally funded R&D, the

role of NSF in promoting fundamental research is vital to the Nation’s scientific enterprise, as NSF provides approximately 20 percent of the federal support for basic

research conducted at academic institutions. In many fields such as mathematics,

computer science and the social sciences, NSF is the major source of federal backing.

The Foundation is administrated by a Director, who is appointed by the President

and confirmed by the Senate and is responsible for the overall operations of the

agency. The Foundation is overseen by the National Science Board, a body of 24

eminent scientists who are appointed by the President (with confirmation by the

Senate) to serve six-year terms. Terms may be renewed but no member of the Board

can serve more than 12 consecutive years. The role of the Board, as set forth in the

‘‘National Science Foundation Act of 1950,’’ is to establish the policies of the Foundation, provide oversight of its programs and activities, and approve its strategic directions and budgets.

NSF Budget by Functional Activities—The NSF budget can be divided into four

general categories:

• Research project support funded through the Research and Related Activities

(R&RA) account, which supports cutting-edge research;

• Facilities, funded through the Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) account, which supports large, multi-user research facilities;

• Education and training, funded through the Education and Human Resources

(EHR) account, which supports math and science education programs at the

K–12, undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral levels, including programs

to broaden participation in math and science; and

• Administration, which supports Agency Operations and Award Management

(AOAM) and the Office of the Inspector General (IG) at NSF.

NSF is funded at $5.92 billion in fiscal year (FY) 2007, and the FY 2008 request

is for $6.43 billion. Of that, $5.13 billion would be available for R&RA and $750 million for EHR. Under the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI),

funding for NSF, in particular for the research budget, would double in ten years

(beginning with the FY 2007 budget)—a seven percent increase per year. (A detailed

overview of the FY 2008 NSF budget request is attached.)

5

1 Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities, Committee on Advanced Research Instrumentation, National Academies Press, 2005. 2 Robert Day, CEO of the Keck Foundation.

6. Budget Issues

Major Research Instrumentation

Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) is a funding line within R&RA to provide

for the acquisition and development of mid-size instruments, ranging from $100,000

to $2.0 million. Presumably in response to a recent National Academy of Sciences

(NAS) report1 on this topic, NSF proposed raising the cap to $4.0 million in the FY

2008 request. The Committee is considering raising the cap even further to $20 million to better capture the full range of mid-size instruments required to advance scientific knowledge. Specifically, the NAS panel recommended that ‘‘NSF should expand its MRI program so that it includes Advanced Research Instrumentation and

Facilities whose capital costs are greater than $2 million but that are not appropriate for NSF’s Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC)

account, which handles facilities that cost hundreds of millions of dollars.’’ Typically

the threshold for MREFC projects is 10 percent of the proposing directorate’s budget, but most projects total much more. Given that the smallest research directorate

has a budget of $200 million, a $4 million cap may be insufficient to meet this recommendation.

Funding pre-construction activities for major facilities

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

telescopes and research ships. Congressional Appropriators required that funding

for all pre-construction activities, including detailed design and costing work, come

from the sponsoring research division rather than being available, at least in part,

from the MREFC budget. All maintenance and operation (M&O) costs are also the

responsibility of the sponsoring division. Unfortunately, because of the perennial

trade-off between research and facilities, there is a long history of research divisions

cutting corners on the pre-construction work, thereby underestimating or failing to

minimize construction costs and/or M&O costs. It is not just a matter of inefficient

use of resources—the scope of the science enabled by the facilities is sometimes

scaled back in the face of escalating costs. The Committee is considering directing

the Board to evaluate the appropriateness and trade-offs of the current policy for

funding of pre-construction activities and report to Congress on their findings.

Education

While the President’s ACI proposes to double research budgets, the education

budget at NSF is seeing much smaller increases. By NSF’s own accounting, overall

funding for K–12 programs in the FY 2008 request falls by nine percent from the

FY 2007 CR level. The Math and Science Partnerships (MSP) Program, and the

Noyce Teacher Scholarship program, both of which address needs in K–12 education, would be level funded. The Course, Curriculum and Laboratory Improvement

program, which is the core program in the Division of Undergraduate Education, is

slowly decreasing in funding. (On the other hand, the STEM talent expansion program—a program to recruit undergraduates to STEM fields—would increase by 12–

17 percent, depending on how NSF ends up distributing its FY 2007 EHR budget.)

Such cuts or modest increases in funding are coming at a time when one report

after another decries the state of K–12 STEM education, and U.S. industry is starting to raise concerns about the appropriateness of old paradigms in undergraduate

education to major new developments in scientific understanding and practice.

7. Policies for Research Funding

Interdisciplinary research

‘‘Training individuals who are conversant in ideas and languages of other fields

is central to the continued march of scientific progress in the 21st century.’’ 2 NSF,

like all federal research agencies, is already funding interdisciplinary research.

There are several cross-directorate and in some cases multi-agency programs, including: Cyber-enabled Discovery and Research (a new program for FY 2008),

Cyberinfrastructure, Networking and Information Technology R&D (NITRD), and

the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), to name a few. The majority of NSFfunded Centers are also staffed by multi-disciplinary teams of scientists, engineers

and educators. In addition, individual directorates have their own interdisciplinary

and multi-disciplinary coordinating activities. For example, the Mathematical and

Physical Sciences Directorate has a separate Office of Multi-disciplinary Activities,

6

which facilitates, coordinates and co-funds multi-disciplinary and interdisciplinary

activities between divisions, but does not directly manage any grants.

There is no standard definition for the term ‘‘interdisciplinary research.’’ Furthermore, there is no standard delineation between interdisciplinary, multi-disciplinary

and cross-disciplinary. In 2004, the NAS Committee on Science, Engineering and

Public Policy issued a report on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. After reviewing the wide range of definitions in use, the NAS report panel settled on the

following: ‘‘Interdisciplinary research is a mode of research by teams or individuals

that integrates information, data, techniques, tools, perspectives, concepts and/or

theories from two or more disciplines or bodies of specialized knowledge to advance

fundamental understanding or to solve problems whose solutions are beyond the

scope of a single discipline or area of research practice.’’ The panel distinguished between multi-disciplinary and interdisciplinary as follows: Multi-disciplinary teams

join together to work on common problems, but may split apart unchanged when

the work is done, while interdisciplinary teams may end up forging a new research

field or discipline.

The issue of facilitating interdisciplinary research and pushing the frontiers of

21st Century science without compromising the potential for advances in disciplinary research or educating a generation of scientists and engineers without depth

of knowledge in any single field is a complex and controversial one. Nevertheless,

it is an issue at the forefront of the scientific enterprise and one that NSF and the

rest of the scientific enterprise is struggling with.

Outside of the standing cross-directorate programs listed previously, most of the

directorates process unsolicited interdisciplinary proposals from the bottom-up. This

is a largely ad hoc process by which individual program officers receive proposals

that they identify as interdisciplinary, decide to approach the program officer(s) in

the appropriate division(s) relevant to the proposal, and work as a team to manage

the review process, including putting together a review panel compromised of experts from all of the relevant fields. In some cases, instead of co-equal proposal managers, there may be a ‘‘principal’’ program officer with the others serving as advisors. There is no standard policy for handling interdisciplinary proposals across

NSF. Whether or not it makes sense to institute a Foundation-wide policy rather

than leaving the details to the heads of the directorates, NSF should be more clear

in general about how they will balance interdisciplinary and disciplinary research

moving forward, and they need to make clear to the scientific community how unsolicited interdisciplinary proposals are handled.

Young investigators

In the National Science Board’s 2005 report on the NSF merit review process,

they found that new investigators have a 17 percent funding success rate, compared

to a 28 percent success rate for prior investigators and an overall rate of 23 percent.

The Board identified the new versus prior investigator gap to be the ‘‘major gap’’

in success rates, while other demographic subgroups—in particular, women and minorities—were right at or even above the Foundation average.

The CAREER grant program was established explicitly to help find and fund outstanding young investigators, but CAREER awards differ from standard NSF

awards in size, duration and evaluation criteria. In particular, there is an emphasis

on the integration of research and education, which is not a required evaluation criterion for standard NSF research grants. The minimum CAREER award size is

$400,000 for a five-year period. NSF-wide, the average annualized award amount

for research grants in FY 2005 was $143,600, and the average duration is three

years (range: one to five years).

Small Grants for Exploratory Research (SGER) awards were established in 1990

for small-scale grants awarded at the discretion of the program officers and without

formal external review. NSF made 387 SGER awards in FY 2005 for a total of $27

million, and with an average size of $70,000. SGER awards are made, among other

things, for preliminary work on untested ideas, and ventures into emerging research

and potentially transformative ideas. Providing new investigators with seed money

to make their proposals more competitive, for example with SGER funds, is one possible mechanism to help narrow the gap in success rates. Program officers may also

be encouraged to take an active role in mentoring new investigators through the

proposal and review process.

High-risk research

There is another potential benefit to NSF taking a more active role in supporting

new investigators. Young investigators, on average, are more likely to take risks in

their research than more established researchers. They don’t yet have a base from

which to build incrementally, they don’t yet have a large cadre of graduate students,

7

post-docs and other lab personnel to support, and perhaps they are more willing and

able by nature to think outside the box and take risks.

The National Science Board has called for a Foundation-wide transformative research initiative. The Board defines transformative research as ‘‘research driven by

ideas that stand a reasonable chance of radically challenging our understanding of

an important existing scientific or engineering concept or leading to the creation of

a new paradigm or field of science or engineering. Such research is also characterized by its challenge to current understanding or its pathway to new frontiers.’’ It

is not clear what such an initiative would look like or how it would be carried out,

but there is general agreement in the community that merit review panels are conservative by nature and that more effort needs to be made to fund high-risk research. Putting more effort into supporting young investigators is just one approach

to addressing this need.

Research for national needs and industry partnerships

NSF, unlike the mission agencies, is a mainly proposal-driven agency. Some solicitations are narrowly defined by agency officials to address research needs they have

identified, in particular in the context of government-wide initiatives such as

NITRD and NNI, but the majority of directorate solicitations are broad in nature.

The program officers rely on the scientific community itself to identify the most

pressing or interesting research questions—hence the term ‘‘proposal-driven.’’

The mission-driven agencies, on the other hand, solicit mostly proposals that address specific challenges and questions identified by agency officials to address national needs. In the case of the Department of Energy (DOE), for example, agency

officials work with industry to identify research priorities based on industry’s and

the government’s outlook for energy demand and energy technology development,

taking into account such factors as environmental and health impacts as well as

geopolitics and security. Recently, the Office of Science at DOE began to formalize

this process through a series of workshops with the full range of stakeholders to

identify basic research needs for solar, hydrogen, nuclear, etc. In short, the mission

and goals are narrowly identified from the top and the basic research needs are subsequently identified by the scientist community within those constraints.

NITRD, NNI and other such government-wide initiatives also focus on significant

issues of concern to our nation—competitiveness, security, energy—that can be addressed, at least in part, through technology enabled by solutions or answers to

known scientific challenges and questions. While NSF participates in and often

leads these big initiatives, the Foundation rarely engages industry in identifying or

supporting its own internal research priorities. There are some notable exceptions—

the Engineering Research Centers, for example. And there are cases in which industry has stepped in uninvited and offered to supplement specific research grants because those forward-thinking industry leaders understand the importance of basic

research to their own competitiveness.

Reporting of research results

The NSF Inspector General conducted a survey regarding NSF constituent interest in reporting of research results. The various constituent groups were overwhelmingly interested in NSF posting publication citations and brief summaries of research results on their public website, as other federal research agencies already do.

The Committee would like to see the Director take the necessary steps to make this

happen.

Cost-sharing

The Board recently decided to abolish cost-sharing for NSF research grants. They

did so for two main reasons: to prevent NSF program officers from effectively forcing

cost-sharing on universities by reducing funding amounts for successful grants but

not reducing the scope of work; and to address the Inspector General’s concern that

NSF was not doing an adequate job of tracking whether proposed cost sharing actually materialized. However, this new policy raises concerns for some specific types

of NSF programs, such as Engineering Research Centers (ERC’s), which have always had substantial industry cost-sharing and the MRI program, for which university cost-sharing is not inappropriate. The Committee is considering: 1) exempting

MRI explicitly; and 2) tasking the Board to examine the impacts of its ruling more

broadly, in particular the impacts on programs that involve industry partnerships.

(See discussion of industry partnerships above.)

8

8. Administrative Issues

Oversight role of the National Science Board

The National Science Foundation Act of 1950 created a Director to carry out the

formulation of programs in conformance with the policies of the Foundation, and a

National Science Board to establish the policies of the Foundation. While the role

of the Board is considered by most to be both a policy-making and an oversight role,

the word ‘‘oversight’’ never appears in statute. This lack of precision in existing statute has at times resulted in unproductive tension between the Board and the Director. The Committee is considering legislative language to more explicitly delineate

the respective roles of the Director and the Board.

Board role in setting priorities for major research facilities

When proposals are submitted for major research facilities (i.e. facilities large

enough to make it into the MREFC budget), the National Science Board, in the current process, is consulted after the conceptual design stage but gives its formal approval for the project only after the detailed design is complete. At that point the

project may become an explicit part of the NSF’s budget. As an oversight body, the

Board should be involved in setting priorities for major facilities at an earlier stage

in the process because of the long-term budget consequences, not just for construction costs but also for maintenance and operations costs.

9

3 In the FY 2008 NSF budget presentation, the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) is moved from the Education account to the R&RA account. This

change is reflected in the comparisons and budget table for the prior years. The FY 2007 CR

provided funding for the components of R&RA included in the FY 2007 NSF request, which did

not include EPSCoR. The amount shown here for R&RA under the FY 2007 CR has been increased by the EPSCoR funding for FY 2006 ($98.7 million) and the amount under Education

and Human Resources (EHR) has been similarly reduced.

APPENDIX

OVERVIEW OF FY 2008 NATIONAL SCIENCE

FOUNDATION BUDGET

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is the primary source of federal funding

for non-medical 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 as part of the

American Competitive Initiative (ACI). The FY 2007 budget request, which called for

a $439 million (7.9 percent) increase over the FY 2006 budget, was the first to reflect the ACI. The FY 2008 request maintains that general trend with a $409 million (6.8 percent) increase over the FY 2007 request, although the increases are not

distributed evenly.

The FY 2007 CR would fund NSF at $5,916 million, a $335 million (6.0 percent)

increase from FY 2006, but a $105 million (1.7 percent) decrease from last year’s

request. Specifically, the CR appropriates $4,666 million for the Research and Related Activities (R&RA) account, and remains silent on the rest of the NSF accounts,

signaling a continuation of FY 2006 funding levels for those accounts.3 The FY 2008

request of $6,429 million is $848 million (15.2 percent) greater than FY 2006 spending and $513 million (8.7 percent) greater than FY 2007 spending under the CR.

Research and Related Activities (R&RA)

Scientific research programs and research facilities (which comprise the R&RA account) receive a $367 million (7.7 percent) increase from FY 2007. The increases for

scientific research are spread fairly evenly among all fields NSF supports. The largest percentage increases are for the math and physical sciences, computer sciences,

and engineering directorates. The two directorates that receive percentage increases

below the total R&RA increase are the (non-medical) biological sciences and the social, behavioral and economic sciences.

NSF’s contribution to the multi-agency National Nanotechnology Initiative increases by $17 million (4.5 percent), including $3 million more in support of research on the environmental, health and safety (EHS) aspects of nanotechnology. In

particular, support is requested for a new, multi-disciplinary center to conduct EHS

research and provide the science needed to inform the development of regulations.

The FY 2008 budget also requests support for two new research initiatives, including $52 million for an NSF-wide program (known as CDI) to develop the computational tools and knowledge necessary to handle data-rich, highly complex systems and phenomena, such as the flow of information over the Internet, or major

storms, and $17 million for a multi-agency program for understanding ocean dynamics, forecasting ocean events, and managing ocean resources. The CDI funding, in

combination with the $47 million in increased funding for cyberinfrastructure, provide the $90 million (10 percent) increase in the NSF contribution to the coordinated, interagency research initiative in information technology (known as NITRD).

The award cap for the funding of mid-size research instrumentation under the

Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) program is raised from $2.0 to $4.0 million,

in response to a 2005 recommendation by the National Academy of Sciences. The

total funding level for the MRI program is increased by $26 million (29.5 percent)

to $114 million.

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 FY 2007 CR explicitly requires NSF to

continue honoring this agreement. The request for FY 2008 is $57 million, the same

as it was for FY 2007. NSF also purchases back-up ice-breaking services on the open

market at a cost of approximately $8 million per year.

10

4 It remains unclear how FY 2007 actual spending for MSP will be affected by the CR, since

the FY 2007 request, in this case, was much lower than FY 2006 spending. However, it is likely

that NSF will be guided by their FY 2007 request in making this decision.

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 operation and management of these

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

The FY 2008 request provides an increase of $54 million (28.2 percent) for

MREFC, which will allow for continuation of support for six construction projects

and one new start. The new project, which is funded at $33 million in the first year,

will provide for an upgrade to increase the sensitivity of an earth-based observatory

for the study of gravitational waves.

Three new projects proposed under last year’s request are currently on hold due

to funding uncertainties. Under the CR funding levels, NSF would be able to proceed on schedule with the two smaller projects (the National Ecological Observatory

Network and Ocean Observatories Initiative), but would have only $6 million of the

$56 million requested for the Alaska Region Research Vessel (ARRV). [report due

March 15- might have approval by then]

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 2008 EHR budget request is $751 million, a $34 million (4.8 percent) increase from the FY 2007 request and a $53 million (7.5 percent) increase from the

FY 2007 CR level (FY 2006 appropriation level). Most of this proposed funding increase goes to increases in graduate research fellowships (+ $11.2 million) and in

activities to broaden participation in STEM fields (+ $28.6 million). NSF has also

launched a concerted effort to evaluate program effectiveness across EHR, and in

particular, for its STEM education programs and projects.

For K–12 education programs, the budget request is a good news/bad news story.

After proposing in the past two budgets to eliminate the Math and Science Partnership (MSP), this year’s request would provide level funding at the FY 2007 request

of $46 million, which is still $17 million less than FY 2006 spending.4 Since there

have been very few new starts during the past two years, the requested funding

level will provide $30 million for new starts in FY 2008. However, overall funding

for K–12 programs in the FY 2008 request falls by nine percent from the FY 2007

CR level.

Agency Operations and Award Management

This NSF account, previously called Salaries and Expenses, funds the internal operations of NSF. The FY 2008 request provides an increase of $39 million (15.7 percent) above the FY 2007 CR.

NSF is facing the challenge of expanding its workforce to accommodate the demands created by the growing research budgets. H.J. Res. 20 would delay many

planned new-hires in addition to planned upgrades of the electronic system used to

receive and process grant applications. Most of the $39 million increase for agency

operations and award management in the FY 2008 budget request are slated for

these two needs.

11

12

Chairman BAIRD. This hearing will come to order.

I want to welcome our distinguished guests and visitors here to

the first of two Research and Science Education Subcommittee

Hearings dedicated to the development of legislation to reauthorize

programs at the National Science Foundation.

Today, we will hear from the distinguished Director of the National Science Foundation and the Chair of the National Science

Board. Next week, we will hear from a diverse panel of outside witnesses who will weigh in on some of the broader issues we hope

to address through this legislation, including support for young investigators, NSF’s important role in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education, the industry’s role in supporting basic research and the future of interdisciplinary research.

As part of our hearing today, I hope we will look at the issue of

young investigators. In fiscal year 2006, new investigators achieved

an 18 percent funding success rate compared to a returning investigative success rate of 30 percent and an overall agency rate of 25

percent. I know that NSF is making it a priority to narrow this gap

and that it supports outstanding, young investigators through the

very prestigious CAREER grants program. However, I also believe

that more can be done to nurture and support new researchers and

that we need to be creative in figuring out ways to keep bright,

young researchers in the pipeline. For this reason, the Committee

is considering creating a new pilot program of seed grants to new

investigators to give them an opportunity to strengthen their proposals before resubmitting them through the merit review process.

Another topic of particular interest to us today is industry’s role

in funding basic research. There are leaders in the high-tech industry that understand that their future depends, in large part, on the

scientific advances made by researchers in university labs across

the country. Unfortunately, however, many in industry fail to see,

or ignore, the potential for university-industry partnerships to further their own success and competitiveness. NSF can play a significant role in changing attitudes and fostering partnerships by providing incentives to both university researchers and private sector

officials to bridge this divide and encourage participation and research.

This committee is also quite concerned about the slow growth,

and in some cases, shrinking budget of STEM education programs

at NSF. Chairman Gordon has introduced legislation to strengthen

and broaden existing K–12 STEM education programs at NSF, in

particular, Noyce Teacher Scholarship program, the Math and

Science Partnership, and the STEM Talent Expansion Program.

Today, I would like to spend time discussing STEM’s—or NSF’s

role in STEM education, including technological training at twoyear colleges through the Advanced Technological Education Program. And I might interject, also, that I am very grateful for Dr.

Cora Marrett visiting my district last week and meeting with a

number of educational leaders throughout the spectrum. Dr.

Marrett, it was a pleasure to have you out there, and I am glad

you managed to get home in spite of the travel difficulties.

Today, I also hope that we will explore the concept of interdisciplinary research. The frontiers of 21st century science are very

much dominated by what most would consider to be interdiscipliVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:50 Oct 12, 2007 Jkt 034012 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\R&SE07\032007\34012 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
13

nary research, research conducted by teams of scientists that integrate information, data, methods, perspectives, and theories from

two or more bodies of specialized knowledge to advance fundamental understanding or solve problems beyond the scope of a single discipline. Without compromising the strength of the individual

discipline or the ability of the lone scientists to make great advances on narrow topics within his or her own field, we need to

also make sure that interdisciplinary proposals get a fair hearing.

NSF has shown a great leadership on this issue, but I believe there

are ways to better define this process and look forward to ongoing

discussions with the agency and the community on ways to go

about this.

I should add that many of these issues that we must deal with

in the context of NSF reauthorization are issues that the greater

community is also grappling with, however, because NSF funds 20

percent of basic research at U.S. colleges and universities across all

science and engineering disciplines and because NSF continues to

be at the forefront of the ever-evolving scientific enterprise, they

are issues of particular importance to me, to this subcommittee,

and to the NSF.

In addition to some of these broad issues, we will also take a look

today at some specific budget and administrative issues at the

Foundation, some of which are long-standing issues of concern and

others of which have been brought to the attention of the Committee more recently.

I want to note that this committee supports the Administration’s

proposal to double funding for basic science research over a 10-year

period, and the authorization levels that we will propose are

aligned with the Administration’s plans. However, I also want to

suggest that we can’t afford to keep playing this game of increasing

funding for one set of disciplines while decreasing or flat-lining

funding of others. We will continue to advocate for increased

fundings for basic and applied research across the board, but we

need help from the entire scientific community in justifying such

increases to the rest of our colleagues in Congress and to the American taxpayer as well.

We must also recognize that these are tight budget times. We

can’t simply throw money at science because we want to. We need

to maintain diligence in ensuring that the research we fund is of

top quality, that federally-funded researchers are held to the highest standards of ethical conduct of research, and that we are

thoughtful in setting priorities for research funding.

Finally, I want to be clear that the process for developing NSF

reauthorization bill is to be open, transparent, and responsive to all

concerned parties, both within and outside the government.

I welcome your suggestions and encourage you to be in touch

with me with your thoughts or ideas, and that is the broad, you,

not just our witnesses today, but others that are here in the audience or in the scientific community. We welcome their feedback and

their suggestions.

Dr. Bement, Dr. Beering, thank you for being here with us today.

I look forward to hearing your testimony, to receiving your input

and guidance as we develop this NSF reauthorization legislation,

14

and thank you both for your leadership on the Foundation and the

Board.

And I now yield to my colleague, Ranking Member Ehlers, for his

opening remarks.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Baird follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BRIAN BAIRD

Good morning. I want to welcome you to the first of two Research and Science

Education Subcommittee hearings dedicated to the development of legislation to reauthorize programs at the National Science Foundation.

Today, we will hear from the distinguished Director of the National Science Foundation and the Chair of the National Science Board.

Next week, we will hear from a diverse panel of outside witnesses who will weigh

in on some of the broader issues we hope to address through this legislation—including support for young investigators, NSF’s important role in science, technology,

engineering and mathematics (STEM) education, the industry’s role in supporting

basic research, and the future of interdisciplinary research.

In fiscal year 2006, new investigators achieved an 18 percent funding success

rate, compared to a returning investigator success rate of 30 percent and an overall

Agency rate of 25 percent. I know that NSF is making it a priority to narrow this

gap, and that it supports outstanding young investigators through the very prestigious CAREER grants program. However, I believe that more can be done to nurture and support new researchers and that we need to be creative in figuring out

ways to keep bright young researchers in the pipeline. For this reason, the Committee is considering creating a pilot program of seed grants to new investigators

to give them an opportunity to strengthen their proposals before resubmitting them

through the merit review process.

Another topic of particular interest to me is industry’s role in funding basic research. There are some leaders in high-tech industries that understand that their

future depends in large part on the scientific advances made by researchers in university labs across the country. Unfortunately, however, most in industry fail to see,

or ignore, the potential for university-industry partnerships to further their own

success and competitiveness. NSF can play a significant role in changing attitudes

and fostering partnerships, by providing incentives to both university researchers

and private sector officials to bridge this divide and encourage industry participation in research.

This subcommittee is also very concerned about the slow growth, and in some

cases shrinking, budgets of STEM education programs at NSF. Chairman Gordon

introduced legislation to strengthen and broaden existing K–12 STEM education

programs at NSF, in particular the Noyce Teacher Scholarship program, the Math

and Science Partnerships and the STEM Talent Expansion program. Today, I would

like to spend time discussing NSF’s role in STEM education, including technical

training at two-year colleges through the Advanced Technological Education program.

Today, I also hope that we will explore the concept of interdisciplinary research.

The frontiers of 21st Century science are very much dominated by what most would

consider to be interdisciplinary research—that is, research conducted by teams of

scientists that integrate information, data, methods, perspectives and theories from

two or more bodies of specialized knowledge to advance fundamental understanding

or solve problems beyond the scope of a single discipline. Without compromising the

strength of the individual disciplines or the ability of the lone scientist to make

great advances on narrow topics within his or her own field, we need to make sure

that interdisciplinary proposals get a fair hearing. NSF has shown great leadership

on this issue, but I believe that there are probably ways to better define this process. I look forward to ongoing discussions with the Agency and the community on

ways to go about this.

I should add that many of these issues and others that we must deal with in the

context of the NSF reauthorization bill are issues that the greater scientific community is also grappling. However, because NSF funds 20 percent of the basic research

conducted at U.S. colleges and universities, across all science and engineering disciplines, and continues to be at the forefront of the ever-evolving scientific enterprise, they are issues of particular importance to me, to this subcommittee, and to

NSF.

In addition to some of these broad issues, we will also take a look today at some

specific budget and administrative issues at the Foundation—some of which are

15

longstanding issues of concern, and others of which have been brought to the attention of the Committee more recently.

I want to note that this Committee supports the Administration’s proposal to double funding for basic physical science research over a ten-year period, and the authorization levels that we will propose for NSF are aligned with the Administration’s plans. However, I also want to suggest that we can’t afford to keep playing

this game of increasing funding for one set of disciplines while decreasing or flatlining funding for others. We will continue to advocate for increases in funding for

basic and applied research across the board, but we need help from the entire scientific community in justifying such increases to the rest of our colleagues in Congress.

We must also recognize that these are tight budget times. We can’t just throw

money at science because we want to. We need to maintain due diligence in ensuring that the research we fund is of top quality, that federally-funded researchers

are held to the highest standards for ethical conduct of research, and that we are

thoughtful in setting priorities for research funding.

Finally, before I close, I want to be clear that I want the process of developing

the NSF reauthorization bill to be open, transparent and responsive to all concerned

parties both within and outside of government. I welcome your suggestions, and encourage you to be in touch with me with your thoughts or ideas.

Dr. Bement and Dr. Beering, thank you for being here today. I look forward to

hearing your testimony today and to receiving your input and guidance us as we

develop this NSF reauthorization legislation.

And I now yield to my colleague, Ranking Member Ehlers for his opening remarks.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And thank you, gentlemen, for being here, representing one of

the finest institutions of the Federal Government, and, perhaps,

the finest.

You will find this to be a friendly committee, I am sure, certainly

more friendly than much of the rest of the Congress, not that anyone dislikes you, but they all say they like you but don’t provide

money for you. We will continue to try to do what we can to not

only like you but provide money for you.

I am pleased to participate in the Research and Science Education Subcommittee’s first hearing of this Congress to address the

reauthorization of the National Science Foundation. The goals of

reauthorization are to improve the functioning of an agency known

for both high-caliber research output and internal efficiency, which

makes our job somewhat more challenging than trying to improve

upon an agency with glaring shortcomings.

Finding areas in need of improvement can be best achieved from

hearing from expert witnesses, like those before us today and the

NSF consumers who will testify at the end of the month in a second hearing. When finding areas for strengthening and improvement, I believe we must remain cognizant of the uniqueness of the

National Science Foundation. What goes for other agencies may not

necessarily apply to NSF.

I know the Committee is interested in exploring some of the relationships the National Science Foundation has established with industry, and I am keenly interested in encouraging these relationships while maintaining the quality of NSF fundamental research.

As current researchers know, potential applications are important but should not dictate research design exclusively.

Chairman Baird and I share concerns in several areas of NSF,

including maintaining the integrity and capacity of the peer-review

process, managing increasingly interdisciplinary research portfolios, and educating our future workforce in all STEM-related jobs,

16

not just those historically identified as science and engineering careers.

Finally, I look forward to hearing about the NSF’s preparations

for future funding increases that this committee has worked tirelessly to authorize and ultimately see supported through the appropriations process.

And I certainly also share the Chairman’s concern about the

young scientists and certainly encouraging them so that they can

get their feet in the door, begin their tenure track before they lose

their position for lack of funding of their research.

I thank Dr. Bement and Dr. Beering for being here today, and

I look forward to your testimony.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE VERNON J. EHLERS

I am pleased to participate in the Research and Science Education Subcommittee’s

first hearing of this Congress to address the reauthorization of the National Science

Foundation. The goals of reauthorization are to improve the functioning of an agency known for both high-caliber research output and internal efficiency, which makes

our job somewhat more challenging than trying to improve upon an agency with

glaring shortcomings. Finding areas in need of improvement can be best-achieved

by hearing from expert witnesses like those before us today, and the NSF consumers

who will testify at the end of the month in a second hearing.

In finding areas for strengthening and improvement, I believe we must remain

cognizant of the uniqueness of the National Science Foundation. What goes for other

agencies may not necessarily apply to NSF. I know the Committee is interested in

exploring some of the relationships NSF has established with industry, and I am

keenly interested in encouraging those relationships while maintaining the quality

of NSF fundamental research. As current researchers know, potential applications

are important but should not dictate research design exclusively.

Chairman Baird and I share concerns in several areas of NSF, including maintaining the integrity and capacity of the peer review process; managing increasingly

interdisciplinary research portfolios; and educating our future workforce in all

STEM-related jobs, not just those historically identified as science and engineering

careers. Finally, I look forward to hearing about NSF’s preparations for future funding increases that this Committee has worked tirelessly to authorize and, ultimately, see supported through the appropriations process.

I thank Dr. Bement and Dr. Beering for being here today and look forward to

their testimony.

Chairman BAIRD. If there are other Members who wish to submit

additional opening statements, your statements will be added to

the record.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carnahan follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RUSS CARNAHAN

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding the first hearing on the National Science

Foundation (NSF) Reauthorization.

NSF holds a tremendously vital national role, funding research and education activities at more than 2,000 universities, colleges, K–12 schools, businesses and other

research institutions across the U.S. The mission of NSF, which is to support

science and engineering across all disciplines, is on impressive display in my home

congressional district including the St. Louis region.

St. Louis houses nearly half of the NSF award recipients in the state of Missouri.

I am proud of the great STEM work being done in our area, specifically at the NSFfunded Danforth Plant Science Center, St. Louis University, St. Louis Science Center, University of Missouri at St. Louis, Washington University and Washington

University School of Medicine. I look forward to continued growth in the important

field of STEM research.

Thank you for being here today, Drs. Bement and Beering. I look forward to hearing your testimony.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bilbray follows:]

17

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN P. BILBRAY

Dear Chairman Baird and Ranking Member Ehlers:

Thank you both very much for holding this hearing to review the National Science

Foundation (NSF). This agency is a key component of America’s quest to be the

world leader in scientific innovation. I look forward to hearing from NSF Director

Arden Bement and National Science Board (NSB) Chairman Dr. Steven Beering.

Today, the United States is the world superpower when it comes to scientific innovation and talent. Our great nation leads the rest of the world in high expectation

entrepreneurship and research and development spending. The United States is the

location of the world’s high technology manufacturing output. However, as Tom

Friedman, distinguished author of The World Is Flat notes, globalization has ‘‘accidentally made Beijing, Bangalore and Bethesda next door neighbors.’’ Other nations

are beginning to imitate the U.S. research enterprise success and if we rest on our

laurels, we will soon be playing catch-up in the race to develop the latest innovative

products, which will generate wealth and create domestic security.

For more than 50 years, the National Science Foundation has been the premier

federal agency in support of basic research. Every year, NSF supports nearly 35,000

awards supporting a wide spectrum of those seeking to understand our most complex scientific mysteries. From the teacher working to generate interest in the next

great generation of scientists to the university researcher seeking to advance organ

transplantation by studying frog physiological processes in freezing weather, NSF

is a diamond in the Federal Government crown.

As we continue into the 21st century, it will be imperative for our nation to recognize the unique value that interdisciplinary research plays. No longer can we ignore

the relationship that the unique parts of the scientific enterprise have in producing

breakthroughs. Today, biomedical innovation is increasingly taking place at the

intersection of traditional health sciences like biology and fields such as computational science and engineering. But we are seeing a startling trend of newly minted

grads that lack the technical skills to carry out applied research in the areas that

straddle engineering, math and computers. For your information, I am attaching a

Business Week article highlighting this problem. If we are truly going to be competitive in this global economy our scientists must learn to work together and form collaborations. The Committee has recognized this importance by tasking the National

Science Board with evaluating the current and potential role of NSF in supporting

interdisciplinary research. I look forward to reading the NSB’s report to Congress.

I am pleased to see that the Act before us addresses the three pillars of innovation: funding, talent and infrastructure. The current bill authorizes on average an

eight percent increase for NSF for the next three years, provides $94 million for

vital math science partnerships and $44 million for STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) talent programs. Our nation deserves the best opportunity at a healthy existence and this legislation could be the start in providing

that.

I look forward to working with the National Science Foundation and my colleagues on this panel to pass an effective reauthorization bill which will enhance

an already outstanding agency.

ARTICLE APPEARING IN Business Week

NOVEMBER 6, 2006

SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

Biotech’s Beef

BY NICHOLA SAMINATHER

Companies say grad schools aren’t stressing what students require in the real

world.

The U.S. is the mecca of biotech. Most top companies in the field are based here.

Government research budgets in biology are immense and growing. Universities

compete to attract great professors. Students flock to their courses. And once they’re

armed with graduate degrees, they can count on landing a job in the industry.

Or can they? In recent months biotech outfits have begun to complain that job

applicants coming out of U.S. universities lack the know-how companies seek. Left

unresolved, the troubles could stifle growth in this booming sector, valued at $48

billion last year by consultant Ernst & Young. The knowledge deficiencies could also

18

force biotech companies to move more of their operations overseas, say executives

and recruiters.

The problem is a disconnect between what universities are teaching and what

biotech wants. ‘‘The focus of academia is getting basic and theoretical knowledge in

place,’’ says E. Dale Sevier, a director at the California State University Program

for Education & Research in Biotechnology. ‘‘The skills needed to be successful in

the industry are just not taught in universities.’’

There are several weaknesses. First, recent grads lack the technical knowledge to

carry out applied research in areas that straddle engineering, math, and computers.

Second, job candidates have little awareness of what the Food & Drug Administration is looking for when it considers whether or not to approve a drug. Recent grads

simply aren’t familiar with issues such as quality control and regulatory affairs.

Academic programs ‘‘don’t train students to function in today’s small-R, large-D environment,’’ says Stephen Dahms, President and CEO of the Alfred E. Mann Foundation for Biomedical Engineering.

The California State University biotech program tried to identify what companies

want from new hires in a 2000 report. Close to the top of the list are familiarity

with FDA compliance, experience in clinical trial design, and quality control. All require knowledge of computing, statistics, and database management—pretty low

priorities for most academic biotech programs.

As it happens, these are common credentials for foreign researchers in the U.S.

who hold temporary work papers known as H–1B visas. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services reports that 3.6 percent of all H–1B visas for 2003, a total of 7,119,

went to employees in scientific research and development. Some 80 percent of them

have graduate degrees from U.S. universities, Dahms says, but ‘‘there’s something

special about the prior exposure of foreign nationals. They have a more applied

R&D perspective.’’ Of course, there are smart U.S.-born candidates with good math

and computer skills. But they’re rarely fluent in both math and life sciences.

Invitrogen Corp. (IVGN ), a biotech company in Carlsbad, Calif., currently employs about 75 H–1B visa holders in a workforce of 5,000, and it needs more. The

company hired 1,000 people last year and will raise that to 1,400 this year. But with

H–1B quotas filling up earlier every year, Invitrogen has chosen to do more drug

development in Japan, China, and India. It may also open facilities in Korea and

Singapore, says Rodney Moses, Invitrogen’s Vice-President of Talent Acquisition.

Compensation in China and India is lower than in the U.S., but that’s not what motivates the move offshore, says Moses. ‘‘If the talent is located in Singapore, it’s just

easier for us to go there.’’

U.S. colleges take the problem seriously. State university systems in California,

Wisconsin, and elsewhere are adding more industry-oriented classes. California

State has crafted a curriculum that includes chemistry, engineering, and computer

science. A new biotech program at the University of Wisconsin’s Stout campus offers

statistics and technical writing. Students must also work full-time at a biotech company during the summer or for a semester.

Industry buys into this idea. Invitrogen is sponsoring occupational summer camps

for high school students, hoping to nudge them into taking more science and math

courses. Many other companies are setting up intern and apprentice programs to

identify promising students and prepare them for a post-academic career. After all,

the goal in industry isn’t just to raise interesting questions, as in academia. It’s to

find the answers.

Chairman BAIRD. At this time, I would like to introduce our two

witnesses.

Dr. Arden Bement is Director of the National Science Foundation. He became the Director in 2004 after having served more

than two years as Director of the National Institute of Standards

and Technology. Dr. Steven Beering is the Chair of the National

Science Board. He has served on the Board since 2002, and was

elected Chairman in 2006. Before retiring in 2000, he served for 17

years as President of Purdue University in Indiana.

As our witnesses both know well, spoken testimony is limited to

five minutes each, after which Members of the Committee will have

five minutes each to ask questions. And we will start with Dr.

Bement.

Again, thank you, gentlemen, both for being here.

19

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

SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Dr. BEMENT. Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and

Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify

before you today.

You have raised a number of important issues in your invitation

letter and I commend you both for taking an active role in promoting a discussion of these questions.

Before I address some of your specific questions, I want to let you

know how much I appreciate your strong statements of support for

our fiscal year 2008 budget request. As you know, the request will

provide an 8.7 percent increase over the continuing resolution.

Funding at this level will keep NSF on the course set by the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative to drive innovation and

sharpen America’s competitive edge.

Let me move on to the specific issues you have raised.

The first is in regard to NSF’s efforts to nurture young investigators.

We take this responsibility very seriously and address it in a variety of ways.

Our signature Faculty Early Career Development Program,

called CAREER, is our most prestigious award in support of the

early career-development of young investigators. Successful applicants must effectively integrate research and education within the

context of their organization’s mission. NSF provides 400 new CAREER awards annually, each for a duration of five years, to some

of the best and brightest young researchers in the country. Each

year, NSF nominates the most meritorious new CAREER awardees

for the Presidential Early Career Awards for Scientists and Engineers, called PECASE. This presidential award is the Nation’s

highest honor bestowed on scientists and engineers beginning their

careers.

NSF also engages in a variety of outreach efforts to support and

nurture young investigators. Our NSF Days program provides

workshops to assist investigators in understanding the process of

submitting proposals to NSF. Over the past five years, we have

sponsored 40 workshops that have attracted nearly 6,000 participants.

Additional outreach efforts pair NSF program officers with researchers whose proposals had been declined in an effort to improve proposals for subsequent resubmission.

The effectiveness of these efforts is shown by the fact that the

share of grants to new investigators has remained stable at about

28 percent over the past decade, although the overall success rate

has declined from around 30 percent to 21 percent. In that same

period, the proportion of grantees receiving an award within seven

years of their last degree has also remained stable at about 74 percent.

Let me quickly move on to the matter of an appropriate balance

between interdisciplinary and disciplinary research.

Support for interdisciplinary research is a priority for the NSF

because it presents a tremendous opportunity for innovation. Finding the proper balance results from discussions with the National

Science Board and through feedback from our many stakeholders.

20

NSF’s Centers and the priority areas outlined in our budget also

serve as catalysts for generating interdisciplinary proposals.

We continually make a strong effort to communicate our interest

in supporting interdisciplinary research. The flexibility of NSF’s

merit review process allows program officers to use multiple approaches to meet the challenge of reviewing interdisciplinary proposals. In some cases, mail reviews are used to provide deep expertise on various aspects of proposals. Panel reviews are often used

to integrate reviews from different disciplinary perspectives and to

provide a broader interdisciplinary overview.

Recognizing interdisciplinary proposals poses little difficulty, especially when they are submitted in response to a specific solicitation. FastLane, our electronic grant application process, also gives

PIs an opportunity to select multiple programs to consider their

proposal.

In fiscal year 2004, the National Science Board initiated a Task

Force on Transformative Research, and a planning document generated by this task force is currently under review. A key concern

of this effort is stimulating interdisciplinarity, that is, transformative research while maintaining the balance with disciplinary

research. Ultimately, this issue can only be addressed through continuous feedback between NSF and the scientific community. Maintaining this balance is central to our role as stewards of the U.S.

scientific and engineering enterprise.

Let me move on to the matter of how NSF focuses attention to

research issues of national importance.

To meet the research challenges that rise to national significance, NSF relies on input from many sources: reports from the

National Academies, R&D guidance as presented by the OSTP/

OMB priorities memo and the National Science Board, Presidential

priorities, such as the American Competitiveness Initiative, Congressional interests, and our extensive interaction with the research community. NSF research priorities are evaluated on a continuous basis by our Advisory Committees, Committees of Visitors,

scientific conferences, strategic plans, and so forth.

By funding collaborative grants and cooperative agreements,

NSF can foster partnerships with academia and industry, potentially expediting the transition of basic research to products. NSF

Center programs engage directly in encouraging industry and university partnerships. But perhaps NSF’s most effective partnership

with industry is our support of undergraduate and graduate students who enter the private sector armed with the latest understanding of advances in science and engineering fields.

Mr. Chairman, the issues you have raised in this hearing are of

profound importance, not only to NSF, but to the Nation. They are

not easy matters, nor do they lend themselves to simplistic or

formulaic solutions, but I look forward to working with you on

these issues and would be pleased to answer any questions you

might have.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Bement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ARDEN L. BEMENT, JR.

Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Research and Science Education Subcommittee today. You have

21

raised a number of important issues in your invitation letter and I commend you

both for taking an active role in promoting a discussion of these questions.

The first issue you raise is in regard to NSF’s efforts to nurture young investigators. Encouraging new investigators to become effective contributors to the science

and engineering workforce is a critical goal for the National Science Foundation.

Supporting young investigators is something that NSF takes seriously and it is an

issue that we are addressing in a variety of ways.

Attracting new researchers is a key part of our Learning investment priority, articulated in the NSF’s new strategic plan. The Strategic Plan also calls for expanding efforts to broaden participation in all NSF activities and programs. This year

NSF is developing a plan to target such opportunities. Assessing the impact of NSF

efforts to nurture young investigators, especially at the interfaces between K–12 and

university education, two-year and four-year colleges, and technical and other higher education settings will be an important part of the broadening participation plan.

An ongoing program at NSF that supports young investigators is our signature

Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) Program. This is an NSF-wide activity that offers our most prestigious awards in support of the early career-development of young investigators. Successful applicants must effectively integrate research and education within the context of their organization’s mission. The longer

awards provided through CAREER offer new Principal Investigators (PIs) stability

as they build their academic careers. NSF provides 400 CAREER awards annually,

each for a duration of five years, to some of the best and brightest graduate students in the country.

Moreover, each year from among these outstanding CAREER awardees, NSF selects nominees for the Presidential Early Career Awards for Scientists and Engineers (PECASE). This Presidential Award is the highest honor bestowed by the U.S.

Government on scientists and engineers who are beginning their careers. It is

awarded both for excellence in research and for demonstrated leadership and service

in their community.

NSF also engages in a variety of outreach efforts intended to assist and nurture

young investigators. Our NSF Days program serves to assist investigators in understanding the process of submitting proposals to NSF through workshops that provide an introduction to and overview of NSF, its mission, priorities, budget, and its

proposal and merit review process. In the five years that we’ve had the current configuration of NSF Days we have sponsored 40 workshops that have attracted nearly

6,000 participants. Additional outreach efforts typically pair NSF program officers

with researchers whose proposals have been declined in an effort to improve proposals for subsequent re-submission. This is helpful for young investigators as it is

the exception rather than the rule that a proposal is accepted by NSF the first time

it is submitted. These activities serve to improve the funding rates of young investigators.

The effectiveness of these efforts is shown by the fact that we’ve maintained the

funding rates of young investigators. The current NSF success rate is 21 percent

for research grants—a decline from the 30 percent success rate of the late 1990s—

however, the percentage of awards made to new investigators as a share of the NSF

portfolio has remained stable at 27 percent in 1997 and 28 percent in 2006. Also,

the length of time between the year of an investigator’s last degree and the year

of an investigator’s first research grant from NSF in 1997 and 2006 has remained

stable. In 1997, 73 percent of new Principal Investigators receiving their first NSF

award were within seven years of their last degree and in 2007 the comparable figure was 74 percent.

Still, we continually strive for improvement, and we believe that the variety of

programs in place to foster young investigators will continue to increase the pool

of successful young investigators involved in the U.S. science and engineering enterprise.

A second item raised in your invitation letter concerned the appropriate balance

between interdisciplinary and disciplinary research. The current scientific era is

characterized by interdisciplinary research with much of the promise of future work

occurring at the interstices between traditional scientific disciplines.

Support for interdisciplinary research is a priority for the National Science Foundation and presents a tremendous opportunity for innovation. And yet the nature

of scientific research is changing so rapidly that much of what is today considered

disciplinary research would previously have been considered interdisciplinary in nature.

The issue of a balanced portfolio is a pivotal one for NSF. We must continue to

push the frontiers through interdisciplinary, transformative research and foster advancements within the scientific and engineering disciplines that serve as a platform for such advancement. We must also balance between individual and small

22

group research grants, infrastructure awards, center awards, and other types of

grants and agreements. Approximately 40 percent of awards go to proposals with

two or more PIs, a figure that has more than doubled in the past 20 years. The NSF

portfolio is balanced through negotiations between NSF and the National Science

Board, through feedback with our many stakeholders—including Congress, the National Academies, OSTP, other research agencies, the research communities—and

through the merit review process itself.

NSF’s Centers and Priority Areas, as outlined in our budget, serve as catalysts

for generating interdisciplinary proposals. These efforts are effective strategic means

to cultivate interdisciplinary areas of research. By growing these new avenues of research the participating disciplines are transformed and re-defined.

We have made a deliberate effort to communicate to various scientific communities our interest in supporting interdisciplinary research. Upcoming solicitations

are strategically mentioned at all town hall meetings, conferences, workshops, and

symposia and we regularly inform the community of interdisciplinary opportunities

through Dear Colleague letters.

The use of co-reviews addresses one of the greater challenges that interdisciplinary research proposals present, which is that these proposals frequently require a

greater range of expertise among the reviewers than disciplinary proposals. The

flexibility of NSF’s merit review process allows the program officers to use multiple

approaches to meet this challenge for both solicited and unsolicited interdisciplinary

proposals. The program officers will often work collaboratively, sharing their expertise to identify the right reviewers and to assess the reviewers’ input. In some cases,

mail reviews can be used to provide deeper expertise on various aspects of the proposal. Panel reviews are often used to integrate reviews from different disciplinary

perspectives, and provide a broader interdisciplinary overview.

Recognizing which proposals are interdisciplinary poses little difficulty, especially

when they are submitted in response to a specific solicitation. As for the unsolicited

interdisciplinary research proposals, FastLane gives PIs an opportunity to select

multiple programs as potential units to consider the proposal. Program officers take

note when multiple programs are listed, and will evaluate if the interdisciplinary

nature of the proposal is such that co-reviews by more than one program are warranted. Even if the PI does not choose multiple programs for review, program officers can recognize interdisciplinary proposals, and will bring these proposals to the

attention of their colleagues in the appropriate programs. Co-reviews can be arranged between the relevant program officers on a case-by-case basis or on a larger

scale if appropriate. For example, in the last few years program officers in BIO and

MPS have recognized the increasing interdisciplinary nature of the research being

proposed by new investigators and have coordinated the co-review of CAREER proposals that lie at the interface of the biological and physical sciences.

In 2004, the National Science Board initiated a Task Force on Transformative Research. A planning document generated by this task force is currently under review.

A key concern of this effort is stimulating interdisciplinary, transformative research

while maintaining the balance with disciplinary research. One aspect of the NSF

internal task group on the Impact of Proposals and Award Management Mechanisms (IPAMM) study is taking a closer look at transformative research. Ultimately,

this issue can only be addressed through continuous feedback between NSF and the

scientific community, and it is an issue that is central to our role as stewards of

the U.S. scientific and engineering enterprise.

Let me move on to the matter of how NSF focuses attention to research issues

of national importance. NSF is committed to fostering the fundamental research

that delivers new knowledge to meet national needs and to improve the quality of

life for all Americans. To meet the challenges of concern to our nation, NSF research

activities are determined in accordance with guidance from several sources. These

include reports from the National Academy of Sciences, R&D guidance as presented

by the OSTP/OMB priorities memo, Presidential priorities such as the American

Competitiveness Initiative, congressional interests, and the research community.

NSF research priorities are evaluated on a continuous basis through such activities

as Advisory Committees, Committees of Visitors, scientific conferences, strategic

plans, etc. The priorities that emerge reflect the current needs of the Nation and

are updated and represented annually in the Budget Requests to Congress.

Through funding collaborative grants and cooperative agreements, NSF can foster

partnerships with academia and industry, potentially expediting the transition of

basic research to ‘‘products.’’ Several NSF programs are directly related to encouraging industry and university partnerships such as Small Business Innovative Research/Small Business Technology Transfer Research; Partnerships for Innovation

and many of our Centers programs (e.g., Engineering Research Centers; Industry/

University Cooperative Research Centers; Science and Technology Centers; MateVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:50 Oct 12, 2007 Jkt 034012 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\R&SE07\032007\34012 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
23

rials Research Science and Engineering Centers; and Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers). NSF’s most effective partnership with industry is accomplished

through training undergraduate and graduate students who in turn enter the private sector with advanced skills in science and engineering fields.

NSF’s Broader Impacts criterion requires each proposal to address the question

‘‘What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?’’ This is an excellent way

of determining whether proposals meet the mission of NSF, and therefore meets the

needs of the Nation. Considerations embedded in this criterion reflect the need to

promote teaching and training among all citizens.

Mr. Chairman, the issues you have raised in this hearing are of profound importance, not only to NSF, but to the Nation. They are not easy matters, nor do they

lend themselves to simplistic or formulaic solutions. I commend you for making

these matters the topic of your first hearing as Chairman and I look forward to responding to any questions the Members of the Committee 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.

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you, Dr. Bement. And I am painfully

aware that for something as complicated as NSF and the related

24

Board, a five-minute introductory statement is not nearly enough,

but please rest assured we will give you plenty of time through the

Q&A to elaborate on some of the very, very salient points you

made.

Dr. BEMENT. Thank you.

Chairman BAIRD. Dr. Beering.

STATEMENT OF DR. STEVEN C. BEERING, CHAIRMAN,

NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD

Dr. BEERING. Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and

Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you. I am the President Emeritus of Purdue University,

and I am privileged to be here with Arden Bement, with whom I

have worked for the past 15 years, both at Purdue and at the National Science Foundation.

This is my first time to testify before you as Chairman of the National Science Board, a position to which I was elected in May

2006, and I am, indeed, honored to be with you.

Congress established the National Science Board in 1950 and

gave it dual responsibilities: to guide the activities of and establish

the policies for the National Science Foundation, and to serve as

an independent advisory body to the President and the Congress on

national policy issues related to science and engineering research

and education.

On behalf of the entire Board and the widespread and diverse research and education communities that we all serve, I thank the

Members of this subcommittee for your long-term support of a

broad portfolio of investments in science, technology, engineering,

and mathematics research and education. Your continuing bipartisan commitment to excellence in U.S. science and engineering research and education has ensured that the United States remains

the leader in global innovation and discovery.

My complete written testimony has already been submitted to

you for the record.

Let me now briefly address the questions Chairman Baird raised

in his letter of March 7.

First, what can NSF do to nurture young investigators and to improve their funding rates? This was a major and ongoing concern

for the Board. In our December 2003 report to Congress that responded to Section 22 of the last NSF Authorization Act, we identified the need of an additional $1 billion over the five-year period

of 2002 to 2007 to fund more grants generally and $200 million to

fund an expansion of the institutions of higher education participating in NSF activities, including funding for start-up awards to

new Ph.D.s at those institutions.

New Ph.D.s just starting their academic careers, no matter how

excellent their academic record, are less likely to be employed by

top-tier institutions and more likely to start their careers in primarily teaching situations. Expanding research in these institutions, therefore, opens doors for new Ph.D.s to build careers in research.

We also support the expansion of the NSF CAREER Faculty

Early Career and similar programs coupled with general expansion

of funding for basic research, also called for by the American ComVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:50 Oct 12, 2007 Jkt 034012 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\R&SE07\032007\34012 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
25

petitiveness Initiative and the National Academies’ report ‘‘Rising

Above the Gathering Storm.’’

The NSF authorization of 2002 included a welcome authority to

double the budget over a five-year period to nearly $10 billion in

2007. The actual 2007 budget of approximately $6 billion represents a significant gap with the 2002 authorization. The American Competitiveness Initiative again calls for a doubling of the

NSF budget over a 10-year period. We would respectfully suggest

that the time to implement these admirable authorizations and initiatives has never been more urgent than now.

Your second series of questions regarding NSF funding for interdisciplinary research focused on the appropriate balance between

funding for interdisciplinary and disciplinary research, best mechanisms for soliciting and funding interdisciplinary research proposals, and the sufficiency of publicizing interdisciplinary research

funding opportunities at NSF. This is another area to which NSF

and the Board have given considerable attention of resources.

Nonetheless, there remains substantial issues to assure that interdisciplinary research is not disadvantaged in the highly-competitive

NSF merit review system or in the academic sector by structural

impediments.

NSF has taken a number of steps over a long period of time to

ensure that the level of investment and mechanisms of support address structural roadblocks to funding interdisciplinary research.

For example, NSF supports nearly 100 centers in part to provide

greater opportunities for, and encourage, interdisciplinary research.

The most recent Board guidance to NSF on balance between centers and individual investigator awards establishes a six to eight

percent of the R&RA budget as an appropriate level to support centers.

With respect to publicizing opportunities for interdisciplinary research, I should point out that most research proposals submitted

to NSF are unsolicited, and that is a good thing for the health of

U.S. research. To a great extent, this enables the research community to self-identify and establish a balance between disciplinary

and interdisciplinary work on the basis of opportunities for discovery and the quality of the research proposals submitted. However, it is also important to ensure that researchers are knowledgeable about all NSF funding opportunities and the process for obtaining that funding, and further, that the review process is fair

and results in the best use of scarce funding to fund cutting-edge

research.

You also asked about the NSF role in research driven by national

needs and fostering university-industry partnerships and the application of Criterion 2, which encourages partnerships of the NSF

merit review process with regard to national needs.

NSF’s mission is defined in the NSF Act in terms of national

needs, and such needs, both broadly and narrowly defined, have always shaped the portfolio of our investments. The Board established Criterion 2 of the merit review system in part to enhance

partnerships, potential benefits to society, and contributions to innovation. Further, NSF has long participated in interagency R&D

priorities, most recently including the National Nanotechnology

26

Initiative, Climate Change Science program, Networking and Information Technology R&D, and Homeland Security.

Moreover, NSF Center programs often explicitly require

partnering with industry. In addition, NSF funds small business

innovation research and cross-agency and cross-sectoral research

programs in such areas as earthquake science and engineering and

research in the Polar Regions.

The Board has also recently published a report recommending a

new national Hurricane Research Initiative that cuts across fields

of science, suggests a co-lead role for NSF and NOAA, and includes

a number of additional agencies as major players.

Your final question concerns NSF’s priorities in K–16 science,

technology, engineering, and mathematics, so-called STEM education, and how the current budget reflects those priorities, especially NSF’s role in undergraduate education.

The Board has been especially concerned with this major area of

NSF’s responsibility: education in science, technology, engineering,

and math. Education is the core mission of NSF. Even while U.S.

student performance in mathematics and science is declining relatively as assessed internationally, changing the workforce requirements means that new workers will need ever more sophisticated

skills in STEM disciplines.

Following a request from Congress, the Board established a new

advisory commission on 21st century education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in March of 2006, comprising

a wide range of eminent experts, representing the broad scope of

interests in U.S. STEM education. We have charged that commission to examine and advise us on the role of NSF in both pre-college and undergraduate education as part of its activities. Moreover, the Board is expecting shortly to receive the report of our

Education and Human Resources Committee on Engineering Education Reform primarily at the undergraduate level.

We expect that, following our Board meeting next week, when we

will receive advice from our STEM education commission, and over

the next few months with the work of the Board’s Education and

Human Resources Committee evaluating assessments of NSF education programs, we will develop new guidance to the Foundation

on its priorities for education programs at the undergraduate and

pre-college levels.

Following our Board meeting next week, we would welcome the

opportunity to meet with individual Members of your Committee,

and others in the Congress and the Administration, to discuss the

Board’s national action plan for addressing our nation’s STEM education needs.

The federal investment in the Nation’s science and technology is

a necessity for our future prosperity and security. To quote a recent

editorial by Microsoft founder, Bill Gates, in the Washington Post,

‘‘If the United States is to remain a global economic leader, we

must foster an environment that enables the new generation to

dream up innovations.’’ As other nations ramp up their investment

of the infrastructure for research and innovation, we cannot be

complacent.

I have just returned this past week from the European Union’s

Congress, and I am absolutely impressed and astounded at the

27

progress of those 27 nations. We must sustain the advantages that

we have gained through continued wise, adequate federal support

for our science and engineering research and education enterprise.

The National Science Foundation is a key asset to our nation, having proven itself effective in stimulating discovery and innovation

for now over half a century, working in partnership with the research and higher education communities.

The Board is committed to working with you to assure that limited federal funding resources are optimally invested through the

National Science Foundation to sustain U.S. leadership in science

and technology.

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 Subcommittee, I

appreciate the opportunity to testify before you. I am Steven Beering, President

Emeritus of Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana and Chairman of the National Science Board (Board). This is my first time testifying before you as Chairman of the Board, a position to which I was elected in May 2006. I am honored to

represent the National Science Board before you today.

Since the Board last testified before this subcommittee, there have been many

changes—both in Congress and on the Board. Nine of our 24 Board Members rotated off the Board in 2006 and nine new Board Members have been appointed by

the President and confirmed by the Senate. Board members are selected so as to

broadly represent the leadership of U.S. science and engineering research and education.

In addition to my being elected as the new Board Chairman, the Board also elected a new Vice-Chairman, Dr. Kathryn Sullivan, Director, Batelle Center for Mathematics and Science Education Policy, John Glenn School of Public Affairs, Ohio

State University, Columbus. I have appointed Dr. Kenneth Ford, Director and Chief

Executive Officer, Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, Florida, to lead our

Committee on Programs and Plans; Dr. Dan Arvizu, Director and Chief Executive

of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Colorado, as Chairman of

our Committee on Audit and Oversight; Dr. Ray Bowen, President Emeritus of

Texas A&M University to lead our Committee on Strategy and Budget; and Dr. Elizabeth Hoffman, Executive Vice President and Provost Iowa State University, Ames,

as Chairman for the Committee on Education and Human Resources.

Congress established the National Science Board in 1950 and gave it dual responsibilities:

• Oversee the activities of, and establish the policies for, the National Science

Foundation (the Foundation, NSF); and

• Serve as an independent advisory body to the President and the Congress on

national policy issues related to science and engineering (S&E) research and

education.

On behalf of the entire Board and the widespread and diverse research and education communities that we all serve, I thank the Members of this subcommittee

for your long-term commitment to a broad portfolio of investments in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) research and education. While it is

critical that our nation significantly increase our support for this portfolio, it is also

important that these investments be diverse and balanced. The Board greatly appreciates long-term Congressional support of the Board, the Foundation, and their programs and activities. Your continuing bipartisan commitment to excellence in U.S.

science and engineering research and education has ensured that the U.S. remains

a world leader in the global innovation and discovery enterprise. As you all are well

aware, continued investment is required for the U.S. to maintain a global leadership

position in science and technology.

I will turn now to answer the specifics questions you presented to me, Mr. Chairman, in your letter of March 7, 2007. Following these responses, I will provide a

brief overview of Board activities over the last year, forecast activities for the coming year, and then provide you with some specific issues you may wish to consider

for inclusion in the re-authorization language.

28

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRMAN BAIRD

Your questions focus on a number of challenging issues that are subject to continual consideration and discussion by the Board, as they are central to fulfilling

NSF’s mission in research and education under the NSF Act of 1950 (as amended).

That mission is to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health,

prosperity, and welfare; and to secure the national defense.

QUESTION 1: What can NSF do to nurture young investigators and to improve their funding rates?

The Board has consistently expressed our concern that research funding nurture

new researchers and sustain excellent researchers throughout their careers. For instance, a National Science Board policy, endorsed in 1977 and amended in 1984, requests that the NSF Director submit an annual report on the NSF merit review

process. This report allows us to monitor the funding rates for new principal investigators (PIs) annually. The FY 2006 Report on the NSF Merit Review Process

[(NSB–07–22) http://www.nsf.ogv/nsb/documents/2007/merit¥review.pdf, available March 30, 2007] indicates that 18,061 proposals were received from new PIs

during FY 2006, of which 18 percent were funded. New PIs are defined as those

who have not previously been awarded an NSF grant, and are generally regarded

as professionally ‘‘young’’ investigators (less than five years from attaining degree).

Grant proposal success rate overall is 25 percent, with a 30 percent rate for PIs who

received prior awards (prior PIs). The funding rate of new PIs has been two-thirds

or less of prior PIs, since 1999. Additional funding for Research and Related Activities (R&RA) under the 2008 request is welcome, to the extent that it can increase

the funding rate for grants, so that these gifted new researchers will not become

discouraged and leave their careers in research.

As directed by Congress in Section 22 of the Foundation’s 2002 Authorization Act,

the Board prepared a report, Fulfilling the Promise [(NSB–03–151) www.nsf.gov/

nsb/documents/2003/nsb03151], to outline how additional funding would be spent

in the event the NSF budget were doubled over a five-year period. This report also

identifies the need for $1 billion over the five-year period to fund more grants, and

$0.2 billion to expand the institutions of higher education participating in NSF activities, including funding for start-up awards to new Ph.D.s. The Board supports

expansion of the NSF CAREER (faculty early career, www.nsf.gov/funding/

pgm¥summ.jsp?pims¥id=5262) program, as long as such expansion is funded

through additional appropriations, so as not to undercut the Board priority for NSF

to also increase the size and duration of awards and increasing funding for novel

ideas and approaches.

The Board applauds the recommendations for research in the American Competitiveness Act, reflecting the National Academies report, Rising Above the Gathering

Storm (www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record¥id=11463), to increase federal investment

in long-term basic research by 10 percent each year over the next seven years; and

to double the NSF budget in 10 years. We also strongly supported the existing congressionally authorized doubling of the NSF budget to approximately $10 billion

over the five-year period FY 2003 to FY 2007, under the 2002 NSF Authorization.

Nevertheless, current funding for NSF falls well short of authorized levels. We

would respectfully suggest that the time to implement these admirable authorizations and initiatives through actual appropriations has never been more urgent than

now. We further applaud the additional support appropriated in recent years to physical sciences, engineering, mathematics and computer sciences, which were identified for attention in the Board’s 2003 report, The Science and Engineering Workforce/Realizing America’s Potential [(NSB–03–69) www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/

2003/nsb0369.pdf]. However we caution that increased funding for one area should

not be at the expense of other parts of the NSF portfolio that also offer expanding

opportunities for discovery, such as the biological sciences at NSF, which have been

funded now for a decade below the level of increase of the portfolio as a whole.

QUESTION 2: What is the appropriate balance between funding for interdisciplinary and disciplinary research? What are the best

mechanisms for soliciting and funding interdisciplinary research proposals? Is NSF doing a sufficient job of publicizing opportunities for funding of interdisciplinary proposals?

The Board has a long-standing commitment to support for interdisciplinary research. In a 1988 report, Report of the National Science Board Committee on Centers

and Individual Investigator Awards (NSB–88–35) the Board noted that the use of

centers was increasing because centers epitomize the growing complexity, cost, and

29

organization of modern research. The rationale for support for centers was based in

large part on their interdisciplinary nature to exploit opportunities in science where

the complexity of the research problem can benefit from the sustained interaction

among disciplines and/or sub-disciplines, and to stimulate new directions and styles

of inquiry in research including collaborative, cross disciplinary, and interdisciplinary approaches.

In the early 1990s, the Board sponsored a review, with the National Academies’

Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable, of emerging stresses in the

university community [Stresses on Research and Education at Colleges and Universities: Institutional and Sponsoring Agency Responses (July 1994)]. Interdisciplinary

research was identified as a key issue. Among the concerns were a greater difficulty

in assembling and sustaining interdisciplinary teams and the perceived reduced

probability for success due to the likelihood that reviewers of an interdisciplinary

proposal would not be expert in all areas covered, and therefore be unlikely to rate

fairly an interdisciplinary proposal.

Understanding the important role of individual investigator grants to the U.S.

basic research enterprise, and that these types of grants are vital sources of interdisciplinary research, the Board issued guidance (NSB–05–166, Appendix C to

NSB–05–166) in December 2005 to NSF on the relative balance of funding for centers, stating that ‘‘NSF’s investment in centers should be reported as both a percentage of the R&RA account and as a percentage of the total NSF budget, with the

range of support for NSF centers being six to eight percent of R&RA. However it

is important to consider that the relative balance of funding for principal investigators, large facilities, and centers will vary considerably across disciplines.’’

The Foundation funded nearly a hundred centers in FY 2006. These centers allow

groups of scientists and engineers to address broad scientific and engineering challenges that are of interest to the general public, and to encourage innovation. They

are typically interdisciplinary in character and provide opportunities for partnering

across institutions, agencies and sectors, and internationally. In addition to centers,

the Foundation supports a number of cross disciplinary priority areas that include

collaborations across disciplines and agencies to address national research and development (R&D) priorities—currently in nanotechnology, climate change science,

networking and information technology, and homeland security.

NSF also supports interdisciplinary proposals through less formal means through

collaborations across programs and directorates within the agency. When program

officers present their portfolio of proposed awards for review, they must explain

what makes the projects exciting, high risk and/or multi-disciplinary. Identifying the

most innovative proposals is an explicit part of program officers’ responsibilities.

Several mechanisms are built into the oversight process to ensure that multi-disciplinary proposals are on a fair footing with other proposals in the merit review

process, including each program’s Committee of Visitors (COV) and NSF’s Advisory

Committee for GPRA Performance Assessment (AC/GPA).

It is important for the merit review process generally, and for interdisciplinary

or multi-disciplinary proposals in particular, that the process employed for merit review be clearly explained and understood, both by reviewers and program officers

and by applicants. Identifying the most innovative and multi-disciplinary proposals

is an explicit program officer responsibility, but these concepts are difficult to define

for the proposal review context. In response to concerns about the uncertainty of

what constitutes ‘‘multi-disciplinary,’’ NSF is now collecting explanations of projects

that program officers identify as multi-disciplinary. Clarity in these identifications

should result in an improved ability to communicate with the research communities,

which should result in more effective outreach.

A large share of NSF proposals is unsolicited. This factor is important in allowing

the community to provide grass roots input to identify the most promising areas for

discovery, whether disciplinary or interdisciplinary in nature. The correct ‘‘balance’’

at any one time would be difficult to fix in advance. For example, the provision of

a new instrument for science or a new discovery that shifts a traditional paradigm

would be likely to stimulate new ideas and proposals within the affected scientific

research areas. Perhaps subsequent proposals stimulated by this new impetus

would be either interdisciplinary or disciplinary proposals, depending on the nature

of the change, which might affect the balance between meritorious interdisciplinary

and disciplinary proposals received by particular programs for consideration. In

short, the right balance at any time is determined by the opportunities for discovery

and the quality of the proposals submitted.

The Board has requested that NSF conduct a review of the impacts of NSF proposal and award management mechanisms. With the information provided from this

review, the Board will be better positioned to provide guidance and establish approVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:50 Oct 12, 2007 Jkt 034012 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\R&SE07\032007\34012 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
30

priate policy for NSF program portfolio balance across disciplines, to include interdisciplinary research.

QUESTION 4: NSF, unlike the mission oriented science agencies, is a mainly proposal-driven agency. However, there are significant

issues of concern to our nation—competitiveness, security,

energy—that can be addressed, at least in part, through

technology enabled by solutions or answers to known scientific challenges and questions.

What is the appropriate role for NSF in such research driven

by national needs? In fostering industry/university partnerships? Is this a valid application of Criterion 2 of NSF’s merit

review process?

The Foundation was established to serve national needs including promoting the

progress of science, advancing the national health, prosperity, and welfare, securing

the national defense, and other purposes. National needs, both broadly and more

narrowly defined, have always shaped the portfolio of NSF investments, and these

investments should continue to address our nation’s needs as they evolve. Criterion

2 includes enhancements to partnerships, and potential benefits to society, and

therefore includes contributions to innovation. Although NSF does not directly support technology development or deployment, the research it funds is driven by important national needs, and indeed NSF participates in interagency R&D priorities

including the National Nanotechnology Initiative, Climate Change Science Program,

Networking and Information Technology R&D, and Homeland Security for the last

several years.

One example of NSF participation in cross agency activities to benefit society is

membership in the National Science and Technology Council’s Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction (SDR) and of the legislatively-created National Earthquake Hazards

Reduction Program (NEHRP). NSF’s principal contribution to NEHRP is the George

E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES), an impressive collection of 15 large-scale experimental sites that feature advanced tools linked

to a centralized data pool and earthquake simulation software, all of which is

bridged together by the high-speed Internet2.

One of the NEES sites is the O.H. Hinsdale Wave Research Laboratory at Oregon

State University, which the Board recently visited. Research from Hinsdale and the

other NEES facilities will help to advance our understanding and improve seismic

performance of civil infrastructure in the U.S. and around the world and will lead

to the design of buildings and development of building construction techniques to

reduce the potential for damage to structures from tsunamis and other earthquakerelated disasters.

Recently, the National Science Board issued its report Hurricane Warning: The

Critical Need for a National Hurricane Research Initiative [(NSB–06–115)

www.nsf.gov/nsb/committees/hurricane/initiative.pdf], recommending the role of

NSF and operational agencies like NOAA, NIST, NASA, USDA, and the Navy in

the creation of a substantial new federal science and engineering enterprise for benefiting society. This enterprise would undertake a focused, sustained, and multiagency initiative to improve our understanding of, and ability to predict, mitigate,

and respond to, the impacts of hurricanes on the population, the built-infrastructure, and the natural environment.

Another example of meeting national needs is the Foundation’s involvement with

energy research as a partner in the President’s hydrogen fuel initiative through

membership in the Interagency Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technical Task Force. Related to this is the NSF’s Energy for Sustainability Program, which will fund basic

research and engineering of hydrogen and other alternative fuel systems, and the

U.S. Climate Change Technology Program to develop the basic understanding that

will facilitate the development of new and advanced technologies to address climate

change.

NSF advances national competitiveness through its many educational programs

from the grade school to post graduate levels, and by providing essential research

infrastructure through its four multi-user Federally-Funded Research and Development Centers, the construction of Major Research Equipment and Facilities, and

through its eight Centers programs. The National Science Board’s ‘‘Science and Engineering Indicators’’ and the NSF’s surveys and reports provide statistics reflecting

the condition of important components of U.S. and global science and technology,

and provide information to track national competitiveness in science and engineering and to inform future programs to further promote competitiveness.

31

NSF also helps to promote innovation through individual researchers. For example, Phase I recipients of the Foundation’s Small Business Innovation Research

Awards (SBIR) are invited to participate in NSF-sponsored business development

programs. These programs help our awardees understand the issues associated with

technology development and deployment that may be outside the experience of research scientists. NSF has found that these programs significantly increase the

quality of commercialization plans and as a result the success rate of advancing to

Phase II SBIR funding. Eleven federal agencies fund research through an SBIR program, but NSF is the only one to offer the entrepreneurial training to Phase I funding recipients.

While technology development and deployment are not the direct objectives of the

National Science Foundation, the data show our grantees have been successful in

combining NSF support with funding from industry and other federal agencies and

their own ingenuity to develop useful inventions. For example, 272 United States

Patents were granted in 2006 that have acknowledged funding from the National

Science Foundation. Analysis of these patents also reveals how NSF funding helps

to further the research of the ‘mission’ agencies. Research for over 44 percent of

NSF-related patents in 2006 were co-sponsored by one or more of the ‘mission’ agencies, including USDA, NIH, NASA, and the Departments of Defense, Education, and

Energy. In addition, researchers filed 379 U.S. Patent applications in 2005 for inventions sponsored, at least in part, by NSF. For each the past three calendar years,

NSF awardees have disclosed over 1000 inventions. In fact, the ‘‘iEdison.gov’’ database reports NSF is consistently one of the top two federal agencies in terms of the

number of inventions disclosed by researchers it supports.

Moreover, since CY 2004, NSF has directly funded fundamental research to enhance homeland security. In FY 2006, NSF funding in this area was $342 million

and it has requested $375 million in FY 2008, to fund research in such areas as

information security, understanding vulnerabilities and strengthening U.S. critical

infrastructure, and automated understanding of language.

QUESTION 5: What are NSF’s priorities in K–16 science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education? How does the

current budget reflect those priorities? In particular, what

is NSF’s role in supporting undergraduate STEM education?

The Board has been especially concerned with a major area of NSF responsibility—education in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). Education is a core mission of NSF, which not only includes advanced education in connection with funded research, but also responsibility for promoting quality math and

science education as intertwining objectives at all levels of education across the

United States. NSF’s highly competitive peer-review process is second to none for

openly and objectively identifying, reviewing, selecting, funding and providing stewardship for the very best STEM proposals and programs in research and education.

The Board has a long-term concern with the condition of STEM education at all

levels of the system. Nearly a quarter century ago, the National Science Board’s

Commission on Pre-college Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology assessed the state of U.S. pre-college education in the subject fields and found it wanting. At the same time, in 1983 the U.S. Department of Education’s National Commission on Excellence in Education published the report, A Nation At Risk

(www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html). This document stated: ‘‘By the year 2000,

U.S. students will be the first in the world in mathematics and science achievement,’’ expressing alarm on the ‘‘rising tide of mediocrity [in education] that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people.’’ Despite these two reports—A Nation

At Risk sounding the alarm and the Board’s Commission report recommending solutions—and many others since then, we continue to slip further behind. Not only are

they not first, but by the time they reach their senior year, even the most advanced

U.S. students perform at or near the bottom on international assessments. There

is now an even more pressing need to build a new foundation for U.S. STEM education.

The Board has explored in a number of policy reports how the Foundation and

other components of the STEM education system in this country can be more effective. Even while U.S. student relative performance in mathematics and science is

declining on international assessments, changing workforce requirements mean that

new workers will need ever more sophisticated skills in STEM disciplines. This

emerging workforce, consisting of degreed and highly skilled technical workers, will

need to begin developing their mathematical and science skills early in their educational career. In addition, the rapid advances in technology in all fields mean that

even those students who do not pursue professional occupations in technological

32

fields will also require solid foundations in science and math in order to be productive and capable members of our nation’s society.

As some of you know, the Board established a second Commission on STEM education—the Commission on 21st Century Education in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics in March 2006, comprising a wide range of eminent experts representing the broad scope of interests in U.S. STEM education

(www.nsf.gov/nsb/edu¥com). We have held a number of hearings across the country—both in the process of considering the charge to such a Commission, and subsequently during several meetings of the new Commission. Science and Technology

Committee Chairman Gordon and Vice Chairman Lipinski, and several other Members of the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education—Ranking Member

Ehlers and Congresswoman Johnson, and other Members of Congress, including

Speaker Pelosi, Congressman Mark Udall, Congressman Wolf and Congressman

Culberson, as well as former Science Committee Chairman Boehlert, have attended

one of these hearings or otherwise contributed their insights to this process. We look

forward to receiving the draft action plan to reform U.S. STEM education from the

Commission for discussion at the March 2007 National Science Board meeting. The

plan will include STEM education from pre-K through college and beyond, and specific recommendations on the NSF role in STEM education reform at all levels.

The Board has expressed our support for the NSF role in improving the linkage

between the K–12 and higher education systems both in the charge to our Commission on 21st Century Education in STEM, and in our 2004 Statement in Support

of the NSF Mathematics and Science Partnerships (MSPs) (www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2004/nsb¥msp¥statement2.pdf) funded through the NSF Education and

Human Resources budget. We are pleased that the MSP experiments are beginning

to show early positive results. In part, the NSF MSP Program provides for the collaboration between pre-college and college to promote excellence in teaching and

learning, therefore facilitating the transitions for students from kindergarten

through the baccalaureate in STEM disciplines. The added benefit for our nation is

those students who do not choose STEM careers become the informed scientifically

literate voting citizens we need for the 21st Century. Recent assessment data on

MSP projects indicate this program has been effective in increasing student performance at all levels assessed—elementary, middle and high school (http://

www.nsf.gov/news), and promoting collaboration between pre-college and higher

education. Therefore, we are pleased that the NSF budget request for FY 2008 will

permit funding of new starts in the NSF/MSP program. However, it is again incumbent on the Board to note that the FY 2008 request for NSF EHR remains approximately 10 percent below the FY 2004 level (not corrected for inflation) of funding

for this portfolio.

The vertical integration of STEM education from pre-kindergarten through graduate school has also been one of the primary foci of the Board’s Commission, and

we expect to receive valuable guidance from their report on how the Foundation can

contribute to such vertical integration in its programs at the undergraduate, precollege and advanced levels of STEM education. The Board also has been undertaking, through its Committee on Education and Human Resources, an examination

of the NSF EHR Directorate’s programs with respect to evaluation procedures and

results over the last year. The Board feels strongly that NSF EHR programs not

only must be effective in relatively short-term evaluations of their success in achieving desired outcomes of individual programs, but that, in combination, these programs must be effective in addressing U.S. long-term needs to retain its essential

global advantage in S&E human resources. We have submitted an initial report on

our review to Congress at the request of Congressman Rush Holt, and we will be

continuing to apprise you about that review as we take into account the recommendations of the Board’s STEM Education Commission, the report of the Academic Competitiveness Council, and the plans for the NSF EHR Directorate under

its new leadership.

OVERVIEW OF NSB ACTIVITIES DURING THE LAST YEAR

Now I would like to update you on National Science Board activities over the last

year and some of our priorities for the coming year in both a) NSF policy-setting

and oversight, and b) advising the President and Congress, our dual responsibilities.

NSF Oversight and Policy Direction

During the last year, the Board accomplished a great deal in terms of its mission

to provide oversight and policy direction to the Foundation, including: reviewed and

endorsed the OIG Semi-annual Reports to Congress and approved NSF management

responses; approved the NSF FY 2008 Budget Submission for transmittal to OMB;

approved the Foundation’s annual Merit Review Report; and provided review and

33

decisions on major awards or proposal funding requests, including awards totaling

$616 million. These awards will support advanced research, science education, and

public understanding of critical issues facing our nation. The Board also approved

a new strategic plan for NSF Investing in America’s Future: Strategic Plan FY 2006–

2011 [(NSF–06–48) www.nsf.gov/publications/pub¥summ.jsp?ods¥key=nsf0648],

based on the National Science Board 2020 Vision for the National Science Foundation report [(NSB–05–142) www.nsf.gov/pubs/2006/nsb05142/nsb05142.pdf] to

Congress. In addition, the Board accepted the Foundation’s 2007 Facility Plan

(NSF–07–22) and the Plan was released in conjunction with the President’s budget

in February 2007. The Facility Plan was mandated by a joint management report

of the Foundation and the Board, Setting Priorities for Large Research Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation [(NSB–05–77) www.nsf.gov/pubs/2005/

nsb0577/index.jsp].

The Board has just released our draft report, Enhancing Support of Transformative Research at the National Science Foundation (http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/

documents/2007/tr¥draft.pdf) for public comment and review. The Board states in

this draft report that we believe it is unreasonable to expect that small adjustments

to NSF’s existing programs and processes will overcome the perception among much

of the external scientific community that iconoclastic ideas are not welcome at NSF.

System-wide changes for this purpose are also inappropriate. As noted in the Report

of the National Science Board on the National Science Foundation’s Merit Review

System (NSB–05–119) www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2005/0930/merit¥review.pdf],

NSF’s current merit-review system is functioning effectively to support the excellent

innovative research that is significantly advancing the frontiers of knowledge and

the goals of our nation. Nonetheless, our nation cannot afford to miss opportunities,

discoveries, and new frontiers that can result from bold, unfettered exploration and

freedom of thought that challenges our current understanding of natural processes.

The NSF cannot allow the perception by any of the Nation’s scientists that it does

not welcome or support innovative ideas and potentially transformative research.

Public support of and careful investment in paradigm-challenging ideas are critical

not only to continued economic growth, but also to the future welfare of our nation.

In this draft report, therefore, the Board recommends that NSF develop a distinct,

Foundation-wide Transformative Research Initiative distinguishable by its potential

impact on prevailing paradigms and by the potential to create new fields of science,

to develop new technologies, and to open new frontiers. Foundation management

will report back to the Board at its August 2007 meeting on its preliminary plan

for a simple and transparent process for instituting the Transformative Research

Initiative that encourages maximum participation by the community.

In a constrained budget environment, achieving the reasonable balance of award

size, and duration, and proposal success rate at the Foundation is an important concern of the Board. We have held several discussions with Foundation management

about this issue and are anticipating a comprehensive report later this year that

will inform us in establishing appropriate policy guidelines.

A very high priority for the Board has been our continuing work with the NSF

Management and the Office of Inspector General to resolve the correction of the existing reportable conditions that have been longstanding in NSF annual audits. We

have reviewed the draft Corrective Action Plan for Reportable Conditions in the FY

2006 Financial Statement Audit and are confident that we can quickly and effectively resolve outstanding issues. NSF management will report to the Board at our

March meeting on the status of their efforts to resolve the reportable conditions, as

well as efforts to enhance NSF’s business model practices and develop a strategic

personnel workforce plan for the 21st. Century.

Advice to the President and Congress

The Board has undertaken a wide range of activities this year, in our broader role

as an independent advisory body to the President and the Congress on national policy issues related to science and engineering (S&E) research and education.

• The Board completed a series of public hearings, in response to a Congressional request that the Board consider reconstituting its 1982 Commission on

Pre-college Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology,

and in March 2006 approved the establishment of the new Commission on

21st Century Education in STEM, due to present its draft report to the Board

in March 2007;

• The Board published and disseminated an important report, HURRICANE

WARNING: The Critical Need for a National Hurricane Research Initiative

(NSB–06–115). The report presents an agenda for action that will provide urgently needed hurricane science and engineering research and education that

34

engages relevant agencies across the Federal Government; involves industry,

academia, and other levels of government; establishes highly focused priorities; strengthens disciplinary research; creates multi-disciplinary frameworks; and stimulates the efficient transfer of research outcomes to operational practice.

• The Board responded to a request from Senator John McCain to examine existing policies of federal science agencies concerning the suppression and distortion of research findings of scientists employed by federal agencies and the

impact these actions could have on quality and credibility of future government-sponsored scientific research results. Our central recommendation was

that an overarching set of principles for the communication of scientific information by government scientists, policy-makers, and managers should be developed and issued by the Administration to serve as the umbrella under

which each agency would develop its specific policies and procedures.

• The Board responded to a request from Congressman Rush Holt for a summary of its review of the evaluations and impacts of the programs of the National Science Foundation’s Education and Human Resources Directorate’s

programs in January 2007. We will be providing a more thorough report later

in 2007.

• Exercising the Board’s obligation to inform and advise on critical issues, the

Board sent a letter to congressional leadership on February 13, 2007, expressing its full endorsement and appreciation for the FY 2007 Congressional Joint

Budget Resolution funding level increase of the FY 2006 level for the NSF

Research and Related Activities account, and encouraging congressional approval of a similar budget increase for the NSF Education and Human Resources account.

• The Board published and disseminated its statutory biennial report, Science

and Engineering Indicators 2006 (NSB–06–01) http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/

seind06 and also prepared and disseminated a Board policy statement Companion Piece to Indicators 2006, America’s Pressing Challenge—Building a

Stronger Foundation [(NSB–06–02) http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsb0602],

February 2006;

• Board Members provided comments to Congressman Bart Gordon on his bill,

‘‘10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds Science and Math Scholarship Act’’ in

February 2006.

Further, the Board provided testimony to congressional hearings in 2006, and responded to other specific questions and inquiries from Members of Congress and

their staffs.

Improved Outreach and Communication by the Board

The Board continues to increase and improve our direct outreach and communication with Congress, other federal agencies, various interest groups and the external

science and engineering research and education community.

For example, the Board sponsored:

• Five public meetings of the Commission on 21st Century Education in

Science, Mathematics and Technology (See Commission Webpage at http://

www.nsf.gov/nsb/edu¥com)

• A second and third pre-commission hearing in January and March 2006 in

Boulder, Colorado and Los Angeles, California, respectively, seeking input

from a cross section of stakeholders in U.S. STEM education on the value of

establishing a new STEM Commission to address this topic for the Board a

second time (See: http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/edu¥com/hearings.htm)

• A third public workshop on Transformative Research (May 16, 2006 http://

nsf.gov/nsb/committees/tskfrcetrans¥cmt.htm);

• A second public workshop on engineering education reform, including leading

deans of engineering, Moving Forward to Improve Engineering Education

(http://nsf.gov/nsb/eng¥edu/start.htm), at the Georgia Institute of Technology in November 2006;

• A public ‘‘rollout’’ event for the Hurricane Science and Engineering report,

Hurricane Warning: The Critical Need for a National Hurricane Research

Agenda (www.nsf.gov/nsb/committees/hurricane/advisory.pdf) in the U.S.

Capitol Building in September 2006, with the participation by Senators Mel

Martinez and Bill Nelson of Florida, and Senator David Vitter of Louisiana.

35

• Two public presentations on Capitol Hill on Science and Engineering Indicators 2006 (NSB 06–02) and its companion piece, America’s Pressing Challenge—Building a Stronger Foundation (NSB 06–02), February 23, 2006 to

the media and general public and April 6, 2006 to the House R&D and STEM

Caucuses;

• A presentation to Colorado State legislators at the invitation of the American

Electronics Association on both Science and Engineering Indicators 2006 and

the recently completed hearings to consider establishing a new National

Science Board Commission on STEM Education for the 21st Century, March

23, 2006;

• Two presentations to the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) in

April in Anaheim, California, on Science and Engineering Indicators 2006 and

its companion piece, America’s Pressing Challenge—Building a Stronger

Foundation (NSB 06–02); and

• National Science Board informational booths at the American Association for

the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meeting in February in St. Louis, Missouri, the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) meeting in Anaheim,

California in April, and Sigma Xi—the Research Society meeting in Detroit,

Michigan in November.

In an effort to facilitate more openness of Board meetings in accord with the Sunshine Act, we expanded our practices for:

• providing public notice of all our meetings on a dedicated NSB Meeting Notice

Web site, as a supplement to the kinds of notices regularly published in the

Federal Register;

• continuing to treat teleconferences of the Board, Board Committees, subcommittees and task forces as ‘meetings,’ subject to the requirements of the

Government in the Sunshine Act;

• providing much more information to the public in a more timely manner regarding meeting discussions and decisions; and

• expanding efforts to encourage public comment during the development of

Board publications.

FY 2008 NSB BUDGET

The Board has much to do over the next year. Perhaps one of the most important

actions is to oversee the implementation of the new NSF Strategic Plan, which addresses the broad priorities established in the Board’s 2020 Vision for the Foundation. We will be looking to provide policy direction to the Foundation with respect

to recommendations of the newly released Hurricane Research and Transformative

Research reports. Both involve broad, multi-disciplinary questions on the broad

frontiers of science and engineering and across the portfolios of NSF’s science, engineering and education directorates.

Our Task Force on International Science Partnerships will complete its international meetings in 2007, and we expect to be providing specific guidance to NSF

and broader advice on the role of the Federal Government in supporting international S&E partnerships. Our ad hoc Task Group on Engineering Education is

poised to present us with recommendations that will impact university engineering

programs and the future engineering workforce, reflecting the input from two important workshops, incorporating the ideas of engineers, faculty, administrators, and

employers in developing guidance for engineering education for the 21st Century

that reflects the increasing diversity of the U.S. workforce and growing challenges

for engineering from globalization of both science and technology and the engineering workforce. We will be continuing our review of program evaluations and impact

in the NSF Education and Human Resources Directorate.

Over the next year, the Board expects to complete our development of a national

action plan for 21st Century Education in Science, Technology, Engineering and

Mathematics by making a formal report to the Congress. While many of these recommendations will be at a national system level, a number will focus specifically

on the role NSF can and should play in supporting the development of an adequate

and diverse science and engineering workforce. The Board will also continue to review and approve NSF’s actions for creating major NSF programs and funding, and

expects new efforts to be implemented regarding enhancement of NSF support for

potentially transformative research as a result of new Board guidance.

Several endeavors that the Board expects to formally complete by the end of FY

2007 will require significant follow-up outreach efforts by the Board in FY 2008 to

ensure the desired impacts are realized. For example, lessons learned by the Board’s

36

experience with its 1982 STEM Education Commission report and the 2001 report

on the role of the Federal Government in supporting international science, have provided clear and strong lessons on the importance of the Board undertaking significant follow-up efforts to ensure action based on our reports. While the Board’s Commission on 21st Century Education in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics will complete its work later this year, it is clear that much follow-up outreach by the Board will be required throughout FY 2008 to ensure the work of the

Commission has the highest possible impact. Likewise, the Board’s Task Force on

International S&E partnerships will complete its work at the end of FY 2007, but

will require significant follow-up by the Board in FY 2008.

The Board will be producing a new summary volume to our biennial S&E Indicators report in FY 2008 that will require significant new effort on the part of the

Board. In addition, the Board will continue to review and approve NSF’s actions for

creating major new programs and funding large projects in FY 2008, as well as dealing with evolving NSF policy issues. Experience has demonstrated that the Board

will receive a number of requests from Congress asking that the Board examine and

report quickly on a wide range of national policy topics related to S&E research and

education. The Board welcomes such Congressional and Administration requests,

and will itself continue to identify high priority topics focused specifically on NSF,

or more broadly on national S&E policy issues that it feels it should examine in FY

2008.

By statute the Board is authorized five professional positions and other clerical

staff as necessary. The full impact of increasing the number of professional positions

to the statutory level will occur in FY 2008 with increased attention to addressing

new skill requirements. However, the results of a strategic restructuring of the

Board Office management and operations over the last three years has led to more

efficient use of appropriated resources while retaining the ability to support an active Board agenda.

ISSUES TO CONSIDER AS PART OF NSF RE-AUTHORIZATION LEGISLATION

[Our Board Office Director will be available to work closely with your Subcommittee staff to assist with development of specific legislative text to enact any of

the Board’s following suggestions for modification to the NSF Re-authorization Act.]

A 2020 Vision for NSF

In September 2006, the National Science Board approved a new Strategic Plan

for the National Science Foundation for FY 2006–2011, Investing In America’s Future [(NSF 06–48) www.nsf.gov/publications/pub¥summ.jsp?ods¥key=nsf0648], articulating strategic outcome goals of discovery, learning, research infrastructure,

and stewardship, and investment priorities in order to accomplish these goals. These

reflect the National Science Board’s 2020 Vision for NSF [(NSB–05–142)

www.nsf.gov/publications/pub¥summ.jsp?ods¥key=nsb05142], published in December 2005, establishing specific broad priorities for the National Science Foundation

to:

• Drive the cutting edge of fundamental and transformative research;

• Tap the talents of all our citizens, particularly those belonging to groups that

are under-represented in the science and research enterprise, and continue to

attract foreign students and scientists to the U.S.;

• Develop and test new approaches to teaching science to elementary and secondary school students and catalyze partnerships among schools, museums,

aquariums, and universities to put these techniques into effective practice;

• Provide the bright minds in our research institutions with the tools and instruments needed to probe the frontiers of knowledge and develop ideas that

can transform our understanding of the world; and

• Maintain the financial and talent resources to be an effective agent for excellence in the critical national enterprises of learning, discovery, and innovation.

The Board would encourage Congress to factor the priorities of the Board’s 2020

Vision for NSF into consideration as you prepare the NSF Re-authorization Act.

Address and examine potential impacts of a doubling of the NSF budget

In December 2003, and in direct response to congressional guidance in Section 22

of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107–368, 42

U.S.C. § 1862n note), the National Science Board prepared a report, Fulfilling the

Promise [(NSB–03–151) www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2003/nsb03151/

37

coverlink.pdf], to address and examine the Foundation’s budgetary and programmatic growth provided for by the Act, and to outline how additional funding

would be spent in the event the NSF budget were doubled. Given recent Administration and Congressional statements and actions related to future doubling of the

NSF budget, Congress may wish to consider including legislative language as part

of the NSF Re-Authorization Act to request the Board to prepare a report to Congress that would provide:

(1) recommendations on how the increased funding should be utilized;

(2) an examination of the projected impact that the budgetary increases will

have on the Nation’s scientific and technological workforce;

(3) a description of new or expanded programs that will enable institutions of

higher education to expand their participation in Foundation-funded activities;

(4) an estimate of the national scientific and technological research infrastructure needed to adequately support the Foundation’s increased funding and

additional programs;

(5) a description of the impact the budgetary increases provided under this Act

will have on the size and duration of grants awarded by the Foundation,

and

(6) a description of the impact the budgetary increase provided under this Act

will have on the potential to create new fields of science, to develop new

technologies and to open new frontiers.

Clear statement on the critical role of NSF in pre-K–12 STEM Education

Education is a core mission of the National Science Foundation (NSF). NSF not

only promotes research, but also shares in the responsibility for promoting quality

science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education as intertwining objectives at all levels of education across the United States. NSF’s highly competitive

peer-review process is second to none for openly and objectively identifying, reviewing, selecting, funding and providing stewardship for the very best STEM proposals

and programs in research and education.

As part of our role in providing oversight and guidance to the EHR programs, the

Board is assessing how well NSF supports the overall S&E education and training

outcomes needed by the U.S. in a changing global environment for science and technology. This on-going review is an important action toward achieving the Board’s

2020 Vision for the National Science Foundation, submitted to Congress in December 2005, which states a near-term goal to ‘‘. . .critically evaluate current education

investments and develop new strategies to increase their impact on the quality of

STEM education.’’ Reflecting our conviction of the importance of the EHR Directorate programs for the Nation, the Board has issued a number of STEM education

policy reports recently, including its 2004 statement ‘‘In Support of the Math and

Science Partnership Program at the National Science Foundation’’ (NSB–04–42)

that articulates the Board’s strong commitment to that NSF EHR Directorate program and its companion piece to Science and Engineering Indicators 2006, America’s

Pressing Challenge—Building a Stronger Foundation (NSB 06–02).

The Board feels strongly that NSF EHR programs not only must be effective in

relatively short-term evaluations of their success in achieving desired outcomes of

individual programs, but that, in combination, these programs must be effective in

addressing U.S. long-term needs to retain its essential global advantage in S&E

human resources. The NSF must help the U.S. sustain its world leadership in

science and technology. Four examples of the many exemplary NSF education programs are: the Math and Science Partnership (MSP), the Louis Stokes Alliances for

Minority Participation (LSAMP), Information Technology Experiences for Students

and Teachers (ITEST) Program and the Robert Noyce Scholarship Program.

The Board will be continuing our review of NSF EHR program evaluations and

results, and the use of findings to enhance EHR programs against the background

of growing national needs for skills and knowledge, and the growing international

competition for talent and technological leadership. We are deeply concerned that,

although the U.S. must continue to attract and welcome the best international

STEM talent, we can no longer depend on the global market as we have in the past

for the skills and innovative talent needed in our labor force. We are convinced of

the central role NSF EHR programs can and must play in preparing our citizens

with the knowledge and skills needed for our nation to remain a global leader in

science and technology. We are committed to ensuring that NSF EHR programs and

portfolio serve our society effectively in that role.

38

NSF education programs provide for the collaboration between pre-college and college to promote excellence in teaching and learning, therefore facilitating the transitions for students from kindergarten through the baccalaureate in STEM disciplines. The added benefit for our nation is those students who do not choose STEM

careers become the informed scientifically literate voting citizens we need for the

21st Century.

NSF has the mandate, depth of experience, and well-established relationships to

build the partnerships for excellence in STEM education. The Board, therefore,

strongly urges that NSF education programs be sustained and expanded over the

long-term as an essential component of a coordinated federal effort to promote national excellence in STEM education. Congress may wish to address this issue as

part of the legislative language in an NSF re-authorization act.

Role of the Board in approving NSF actions

Current Board policy for NSF (NSF Proposal and Award manual, NSF manual

#10, December 31, 2005) requires Board approval for the following NSF actions:

(1) Large Awards. Proposed awards where the average annual award amount

is one percent or more of the awarding Directorate or Office’s prior year current plan.

(2) New Programs. Board approval is required for new Programs that: (1) represent a substantial investment of Program resources (threshold defined as

the total annualized awards to be made by the proposed Program exceed

three percent of the awarding Directorate’s or Office’s prior year current

plan); or (2) involve sensitive political or policy issues; or (3) are to be funded as an ongoing Foundation-wide activity.

(3) Major Construction Projects. Board approval is required when the resulting

cost is expected to exceed the percentage threshold for Board award approval.

(4) Awards Involving Policy Issues or Unusual Sensitivity. Board interests may

include the establishment of new centers, institutes, or facilities; potential

for rapid growth in funding or special budgetary initiatives; research community or political sensitivity; previous expression of Board concern; or

items otherwise identified by the Director or Assistant Directors.

(5) Requests for Proposals (RFPs). RFPs expected to result in contracts exceeding the Board approval thresholds. Release of these RFPs to potential contractors must be approved by the Board.

(6) Waivers. Requests for exemption from Board review and approval of a continuing project or logistics support arrangement may be requested in routine

cases where there are no significant issues or policy implications.

We feel this Board policy has worked fairly well and is at an appropriate macrolevel of oversight and policy-setting without having the Board become overly engaged with NSF management and operations. However, Congress previously expressed its desire for the Board to be directly involved with approval of congressional budget requests, priority-setting, and award granting of projects in the NSF

Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) account. In response to Section 14 of the 2002 Authorization Act (42 U.S.C. § 1862n), the Board

worked with the Foundation to produce a joint report that clearly describes the

process by which priorities are set for selecting and funding large research facilities,

Setting Priorities for Large Research Facilities Supported by the National Science

Foundation, (NSB–05–77). The Board would welcome any additional guidance the

Congress may wish to provide regarding this process.

Role of the Board as Oversight Body for NSF and Advisory Body to Congress and

the President

From time to time questions have been raised regarding the Board role as an

oversight body for the Foundation. While countless congressional budget and authorization report language, and written communications from both Republican and

Democratic members of both authorizing and appropriating committees of Congress

over many years have made clear the intent for the Board to serve as the oversight

body of the Foundation, NSF authorization legislation does not explicitly state the

Board’s oversight role. Congress may wish to specifically address this issue to help

avoid future debates on this topic that can, at best, be distracting for the Board,

NSF Management, and the Congress. In a similar vein, Congress may also consider

making more explicit in new authorization legislation the independent advisory role

39

of the Board directly to both the Congress and the President on national policy

issues related to science and engineering research and education.

Sunshine Act Audit of the Board

Audits conducted by the Office of Inspector General over the past three years

have found that the National Science Board has been in compliance with the requirements of the Government in the Sunshine Act (Sunshine Act). The audit requirement stems from situations prior to 2003 in which the Board did not provide

public access to sessions of its committees, task forces, or other working groups. In

response, Congress added language to the NSF Authorization Act of 2002 explicitly

subjecting session of the Board’s subdivisions to the Sunshine Act. Congress further

directed NSF’s Inspector General to conduct annual audits of Board compliance with

the Sunshine Act and to report audit results to specified congressional committees.

Four annual audits have been completed and none has resulted in any significant

finding of non-compliance. Extending the audit cycle to three years (and appropriately extending the associated document retention requirements) recognizes this

fact, yet provides an efficient and regular check on the Board’s continued adherence

to the Sunshine Act’s requirements. Congress may consider modifying the NSF reauthorization to increase the time period for audits of the National Science Board’s

compliance with the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. § 552b and 42 U.S.C.

§ 1862n-5) from every year to every three years.

Board Budget and Operations

As a result of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002, the National Science Board was, for the first time, given a separate budget line account

in the overall Foundation appropriation. That measure served to increase the Board

Office’s independence and flexibility in meeting the operating and policy research

needs of the Board and Board Office, such as those related to conducting workshops,

issuing contracts, travel, training, etc. Increasing the availability of Board appropriated funds beyond a single fiscal year, by providing for a two-year period of availability for the Board’s appropriations under ‘‘Authorization of Appropriations’’ (Section 5 in the 2002 Authorization Act), will provide the Board with an added degree

of flexibility and, in turn, with full authority for the independent use of its resources

through the Board Office. Congress may wish to consider this change in the NSF

re-authorization as a further step in ensuring that the Board has flexible and independent resources to fulfill both its oversight and policy-setting role for the NSF and

its role as an independent body of advisors to the Congress and the President on

national policy issues related to science and engineering research and education.

At the urging of Congress, in FY 2003 the Board began examining options for augmenting its professional staffing levels. As an initial step in this process, in August

2003 the Board appointed a new Executive Officer of the Board, who also serves as

the Board Office Director. At the direction of the Congress and with full concurrence

of the Board, our Executive Officer reports directly to the Chairman of the Board

and has been delegated responsibility for the hiring and supervision of all Board Office staff and oversight of all Board Office operations. The Board is very pleased

with this arrangement. Essential to the conduct of Board business is a small and

independent core of full-time senior policy, clerical, and operations staff. In addition

to the Board Office’s essential and independent core resources and capabilities, temporary contractual advisory and assistance services continue to be critical to support

production of Board reports and supplement the Board Office staff’s general research and administration services to the Board. These external services provide the

Board and its Office with the flexibility to respond independently, accurately, and

quickly to requests from Congress and the President, and to address issues raised

by the Board itself. The Board would significantly benefit from modifications to the

NSF re-authorization Act that would allow our Board Office to implement funding

arrangements to periodically supplement our policy staff with technical and professional personnel on leave of absence from academic, industrial, or research institutions for a limited term. Congress may consider modifying Section 1863 (g), 1873

(a) (3) and other appropriate sections of Title 42 of the U.S. Code in this re-authorization to allow the Board to directly enter into these arrangements.

Include NSF under the Program Fraud and Civil Remedies Act (PFCRA)

Congress passed and the President signed PFCRA in 1986 to provide the executive departments, the military, federal establishments covered by the Inspector General (IG) Act at the time of its enactment, and the United States Postal Service with

a mechanism to recover losses of less than $150,000 resulting from false claims and

statements of less than $150,000, which may not otherwise be prosecuted. The OfVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:50 Oct 12, 2007 Jkt 034012 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\R&SE07\032007\34012 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
40

fice of Inspector General (OIG) at NSF, however, (along with other ‘‘designated federal entities’’) was created after a 1988 amendment to the IG Act. As a result, NSF

was not included in the 1986 PFCRA legislation. PFCRA has not been subsequently

amended to include agencies, such as NSF, that were provided with OIGs in the

1988 amendments.

Except for NSF, every major agency that funds scientific and engineering research

and education, including the National Institutes of Health, National Aeronautics

and Space Administration, Department of Energy, and Environmental Protection

Agency, are authorized to recover funds and assess penalties under PFCRA. NSF,

too, needs to have all available means to take effective action whenever grant funds

intended for scientific and engineering research and education are used fraudulently. The NSF Director, the Inspector General, and the National Science Board,

all support amending PFCRA to include NSF within its jurisdiction.

Because many NSF-funded projects are relatively small in dollar amounts,

PFCRA’s mechanisms are well suited for resolving disputes between the Foundation

and its grantees or contractors concerning fraudulent claims. Currently, the Foundation’s principal legal recourse is to recommend that the Department of Justice attempt to recover misused funds through civil prosecution under the False Claims

Act (31 U.S.C. § 3730). In general, such actions are most practical when the sums

involved are very large. Under PFCRA, NSF would be able to impose monetary penalties instead of, or in addition to, debarring or suspending erring individuals and

organizations. Congress may wish to consider providing the Foundation with valuable flexibility in protecting the integrity of its programs by creating a section in

the Reauthorization Act amending PFCRA to include NSF. This will authorize the

agency to recover funds and assess penalties under PFCRA’s provisions.

CLOSING REMARKS

This is a challenging time for federal S&E research and education budgets and

the organizations and individuals that rely on federal support. For over 50 years the

Federal Government has sustained a continual, visionary investment in the U.S. research and education enterprise in the expectation that such investment would benefit all Americans. That federal effort has expanded the horizon of scientific discovery and engineering achievements far and wide, leading to the realization of

enormous benefits to the Nation’s prosperity and security.

We know the expanding frontiers of knowledge offer enormous opportunities for

research and innovation. We also know that the education of all our citizens in the

fundamentals of math, science and engineering must continue to be enhanced, and

more American citizens must pursue science and engineering studies and careers if

the U.S. is to remain eminent in critical science and technology disciplines. As other

nations ramp up their investment in the infrastructure for S&E research and innovation, we cannot be complacent.

Even in a time of budget constraints, we cannot ignore the Nation’s growing dependence on innovation for economic prosperity and the ever-improving quality of

life Americans have come to expect. We also must be attentive to the crucial role

of federal investment in science and engineering research and education, especially

fundamental research that is not cost effective for private industry to pursue, and

the contributions of federal support to research in universities and colleges to preparing our most advanced students for their future careers. The Board recognizes

that competing priorities may impose fiscal constraints that limit the Foundation’s,

and so the Nation’s, aspirations. In weighing these competing priorities, we ask you

to keep in mind that in our changing global environment, investments in our national science and technology capabilities—talent, knowledge, and physical infrastructure—are not luxuries but essential to our nation’s long-term prosperity and

security. We therefore urge that the Congress take the long view in its annual budget deliberations for funding and re-authorizing U.S. science and engineering research and education through the National Science Foundation.

BIOGRAPHY FOR STEVEN C. BEERING

Chairman, National Science Board

Medicine and Higher Education

B.S., University of Pittsburgh, 1954

M.D., University of Pittsburgh, 1958

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

41

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, Dr. Beering.

I will take you up on the offer to get together to discuss the

STEM education study you have come up with. And Dr. Ehlers and

I and other Members of the Committee, who are interested, I am

sure will find the time to do that, as it is of critical importance.

I also see, present in our audience, a number of the ADs for the

various science directorates we met with last week. Good to see all

of you folks. Thanks for being here and for your work, and also,

staff from the Science Board as well. We appreciate the work of the

staff.

At this point, we will open up our first round of questions. The

Chair would recommend—recognize himself for five minutes.

And related to the issue of staff that I just raised, one of my first

questions would be, as we talk about the idea of possibly doubling

the budget, which I hope we will do over the next several years,

that will carry with it some administrative needs, including workforce, infrastructure, and travel. If we just expand the number of

research grants but we don’t expand the infrastructure necessary

to manage those grants, it seems to be that we will be in some

trouble.

I open up to either of you to address that issue and any thoughts

you have about how it needs to be addressed.

Dr. BEMENT. Yes, thank you.

And thank you for calling attention to an item that is absolutely

critical to the quality of our work.

Many of the opportunities that the Foundation faces right now

that has to do with mentoring young investigators, that has to do

with post-award and pre-award oversight activities as well as

maintaining quality of our merit review process is dependent entirely on our program officers and program directors.

At this present time, they are chronically overworked. I worry

that they may not be picking up the transformative research opportunities for a lack of time to really dig into some of the good proposals that they are getting.

That has to be rectified, but in addition to that, we need to maintain our investments in productivity-enhancing tools, both electronic and otherwise, that takes some of the workload off our staff.

42

And travel is important, because you can’t do post-award oversight unless you can get out and visit the investigators, either at

meetings when they congregate or at their home research laboratories.

All of these taken together, plus issues of cybersecurity, modernizing our information technology within the Foundation, fall under

our Agency Operations and Award Management budget line. And

I would urge, in reauthorization, that that be included as a major

priority, and I would also very much welcome your advocacy to be

sure that we get full funding this year in our 2008 request.

Chairman BAIRD. I appreciate that. I think, you know, oftentimes

when the appropriation season comes around and we look for offsets, we tend to say, ‘‘Well, we will go after the administrative

line,’’ but the administrative personnel are necessary to make the

system work, and not only just the personnel, but as you say, the

travel, the equipment, the resources. And it is just not responsible

or realistic to say we are going to plus-up one side and not give the

resources to sustain that. So we will make that a priority.

Dr. BEMENT. Thank you.

Chairman BAIRD. Secondly, I am intrigued by the process, and it

is a discussion that would probably extend well beyond today, but

the process by which the Board and the Foundation determine

where the resources will go and what percentage of the dollars, and

what total amount of dollars will go to one directorate versus another or one enterprise within a directorate versus another.

Let me throw out a thought that occurred to me the other day.

What I understand, but I think when you look at, say, the big

supercolliders and giant telescopes, a tremendous amount of monies go into those, and they are expensive installations. But as I look

at some of the greatest national challenges we are going to face in

the next several decades, I would say if you—one would be the war

on terror and the national security issue. A second would be, clearly, energy. A third would be rising health care costs, et cetera.

As I look at those, a portion of those will be addressed by the

traditional physical, biological, and other sciences. But behavior,

human behavior, is going to have a great deal to do. In fact, if we

wanted to truly address our energy crisis in the most immediate

way possible, it would not be through cellulosic ethanol, or, for

God’s sake, nuclear fusion, which is a little ways off, to say the

least. It would be by everybody driving less and carpooling and

using mass transit. And if we did that, we could cut energy consumption by 10 percent.

I raise that to ask, do we need some grand challenges in the social sciences or grand social challenges to which we would apply

the social sciences, in addition to the other sciences, and how might

that be considered by the Foundation or the Board in the coming

years?

Dr. BEMENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that question. There

is no question, but the human component in all our research is increasing because of the increasing complexity of the research. Now

you mentioned interdisciplinarity. In many of our interdisciplinary

programs, the social sciences are social scientists are full partners.

Grand challenges are important, because the cost of doing research

in the social sciences is going up because of the increasing comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:50 Oct 12, 2007 Jkt 034012 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\R&SE07\032007\34012 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
43

plexity and size of databases and the kind of research that they

need to do in trying to analyze those type of data with advanced

cyber infrastructure.

So I fully agree that we do have to give appropriate emphasis to

the social sciences. We have to integrate them with all our other

major programs, and the grand challenge idea is a good one.

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you.

My time has expired.

I yield to Mr. Ehlers.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, Dr. Beering, you made some comments about what

you would like to see in the reauthorization language. Dr. Bement,

I am wondering if there is anything specific you would like to request as we reauthorize, other than saying you want all the money

and no control, but——

Dr. BEMENT. Well, obviously, flexibility is important, and for lack

of a prescriptive language, that would be very helpful.

I think the most important need I have already discussed, as far

as our Agency Operations Award Management account. I think

that deserves special notice in the reauthorization bill.

A very minor element: we do have the Waterman Award, which

honors the first Director of the Foundation, and each year, we try

to select one from many disciplines and many outstanding candidates. I continually get a request from the excellent committee

we have that goes through the screening process, and has a very

difficult time, but this may be the time to increase it to three. So

I would put that before the Committee as a component of the bill.

Mr. EHLERS. Well, let me ask both of you. You have seen draft

language of what is being proposed. Are there any parts that you

particularly like, and more importantly, any parts you don’t like?

Dr. BEMENT. The answer is yes.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you.

Could you be a little more specific?

Dr. BEMENT. Well, I have got a large number of notes that I

would like to present for the record, but clearly, under the Major

Research Instrumentation section, which is Section 3, part D, we

have just increased the ceiling to $4 million, and we have also increased the funding in the 2008 request to $114 million. We don’t

know yet what the skew will be of that distribution and who we

may be disadvantaging in the lower cost instrumentation across

our constituency and especially in some of the minority-serving institutions and other institutions. My recommendation there is to

increase the ceiling step-wise as we increase the budget, rather

than to raise the ceiling so high that one or two awards would

greatly disadvantage a larger number of applicants for important

equipment.

I think Section 5 is a good section. As far as interdisciplinary research, we have already addressed that, and there is always more

that we can do, but invariably, it deals with the nature of the

science question that needs to be addressed and how the community responds to that.

So as a bottom-up organization, we really can’t define all of the

opportunities for interdisciplinarity, but we certainly encourage it.

We have been at this now for 25 years, and finally, the universities

44

are getting religion and have begun to produce the silos a little bit.

So in our unsolicited proposals, we are seeing an increasing fraction, and now it is up to anywhere from 40 to, perhaps, 50 percent.

There are multiple PIs, and many of those are interdisciplinary,

but they are unsolicited.

And I could go on. There is much more in here.

Mr. EHLERS. Well, we would certainly appreciate having that for

the record.

Dr. Beering, any comments you wish to make?

Dr. BEERING. Yes. We addressed that issue and others in my

written testimony, starting on page 14, and we also addressed it

in a previous hearing on March the 20th.

And let me comment specifically on your Section 6 on new investigators.

We are struggling with how we can get transformative research

front and center in our endeavors, and I think this new section

here is going to be helpful in that regard.

And then Section 11 on STEM education is very vital. I expect

that our STEM education report is going to recommend some specific action plans, one of which is to increase the length of the

school year. As you compare ourselves with Asia and Europe, it is

astounding how much more time their students spent in class and

formal instruction than ours do and some of the requirements they

have for science and language, which we do not have.

So I would highlight those two items as extremely helpful.

Mr. EHLERS. Dr. Bement.

Dr. BEMENT. Let me bring up one other section that I think is

critically important, and that is Section 12 on cost sharing.

Let me first emphasize that we accept cost sharing. In fact, we

encourage it, we just don’t require it. And the reason we don’t require it is that there are many institutions and many investigators

that can’t get a cost-sharer, especially, again, among minority-serving institutions, for example. To put it in as a requirement disadvantages them from even being able to submit a proposal, and

I think that is wrong. I think we should continue to encourage cost

sharing, but we should not mandate it.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, both.

I see my time has expired.

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you.

Dr. Bartlett.

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much. I appreciate, very much,

you being here.

I have two issues I would like to pursue.

One is the huge problem that we face in this country in two dialogues, major dialogues that we are having in agreement of the

facts. It is very difficult to have an intelligent conversation if you

can’t agree on the facts. Of course, we are all privileged to have our

own interpretations, but we shouldn’t have our own facts.

The two areas that I am thinking of, one of them is climate

change and global warming. And to whom should we turn? Your

organizations are certainly among those. To whom should we turn

as an honest broker so that we can have some agreed-upon facts

for this discussion?

45

Dr. BEMENT. Well, Dr. Bartlett, it is good that you brought up

that question, because I just came from Dartmouth University

where we had all the arctic nations come together and discuss that

for about three days.

The evidence is clear. There is climate change. There is global

warming. There are anthropobenic effects. We need to understand

the extent of those types of effects. The trends are not looking good.

In fact, they may not be linear. In fact, I suspect they are not linear. They can become autocatalytic over time, so you just can’t take

what has happened in the past and project it very comfortably into

the future.

I think it is a global problem that will require global approaches

to research and global approaches to mitigation.

Mr. BARTLETT. To whom do we turn for some agreement on what

the facts are so that we can have an intelligent conversation? Another area that is very important is the energy area and peak oil.

And if, in fact, we have reached, as many people believe we have,

the maximum capability of the Earth for producing oil from conventional sources, then we, in the United States particularly, in the

world in general, faces a very uncertain future.

Dr. BEMENT. Well, I would recommend you turn to the National

Science Foundation. First of all, we don’t fetter any of our staff or

any of our grantees in taking an open stance on any issue. In fact,

we have requirements in our grant manual that requires open

sharing and open publication and open discussion of issues. So that

goes on all the time. And certainly, we would welcome any questions you have on any of those issues. And certainly, working with

the National Science Board, that is an ideal place to raise some of

those issues.

Mr. BARTLETT. As an example of one of the areas, and you mentioned the cellulosic ethanol, there is now a lot of hype about cellulosic ethanol. A speech was given by Hyman Rickover, 50 years

ago the 15th day of this May, to a group of physicians in St. Paul,

Minnesota. And in that, he noted that the time would come when

we needed—when we would have to change from fossil fuels to renewables and that there would then be a tension between food and

energy, and we have seen that tension in corn ethanol. We produce

relatively trifling amounts of ethanol from corn, but we doubled the

price of corn, and tortillas have gone up so that poor Mexicans can

hardly afford to buy them. And our dairy industry is dying now because of the increased price of corn.

So now, we are turning to cellulosic ethanol, but Hyman Rickover

also noted that there was going to be a tension between energy and

soil fertility. What is the potential for cellulosic ethanol? To whom

should we turn for a rational analysis to this, because now there

is a lot of what I think is irrational exuberance over this?

Dr. BEMENT. First of all, I worked with Admiral Rickover in the

Pentagon, and I—some years back, and I had an opportunity to see

how his mind works, so it doesn’t surprise me a bit that he was

20 years or 30 years ahead of his time.

Cellulosic ethanol is an opportunity for the future. There is a lot

of research going on at the present time to determine how to break

cellulose, as well as lignin, for that matter, and to do it economiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:50 Oct 12, 2007 Jkt 034012 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\R&SE07\032007\34012 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
46

cally through better enzymes and through better bacteria strains to

convert cellulose to starch to alcohol.

I think the hidden challenge is water. This nation is going to be

challenged for water supply, and you can’t produce ethanol without

water. And so the idea that you can go into the grasslands and suddenly set up huge factories to produce cellulosic ethanol or even

corn-derived, fermented alcohol, I think, is a little bit too optimistic

unless you can figure out how to pipe water to the production facilities. My feeling is that Michigan is probably in a very good position, as compared with, say, South Dakota.

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BAIRD. Dr. McNerney.

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Ehlers.

I want to commend the Board. I spent my career—I am a new

Member of Congress, and I spent my career in the research and development area, and I have always been impressed with the National Science Foundation, the sorts of projects that are funded,

how efficiently they work, and so on. So I think it is a very good

operation. I am proud to be on the Committee overseeing that operation.

Now I have a couple of questions.

My first question is a structural issue.

What, specifically, is being done to award—in the merit review

process, to award new researchers as opposed to researchers with

a track record of publications? And in that process, how can we

make sure that we are being fair to the more seasoned researchers?

Dr. BEMENT. Well, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, we

take a look at what I would call market share, which is a surrogate

for competition, competitiveness. And when we see that new researchers are garnering about 28 percent of the awards, that is

good, in itself, but it has been stable over a time when the success

rate has gone down, which means that we are now in a more competitive time than we were maybe six or seven years ago. But at

the same time, we have been able to sustain that market share for

younger investigators.

The one thing that I have tried to do is to put more emphasis

on unsolicited grants, because it is usually unsolicited grants where

young investigators get their start. They build their research

teams, and they have a bright idea, perhaps an extension of their

dissertation, but perhaps not. And I can report that when I came

into the Foundation, the percentage of research grants that were

unsolicited was at 71 percent, which means that 29 percent were

solicited. Today, the unsolicited grants are up to 80 percent, and

the solicited grants are at 20 percent, which indicates we are skewing the opportunity for these types of, you know, grant proposals

from young investigators.

The other thing is that every young investigator has to go

through a learning curve. When they first come to a university,

they have got to set up a research group. They have got to equip

a laboratory, and then they have to figure out what the first graduate student is going to work on. And then usually the first two

or three proposals don’t make it. So they need feedback, and they

need encouragement, and they need mentoring in getting up that

47

learning curve. And our program officers are absolutely masters at

providing that type of guidance and that type of feedback. But

again, I go back to my earlier point. They are very much overworked, and the more opportunity we give them, the better they

can do their job.

Mr. MCNERNEY. Okay. I have an unrelated question.

I did—I am struggling through the report ‘‘Rising Above the

Gathering Storm.’’ In the—it is a disturbing report, and I agree

with the conclusions.

Now our subcommittee was informed that only two of the eight

division directors and deputy division directors in the NSF education directorate are filled by temporary employees, and the other

six positions are vacant. Now I am glad to see Dr. Marrett in the

audience, but has that situation changed or is there something that

we need to take steps on in that regard?

Dr. BEMENT. Well, the reason the situation has changed is because Dr. Marrett is on board, and she is looking to fill in those

positions and to develop her own team. But let me ask if she wants

to add anything. Those positions will be filled very shortly.

Mr. MCNERNEY. Okay. All right. Thank you.

I yield back.

Chairman BAIRD. We have been joined by the Ranking Member

of the Full Committee, Mr. Hall from Texas.

Mr. HALL. I yield my time at this time. I thank you.

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you, Mr. Hall.

Dr. Lipinski.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Earlier, Ranking Member Ehlers had mentioned his great esteem

that he holds for NSF, and I certainly will concur with that. And

it is good to see, Dr. Bement and Dr. Beering, both of you here

today. And I will always hold NSF especially in high esteem, as I

always say to you, because I have applied for one NSF grant in my

life, and I received it, so I am always very happy with NSF. And

that was as a—that was a dissertation improvement grant, and so

I am especially attuned to the importance of nurturing young investigators.

But what I want to ask about here, going down to a lower level

in terms of school level, I am pleased to see that the President’s

American Competitiveness Initiative proposes doubling the research budgets, but the education budget is getting a much smaller

increase, and we continue to see the latest NAEP results, problems

that high school students are having, 40 percent scoring below

basic math level. But we are not seeing the increases or we are seeing decreases in the funding for education at NSF.

Now how is NSF going to accomplish the goal of reversing these

trends and educating more, bringing up the education level of

science, math, STEM education in general with these underfundings in these crucial areas?

Dr. BEMENT. Well, let me say, Congressman, that education is

fairly one of our highest priorities, if not the highest, and we work

closely with the Board on this issue. You ask about national needs

and whether the Science Foundation is addressing national needs.

I can’t think of a more important national need at the present time

48

than education. And here I am talking about K to post-doctorate;

continuity all up the learning ladder.

Our focus is pretty much in three areas. Clearly, one is to

produce more STEM-educated teachers and also to upgrade the

content proficiency of existing teachers, so teacher preparation and

in-service training are critically important.

The second major priority is to fill up the pipeline to encourage

students through better instruction, through more excitement in

the classroom, through more activity-based learning, through better integration of informal education with formal education so that

science museums, members of the media, and even communities

can be engaged.

Mr. LIPINSKI. I appreciate all that, but are you concerned that in

the proposed budget there is not enough funding for education and

that, perhaps, NSF is, in some ways, being squeezed out of the K–

12 education sector?

Dr. BEMENT. Well, I think that is turning around. We do have

the opportunity in 2008 in our Math and Science Partnership to

award $30 million worth of new grants, and I think that came

about as the result of the evaluation of that program to show that

it was very effective in increasing both math and science proficiency. So we hope that sent a different slope at the present time,

a positive slope instead of a negative slope.

You know, any other programs that we have targeted because of

their effectiveness. Some deal with undergraduate education, but

the GK–12 program, which is a program that makes possible graduate students going into the classroom in K–12 classes to serve as

a resource base in teaching math and science, working with the

teachers, working with the students, and that has turned out to be

one of our most effective programs by providing that role model in

the classroom.

Some of these programs were not plussed-up in 2008, because

they are still undergoing evaluation, and at the time the budget

was being put together, we had the mandate from Congress that

we establish the American Competitiveness Council. And the sense

of Congress was that programs shouldn’t be substantially increased

unless they had been shown to be effective through third-party or

rigid evaluation.

Some of the programs that were flat-funded are undergoing evaluation in 2008. Some will be completed in 2007, so my full expectation is that we will continue to push on these programs and try and

plus them up in the future budget cycles.

But your point is well taken. We just have to continue pushing

on the NSF role in education.

Mr. LIPINSKI. If the Chairman will indulge me for another 30 seconds, I just want to say I am looking forward to the National

Science Board’s STEM education proposal that will be coming out.

And I am also interested, and maybe I will follow up later, about

what is going on in terms of NSF with nanotechnology and the National Nanotechnology Initiative, what NSF is doing and also about

the Interagency Hydrogen and Fuel Cells technical Task Force,

what is going on with that. But I will yield back right now.

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you, Dr. Lipinski.

Mr. Hall is prepared to ask some questions at this point.

49

Mr. HALL. Yes. Thank you. And I am sorry to be late. Most of

us—all of us, I guess, have other committees that require a lot of

our time, and I didn’t know what questions had been asked, Mr.

Chairman, but you are very capable of handling this, and I appreciate you and appreciate the things in your background.

And Dr. Ehlers, of course, is one we go to, and he is really the

champion of the National Science Board and folks that are taking

the leadership there.

I wanted to ask Dr. Beering and Dr. Bement, I guess either one

of you, most of the K–12 education fund in the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative is for programs at the Department

of Education, and our Committee has a few bills before it that

speak to K–12 education at the NSF, particularly H.R. 524, which

was a partnership for access to the laboratories science bill, and

H.R. 362, the 10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds Math and Science

Scholarship Act. Now I guess I would ask you to comment on those

bills, if you would, in post-hearing questions.

But for now—I will ask that later. But what other role should

NSF have with regard to the competitiveness agenda and the K–

12 STEM education? Dr. Beering, do you want to go first?

Dr. BEERING. I will defer to——

Mr. HALL. Or do you want to go second?

Dr. BEERING. I will defer to my colleague, yes.

Mr. HALL. All right.

Dr. BEMENT. Thank you, Mr. Hall, for that question. It is a very

important question.

The funding provided to the National Science Foundation for

education amounts to one-tenth of one percent of the total funding

that goes into education, the K–12 education. So it is a very precious resource. And that resource needs to continue to be focused

on research and development, because there is very little funding

that is available for research and development in education to develop better methods, better instruction materials, better teacher

training, and so forth.

And that means that at the end of our process, as we get into

advanced development, we will be able to show that these programs are effective, have an impact, can be scaled, can be transferred, and are sustainable. Those are the principle objectives of

many of our programs. It requires effective partnerships with the

states, with the school boards, and with other entities in order to

hand that off and carry it into implementation. That is what we

spend a lot of time in our programs doing, is establishing partnerships, the Math and Science Partnership program is a clear example, in order to carry those new methods and best practices into implementation. And that will continue to be our approach.

The one thing that would really drain our resources is if we—in

any bill, we are asked to really take on the implementation role,

because that is more than we could possibly handle with any foreseeable resource that we could be assigned.

So I would urge the Committee to pay attention to some focus

on education, research and development, and appropriate resources

for the research and development in these bills.

Mr. HALL. Do you care to add to that?

50

Dr. BEERING. When we come forward with our STEM Commission recommendations, I wouldn’t be surprised if you will hear that

one of the most important changes that is necessary for America

is revision of our attitude and commitment at the family and community level. As I have traveled around the country and the world

in this regard, I am struck by the fact that we send our kids off

to school and forget them there, and the families and the communities are perfectly happy with that arrangement. We are going to

have to re-evaluate that. That won’t cost any money, but it will certainly wrench the way we look at things.

Mr. HALL. Those are two good answers. I like those: it doesn’t

cost any money and it does more.

I have one other question I want to ask Dr. Bement.

I don’t think the Committee plans to hold a separate hearing for

the NSF fiscal year 2008 budget, so if you would oblige me, just

for a moment, to ask a few questions related to that.

The fiscal year 2007 joint budget resolution is favorable to NSF’s

research and related activities. This may have been asked. If it

has—however, most of your other programs remain at the fiscal

year 2006 levels. What impact will this have on the agency? And

have you asked that, Dr. Ehlers?

Dr. BEMENT. Well, it is a very good question.

Obviously, we are very grateful and very excited about the increase in the Research and Related account budget. That will allow

us to go forward with a number of new initiatives.

The two areas that are still problematic for us is the EHR budget, which you have indicated. If we look at the increase from 2006

to 2008, there is a fairly healthy increase in much of the EHR

budget, but it would have been very gratifying if we could have gotten some attention in the continuing resolution for EHR.

The other part that is strained, at the moment, is that we have

all of this wonderful money in our research account, but we didn’t

get any money in our Agency Operations and Award Management

account. So we are already starting from a situation where we have

an extreme overload on our program officers. We’ve only exacerbated that. That is both the good and the bad part of it.

Mr. HALL. I thank you. And I think Dr. Ehlers has already inquired about the industry partnerships, the parts of the language

you like and don’t like and the drafting recommendations.

I yield back my time, and I thank you.

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you, Mr. Hall.

We will have another round, if the witnesses are available for a

few more minutes.

Great, then as per the custom, we will continue to go back and

forth between both sides.

Just a very quick thing, I don’t want to take too much time with

it, but Dr. Bement commented earlier about NSF’s policy to allow

but not require cost sharing.

Dr. Beering, is the Board consistent with that perspective, that

the allowance of cost sharing is supported by the Board?

Dr. BEERING. Yes, indeed.

Chairman BAIRD. Okay. That is good to hear, because I think it

is important, I fully believe. Industry, which is coming to us

through ‘‘Rising Above the Gathering Storm’’ and a host of other

51

studies is pointing out that we need a well-educated workforce and

scientists. And I think it is important that they play a participatory

role in that process. And I want to make it possible—make sure we

make it possible for them to do so. And indeed, while I wouldn’t

require it, I would encourage. I think Dr. Bement’s point is well

taken that not everyone can obtain such a cooperation or co-funding, but to the extent that someone can help bring that to the

table, I think there is a nice synergy possible, and it should be allowed.

A question I have—that occurs to me, as I have talked to some

of the discipline-based scientists in some of the universities, is—can

we use the NSF grant process for research to facilitate the educational enterprise and the educational enterprise of two levels, one

educating more scientists per se, but also educating more science

educators. And it seems to me there is potential for either competitiveness or complementariness between grants. And let me give the

example: If we award a large research grant to an individual, does

that possibly insulate them? Depending on how we structure the

grant, does it possibly insulate them from the activity of actually

training new scientists or training science educators? Or are there

ways we can structure grants to incentivize those who educate to

directly involve themselves in the education of scientists? I talked

to one scientist who said, ‘‘You want us to start making sure we

educate enough scientists? Tie our grants to it.’’ He knew where his

bread was buttered.

And I would be—I welcome your thoughts about that.

Dr. BEMENT. Well, I am absolutely floored that that question

came up, because in our Criterion 2 for our grants, ‘‘other impacts,’’

that, clearly, is an area of focus. And we not only encourage it, but

we expect it. Not only that, but we also require accountability. So

it is not just reporting on the good science that was done under scientific merit. It is also important that they report on how they fulfilled their promise in Criterion 2, as far as education is concerned.

The other thing that I would mention is that a good bit of our

education and research on education is really carried out by our research directors. It is not done just in EHR. In fact, there is a very

close partnership, mutually leveraging education, that can be supported by the research directors in bringing new content knowledge

into not only undergraduate education, but also K–12 education.

So we need to do a better job in our website to make sure the

community really does understand that.

Chairman BAIRD. Well, if two identical grants were to arrive at

the desk of the reviewers, with the sole difference between them

that one places explicit and greater emphasis on utilizing a portion

of the grant to educate new scientists and to coordinate with the

Science Education Act, that would be looked on more favorably,

conceivably, if every—all other——

Dr. BEMENT. Well, there is the question of whether we would

give preference in Criterion 2 for education or for industry-coupling

and so forth.

The one thing that we have to be very cautious about is that we

don’t use ‘‘other impacts’’ as a trump against scientific merit, because the scientific merit has to be there, and it has to be solid,

otherwise, we begin to tarnish our gold standard of merit review.

52

But those things are all taken into account by our panels and the

chances are pretty high that they will be considered.

Chairman BAIRD. We have yet to address issues of—in any detail

today, of encouraging and supporting researchers of diverse backgrounds, and particularly ethnic diversity or economic opportunities and also gender issues.

I would appreciate either of you commenting briefly on that in

what remaining time I have left.

Dr. BEMENT. Well, broadening participation has been a high priority in the Foundation since I have come. It is in our priority list.

It is in our strategic plan. It is up front in all of our research directorates and research offices. They take that very seriously. In fact,

if you look at the total investment across the Foundation, with

broadening participation, about a quarter to a third of that is funded through the research directorates and research offices in a variety of ways. And of course, that only provides internal leverage to

be able to do more than we are currently doing.

So I am pretty proud about the wide variety of programs that we

have that are dedicated to broadening participation and the way

that we can integrate those to get more impact and more leverage.

Chairman BAIRD. Dr. Beering, do you care to comment on that?

Dr. BEERING. I would certainly agree with that. I am reminded

of an experience I had while I was Dean of the medical school at

Indiana. The accrediting commission came by and said, ‘‘Why don’t

you appoint a woman plastic surgeon?’’ And I looked around, at the

time, and there weren’t any. And we have certainly fixed that

issue, and it was by way of first finding out there was a problem

and then paying attention to it in the way that Dr. Bement has described.

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you, Dr. Beering.

Dr. Ehlers.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, just a comment.

Several years ago, several of us in the Republican majority were

successful in getting a bill through the Congress to double the NSF

funding in five years, and that eventually led to the present doubling plan, doubling in 10 years.

Many of the problems we discussed here would be solved by having some additional funding. So in my mind, five years is better

than 10 years. So let me challenge the new majority to try to go

back to the bill we passed. And I encourage you to do whatever you

can to meet that standard.

The other comment, we talked a bit about the young scientists

versus the older scientists. Let us take just a broader view of that.

Years ago, I know that Europe was very concerned about the brain

drain of scientists moving to the United States. I am starting to

discern a brain drain the other way because of a lack of adequate

funding here and increasing funding in other countries. We have

actually lost ground compared to other countries, several other

countries, for rapidly increasing their research funding.

I personally know a scientist who moved to Europe recently. He

was tired of struggling with annual grant requests and thought it

would be wonderful to have a lifetime appointment with a guarantee of research funding.

53

That is our competition. And so I just wanted to mention there

is that aspect of it.

Another one, we make a great deal about peer review in the

United States, and I think it is excellent, but it is also very important to have peers. And I talked to a young scientist recently who

is not at all happy, because—and it was not just young scientists

versus older scientists, but this person had a very good new approach, was being recognized in the field for that, applied for an

NSF grant, and was appalled at some of the comments by some of

the so-called peers who reviewed it in which the comments indicated a basic misunderstanding of the science involved, obviously,

who were not familiar with it. He was even more discouraged when

he contacted the person in charge of that directorate and talked to

him and found out he also did not understand.

So I think a major chore is not just worrying about young scientists getting it, but recognizing that many times the young scientists have new ideas that, if someone has not been active in the

research field for a few years, may have passed them by.

So it is a multi-faceted problem. It is not just young versus old.

Dr. BEMENT. Yes.

Mr. EHLERS. And I think you could make a good argument for

dramatically increasing the funding for young scientists, but also

we have to have a good peer review.

Dr. BEMENT. Even though there wasn’t a question there, I do

have some opinions on those remarks.

First of all, in our peer-review process, inasmuch as we are emphasizing frontier research, we do try to include younger scientists

who are pretty well recognized, because they know where the frontier is and they know what is important at the frontier and where

the important research is being done. And that has been a very

positive contribution in our panels and even our individual reviews.

But we do have due process within the Foundation where investigators who have been declined, can challenge the decline. And

that goes through several steps of review all of the way up to the

Deputy Director. So there are ways in which someone who feels

that they haven’t had an adequate peer review can get the attention of the Foundation.

Mr. EHLERS. I hope you also recognize that the reluctance of a

new researcher about doing that and alienating the leadership of

the NSF.

Dr. BEMENT. I do, indeed.

Chairman BAIRD. How often is that actually done, Doctor, that

someone appeals a—especially successfully appeals a——

Dr. BEMENT. Well, it is not very frequent. As the Deputy Director

indicated, she has only had one appeal that came up to her level

as a final appeal step, and it wasn’t worthy of consideration, so it

was denied.

Chairman BAIRD. Dr. McNerney.

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you.

As we have sort of been talking this morning, education is one

of the issues that challenges our country in terms of science and

technology. And I think it is—a lot of it is a cultural issue. Many

of the young people don’t look at science as a profession nor engineering as a profession that appeals to them. Is there anything

54

that can be done within the National Science Foundation to sort of

change that perception or attack the cultural issue that we are facing in terms of attracting young people into this profession?

Dr. BEMENT. Absolutely, there is, Congressman.

The focus right now is introducing science earlier in elementary

school, perhaps third to fifth grade, and even engineering, for that

matter, because that is hands-on, and that can excite children toward science and engineering and give them some early understanding about what these fields are all about.

The other thing that we can effectively do is try and work at the

interfaces between primary and secondary education, secondary

education and community colleges, and with institutions of higher

learning, universities and colleges. And this is the continuity I was

talking about, because, oftentimes, a child will have a wonderful

experience in elementary school and transition to a secondary

school that may be a troubled school that may not have very adequate teaching talent in STEM education, and then it suddenly dissipates, it is a turn-off. And the same thing between high school

and college. So there needs to be more effective attention given to

reducing the barriers and coupling preparation with expectation

and entrance requirements at universities so we don’t lose people

from those pathways as they move through the system. And that

is where a lot of our effort is focused.

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, in my district, there are some economically-disadvantaged areas, and I see a lot of young people that

aren’t engaged in the process. And what I would suggest is that we

find a way to make the science more glamorous looking or engineering more appealing, because that is what it is going to take.

We are going to have to go across those barriers to get people involved, to make children understand not only the practicality but

also the beauty of science. And so that is my recommendation.

Dr. BEMENT. No, you are absolutely right. This is where the business community can come in, because we know that even in some

troubled areas where the business community is not only committed but actually engaged, and where they can provide release

time for their scientists and engineers to work with the public

schools, that makes a difference.

Also, again, coupling informal with formal education can be a

way of exciting young minds to what science is all about, and that

is a very effective program. In fact, as I go to public schools, I ask

the young children, do they know about the National Science Foundation. Only a few hands go up. But when I mention some of the

television programs that we sponsor, almost all of the hands go up,

which makes me feel very good.

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. I yield back.

Chairman BAIRD. Dr. Bartlett.

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much.

The Chairman noted the relatively large contributions to energy

that conservation could make, like buying a more efficient car or

carpooling as compared to hard-run contributions of additional energy from alterative sources, which reminded me of a very interesting graph that on the ordinate has satisfaction with life, how

good you feel about your life. And on the abscissa is per capita energy use. And if you can imagine that little graph in your mind’s

55

eye, we are way up at the upper right. This one person in 22 using

a fourth of all the energy in the world, and there are 150-some

countries, and they polled each of these countries how good they

felt about their life, and they put a little spot on the graph. And

not too surprisingly, way down on the left side of the graph, you

have to have some meaningful amount of energy before you could

feel good about your life. But that curve rises very steeply there.

And after rising very steeply there, it then approaches something

of an asymptote that gets a little bit beyond where we are. But

there are 27 countries in the world who use less energy than we,

some of them less than half as much energy as we use, who feel

better about their station in life than we feel.

And I mention this because as big as the challenges are in the

hard science areas, I think the biggest challenges for the future are

going to be in the soft science areas. We are just going to have to

get used to, as a world, and particularly in this country, living with

less energy. And that is going to be a real challenge in the soft

science areas. Now I come from the hard sciences in my personal

training, but I recognize that in the future, we are going to have

really big challenges in the soft sciences. Is this a role that the National Science Foundation plays or do we need to look for another

entity for leadership here?

Dr. BEMENT. No, Dr. Bartlett. It is a role that we are playing,

and we pay a lot of attention to it.

I might indicate that we do have energy initiatives in hydrogen

and fuel cell technology and advanced combustion, other means of

conservation, including renewable fuels. And of course, these are

proposals that are sent to us by top-ranked scientists who are really looking at the frontier of these fields and looking way, way

ahead into the future.

But your point of bringing in the human factors associated with

energy production and energy use and also satisfaction are very important components. I think one of the reasons why we are probably energy hogs, but not as well satisfied as we would like to be,

is because of differences in productivity but also the fact that we

work ourselves to death compared with other nations where their

lifestyles are considerably different.

That is a very rich area for social science and for understanding

human factors.

Mr. BARTLETT. I am glad you mentioned hydrogen and fuel cells

in the same breath, because, as you know, and I suspect not everybody knows, hydrogen is not an energy source. It is simply a convenient way to carry energy from one place to another. And of

course, when you burn it, you get only water, which is not very polluting, but if we are really going to exploit the potential of hydrogen, it has to be with a fuel cell, doesn’t it, because——

Dr. BEMENT. Yes.

Mr. BARTLETT. This is a great candidate for a fuel cell, and in

a fuel cell, you get at least twice the efficiencies you get in a reciprocating engine. Just burning hydrogen in a reciprocating engine

doesn’t make much sense.

Dr. BEMENT. Well, you put your finger on it, and you are absolutely right. You have to look at net energy used, which means that

you have to take into account the energy used in the production of

56

hydrogen. And if you are going to use energy, a fair amount of energy, especially thermal energy or electrical energy in electrolysis,

for producing hydrogen, you had better darn well get it back with

a higher-efficiency engine.

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman BAIRD. Dr. Bartlett, as always, insightful questions,

and I appreciate that, as often comes from Members of this committee.

One final question, and then we will adjourn.

I am very interested in the role of technical education and particularly sciences in the role of technical education.

As I have talked to a number of our major employers back home,

yes, they need top-flight scientists to do the high-technology engineering and research, but they also need folks who can just work

in a high-technology environment, do such things as basic math,

averages, scatter plots, the kind of things that, unfortunately, oftentimes, our high school graduates can’t do.

Could you, either of you, talk briefly about the technical education aspects of NSF and what you see as the future of that?

Dr. BEMENT. I am going to address it in a way that Dr. Beering

can also address it, because, coming from Purdue, I am familiar

with the outstanding technology program that they have.

Oftentimes, when we compare ourselves with China and India,

we talk about the large number of engineers they produce and compare it with the number of engineers we produce. But oftentimes,

we don’t include technicians and technician training in the equation. And yet, if you look at what those people do, our technicians

are fulfilling jobs in the workplace very much like the engineers in

other countries are fulfilling. So we ought to pay attention to that.

Through our Advanced Technological Education program, our

ATE program, we have developed partnerships with industry. In

about 90 percent of our ATE programs, community colleges work

in cooperation with the private sector. And the reason why those

partnerships are critically important is that the private sector has

the jobs. They know what skill requirements they are going to

need, not only today, but in the future. So those industry leaders

are the ideal people, and their engineering staffs, to help structure

the curricula for these community colleges. In all of their evaluations, we are finding that that is one of the most effective programs

we have in the NSF, not only in training top technical talent, but

taking away the excuse, in the private sector, that ‘‘we have to go

abroad because we can’t find the technical talent we need here in

the United States.’’ I would like to see us get rid of that through

more investment in our ATE program.

Chairman BAIRD. Dr. Beering, any comments?

Dr. BEERING. Yes, we are going to speak to that with our engineering and also STEM task forces very shortly. And I would second what Dr. Bement has said. The concern about the Chinese engineers, for example, is that we haven’t identified who these people

really are, and they are mostly technologists rather than engineers

in the sense that we employ that term. So the differences are not

as dramatic as they appear on the surface.

57

Another problem we have, anticipating what you will hear from

our STEM group, is that we do not welcome working professionals

into the educational system. There are licensure problems and cultural blocks, and we need to do that. There are lots of retirees, for

example, that would be delighted to come into the educational curriculum work, and I hope that we can get that done.

Chairman BAIRD. I note, for example—I appreciate that, Dr.

Beering. Neither Dr. Ehlers nor I would be certified to be able to

teach in our respective disciplines at the high school level——

Dr. BEERING. Right.

Chairman BAIRD.—and interestingly enough, on the vocational

front, I know that some top-flight welders, folks who have worked

their whole life in welding and know it inside and out, couldn’t

teach—couldn’t get a teaching certificate. I think we ought to look

at that.

I thank our witnesses. Are there other comments or questions

from the panel?

If not, then, before we bring the hearing to close, I want to thank

our witnesses for their outstanding work and for testifying before

our subcommittee. This has, indeed, been a highly educational experience for us. And our witnesses have given us a lot to consider

as we proceed with developing and marking up legislation to authorize programs at the National Science Foundation.

If there is no objection, the record will remain open for additional

statements from the Members and for answers to any follow-up

questions the Committee may ask of the witnesses.

Without objection, so ordered.

The hearing is now adjourned. Thank you, again.

[Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(59)

Appendix:

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

60

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Arden L. Bement, Director, National Science Foundation

Questions submitted by Chairman Brian Baird

Industry Internships and Partnerships

Q1. In the IGERT program, students may do industrial internships. What percentage do intern in the private sector? What other programs besides GOALI promote or allow industry internships?

A1. Approximately 22 percent of students who have participated in the Integrative

Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT) program have reported that

they have done research with industrial scientists in the United States. NSF has

a large number of programs that promote and encourage industry/academic partnerships which provide student exposure to industry, without formal internship components. Examples of such programs are the Partnerships for Innovation (PFI), the Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers (I/UCRC), and the Information

Technology Experiences for Students and Teachers (ITEST). NSF supports a number of programs that sponsor formal graduate and undergraduate internships with

a focus on industry. For example, the Engineering Research Centers (ERC) supported by the Directorate for Engineering (ENG) requires that each ERC form a

partnership with industry. Industrial personnel work closely with the faculty and

students providing guidance on industrial interests in research, sponsoring fellowships and internships for students to carry out research on site in industry. The

Mathematical and Physical Sciences Directorate (MPS) also has several notable programs that connect students with the private sector. For instance, the Research in

Industrial Projects (RIPS) Program allows high-achieving undergraduate students to

work in teams on real-world research projects proposed by a sponsor from industry

or a national lab. The Statistical and Applied Mathematical Sciences Institute

(SAMSI), the Institute for Mathematics and Its Applications (IMA), and the Mathematical Biosciences Institute have programs that foster industry/academia partnerships which offer student internship opportunities, quite relevant to the American

Competitiveness Initiative (ACI). The Education and Human Resources Directorate

(EHR) also supports programs that promote industry/academic exchange. An example includes the Advanced Technological Education (ATE) program which focuses on

the education of technicians for high-technology fields through activities such as student internships in industry.

Q2. Does NSF have any officials designated as ‘‘liaisons’’ to industry to facilitate

NSF/industry partnerships outside of formalized program structures. Does such

contact occur through divisions sponsoring formal industry-partnership programs such as the Centers? Or is all of the contact made by the grantees themselves?

A2. Forging partnerships with industry is important to NSF. It helps expedite the

transition between basic and applied research; strengthens the economy; and encourages innovation and productivity. While discussions and interactions with industry occur at events such as conferences, symposia, and workshops, the majority

of NSF-sponsored partnerships develop through formal programs that encourage collaboration among academia, industry, and government. Several NSF programs are

focused on partnering with industry. These programs include the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer (SBIR/STTR), the Partnerships for Innovation (PFI), the Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with

Industry (GOALI), and the Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers (I/

UCRC) programs. The Engineering Research Centers (ERC) program requires each

ERC to form a partnership with industry through a membership agreement. In addition, the ERC Program requires that each ERC have a staff person designated as

an Industrial Liaison Officer to facilitate the interaction between industry and the

faculty and students and work with industry to speed technology transfer. To enable

innovative research and education projects of national importance that require a

center-mode of support, the Science and Technology Centers: Integrative Partnership (STC) Program encourages partnerships among academic institutions, national

laboratories, industrial organizations, and/or other public/private entities. STC partnerships build intellectual and physical infrastructures that weave together the creation, integration, and transfer of new knowledge. To support this effort, the STC

Program requires that each Center establish an External Advisory Board which

must include industry representatives and designate a staff person who is responVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:50 Oct 12, 2007 Jkt 034012 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\R&SE07\032007\34012 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
61

1 If proposed, the estimated value of any in-kind contributions should be included on Line M.

An explanation of the source, nature, amount and availability of any proposed cost sharing also

must be provided in the budget justification. Section .23 of OMB Circular A–110 describes criteria and procedures for the allowability of cash and in-kind contributions in satisfying cost

sharing and matching requirements.

sible for knowledge transfer activities. Moreover, the STC Program includes representatives from industry as members of review and site visit teams. In addition,

several other NSF programs, such as the Math and Science Partnership, have an

industry-related component designed to promote public/private partnerships.

In addition to NSF’s formal programs, NSF is making a strategic effort to improve

communications and develop relationships with a broad spectrum of companies from

multi-national firms to start-ups. The goal is to exchange facts and information in

order to meet the challenges of the future and to form cross-sector partnerships. We

have organized NSF corporate days, special speaking engagements, individual meetings and luncheons.

Cost sharing policy

Q3. Please clarify the Foundation’s interpretation of the Board’s ruling on cost sharing.

Q3a. How has the Foundation’s new policy (as defined by its interpretation of the

Board ruling) been communicated to program officers?

A3a. Thank you for the opportunity to provide a clarification of the implementation

of NSF’s cost sharing policy. Since issuance of the NSF Cost Sharing Policy in 1999,

this issue has continued to be widely discussed by the community, as well as within

NSF and the National Science Board (NSB). Cost sharing was most recently addressed formally at the NSB’s 382nd meeting in October, 2004, when the Board approved a revision to the Foundation’s policy on cost sharing to eliminate NSF program-specific cost sharing requirements. The following highlights the essential elements of this Policy, as implemented by NSF:

• No NSF program solicitation may mandate a programmatic cost sharing requirement.

• There is no expectation by the Foundation that any proposal submitted for

funding will include a cost sharing component. If a proposer voluntarily includes cost sharing on Line M of the proposal budget, it is solely at the discretion of the proposing institution and will not be a factor in the Foundation’s

decision to make an award. However, once cost sharing is proposed on Line

M, and accepted by the Foundation, the commitment of funds becomes legally

binding and is subject to audit.1

• NSF program officers must follow the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide guidance which states that they may discuss with principal investigators the ‘‘bottom line’’ award amount, but may not [re] negotiate or impose cost sharing or other institutional commitments.

• Any reduction of 10 percent or more from the total award amount proposed

should be accompanied by a corresponding reduction in the scope of the

project.

• Cost sharing commitments contained in awards made prior to implementation

of the revised cost sharing policy remain unchanged.

• Failure to provide the level of cost sharing reflected in the approved budget

may result in termination of the NSF award, disallowance of costs and/or refund of award funds to NSF by the awardee.

The new cost sharing policy was originally communicated in October 2004 by

issuance of initial implementation guidance (www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/

cspolicy1004.pdf). This was disseminated widely both externally as well as internally to NSF program staff. Since that time, this policy change has been presented

internally to NSF staff at various training sessions, including the set of program

management seminars provided 4–5 times per year, and has been a component of

our external outreach presentations. In addition, NSF appropriations no longer contain a statutory (one percent) cost sharing requirement; therefore, statutory cost

sharing is eliminated effective with awards made on or after June 1, 2007. Further

guidance on the elimination of program-specific cost sharing and removal of the

statutory (one percent) cost sharing requirement is provided in the recently issued

NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide, which may be accessed at:

www.nsf.gov/publications/pub¥summ.jsp?ods¥key=nsf07140

62

Q3b. Do you have any reason to believe that the new cost-sharing policy has not been

uniformly implemented across the Foundation?

A3b. In March 2007, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) recommended that NSF

program officers carefully review cost sharing information provided by awardees.

NSF Senior management has implemented staff training that emphasizes the importance of reviewing cost sharing documentation.

Q3c. Are you still considering modifications to the new policy or has it been finalized?

A3c. At the March 2007 meeting of the National Science Board, the Committee on

Strategy & Budget instituted an ad hoc working group to consider the impacts of

the new policy (including any unanticipated consequences of the decision to eliminate programmatic cost sharing.) In addition, the Engineering Directorate is conducting a pilot with the Engineering Research Centers program solicitation. This solicitation does not impose a cost sharing requirement, but rather, requires that a

partnership be demonstrated in the proposal. The results of this pilot and the findings of the working group will be presented at a future NSB meeting.

While there are no current plans to alter the NSF cost sharing policy, further deliberations may occur as a result of the activities noted above.

Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall

Engaging industry

Q1. Beyond the government wide initiatives in which NSF participates and the Engineering Research Centers, please give us examples of ways NSF engages industry to help identify and support its own internal research priorities.

A1. NSF routinely includes representatives of industry on its advisory committees.

Industry representatives also serve as ad hoc reviewers. Currently two members of

the National Science Board are from industry. NSF also has a number of initiatives

with strong industry components. Involvement is more proscribed in some programs

than others, but in general, the Foundation values and encourages industry collaboration wherever appropriate. Whether formal or informal, such engagement clearly

informs NSF priorities. Here are a range of examples:

(1) Partnerships for Innovation (PFI)—

www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm¥summ.jsp?pims¥id=5261&from=fund

The goals of the PFI program are to: 1) stimulate the transformation of knowledge

created by the research and education enterprise into innovations that create new

wealth; build strong local, regional, and national economies; and improve the national well-being; 2) broaden the participation of all academic institutions and all

citizens in NSF activities to meet the workforce needs of the national innovation enterprise; and 3) catalyze or enhance infrastructure necessary to foster and sustain

innovation in the long-term. In order to pursue these goals, this program supports

partnerships among academe, the private sector, and State/local/Federal Government that explore new approaches to support and sustain innovation.

(2) Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers (I/UCRCs)—

www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm¥summ.jsp?pims¥id=5501&from=fund

The I/UCRCs program develops long-term partnerships among industry, academe,

and government. The centers are catalyzed by a small investment from NSF and

are primarily supported by industry center members. Each center is established to

conduct research that is of interest to both the industry and the center.

(3) Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry (GOALI)—

www.nsf.gov/pubs/1998/nsf98142/nsf98142.htm

The GOALI initiative aims to synergize university-industry partnerships by making funds available to support an eclectic mix of industry-university links. Special

interest is focused on opportunities for: (1) faculty, postdoctoral fellows, and students to conduct research and gain experience with production processes in an industrial setting, (2) industrial scientists and engineers to bring industry’s perspective and integrative skills to academe, and (3) interdisciplinary university/industry

teams to conduct long-term projects. This initiative targets high-risk/high-gain research.

(4) Shared Cyberinfrastructure—

63

NOTE: The Council on Competitiveness conducted a study ‘‘Partnering for Prosperity’’ June 2006, on behalf of NSF, to evaluate the experiences of industrial/commercial user organizations of high performance computing (HPC) resources at supercomputing centers receiving NSF funding. Forty companies participated in the study

involving the supercomputing centers listed below. The study concluded that the

partnership between the NSF Centers and the U.S. businesses ‘‘. . .clearly has been

successful.’’ A hardcopy of the report is available from the Office of

Cyberinfrastructure.

• The National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) has maintained

collaborative relationships with a broad set of industry partners for over 20

years through its Private Sector Program (PSP). At present, PSP partners include Abaqus, ACNielson, Boeing, Caterpillar, Deere, Dell, Eclipse Energy

Inc., ExxonMobil, IBM, Innerlink, JPMorgan, Microsoft, Motorola, Research

Triangle Institute and State Farm. As part of the program, partnerships support the operation of a large scale, heavily used HPC system for industrial

users that has been upgraded in 2007. In addition, there are numerous sponsored applied research activities funded by the private sector partners. Firms

fund activities to ensure they remain fully aware of developments in technologies which are one-to-five years out, as well as fund projects directed to

the application of technologies with immediate or near-immediate benefits to

the sponsoring firm.

• The San Diego Supercomputer Center (SDSC) engages with approximately 24

industrial partners in a variety of ways, but the most prominent ones are in

regard to hardware, software, sponsored research, and research collaborations.

• The Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center (PSC) maintains collaborative research Technology Partnerships with many leading companies involved in

High Performance Computing, including Cray, Intel, CFS, Seagate, and

Panassas. Previously, PSC worked with several leaders in HPC including

Compaq(HP), Thinking Machines, IBM and StorageTek. PSC also has a Corporate Affiliates program, designed to provide its industrial partners with expertise and services to enhance and support their technical computing capabilities.

(5) Computing Community Consortium (CCC)—

www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm¥summ.jsp?pims¥id=13658&org=CISE&from=home

The Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE)

will support this consortium as a community proxy for facilitating the

conceptualization and design of promising infrastructure-intensive projects identified by the computing research community to address compelling scientific ‘‘grand

challenges’’ in computing. The consortium is expected to be broad-based with members from higher education as well as other private and public sector organizations,

including industry.

(6) Mathematical Sciences Research Institutes—

www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm¥summ.jsp?pims¥id=5685&org=DMS

Mathematical Sciences Institutes stimulate research in all of the mathematical

sciences through thematic and residential programs, workshops, and access to distinctive resources. Each of the seven institutes offers visiting opportunities for researchers in various stages of their careers. Among them, one can find specific programs for industrial postdocs, summer programs involving graduate students with

problems from industry, and discovery-based experiences with industry for undergraduates.

(7) Cyber Defense Testbed for Experimental Research (DETER)—

www.isi.edu/deter/index.html

DETER provides academic, government, and industrial scientists a safe environment to contain, model, and analyze malicious attacks—especially those that might

result in catastrophic damage to public networks supporting critical infrastructure.

Overall, approximately 30 percent of testbed users come from private industry ranging from small technology start up companies to large government contractors and

private research labs. Industry partners include Juniper Networks Inc., Hewlett

Packard, Sun Microsystems, Dell, Intel and NTT.

(8) Portia—Sensitive Information in a Wired World—

www.nsf.gov/dir/index.jsp?org=CISE; http://crypto.stanford.edu/portia/

64

The Portia project has developed new methods for the detection and prevention

of Phishing attacks, an identity attack to which millions of U.S. users succumb

every year. Mozilla provides software and professional staff, including technical support in the form of resident scientists at Stanford.

(9) Trustworthy Cyber Infrastructure for the Power Grid—

www.iti.uiuc.edu/TCIP.html

The project’s goal is to improve the security of the power grid. The Electric Power

Research Institute (EPRI), the research organization that supports the electric

power industry, is a major contributor to the project.

(10) Materials Centers—

www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm¥summ.jsp?pims¥id=5295&from=fund

Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers (MRSECs) support shared

experimental facilities, provide support to stimulate emerging areas of materials research, and have strong links to industry and other sectors. Involvement in MRSEC

activities by industrial scientists and engineers benefits those organizations in ways

such as providing access to the latest scientific discoveries and the joint design of

research programs to address issues of mutual interest.

(11) Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers (NSEC)—

www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/nano

Research at the nanoscale aims to advance the development of the ultra-small

technology that will transform electronics, materials, medicine, environmental

science, and many other fields. The centers provide coherence and a long-term outlook to U.S. nanotechnology research and education. The centers have strong partnerships with industry, national laboratories, and international centers of excellence.

(12) Science and Technology Centers (STC)—

www.nsf.gov/od/oia/programs/stc/

NSF’s STC Integrative Partnerships Program supports discovery and innovation

in the integrated conduct of research, education, and knowledge transfer. STCs foster partnerships that build a new collaborative culture among researchers and educators at all levels in academia, industry, government laboratories, and other organizations. STCs have an impressive record of research accomplishments, including

timely transfer of knowledge and technology from the laboratory to industry and

other sectors.

(13) Science of Learning Centers (SLC)—

www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm¥summ.jsp?pims¥id=5567&from=fund

SLCs are built around a unifying research focus and incorporate a diverse, multidisciplinary environment involving appropriate partnerships with academia, industry, international partners, all levels of education, and other public and private entities.

Questions for the submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski

K–12 education

Q1. While I’m pleased to see the President’s American Competitiveness Initiative proposes doubling research budgets, the education budget at NSF is seeing much

smaller increases. This greatly worries me, especially when just last month the

National Assessment of Educational Progress released results which found that

nearly 40 percent of high school students scored below the basic level in math.

Overall funding for K–12 programs in the FY08 request falls by nine percent

from the FY07 CR level. The Math and Science Partnerships Program, and the

Noyce Teacher Scholarship program, both of which address critical needs in K–

12 education, would be level funded. In addition, the Course, Curriculum and

Laboratory Improvement program, which is the core program in the Division of

Undergraduate Education, is slowly decreasing in funding.

You state that ‘‘encouraging new investigators to become effective contributors to

the science and engineering workforce is a critical goal for the NSF.’’ Can you

elaborate on how NSF hopes to accomplish this goal and reverse the downward

trends we’re witnessing when the budget request continues to under fund this

crucial area?

65

A1. The FY 2008 funding request for NSF’s K–12 programs (the Robert Noyce

Scholarship Program, the Discovery Research K–12 program, and the Math and

Science Partnership programs) increases from the FY 2007 level by about $10.0 million or 6.5 percent. The FY 2008 request for the Course, Curriculum and Laboratory

Improvement program is level to the FY 2007 amount at $37.50 million.

NSF is encouraging new investigators to become effective contributors in several

ways:

• Promoting the use of discovery-based learning, which is becoming an integral

feature of these K–12 programs, transforming education research and practice.

• Increasing access to interactive data sets, simulations, and up-to-date research results, as well as the opportunity to interact with researchers, in K12 classrooms and in complementary informal science education venues.

Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education at all

levels continues to benefit from information, communications, and other new

technologies, with their potential for more engaging and inclusive learning

and discovery.

• Developing alternative and diverse approaches to excellence in education and

mentoring to build strong foundations and foster innovation to improve K–12

teaching, learning, and evaluation in STEM.

National Nanotechnology Initiative

Q2. NSF’s contribution to the multi-agency National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) is increased in this request by $ 7 million (4.5 percent), including $3 million more in support of research on the environmental, health and safety (El–

IS) aspects of nanotechnology. This field holds great promise; it is certainly one

of the most rapidly developing, dynamic areas of current scientific research and

commercial development. I believe it is critical that we expand our research into

the potential risks while the field is still in its relative infancy.

Can you elaborate on what NSF is doing as it relates to nanotechnology research?

A2. NSF supports fundamental research, infrastructure, and education in all areas

of nanoscale science and engineering (NSE), excluding research involving clinical

testing. The NSE 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 and 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.

NSF’s contribution to the multi-agency National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI)

encompasses the systematic understanding, organization, manipulation, and control

of matter at the atomic, molecular, and supramolecular levels in the size range of

one to 100 nanometers. NSF contributes to the goals and seven program-component

areas (PCAs) outlined in the NNI Strategic Plan:

(1) Fundamental nanoscale phenomena and processes.

The FY 2008 Request includes $142.67 million for fundamental research and education connecting quantum and other nanoscale phenomena predictively across

length and time scales with the macro properties of materials. Emphasis will be on:

novel phenomena, quantum control, and basic engineering processes, biosystems at

the nanoscale, converging science and engineering at the nanoscale, and multi-scale,

multi-phenomena theory, modeling, and simulation at the nanoscale.

(2) Nanomaterials.

The FY 2008 Request includes $60.19 million for discovery of novel nanoscale and

nanostructured materials, and improving the comprehensive understanding of the

properties of nanomaterials (ranging across length scales and including interface

interactions). Research on the discovery, understanding, and control of materials at

the nanoscale will be critical to the development and success of innovative technologies, including communications, catalysts, energy, health care, and manufacturing.

(3) Nanoscale devices and systems.

The FY 2008 Request includes $51.10 million for R&D that applies the principles

of nanoscale science and engineering to create novel, or to improve existing, devices

and systems. A special focus will be on nanomanufacturing of active nanostructures

and nanosystems. Nanoelectonics beyond silicon nanotechnology and complementary

66

metal-oxide superconductors (CMOS) research will explore ultimate limits to scaling

of features and alternative physical principles for devices employed in sensing, storage, communication, and computation. Another focus will be on nano-informatics for

better communication and nanosystem design. It includes defining the ontology of

terms, interconnecting databases, using specific informatics tools, and connecting to

bioinformatics.

(4) Instrumentation research for nanotechnology.

The FY 2008 Request includes $14.50 million for R&D to create new tools needed

to advance nanotechnology research and commercialization, including next-generation instrumentation for characterization, measurement, synthesis, and design of

materials, structures, devices, and systems. A special challenge is developing tools

for measuring and restructuring matter with atomic precision, for time resolution

of chemical reactions, and for domains of biological and engineering relevance.

(5) Nanomanufacturing.

The FY 2008 Request includes $26.90 million to support new concepts for high

rate synthesis and processing of nanostructures, nanostructured catalysts, fabrication methods for devices, and assembling them into nanosystems and then into larger scale structures of relevance in industry and in the medical field. R&D is aimed

at enabling scaled-up, reliable, cost effective manufacturing of nanoscale materials,

structures, devices, and systems.

(6) Major research facilities and instrumentation acquisition.

The FY 2008 Request includes $31.62 million for establishment of user facilities,

acquisition of major instrumentation, and other activities that develop, support, or

enhance the scientific infrastructure for the conduct of nanoscale science, engineering, and technology research and development. It also supports ongoing operations

of the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network (NNIN), Network for Computational Nanotechnology (NCN) and National Network for Nanomanufacturing.

The investment will support facilities for 16 ongoing Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers (NSEC).

(7) Societal Dimensions.

The FY 2008 Request includes $62.92 million, an increase of $3.90 million over

FY 2007, for various research and other activities that address the broad implications of nanotechnology for society, including benefits and risks, such as:

• Research directed at environmental, health, and safety impacts of

nanotechnology development and basic research supporting risk assessment

of such impacts ($28.75 million).

Research will address three sources of nanoparticles and nanostructured materials in the environment (in air, water, soil, biosystems, and working environment), as well as the non-clinical biological implications. The safety of

manufacturing nanoparticles is investigated in four center/networks: NSEC

at Rice University (evolution of manufacturing nanoparticles in the wet environment), NSEC at Northeastern University (occupational safety during

nanomanufacturing), NSEC at University of Pennsylvania (interaction between nanomaterials and cells), and National Nanotechnology Infrastructure

Network (with two nanoparticle characterization centers at the University of

Minnesota and Arizona State University). New measurement methods for

nanoparticle characterization and toxicity of nanomaterials will be investigated. Support is requested for a new multi-disciplinary EHS center as explained in the reply to the next question.

• Education-related activities, such as development of materials for schools,

curriculum development for nanoscience and engineering, development of new

teaching tools, undergraduate programs, technical training, and public outreach ($28.38 million).

Two networks for nanotechnology education with national outreach will be

supported: The Nanotechnology Center for Learning and Teaching (NCLT)

and the Network for Nanoscale Informal Science Education (NISE).

• Research directed at identifying and quantifying the broad implications of

nanotechnology for society, including social, economic, workforce, educational,

ethical, and legal implications ($5.79 million).

Factors that stimulate scientific discovery at the nanoscale will be investigated, effective approaches to ensure the safe and responsible development

of nanotechnology will be explored and developed, and the potential for conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:50 Oct 12, 2007 Jkt 034012 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\R&SE07\032007\34012 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
67

verging technologies to improve human performance will be addressed. The

Nanotechnology in Society Network will be fully operational in FY 2008.

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 (the Nanoscale Science, Engineering

and Technology Subcommittee (NSET) of the National Science and Technology

Council (NSTC)), considering the international context, industry, NGOs, and other

perspectives.

Q3. Can you expand on the proposed new, multi-disciplinary center that would conduct EHS research?

A3. The National Science Foundation is in the process of preparing a program announcement for a new Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center (NSEC) on

‘‘Nanotechnology Environmental Health and Safety’’ to be released later this year.

This will be a NSF wide activity coordinated by the Directorate for Biological

Sciences. It is planned to create education, outreach, and communication between

the main stakeholders.

Manufactured nanomaterials and their byproducts may display new physical,

chemical, or biological properties unique to materials of this small size (i.e., one to

100 nanometers). The purpose of this multi-disciplinary center will be to conduct

fundamental research and education on the interactions of nanoparticles and

nanomaterials in and with the environment (air, water, and soil) and living systems

at all scales in order to understand and address the potential impact of

nanotechnology on the environment and living systems. A multi-disciplinary approach involving the biological, physical, computational, and mathematical sciences

will be employed to understand how nanomaterials and their byproducts interact

with and impact the environment and living systems at all scales. Research will include but is not limited to methods and instrumentation for nanoparticle detection,

characterization, and monitoring; interactions of nanomaterials with cellular constituents, metabolic networks, and living tissues; bioaccumulation and its effects on

living systems; and the non-medical biological impacts of nanostructures dispersed

in the environment. In addition to understanding the potential impact of

nanomaterials on environmental health and safety, this research also is expected to

yield reciprocal knowledge on how characteristics unique to the nanoscale realm

play a role in natural systems and their design.

68

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Steven C. Beering, Chairman, National Science Board

Questions submitted by Chairman Brian Baird

Q1. Please clarify the Board’s intent with respect to the Foundation’s policy on costsharing. Is the Board considering revisiting its ruling and/or evaluating the implementation and impact of the ruling on programs across the Foundation?

A1. The National Science Board has been involved with ‘‘cost sharing’’ since the Bureau of the Budget’s (predecessor of the OMB) 1954 request for assistance in setting

uniform policies for indirect costs for research grants from federal agencies.

The Board addressed cost sharing on a number of occasions since 1954 in regard

to implementation of the 1963 statutory cost sharing requirements, university concerns over the logistics of calculating cost share contributions, and the effect cost

share would have on wealthy and not so wealthy schools, public and private institutions, and between basic and applied research.

In October 2004, NSF requested a revision to the current Board policy on cost

sharing to eliminate NSF program specific cost sharing requirements and require

only the statutory cost sharing of one percent. The Board approved that request on

the recommendation of its Audit and Oversight Committee. The Board recently decided to establish an ad hoc task group within its Committee on Strategy and Budget to study cost sharing policies of the Foundation. The task group’s activities will

take into account the Foundation’s legal requirements, impact of previous cost sharing policies, and the practice and implementation of those policies. Specifics about

the Board’s likely actions will become clearer as the task group conducts its study

and the Board considers the task group’s findings and recommendations.

Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall

Q1. Is the Board engaged in encouraging industry partnerships? To what degree?

A1. The Board believes industry should be a full partner with government, academe, the non-profit sector and the public in maintaining the health of U.S. science

and engineering research and education. Industry is by far the largest employer of

scientists and engineers and the largest source of funding for U.S. R&D. Partnership with industry in policy decisions affecting the science and engineering enterprise is critically important and highly sought after by the Board and Foundation.

Further, we fully endorse and support industry partnerships with academic institutions in education and research funded by the National Science Foundation. The

Board membership throughout its history has included industry representation in

order to reflect the leadership of U.S. science and engineering. The Board also provides explicit policy for NSF to initiate programs that include industry partnerships

in research and education. For example, the Board’s 1996 policy statement, ‘‘Report

from the Task Force on Graduate and Post Doctoral Education’’ (NSB/NGE–96–2)

provided the policy framework for implementation in FY 97 of alternative modes of

graduate support ‘‘permitting internships in industry. . .as part of the graduate research experience.’’ Programs such as Integrative Education and Research Training

(IGERT) have been implemented by the Foundation to encourage this form of academic/industry partnering. The Board further supports partnerships and collaboration in research and education in NSF funded centers, and in programs such as the

Math and Science Partnerships. These large awards are directly approved by the

Board after careful review, including the industry partnership components, and followed up by assessments of success. Renewal of such major grants and cooperative

agreements often depends significantly on success in attracting industry partners,

and on the level of involvement of such partners.

The Board also solicits the input of industry in the formulation of policy for

science and engineering, both as guidance to the Foundation and as advice to the

President and Congress. Recent examples include Board hearings to consider the establishment of a new Commission on 21st Education in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics; the Board’s ongoing study of Engineering Education

needs for the future, and the 2003 Board policy report, The Science and Engineering

Workforce: Realizing America’s Potential (NSB–03–69) <http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/

documents/reports.htm>. The Board’s biennial report on Science and Engineering

Indicators includes an increasingly broad component of industry relevant quantitative data, and the NSF industry survey is in the process of being redesigned in

order to improve data for decision making involving industrial science and technology. We further support grants under the SBIR and STTR programs in the FounVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:50 Oct 12, 2007 Jkt 034012 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\R&SE07\032007\34012 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
69

dation (Small Business innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer, respectively). We expect industry partnerships to continue to be an essential

component of projects and policy for science and engineering in the Foundation and

an important policy focus for the National Science Board.

Questions submitted by Representative Daniel Lipinski

Q1. In your testimony, you mention NSF’s involvement with energy research as a

partner in the President’s hydrogen fuel initiative through membership in the

Interagency Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technical Task Force. As you may know,

I, along with Representative Inglis, am a big advocate for hydrogen technology,

having reintroduced the popular H–Prize bill this Congress. Can you elaborate

on this Task Force, and give us a sense of what it has accomplished and the

results that have come out of it?

A1. The Interagency Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technical Task Force was established

shortly after President Bush announced the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative and has met

monthly since April 2003. It serves as the key mechanism for collaboration among

the federal agencies involved in hydrogen-related research, development, and demonstration. As specified in Section 806 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109–

58), the Task Force provides a forum for coordinating interagency policy, programs,

and activities related to safe, economical, and environmentally sound hydrogen and

fuel cell technologies. Co-chaired by the Department of Energy (DOE) and White

House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the task force includes the

Department of Transportation; Department of Defense; Department of Agriculture;

Department of Commerce; Environmental Protection Agency; National Aeronautics

and Space Administration; National Science Foundation; United States Postal Service; and, from the Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and

Budget, and Council on Environmental Quality. More information is available at

(http://www.hydrogen.gov/interagency¥task¥force.html).

The task force ad hoc committee on a regulatory framework for a hydrogen economy has identified existing and regulatory statutory authorities, status of regulations, gaps in authority, and the lead agency. All of this information has been integrated into an interactive map complete with references to each applicable regulation or statute (see www.hydrogen.gov/regulations.html).

The task force agriculture ad hoc committee is developing an action plan with specific coordination activities for biomass-to-hydrogen and fuel cell technology development and use in rural communities.

There are a number of areas where the hydrogen fuel cell interagency working

group (IWG) has led to interagency collaboration on particular topics, such as materials research, hydrogen turbines, and solid-state fuel cells.

Over the past four years, the IWG has collaboratively identified R&D gaps that

have merited additional focus, including hydrogen infrastructure R&D, bio-based H2

production, and directed basic research on fuel cells, hydrogen storage, and hydrogen production.

The task force created extensive hydrogen research taxonomy of past, present,

and future hydrogen activities of the Federal Government. More information may

be found at http://www.hydrogen.gov/taxonomy.html and http://

www.hydrogen.gov/federalprograms.html

The agencies are also working to establish a ‘‘higher level’’ task force with members at the Assistant Secretary level or functional equivalent to advise the Secretary

of Energy on issues related to the development and use of hydrogen technologies.

The task force will not replace the IWG—it is fully expected to that the groups will

complement and support each other.

Q2. You also mention NSF’s Energy for Sustainability Program, which will fund

basic research and engineering of hydrogen and other alternative fuel systems.

Please explain this program and what it is doing in the field.

A2. NSF’s Engineering Directorate established the Energy for Sustainability Program to consider a wide variety of topics and encourage investigator-initiated

projects to capture the best and brightest in the engineering of energy for the future. The emphasis will be on research and education in energy production, conversion, and storage for energy sources that are environmentally friendly and renewable.

The program is aimed at university researchers involved in basic or fundamental

engineering research to advance renewable energy sources. Small business ventures

are also eligible to apply to the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program

70

at NSF. Larger firms can participate in if they team with a researcher from a university through Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry (GOALI).

The FY 2007 budget is $3 million. This is a new program and therefore no awards

have been made, but over 200 unsolicited proposals were received in response to the

February 2007 program announcement. The majority of these proposals involved

fuel cells, biofuels, or solar energy. Awardees for this round are expected to be selected and announced by August 1, 2007. A second program announcement is scheduled for August–September 2007. The program intends to fund approximately 20

projects having budgets of around $100,000 per year for two or three years.

In addition, two researchers are being funded under NSF’s Faculty Early Career

Development (CAREER) Program for work on sustainable energy involving direct

methanol and microbial fuel cell concepts.

(71)

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

REAUTHORIZATION: PART II

THURSDAY, MARCH 29, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:57 p.m., in Room

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

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

72

73

HEARING CHARTER

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE

EDUCATION

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

National Science Foundation

Reauthorization: Part II

THURSDAY, MARCH 29, 2007

2:00 P.M.–4:00 P.M.

2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

1. Purpose

On Thursday, March 29, 2007, the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education of the House Committee on Science and Technology will hold a hearing to

receive testimony from various stakeholders in the scientific and technical community regarding pending legislation to reauthorize core activities, amend administrative laws and set new policy directions for NSF.

2. Witnesses

• Dr. Catherine T. (Katie) Hunt, President, American Chemical Society

• Dr. Phyllis M. Wise, Provost, University of Washington, Seattle

• Dr. Margaret L. Ford, President, Houston Community College System–

Northeast

• Dr. Carlos A. Meriles, Assistant Professor of Physics, City College of New

York

• Dr. Jeffrey J. Welser, Director of the Nanoelectronics Research Initiative,

Semiconductor Research Corporation

3. Overarching Questions

• What is the appropriate balance between funding for interdisciplinary and

disciplinary research? What are the best mechanisms for soliciting and funding interdisciplinary proposals? Is NSF doing a sufficient job of publicizing opportunities for funding in interdisciplinary research?

• The average success rate across the directorates is significantly lower for new

investigators than for investigators previously funded by NSF. What can NSF

do to narrow that gap? In particular, what funding mechanisms make the

most sense without undermining the merit-review process, and what additional steps can NSF take to nurture young investigators?

• What incentives exist for industry to help fund research and education programs at NSF? What is NSF doing to foster industry/university partnerships

outside of the few programs designed specifically for that purpose?

• Is undergraduate science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM)

education keeping pace with changing paradigms in scientific understanding

and practice? With workforce needs? What is the most important role for NSF

in undergraduate education?

4. Brief Overview

• NSF currently has a budget of $5.9 billion and is the funding source for approximately 20 percent of all federally supported basic research conducted by

America’s colleges and universities. NSF also supports programs to improve

U.S. STEM education and increase participation in STEM fields at all levels

and in all settings. (For additional background information on NSF and the

fiscal year 2008 budget, refer to the charter from the March 20 hearing on

NSF Reauthorization: Part I, available at http://science.house.gov/)

74

1 Robert Day, CEO of the Keck Foundation.

• NSF is a proposal-driven (bottom-up) agency that operates almost exclusively

by competitive merit-review. Reviewers are asked to evaluate proposals based

on two criteria: What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity; and

what are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?

• Breakthroughs in science and technology that will have a near- to mid-term

impact on society are increasingly requiring interdisciplinary teams of scientists and engineers willing and able to cross their traditional disciplinary

boundaries. NSF has begun to react to the pressure from the community to

re-evaluate its role in interdisciplinary research and education, but has not

yet articulated a coherent path forward.

• New investigators have a 17 percent funding success rate, compared to a 28

percent success rate for prior investigators and an overall rate of 23 percent.

The CAREER grant program was established explicitly to help find and fund

outstanding young investigators, but CAREER awards differ from standard

NSF awards in size, duration and evaluation criteria.

• There are specific programs at NSF, such as the Engineering Research Centers and the Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers, in which industry partnership is a requirement. However, opportunities exist outside of

those programs for businesses to partner with university researchers in areas

of basic research directly relevant to those businesses’ needs. The

Nanoelectronics Research Initiative is one example of such a partnership.

• There are four main undergraduate-focused STEM programs at NSF (not including K–12 teacher training programs): a research experience program

funded by the research directorate; and one curriculum development program

and two workforce development programs funded by the education directorate.

5. Issues

Interdisciplinary research

‘‘Training individuals who are conversant in ideas and languages of other fields

is central to the continued march of scientific progress in the 21st century.’’ 1 NSF,

like all federal research agencies, is already funding interdisciplinary research.

There are several cross-directorate and in some cases multi-agency programs, including: Cyber-enabled Discovery and Research (a new program for FY 2008),

Cyberinfrastructure, Networking and Information Technology R&D (NITRD), and

the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), to name a few. The majority of NSFfunded Centers are also staffed by multi-disciplinary teams of scientists, engineers

and educators. In addition, individual directorates have their own interdisciplinary

and multi-disciplinary coordinating activities. For example, the Mathematical and

Physical Sciences Directorate has a separate Office of Multi-disciplinary Activities,

which facilitates, coordinates and co-funds multi-disciplinary and interdisciplinary

activities between divisions, but does not directly manage any grants.

There is no standard definition for the term ‘‘interdisciplinary research.’’ Furthermore, there is no standard delineation between interdisciplinary, multi-disciplinary

and cross-disciplinary. In 2004, the NAS Committee on Science, Engineering and

Public Policy issued a report on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. After reviewing the wide range of definitions in use, the NAS report panel settled on the

following: ‘‘Interdisciplinary research is a mode of research by teams or individuals

that integrates information, data, techniques, tools, perspectives, concepts and/or

theories from two or more disciplines or bodies of specialized knowledge to advance

fundamental understanding or to solve problems whose solutions are beyond the

scope of a single discipline or area of research practice.’’ The panel distinguished between multi-disciplinary and interdisciplinary as follows: Multi-disciplinary teams

join together to work on common problems, but may split apart unchanged when

the work is done, while interdisciplinary teams may end up forging a new research

field or discipline.

The issue of facilitating interdisciplinary research and pushing the frontiers of

21st Century science without compromising the potential for advances in disciplinary research or educating a generation of scientists and engineers without depth

of knowledge in any single field is a complex and controversial one. Nevertheless,

it is an issue at the forefront of the scientific enterprise and one that NSF and the

rest of the scientific enterprise is struggling with.

Outside of the standing cross-directorate programs listed previously, most of the

directorates process unsolicited interdisciplinary proposals from the bottom-up. This

75

is a largely ad hoc process by which individual program officers receive proposals

that they identify as interdisciplinary, decide to approach the program officer(s) in

the appropriate division(s) relevant to the proposal, and work as a team to manage

the review process, including putting together a review panel compromised of experts from all of the relevant fields. In some cases, instead of co-equal proposal managers, there may be a ‘‘principal’’ program officer with the others serving as advisors. There is no standard policy for handling interdisciplinary proposals across

NSF. Whether or not it makes sense to institute a Foundation-wide policy rather

than leaving the details to the heads of the directorates, NSF should be more clear

in general about how they will balance interdisciplinary and disciplinary research

moving forward, and they need to make clear to the scientific community how unsolicited interdisciplinary proposals are handled.

Young investigators

In the National Science Board’s 2005 report on the NSF merit review process,

they found that new investigators have a 17 percent funding success rate, compared

to a 28 percent success rate for prior investigators and an overall rate of 23 percent.

The Board identified the new versus prior investigator gap to be the ‘‘major gap’’

in success rates, while other demographic subgroups—in particular, women and minorities—were right at or even above the Foundation average.

The CAREER grant program was established explicitly to help find and fund outstanding young investigators, but CAREER awards differ from standard NSF

awards in size, duration and evaluation criteria. In particular, there is an emphasis

on the integration of research and education, which is not a required evaluation criterion for standard NSF research grants. The minimum CAREER award size is

$400,000 for a five-year period. NSF-wide, the average annualized award amount

for research grants in FY 2005 was $143,600, and the average duration is three

years (range: 1–5 years).

Small Grants for Exploratory Research (SGER) awards were established in 1990

for small-scale grants awarded at the discretion of the program officers and without

formal external review. NSF made 387 SGER awards in FY 2005 for a total of $27

million, and with an average size of $70,000. SGER awards are made, among other

things, for preliminary work on untested ideas, and ventures into emerging research

and potentially transformative ideas. Providing new investigators with seed money

to make their proposals more competitive, for example with SGER funds, is one possible mechanism to help narrow the gap in success rates. Program officers may also

be encouraged to take an active role in mentoring new investigators through the

proposal and review process.

High-risk research

There is another potential benefit to NSF taking a more active role in supporting

new investigators. Young investigators, on average, are more likely to take risks in

their research than more established researchers. They don’t yet have a base from

which to build incrementally, they don’t yet have a large cadre of graduate students,

post-docs and other lab personnel to support, and perhaps they are more willing and

able by nature to think outside the box and take risks.

The National Science Board has called for a Foundation-wide transformative research initiative. The Board defines transformative research as ‘‘research driven by

ideas that stand a reasonable chance of radically challenging our understanding of

an important existing scientific or engineering concept or leading to the creation of

a new paradigm or field of science or engineering. Such research is also characterized by its challenge to current understanding or its pathway to new frontiers.’’ It

is not clear what such an initiative would look like or how it would be carried out,

but there is general agreement in the community that merit review panels are conservative by nature and that more effort needs to be made to fund high-risk research. Putting more effort into supporting young investigators is just one approach

to addressing this need.

Industry partnerships

A primary mission of NSF is to create new knowledge and understanding, not to

develop technology. More often than not, there is no immediately obvious application

for the basic research funded by NSF. However, there is also a range of research—

in materials science, computer science, physics, chemistry—that may in fact have

near-term applications that go unidentified. Unfortunately, there is a big cultural

divide between academic researchers, who produce the knowledge, and private sector engineers, who identify useful applications for that knowledge. Both groups are

76

typically wholly uninterested in what the other is doing and there are few mechanisms or forums to facilitate interaction and collaboration.

There are a few programs at NSF that explicitly require university/industry partnerships. Two of those programs, the Industry/University Cooperative Research

Centers (I/UCRC) and the Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry

(GOALI) are housed in the newly formed Industrial Innovation and Partnerships

(IIP) division of the Engineering Directorate, and total just over $11 million in FY

2007. (That division also funds the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and

Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs, which do not require university participation.) Outside of IIP, the main program with this goal is the Engineering Research Centers (ERCs) program, which is funded at $63 million in FY 2007.

A number of other NSF-funded Centers also have strong ties to industry because

of the nature of the research. Centers also happen to be one of the primary mechanisms for the funding of interdisciplinary research at NSF. However, NSF does not

have an agency-wide mechanism for connecting academic researchers with potential

industry partners.

Education and Workforce

The Education and Human Resources (EHR) Directorate at NSF supports STEM

education and workforce training programs at all levels and in all settings. EHR

also has several programs to increase participation in STEM fields at all levels. K–

12 STEM education has been the focus of several recent Science and Technology

Committee bills and hearings. The witnesses at today’s hearing were asked to focus

on undergraduate STEM education, including at two-year colleges, where much of

the 21st Century workforce is educated and trained.

The undergraduate education programs funded by NSF (and not tied to K–12

teacher education) are the Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement

(CCLI) program, the Advanced Technological Education (ATE) program and the

STEM Talent Expansion Program (STEP). In addition, the research directorate

funds the Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) program.

The CCLI program funds the development of new learning materials, faculty expertise, and assessment and evaluation. It is the core program in the Undergraduate Education division and is funded at $34 million in FY 2007. The STEP

program supports colleges and universities to increase the number of students receiving associate or baccalaureate degrees in STEM fields, and is funded at $25 million in FY 2007. The ATE program, which is focused at two-year colleges, supports

improvement in technician education in the science- and engineering-related fields

that drive the Nation’s economy. It is funded at $45 million in FY 2007. The REU

program, funded at $57 million in FY 2007, supports active research participation

by undergraduate students in any area of research funded by NSF. It particularly

targets students from those institutions where research programs are limited—sending them to host institutions that have stronger research programs.

6. Questions for Witnesses

In their invitations to testify before the Subcommittee, witnesses were asked to

discuss any specific suggestions or concerns that they may have regarding the draft

legislative section-by-section summary provided to them. In addition, they were

asked to address the following questions in their testimony:

Dr. Hunt, American Chemical Society

• What role does ACS, and can scientific societies generally, play in nurturing

and supporting young investigators? In building university/industry partnerships?

• Is NSF doing an adequate job of supporting and mentoring young investigators? Of facilitating industry/university partnerships? Of establishing research priorities based on national needs? Of communicating opportunities for

funding of interdisciplinary research? Do you have any specific suggestions on

how NSF might modify their efforts on any of these fronts?

• What is the most important role that NSF can play in undergraduate science

and technology education, including at two-year colleges? Is the Foundation

doing an adequate job of filling that role? Do you have any specific suggestions of how NSF might do things differently with respect to undergraduate

education?

77

Dr. Wise, University of Washington

• How do new investigators at your university fare in getting NSF research

grants? Does the university administration have any policies or mechanisms

in place to assist your young faculty in securing funding or are those efforts

strictly department-driven? Do you have any suggestions as to what NSF may

do differently to improve funding success rates for new investigators?

• Please describe your university’s relationship with local industries. How does

the university administration help connect your faculty with local business

entrepreneurs and leaders? Do you keep track of industry cost-share on NSF

grants? Do you have any suggestions as to what NSF may do differently to

facilitate university/industry partnerships at major research universities?

• What is the appropriate balance between funding for interdisciplinary and

disciplinary research? What models or frameworks for interdisciplinary research seem to work best at your university? Is NSF doing a sufficient job

of publicizing opportunities for funding of interdisciplinary proposals to your

faculty?

• Please describe the process by which undergraduate science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) curricula at your at your university are reviewed and updated as necessary in response to shifting paradigms in these

fields. What role does NSF play in this process? Do you have any suggestions

as to what NSF may do differently to assist universities in maintaining world

class undergraduate STEM education?

Dr. Ford, Houston Community College System–Northeast

• Please provide a brief overview of science, technology, engineering and technician training programs at your community college, including partnerships

with local industries and how many students you reach through these programs.

• Please describe the NSF-funded Advanced Technological Education (ATE)

program at your community college. What are the markers of its success?

How might you improve the program? Based on your experience, do you have

any specific suggestions for NSF on how to improve its ATE program?

• Does your community college system have a relationship with NSF outside of

the ATE program? Do you believe that NSF is adequately serving the science

and technology education and research needs of U.S. community colleges?

Other than providing more money, what might NSF do differently or better

to serve community college needs?

Dr. Meriles, City University New York

• Is the National Science Foundation (NSF) doing an adequate job of supporting and mentoring young investigators? Do you have any specific suggestions on what NSF might do differently to increase funding success rates for

young investigators?

• Did you encounter any difficulties in applying for an NSF CAREER award?

What kind of post-award interactions do you have with NSF officials? Do you

have any specific recommendations for changes to the CAREER program?

• As an investigator involved in basic research that has direct relevance to industry needs—in this case the semiconductor industry—how would you go

about establishing contact with companies that might be interested in your

work? Have you or would you turn to NSF to help facilitate such conversations?

Dr. Welser, Nanoelectronics Research Initiative

• Please describe the relationship between the Nanotechnology Research Initiative and NSF. How did this relationship get started?

• Why is the semiconductor industry helping to fund basic research at universities? What benefits have you already seen or do you anticipate to your own

industry’s competitiveness?

• What advice would you provide to other industries and/or to universities

about building industry/university partnerships? What advice would you provide to NSF about facilitating such partnerships?

78

• As has been stated in so many recent reports, preparing the workforce of the

21st Century requires starting at the beginning of the pipeline—with K–12

science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education. What is

the most important role that industry can play in efforts to improve U.S. K–

12 STEM education? What about undergraduate education, in particular at

two-year colleges?

79

Chairman BAIRD. Everyone, I appreciate your patience. We had,

as you know, a budget vote on the Floor, and depending on your

party perspective, it may not have been a good outcome, but from

my perspective, it was great, and I think from the perspective of

science and education, it wasn’t half bad either.

I want to thank all our witnesses for being here, and with the

arrival of my dear friend, Vern Ehlers, this meeting will come to

order.

We have an outstanding panel today, and Vern and I were talking about this with other Members. We are just thrilled that you

are here, and looking forward to your comments. This is the second

of hearings on our Research and Science Education Subcommittee

on legislation to reauthorize programs at the National Science

Foundation.

Last week, we heard testimony from agency officials, and today,

we will hear from an outstanding panel representing diverse interests and expertise in the scientific research and education communities, including a major research university from my home state,

a community college with extensive technical education programs,

a major scientific society, a recipient of NSF’s prestigious Career

Award for new investigators, and an industry research consortium

that partners closely with university researchers through various

NSF programs. I think it is just an optimal accumulation of individuals of great talent, and we are just delighted you are here.

So, rather than repeating everything I said at our first hearing,

last week, with Dr. Bement and Dr. Beering, I will just outline the

main themes that we are seeking input on as we proceed with development of the legislation, and I think you have all been briefed

a little bit about some of those themes.

One of our questions is how can NSF best exploit and lead the

trend toward interdisciplinary research without sacrificing core

strengths in single investigator disciplinary research? Second, what

can NSF do to help keep talented young investigators in the research pipeline, in particular, to improve funding success rates for

new investigators?

Third, what can NSF do to help facilitate industry/university

partnerships across the Foundation? And finally, although certainly not the least, what is the most appropriate role for NSF in

undergraduate STEM education, including at two year colleges,

and I would note in that regard that just, was it yesterday we

passed, or the day before, Chairman Gordon’s legislation regarding

science and math education, a very strong vote from the Committee, and we are excited about where that will go.

In addition to soliciting the panel’s input on these broad themes,

we welcome your comments, suggestions, in response to the legislative summary we have provided to you along with the invitation to

testify. As I stated last week in our hearing, I want the process of

developing the NSF reauthorization bill to be open, transparent,

and responsive to all concerned parties, both within and outside

the government. I encourage you to be in touch with me and my

staff, even outside the formal setting of this hearing.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Baird follows:]

80

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BRIAN BAIRD

Good afternoon. I want to welcome you to the second of two Research and Science

Education Subcommittee hearings on legislation to reauthorize programs at the National Science Foundation.

Last week we heard testimony from agency officials. Today we will hear from an

outstanding panel representing diverse interests and expertise in the scientific research and education communities—including a major research university, a community college with extensive technical education programs, a major scientific society, a recipient of NSF’s prestigious CAREER award for new investigators, and an

industry research consortium that partners closely with university researchers

through various NSF programs.

Rather than repeating everything I said at our first hearing last week with Dr.

Bement and Dr. Beering, I will just outline the main themes that we are seeking

input on as we proceed with development of the legislation.

First, how can NSF best exploit and lead the trend toward interdisciplinary research without sacrificing its core strengths in single-investigator disciplinary research?

Second, what can NSF do to help keep talented young investigators in the research pipeline, and in particular, to improve funding success rates for new investigators?

Third, what can NSF do help facilitate industry/university partnerships across the

Foundation?

Last, although certainly not least, what is the most appropriate role for NSF in

undergraduate STEM education, including at two-year colleges?

In addition to soliciting the panel’s input on these broad themes, we welcome your

comments and suggestions in response to the legislative summary we provided to

you along with the invitation to testify. As I stated last week, I want the process

of developing the NSF reauthorization bill to be open, transparent and responsive

to all concerned parties both within and outside of government. I encourage you to

be in touch with me and my staff even outside the formal setting of this hearing.

Chairman BAIRD. Before introducing our distinguished panel of

witnesses, I would be happy to yield to my distinguished colleague,

Ranking Member Dr. Ehlers, for his opening remarks. Dr. Ehlers?

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being a

bit late. I had to wait on the Floor to see if they were going to

revote the adjournment resolution. This is sort of an in-joke. We

have been revoting a lot of votes lately.

I am pleased to participate in the Research and Science Education Subcommittee’s second hearing addressing the reauthorization of the National Science Foundation, truly one of the finest

agencies this government has ever had.

Today, our witnesses represent the diversity of constituents who

work with the NSF, showing the broad impact of this agency. Pervasive across the witness’ prepared testimony is recognition of the

need to further define the educational role of the National Science

Foundation. Everyone here today knows that the Education and

Human Resources Directorate has suffered funding stagnation and

cuts, even while the research budget of NSF is considered a national priority for U.S. competitiveness and innovation, and subsequently increased. It is clear to me that you cannot separate the

research and education mission of NSF, and I would like to explore

ways to ensure that we reverse the discouraging trend of the past

few years.

Related to education, I am also pleased that the role of NSF in

undergraduate education is receiving special attention in this hearing. An institution in my own district, Calvin College, at which I

previously taught, has taken steps to help their student researchers appreciate the impact of NSF on their work by requiring all

equipment obtained with the help of NSF to include a small label

81

stating: ‘‘The National Science Foundation supported the purchase

of this equipment.’’ Students, and I might add, their parents, become acquainted with a sometimes invisible benefactor.

I applaud Calvin for such a small, but significant step in communicating the critical support the National Science Foundation supplies to primarily undergraduate institutions. That said, grants

made to undergraduate institutions have been stretched especially

thin in recent years, due to the inadequate funding in this area.

I know this committee is considering healthy levels of authorization

for undergraduate education, and I will definitely work to see those

levels achieved through appropriations.

Another issue before the Committee within reauthorization is

how to encourage NSF to capture more researchers at early stages

of their careers. Our panel today includes Professor Meriles, a

physicist from the City College of New York, which also has some

very distinguished alumni in the audience, I believe.

He represents, in many ways, both the challenges and successes

of young investigators today, and I am very interested in learning

about his experiences as one of the few selected recipients of NSF’s

Faculty Early Career Development grants. Finding ways to reward

creative thinking, a characteristic of young researchers, is critical

to ensure that NSF continues to produce the many unanticipated

applications of fundamental research.

I certainly want to thank our witnesses for being here today. It

is a very distinguished panel. I was pleased to read about your

backgrounds. I am sure you will add greatly to our store of knowledge today, as we continue our efforts to improve the National

Science Foundation.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE VERNON J. EHLERS

I am pleased to participate in the Research and Science Education Subcommittee’s

second hearing addressing the reauthorization of the National Science Foundation.

Today our witnesses represent the diversity of constituencies who work with the

NSF, showing the broad impact of this agency.

Pervasive across the witnesses’ prepared testimony is recognition of the need to

further define the educational role of NSF. Everyone here today knows that the

Education and Human Resources Directorate has suffered funding stagnation and

cuts, even while the research budget of NSF is considered a national priority for

U.S. competitiveness and innovation and subsequently increased. It is clear to me

you cannot separate the research and education mission of NSF, and I would like

to explore ways to ensure that we reverse such a discouraging trend.

Related to education, I am also pleased that the role of NSF in undergraduate

education is receiving special attention in this hearing. An institution in my own

district, Calvin College, has taken steps to help their student researchers appreciate

the impact of NSF on their work. By requiring all equipment obtained with the help

of NSF to include a small label stating, ‘‘NSF supported the purchase of this equipment,’’ students become acquainted with a sometimes invisible benefactor. I applaud

Calvin for such a small—but significant—step in communicating the critical support

NSF supplies to primarily undergraduate institutions. That said, grants made to undergraduate institutions have been stretched especially thin in recent years due to

the inadequate funding in this area. I know this committee is considering healthy

levels of authorization for undergraduate education, and I will definitely work to see

those levels achieved through appropriations.

Another issue before the Committee within reauthorization is how to encourage

NSF to capture more researchers at the early stages of their careers. Our panel

today includes Professor Meriles, a physicist from the City College of New York. He

represents in many ways both the challenges and successes of young investigators

today, and I am very interested in learning about his experiences as one of the few

82

selected recipients of NSF’s Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) grants.

Finding ways to reward creative thinking characteristic of young researchers is critical to ensure that NSF continues to produce the many unanticipated applications

of fundamental research.

I thank our witnesses for being here today and look forward to their testimony.

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you very much, Dr. Ehlers, and I share

your—how impressed we both are with the witnesses.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carnahan follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RUSS CARNAHAN

Mr. Chairman, thank you for hosting this second hearing on reauthorizing the

National Science Foundation (NSF).

NSF is the funding source for about 20 percent of federally-supported basic research conducted at U.S. universities. In my home district, Washington University

in St. Louis is a major recipient of NSF awards. I am proud of the great research

conducted there as well as in other institutions in our region.

Two weeks ago, this subcommittee heard from the NSF leadership on what they

believe needs to be addressed during the reauthorization process. I am particularly

interested in hearing what those of you who work with NSF think, and I am grateful to you for taking time out of your busy schedules to travel here and speak with

us today.

I know most of you have been asked to address the role of NSF in undergraduate

STEM education, how we can encourage young investigators and foster partnerships

between universities and industry. I believe all of these issues are tremendously important to improving our nation’s competitiveness and very much look forward to

hearing your thoughts on these specific issues.

Again, thank you for being here today and I look forward to hearing your testimony.

Chairman BAIRD. We will give very brief biographies. There is no

possible way to do justice. We would be far exceeding our hearing

time, if I were to do justice to your resumes.

Dr. Phyllis Wise is the Provost and Vice President for Academic

Affairs at the University of Washington, the Pacific Northwest’s

biggest research university. We are very proud of the University of

Washington’s achievements. In her free time, she is a Professor of

Physiology, and Biophysics, Biology, and Obstetrics and Gynecology, in addition to her work as Provost. Dr. Wise, thank you for

being here.

Dr. Catherine ‘‘Katie’’ Hunt is the President of the American

Chemical Society, and Leader for Technology Partnerships for

Rohm & Haas Company. Dr. Hunt, thank you.

Dr. Margaret Ford is President of Houston Community College

System, Northeast, and serves on the board of the American Association of Community Colleges. As a former both university and

community college instructor myself, I am thrilled that we have

community college representation here.

Dr. Carlos Meriles, acknowledged earlier by Dr. Ehlers, is Assistant Professor of Physics at the City College of New York, and a

current NSF Career Grant awardee. Dr. Meriles, thank you for

being here.

And Dr. Jeff Welser is on assignment from IBM Corporation, to

serve as Director of the semiconductor industry’s Nanoelectronics

Research Initiative. Dr. Welser, thank you.

The—we have chatted briefly before the hearing, as you know.

We have five minutes to speak. Dr. Ehlers has a button. At the end

of five minutes, he or I will push it. The person exceeding that time

will disappear. And actually, we are only kidding, especially with

this panel. If you go a couple seconds over, that is all right.

83

And we look forward to both excellent testimony, and then, a

nice give and take in the questioning. And we will start with Dr.

Wise. Dr. Wise, thank you.

STATEMENT OF DR. PHYLLIS M. WISE, PROVOST, UNIVERSITY

OF WASHINGTON, SEATTLE

Dr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Ehlers, it is an honor to

be here today. As you have introduced me already, I am Phyllis

Wise, from the University of Washington.

My very first research grant came from the NSF in 1975, and I

really want to thank Congress for supporting my research career

throughout, and I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity

to give you a little bit of a University of Washington perspective.

Last year, UW researchers performed sponsored research for $990 million, of which $94 million came from the NSF. It funded

587 principal and co-investigators, and literally hundreds of

postdoctoral fellows, graduate students, undergrads, and high

school students, who worked with our researchers.

The mission of the National Science Foundation, that is to discover and disseminate knowledge, has generated a process of determining, by merit, the best kind of fundamental research that deserves funding. It is different from asking a very specific question,

focused on a very defined problem. And as such, it is truly unique.

When the human mind is driven, through curiosity, to inquire

about how something works and why it works that way, we really

are in the heart of innovation. For example, a couple of very passionate UW investigators looked into the biology of insect development, and discovered the hormonal regulation of that development.

This research led to the control of crop pests, and also the control

of mosquito populations that are threatening us with malaria.

And who would have thought that understanding insect locomotion would affect the U.S. space missions? But in fact, the control of the circuit of six legs on walking stick insects is a form of

distributed computer control that is now used in six legged robots

that are in the Mars mission. No other nation has had the courage

to put confidence in human intellect to the degree that the NSF

has. And no other country in the world has really benefited from

that kind of success from this kind of research.

Perhaps about 50 percent of the United States’ economy growth

since World War II has come from this scientific enterprise, and

your commitment to increasing that investment is really, truly critical.

As a result of prior Congressional investments in the NSF and

other federal science, we are now at an age of fascinating enabling

technologies that really blur the boundaries between social, physical sciences, health sciences, life sciences, engineering, and mathematics. And it really begins to recombine in very new and exciting

ways, so that we are not any longer just describing. We are truly

being able to predict, we are truly being able to analyze in ways

that we have never done before.

The Committee is looking into interdisciplinary work, the engagement of the enterprise in STEM education, the nature of industry relationships, and the opportunities for junior researchers.

And I have given considerable detail in the written testimony that

84

I have given you. So what I would like to do in just the short

amount of time I have today is to really concentrate on two areas.

First is graduate students and undergrads. As you have mentioned,

they are critically important. And also, in the infrastructure that

really serves as the underpinning for all of this.

So, it is really impossible to talk about science and research

without talking about graduate students, undergraduates, and the

high school students who actually get their first experience in

science through funded research. They do not make policy. They do

not write the grants. But they are truly the engine that allows the

research to be funded and successful. And recruitment of our young

assistant professors, as you will hear, is really dependent upon our

ability to have graduate students and undergraduates work in

their laboratories. As is the one year pilot funding program, which

is in the draft legislation, these new faculty members depend upon

those kinds of student help.

The most common model of research assistance really doesn’t

work today in the interdisciplinary kind of research that we are

really trying to do. The IGERT programs, which fund graduate students and postdocs, in a transdisciplinary, multi-disciplinary, interdisciplinary way, is so key to the new way that we are doing

science, and we hope that this program will get, in fact, increase

attention, and that renewable IGERTs really become part of the

NSF programs.

And just a few words about infrastructure, it is really appropriate to review the investment in facilities and instrumentation,

as you, the Chairman, recommend in H.R. 1067. I believe that

major research instrumentation programs should increase at a

much greater rate than it has in the past, because nowadays, tools

are the science, and that is really true in almost every scientific

discipline. Manipulation of large, complex datasets is revolutionizing the way we turn data into information, information into

knowledge, and knowledge into real understanding. And for that,

we really, really need the kind of large instrumentation that is part

of the program that is funded by the NSF. And it is only appropriate that the NSF sponsor and adjudicate its resources, but also,

that there is a sufficient pool of funds to reflect the importance that

instrumentation plays in allowing students to be able to partake of

research.

The scope of UW research, in particular, involves significantly in

the major research equipment and facilities construction, that is

supported by the Foundation. And we watch, with great anticipation and hope, the Oceans Observatory Initiative, as it winds its

way through. The Undersea Laboratory that will be constructed in

our front yard, in the Juan de Fuca Tectonic Plate in the Northeast

Pacific, is really one of the kinds of examples of how NSF is going

to enable us to see and observe, in real time, what is going on in

our ocean floors, to understand more about earthquakes, to understand more about the climate changes that we are undergoing, the

populations differences and changes and migration of many of the

animals that live in the ocean.

So, all of the aspects of the NSF are truly valuable. I am sure

you will hear more about this from all of our other witnesses.

Thank you very much for this opportunity.

85

[The prepared statement of Dr. Wise follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PHYLLIS M. WISE

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

My name is Phyllis Wise. I am Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs

at the University of Washington and Professor of Physiology and Biophysics, Biology, and Obstetrics and Gynecology. My first research grant was from the National

Science Foundation (NSF) in 1975. I’d like to thank the Congress for that support

as it launched a long career of research in which I still engage. I would also like

to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to provide a perspective

from the University of Washington regarding the National Science Foundation

(NSF), its important work and the prospects of making it even stronger in accomplishing its mission of knowledge generation and dissemination through fundamental research.

The reauthorization of the National Science Foundation (NSF) in 2007 presents

an unprecedented opportunity to renew and reinvigorate the national commitment

to excellence. As a result of prior Congressional investments in the NSF and other

federal science, we are now in an age of fantastic enabling technologies that blur

the boundaries of disciplines and change the very nature of scientific inquiry from

a descriptive endeavor to a predictive one.

This is a moment in the history of science when we have the tools that revolutionize how we collect, analyze, order, organize and retrieve data. We are in a time

when imaging, simulation and robotics are part of the regular curriculum for the

training of health professionals; where oceanographers consort with computer engineers and telecommunications experts to peer at the bottom of the ocean in order

to learn about life in extreme environments so others can make predictions about

the life in outer space; and where the living brain’s operations can be observed,

where emotion and even learning inside the brain can be detected and analyzed. It

is wise that the Congress, in particular this committee and subcommittee, has elected to enhance an agenda that would spur discovery and encourage young Americans

to get involved in these scientific frontiers.

These new technologies present challenges to existing structures and customs and

it is the role of Universities and their partners in the Federal Government like the

NSF to be thoughtful stewards of the human resources that drive this enterprise.

Thirty-five percent of the money NSF spends is for human capital, that rare commodity that generates new ideas, tests them, analyzes them and brings them to a

stage of invention that can be transferred to the classroom as knowledge and to the

commercial sector for development.

Universities have a duty to educate and prepare the students who come to their

doors in a way that makes them responsible scientists and engineers. Those who

are not destined for these careers also need to be scientifically literate. But our joint

duty doesn’t start or end with the students at our doors. Our nation needs to claim

every resource, every talented student without regard to family income or social status or cultural background. Every kid needs a fair chance to become excited by the

prospect of science, or engineering or mathematics as a career. Scientific and mathematics literacy must become a basic tenant of his/her education. No one questions

whether a student must learn to read. The 21st Century literacy imperative must

include mathematical and scientific literacy. The NSF and all of higher education

need to embrace this goal and help to inform and guide the K–12 sector through

teacher training and through continued research in the science of learning.

The NSF is unique among public agencies in having a mission to generate and

value what is innovative. The process that has evolved at NSF for determining what

constitutes a meritorious avenue of pursuit has been extraordinarily effective. Asking creative people to solve a defined problem is not the path to discovery. It may

be the road to finding a creative solution to a specific problem but that is not innovation, that is problem solving. When a new way to ask questions or seek answers

or combine materials or invent materials is pursued; when the human mind is engaged through curiosity to inquire about how something works or why it works the

way it does, that is innovation. No other nation has had the courage to take that

risk and put its confidence in human intellect to such a degree and no other has

had the success of the U.S. in harvesting the fruit of that courageous confidence.

With more than 50 years of U.S. investment, the payoff to the Nation has come

in the form of new knowledge resulting in new products and processes that have,

in turn, spawned a remarkable economic impact and an impact on health. Other nations are trying to emulate this model. The reward the U.S. has had for this investment has been priceless in terms of economic development, improvements in human

86

welfare and abundance of inquisitive minds that continue to ask important questions. Clearly, there are important national needs like those articulated in the

American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) and they need to be honored in defining

broad areas of inquiry. The NSF process for approaching those areas should not

change. The merit based method of determining successful proposals is the most

cost effective and most productive. We cannot anticipate what will be discovered or

force a discovery. Science is at once methodical and unpredictable.

At our own institution for example, inquiry by UW scientists Jim Truman and

Lynn Riddiford, who were passionately interested in understanding the biology of

insect development, led to significant understanding of hormonal control of development. This research area has, in turn, had significant impact in the control of crop

pests as well as mosquito populations in regions with raging malaria. The research

was never intended to solve those problems. Rather, it was focused on trying to understand the most basic aspects of how animals control the sequence of events that

surround development. And, who would have thought that the control of insect locomotion would affect the U.S. space program? Indeed, the control circuit of the six

legs of walking stick insects is a form of distributed computing control that has

since been used as a model for how six wheeled robots move. The Mars Rover is

one of the best examples of systems inspired by insect neural systems. Similar concepts are emerging today on robots with compliant legs and wings—Professors

Thomas Daniel at the UW along with Michael Dickinson at Caltech and M.A.R. Full

at UC–Berkeley—are showing how studies of animal movement are inspiring new

devices and designs. Biologists working in this area were not striving to create robots. Rather they were trying to understand the basic rules of nature.

Or, who would have thought that studies of adaptation, change, and the genetic

basis of phenotypic variation would be used to solve complex mathematical problems? NSF has had a long and rich history of funding basic research in evolution

and principles of this discipline have become embroiled in every aspect of our practical lives, from how we solve complex computational problems using genetic and

evolution algorithms to how we use computers to develop better devices and machines.

Now, when our economic future is at stake, is the time to pick up on the wisdom

of the National Academies of Science (NAS) study (Rising Above the Gathering

Storm) and amp up the investment in our most precious raw material, human

minds. The expressed intentions of this committee and its efforts to set new levels

of funding for the National Science Foundation are critical to our nation’s future.

In addition to responding to the questions the Chairman has raised regarding

young investigators; our university relationships with industry; the balance between

interdisciplinary and disciplinary research; and the process for integrating undergraduates in STEM education, I will offer some thoughts on graduate students and

on ways to strengthen the noble partnership between the NSF and the Nation’s research universities.

1.) How do new investigators at your university fare in getting NSF research grants?

Does the university administration have any policies or mechanisms in place to assist

your young faculty in securing funding or are those efforts strictly department-driven? Do you have any suggestions as to what NSF may do differently to improve funding success rates for new investigators?

Ensuring that our young new faculty members have a fair chance to succeed is

of paramount importance to the University of Washington. As we compete with

other top universities for the ‘best and the brightest’ young faculty, we make sizable

investments in the form of recruitment packages. Start-up packages are provided

with the understanding that setting up a new research program is expensive, and

that such funds are necessary to give young faculty a chance at competing nationally for research dollars. It is not unusual for these packages to be several hundreds

of thousands of dollars. But these funds are seldom enough to actually fund a research effort for the two or three years it takes to build a laboratory (if needed) and

establish a productive research program. As a Tier 1 university, there is strong expectation that our new faculty develop productive, externally funded research programs within the first four to five years (promotion and tenure decisions are generally made in their fifth or sixth year). If external funding is not obtained in that

time frame, promotion may be denied, and the faculty member may be forced to

leave the UW. Not only is this a significant personal and career setback for the talented individual, but it represents a sizable loss of our investment.

Thus, it is imperative that we do everything that we can to help young investigators succeed. In addition to start-up packages, we direct approximately $2 million

per year of royalty income (from UW inventions and other intellectual property) into

an internal competitive grants program called the ‘Royalty Research Fund.’ AlVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:48 Oct 12, 2007 Jkt 034012 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\R&SE07\032007\34012A SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
87

though not exclusively for junior faculty, it is heavily focused in that direction. Even

with this program, only 25 percent of the applications we receive from junior faculty

can be funded. But these funds provide a critical means for young faculty to gain

experience in writing proposals, and also to obtain preliminary data that is often

necessary to compete successfully for federal funding, including through the NSF.

How well do our junior faculty compete at NSF? Overall, faculty at the University

of Washington do somewhat better than the national average in competing for NSF

grants, but it is getting harder. For example, in FY2000, our faculty submitted 353

applications to NSF, and 154 were funded, for a success rate of 44 percent (the NSF

average success rate was 33 percent). In 2006, our faculty submitted 460 grants (23

percent more than in 2000), and 158 were funded, for a success rate of 34 percent

(the NSF average success rate in 2006 was 25 percent). Unfortunately, it is difficult

to identify how many of these applications come from new Assistant Professors, and

thus hard to say- with data—how well our new faculty do, compared to more ‘seasoned’ investigators. However, there is little doubt that, as ‘paylines drop,’ junior

faculty are disproportionately affected. As competition increases, the expectation of

grant reviewers for a proven track record (e.g., publications) and substantial

amounts of preliminary data continues to rise at a dramatic rate. This puts new investigators at a decided disadvantage in the competition. This is why it is essential

that federal agencies establish funding mechanisms that are specifically directed at

new investigators. In recognition of this problem, National Institutes of Health

(NIH) Director Elias Zerhouni recently announced a new ‘‘NIH Director’s New Innovator Award’’ to support exceptionally creative new investigators who propose highly

innovative approaches that have the potential to produce an unusually high impact.’’ The NSF is an active sponsor of the Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers (PECASE), considered to be the highest national honor for investigators in the early stages of promising research careers. The University of

Washington is proud that we have received three of these PECASE awards just in

the past two years. This program recognizes the ‘cream of the crop’ of outstanding

young research scientists across the country, and is an important source of support

for these chosen few. But it does not solve the problem of how we maintain a vibrant cohort of young faculty that represent the future of academic research, but

who require research funding in their earlier years to simply survive in an increasingly competitive environment.

I encourage NSF to take additional bold steps to ensure that promising junior faculty have the opportunity to succeed. I was pleased to learn that the Committee is

considering a new NSF program that addresses this issue, entitled ‘‘Small Grants

for Exploratory Research’’—a pilot program in which excellent proposals from new

investigators that are not funded by the merit review committee can be funded for

one year, at the discretion of the program officer. This is an innovative approach

to addressing the challenge of new investigator funding. This approach does not circumvent the peer review process, yet will allow promising new investigators shortterm funding to collect critical proof of principle data that are increasingly required

to compete successfully for a full NSF award. Providing NSF staff with the authority and resources to decide which new investigators do and do not get such pilot

funding is a reasonable approach for streamlining this process. Of course, a key

issue will be, ‘‘how far the money can go.’’ Innovative new programs such as these

are going to be increasingly important to ensure that we do not lose an entire generation of young faculty in academia. Increased support for the federal research

agenda, especially NSF, is essential if our junior faculty are to establish successful

research careers in academia.

2.) Please describe your university’s relationship with local industries. How does the

university administration help connect your faculty with local business entrepreneurs

and leaders? Do you keep track of industry cost-share on NSF grants? Do you have

any suggestions as to what NSF may do differently to facilitate university/industry

partnerships at major research universities?

The Pacific Northwest has a culture of its own. Our traditional industries like

aerospace, headlined by Boeing, and resource based industries like timber and logging no longer dominate our economy. They are complemented by a dazzling array

of innovative high tech industries like Microsoft and Nintendo, iconoclastic retailers

like Costco, Nordstrom and REI and unusual prototypes businesses like Starbucks

and Amazon. There is an entrepreneurial spirit that may be attributable to the

independence of the original settlers and a premium on thinking outside the box.

Perhaps more unique but maybe more predictable, there is also a culture of collaboration which helps us to work across sectors. Businesses and the academy have always been closely tied in the Northwest and even regional governments collaborate.

The UW medical school is the medical school for five states (Washington, Wyoming,

88

Alaska, Montana and Idaho), who all got together almost four decades ago and decided to cooperate instead of compete. So they developed one top ranked Medical

School to serve everyone.

The industry leaders of the region have a huge investment in the health of the

universities. The universities, colleges and community colleges provide the next generation of thinkers, designers, and workers for these firms and provide an attractive

enticement to employees they are trying to recruit. Reciprocally, the University sees

this lively entrepreneurial environment as a recruitment tool for top faculty and students. There are many forums for university/industry engagement including participation of industry leaders on advisory boards across campus. Local business people

also sit on visiting committees in almost all of the colleges and schools. There are

numerous technology showcases such as the Northwest Entrepreneur Network as

well as the Washington Biotechnology and Biomedical Association (WBBA) and the

Washington Technology Center, which both host showcases to connect university researchers with local business leaders. The UW Office of Technology Transfer is active in the local business community and sponsors a program called LaunchPad

where experts recruited from the business community mentor faculty on start up

opportunities. The Seattle World Trade Center also serves as a facilitator for introductions on a case by case basis. The UW Office of Research has also set up an industry portal for easier access to its treasury of information.

The Board of Regents of the UW is appointed by the Governor and has always

included major industry and community leaders in its number (e.g., we have had

members of the Gates family on our board long before Bill Gates was in high

school). Our relationship with local industries is healthy because we are viewed as

part of the community. More than 200 companies have been spawned by the UW

and many of those stayed right in the area. Our former students and some current

faculty are researchers at Microsoft and vice versa. Our President, Mark Emmert,

and his administration work closely with community leaders through a number of

different networks, the Puget Sound Partnership, the Washington Technology Alliance, the Washington Biomedical and Biotech Alliance and others.

We are fortunate to be in a community that cares. Our strongest connection with

industry is through our students who join local work forces and continue to have

ties to the campus. The UW administration works on a policy level to make connections with industry. The actual affiliations on the project level are conducted

through faculty and an informal communication network. Our faculty are extremely

entrepreneurial themselves and we have more than 1071 agreements for research

with industry. Although we do not keep track of industry cost sharing on federal

grants on a regular basis, we do track contributions when they are articulated as

part of a grant proposal, as in the Engineering Research Center or Science Technology Center grants and others.

We feel the most effective partnership with industry and NSF is exemplified by

our Engineering Research Center (ERC). In this case there is support from both industry and Federal Government and a sharing of the goals and objectives of the program. Issues are negotiated at the outset and there is a lively exchange and participation with all sectors. Through this type of mechanism, we are able to overcome

the difficulties inherent in multi partner arrangements, namely, rights to information and data, control of direction of research and potential conflicts of interest

which could interfere with reporting of research results. The ERC model is tried and

true.

3.) What is the appropriate balance between funding for interdisciplinary and disciplinary research? What models or frameworks for interdisciplinary research seem

to work best at your university? Is NSF doing a sufficient job of publicizing opportunities for funding of interdisciplinary proposals to your faculty?

In keeping with our culture of collaboration, the UW has a long history of interdisciplinary research. We like to think we are the great university we are today because our faculties have always talked within the UW and across the boundaries

of disciplines. This may be due to the splendid isolation of our geography or our

often soggy climate, but our various faculties have always talked a lot to each other

rather than exclusively to their disciplinary counterparts at other places. There is

a t-shirt about Seattle that summarizes the phenomena. ‘‘Seattle: Cool, Caffeinated

and Connected.’’

This expectation of collaboration and synergy has resulted in more internal receptivity to unusual organizational arrangements and more flexible structures for creating new interdisciplinary departments and relationships. Typically, the actual

projects are developed from the faculty rather than in response to external stimuli

though we are always attuned to calls for proposals from sponsors, and the Provost’s

office often brings folks together to explore concepts. The UW Department of BioVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:48 Oct 12, 2007 Jkt 034012 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\R&SE07\032007\34012A SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
89

engineering for example, is the oldest one in the country by a decade. We have just

formed a Department of Global Health one of the first in the Nation, which is a

joint department between two Schools (Medicine and Public Health) and involves

jointly appointed faculty from numerous other departments across the University.

There are not always federal funding counterparts to our new hybrid departments,

so the challenge becomes one of characterizing the work in terms of the advances

that will be made in each of the several disciplines. We are aware of the Congressional and NSF efforts to encourage funding for interdisciplinary work and we applaud it.

We also feel the federal experiments with multi agency joint projects are very important. For example, the University of Washington is home to the Pacific Northwest Center for Human Health and Oceans Sciences and along with three others

is funded jointly with NSF and NIEHS (National Institute for Environmental

Health and Safety) dollars. This is the first time these two agencies have joined

forces and the Centers are tackling the new area of oceans and human health. One

sample of the work is looking at gene environment interactions where both ocean

scientists and human health researchers look at genetic diversity and environmental exposures or conditions to define response and mechanisms. The National

Academies report entitled Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research, 2005 (http://

www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record¥id=11153) gives a good roadmap for future interactions. Our project works well because both agencies have a commitment to basic

science and that is proving to be key.

Putting transdisciplinary teams together to do BIG science is rewarding but the

challenges administratively are formidable. Our embattled researchers suggest that

the two very different grant mechanisms and cultural approaches should be recognized and more flexible administrative structures be improvised. The process for applying for projects which cross more than one agency are very cumbersome and discouraging. It would help to have a uniform process in the Federal Government so

if we must make duplicate proposals to several agencies for the same project, that

at least we could use the same forms and some shared expectations.

As for the balance between interdisciplinary work and disciplinary research, it is

a healthy tension. There is no question that the work of individuals advancing their

unique disciplines forms the pillars of any interdisciplinary structure. We cannot

forsake the individual investigator grant. It is also a way for young investigators

to prove their value to an interdisciplinary team. Interdisciplinary work moves

many disciplines forward and affords a new look at problems; a look with many different types of tools or skill sets but it will always be limited by the quality of the

individuals represented. Because of the advent of new tools, like advanced computing, the borders between a lot of disciplines are disappearing or reconfiguring.

This is an important time to use the new enabling technologies to explore and it

probably warrants an explosion of interdisciplinary work. But each generation of investigators needs an opportunity to make a contribution at the disciplinary level

and these grants must remain the core of the portfolio.

A possible mechanism to support junior researchers and create interdisciplinary

ties would be to provide funds to supplement existing interdisciplinary projects for

the purpose of adding a junior investigator, analogous to the way the NSF ‘‘Research Experience of Undergraduate’’ program funds opportunities for undergraduate research to existing projects.

4.) Please describe the process by which undergraduate science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) curricula at your university are reviewed and updated

as necessary in response to shifting paradigms in these fields. What role does NSF

play in this process? Do you have any suggestions as to what NSF may do differently

to assist universities in maintaining world class undergraduate STEM education?

At the UW we have a commitment at the highest level to ensuring students who

attend this research university reap the benefit of the research environment by participating in the research experience. The UW reports undergraduate engagement

in research with faculty as one of our institutional accountability measures to our

state legislature. This past academic year, we counted more than 4,000 studentquarters of intensive research (10 or more hours a week). Each Department at the

University determines how it will incorporate experiential learning into its curriculum. In addition, we engage in a wide range of outreach programs to teachers

and students in the community. Through funding from the Carnegie Corporation

under their ‘‘Teachers for a New Era’’ initiative, science faculty in the College of

Arts and Sciences are working with colleagues in the College of Education and local

schools to develop a new Integrated Science undergraduate degree program that will

be especially suitable for future secondary science teachers. Our existing science deVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:48 Oct 12, 2007 Jkt 034012 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\R&SE07\032007\34012A SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
90

gree programs are too specialized for many future teachers, and in turn many teachers do not have a sufficient science background. This program will fill the gap.

Regarding the incorporation of new disciplinary paradigms in core curricula, all

departments are reviewed every 10 years, more often if the review raises important

issues. At the time of review, both the undergraduate and graduate curricula are

examined by both internal faculty and outside experts in the field. While this is the

primary formal process for curricula review, most departments or programs review

their curricula on a more frequent basis. Indeed, whenever a faculty member retires,

or a new faculty member is hired, an opportunity is created to rethink how departmental or program curricular offerings should change to suit changes in the field.

For most large departments, this happens on an almost yearly basis. NSF does not

play a role in this process. Also, the fact that our faculties are actively engaged in

research and teaching facilitates the transfer of research related discovery to the

classroom independent of the formal structures for establishing curriculum.

The role and responsibility of NSF in STEM education and program evaluation

is not clear. I would associate myself with the Association of American Universities

(AAU) comments on the NSF strategic plan: ‘‘. . .an important area for improvement in the plan is how NSF defines its role in this area. AAU would encourage NSF

to define more precisely its specific role and responsibilities in the training and education of our nation’s future scientists and engineers at all education levels. This includes clarifying how its role is both unique and complementary to that of other federal agencies such as the U.S. Department of Education. We feel that this plan provides an opportunity for the NSF to clearly define its role in education and that the

draft plan as written does not take full advantage of that opportunity.’’

One way for the NSF to ensure that undergraduate STEM curricula include leading edge research is to continue to support programs that fund this kind of work.

For example, the NSF course, ‘‘Curriculum and Laboratory Improvement’’ (CCLI) offers funding to faculty who wish to develop innovative curriculum in STEM. One

such grant at UW is to Professor Mari Ostendorf to improve a teaching lab for systems courses in Electrical Engineering. The NSF ‘‘Science, Technology Engineering

and Mathematics Talent Expansion Program’’ (STEP) provides funding to faculty

and staff who wish to increase the number of undergraduate majors receiving STEM

degrees. It is a program that promotes student professional development and curricular improvement by providing financial resources to institutions. Our college of

Engineering has a collaborative STEP grant with Washington State University to

work with four Washington state community colleges (Seattle Central, Highline, Columbia Basin and Yakima Valley) to increase the number of students transferring

to the four year institutions to receive engineering degrees. The NSF grants process

encourages, and often requires, a focus on educational mission. However, it would

be especially useful if NSF were to provide grants to individual faculty that would

provide them release time to update and improve undergraduate courses. Support

for graduate Teaching Assistants, which are often paid at lower levels than graduate assistants, would also help to improve undergraduate education, both directly

in terms of the courses they Teaching Assist (TA) for, and indirectly by providing

future researchers teaching experience. Grants for updating and improving undergraduate laboratories would also be extremely helpful, as this is becoming increasingly expensive.

On a related STEM Ed issue, we do feel that the NSF Math and Science Partnerships (MSP) program is best positioned in the NSF where scientists feel welcome

and in charge of the activity; where the science or math expert dominates the process. We have observed that the passion to pursue the disciplines is better transferred from those professing it. We also feel it is ironic that at a time when the administration is advocating increases in STEM education, the budget proposals for

the NSF Education and Human Resources (EHR) budget have lagged behind the

rest of the Foundation.

GRADUATE STUDENTS

I am remiss that my testimony has advanced this far with the peculiar absence

of two key terms: graduate students and post-doctoral fellows. To talk about research and leave out the energy that fuels the laboratories and teaching of science

and engineering in the United States is a glaring error and I will remedy it. Neither

group makes policy or is the Principal Investigator (PI) on grants but the success

of any research policy or the performance of any laboratory is dependent on these

warriors in the battle of discovery. The frustration of new faculty in their quest for

grants is amplified as they have to find funds to support students. Recruitment and

retention of faculty is highly linked to the support of graduate students. Nearly all

of our new assistant professors say that the single most important issue they face

is recruiting excellent graduate students. The most common model of support for

91

graduate students, as Research Assistants on research grants, does not support enriching rotations and interdisciplinary research. We need to find ways to encourage

that through auxiliary funding streams. Further, the NSF policy of five year non

renewable graduate training grants moves money away from potential successful

formulations of mentorship and interdisciplinary work. Long-term support to broad

inclusive graduate programs is needed. The programs that do exist, such as the

IGERT (Interdisciplinary Graduate Education Research and Training) program,

should be expanded.

THE PARTNERSHIP

The University of Washington shares the fundamental research mission and education mission of the NSF. In FY 2006, UW researchers performed $989.70 million

in sponsored research, most of it funded by the Federal Government. Of the federal

total, NSF is the second largest federal contributor to the UW research enterprise

and contributes approximately 10 percent to the total amount, and every directorate

is represented. In every discipline we are partnered with the Federal Government.

In FY 2006, UW received 587 grant awards from the NSF, totaling approximately

$94 million dollars. These awards were directed by 378 different UW faculty (Principal Investigators) and included an additional 432 as co-investigators, thus providing partial support for over 800 UW faculty researchers. In addition, NSF grants

support hundreds of post doctoral fellows, graduate students, and undergraduate

student researchers.

Because the Foundation and the University have mutual missions they have

formed a partnership that serves the Nation in important ways. We are appreciative

of the work of this committee in particular in advancing the recommendations of

the National Academies report ‘‘Rising Above the Gathering Storm.’’ The report

raises national issues that must be addressed. It will require the achievement of

delicate balances in order to accomplish our shared goals. These balances represent

tensions on a variety of levels; between large multi-disciplinary grants and grants

to individual researchers; between seasoned and meritorious researchers and their

junior brethren; between the forces that draw math, science and engineering graduates away from teaching leaving a disproportionate number of our K–12 teachers

of math and science without strong disciplinary training in these critical fields. Balances between the involvement of industry in setting the research agenda and the

need for unfettered exploration also need to be addressed. There are balances on the

procedural level as well. These are expressed in the need of NSF program officers

to stretch dollars, sometimes forcing funding decisions down to the campus level and

sometimes creating a dynamic which impairs the partnership and the purposes of

peer review.

INFRASTRUCTURE

I am encouraged by the Chairman’s intention to increase the investment in infrastructure. It is appropriate to review the investment in facilities and instrumentation as the Chairman recommends in H.R. 1067. I believe the ‘‘Major Research Instrumentation’’ (MRI) program should have an accelerated rate of increase, beyond

the administration’s contemplated increase in the size and number of individual

awards. This is an age where the tools for science have become the science in almost

every discipline. The manipulation of large complex databases is revolutionizing

every field and the scramble for funds to pay for the development of the next generation of instrumentation for research and research training is enormous. It is appropriate not only that NSF sponsor and adjudicate the resources but also that

there be a sufficient pool of funds to reflect the importance of instrumentation to

success in science. The NSF initiative for ‘‘Cyber-enabled Discovery and Innovation’’

(CDI) is also one of the cross cutting programs that is essential in this environment.

The scope and breadth of the University of Washington research portfolio means

we are involved significantly in many of the Major Research Equipment and Facilities Constructions (MREFC) efforts supported by the Foundation. In fact, we watch

expectantly as the Ocean Observation Initiative moves through the MREFC python.

The undersea laboratory component will be constructed out our front door, on the

Juan de Fuca tectonic plate in the North East Pacific, and we have made considerable investments as an institution in the development of this initiative. The science

that is anticipated is sublime. It will involve oceanographers of course, but also marine biologists, seismologists, geologists, vulcanologists, fish scientists,

astrobiologists, civil, mechanical and computer engineers, robotics specialists and

computer scientists of all stripes and more. Real data in real time streaming from

the bottom of the sea onto the world wide web to fuel hundreds of scientific minds

and inspire generations of curious students; the scale of this project is hard to fathom, but the NSF and a phalanx of scientists from around the country will get it

92

done with the help of Congress. Exploring the bottom of the sea is an extraordinary

frontier for science and for future scientists who will be inspired by it at an early

age.

Money is the issue. There are many extraordinary projects in the MREFC queue.

Congress needs to stay committed to advancing the program despite the demands

to spend money elsewhere. These are investments in the future and should not be

viewed as simple expenditures or short-term fixes.

POLICY AND PROCEDURAL ISSUES

There are some policy and procedural matters that I would like to raise with regard to some existing programs, particularly those that focus on building infrastructure, broaden participation, improve educational opportunities or support the development of multi-disciplinary centers or multi institutional partnerships. In particular, we are concerned about the limitation on the number of proposals that may

be submitted to over thirty of such NSF programs. When large institutions with

strength in an area targeted by the program are allotted the same number of proposals as small institutions, or institutions without strength in the program, it is

inevitable that the program is not receiving all of the top proposals. An example of

the problem is the IGERT (Interdisciplinary Graduate Education Research and

Training) program. This is an excellent program, fostering novel interdisciplinary

training programs and the development of new curricula to address pressing national problems. However, institutions such as the UW that have a strong track

record in developing such programs are allowed the same number of submissions

as other institutions that do not have the same capabilities. Currently, four proposals are allowed, which are reviewed at various Directorates and the best are chosen for submission of full proposals. However, the institutional limit for full proposals is only two, creating the difficult situation that at the UW, when more than

two are picked for full proposals, the institution must withdraw a pre-proposal that

was judged by peers to be highly meritorious. By this process, NSF is eliminating

some of the strongest possible proposals. This is especially true if the pre-proposals

that were selected are in different areas of research (e.g., different directorates).

In addition, at larger institutions priorities are normally set based on impact,

which often scales with the numbers of faculty and/or the number of students.

Therefore, traditionally smaller areas tend to not be as well represented as areas

that are larger. An example is Geosciences, which at most institutions is one of

these smaller areas. However, it is extremely important for emerging environmental

problems. In general, for programs such as the IGERT program, these disciplines

tend to not make the final cut of the top four which we would send as pre-proposals

because of the scale. We recommend that NSF should limit the number of programs

for which small (1–2) institutional limits are imposed to those that require especially onerous review, such as centers or other programs that require site visits. In

cases in which limits are imposed on pre-proposals, any pre-proposal chosen by peer

review should be allowed to be submitted as a full proposal. If it is deemed important to impose total programmatic limits, then larger institutions should have a

scaled limit, according to either total faculty size or NSF funding.

One other procedural matter presents public institutions with a particular problem. The issue of institutional matching funds was addressed in recent years as

schools worked with the NSF Director and the National Science Board (NSB) and

even the Congress to stop the escalating bidding wars that went on in some NSF

programs. Program directors attempting to husband their scarce resources would

launch rivalries among highly ranked proposers to provide institutional matching

funds to make the proposal more attractive to the officer. The NSF director issued

directions to stop the practice, and the NSB stated that no matching was required.

The practice has re-emerged as the language stating that no match was required

is being interpreted as not required but voluntary. State supported institutions cannot use public funds to support federal projects. We would like to see the practice

of pitting PIs against their institution stopped.

Despite these difficulties, the NSF-University partnership is extraordinary. The

Foundation has always been a model of administrative efficiency and manages an

extraordinary portfolio of some 350 programs. Nearly half of the NSF workforce consists of scientists and engineers, all leaders in their fields who are among the 1,300

involved in the processing and management of research awards. Adequate funding

for operations and award management, particularly in the information technology

field is critical to the agency functioning as efficiently as possible. While the overall

research budget appears to be on an upward growth path, funding for operating expenses has remained essentially flat. As mentioned earlier, we have been submitting

a lot more proposals and this is probably replicated by other like institutions. The

collaborations with other schools and across agencies require a lot more human inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:48 Oct 12, 2007 Jkt 034012 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\R&SE07\032007\34012A SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
93

volvement at the Foundation level. NSF, like the Universities it serves, depends on

top quality staff and that means favorable employment environments. We support

increases for NSF infrastructure.

In closing, I would like to observe that science has moved from behind the scenes

to the center of the stage in terms of helping our nation to stay competitive. We

need to harness the human potential in every American kid and facilitate the efforts

of those who do choose careers in research by streamlining the processes and making them more accessible. This is a huge task at a time when the Nation’s coffers

are depleted but given American ingenuity, the National Science Foundation, the

Nation’s research universities and some help from Congress, we can get it done. I

appreciate the opportunity to present my views and I offer my help in any way to

assist the Committee.

BIOGRAPHY FOR PHYLLIS M. WISE

Phyllis M. Wise became Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs at the

University of Washington, on August 1, 2005. As the University’s chief academic

and budgetary officer, the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs provides

leadership in educational and curriculum development, formulation and allocation

of budget and space, long-range strategic planning, and management of the University’s research programs. She serves as deputy to the President and provides advice

and assistance to him and to the Deans and the faculty in these matters.

Wise, who is a Professor of Physiology and Biophysics, Biology, and Obstetrics and

Gynecology at the University of Washington, previously served as Dean of the College of Biological Sciences at the University of California at Davis, from 2002 to

2005. Prior to that, she was Professor and Chair of the Department of Physiology

at the University of Kentucky in Lexington from 1993 to 2002. Wise was a faculty

member at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, from 1976 to 1993, promoting

through the ranks to Full Professor of Physiology in 1987.

She holds a Bachelor’s degree (1967) from Swarthmore College in biology and a

doctorate (1972) degree in zoology from the University of Michigan.

Provost Wise continues an active research program in issues concerning women’s

health and gender-based biology. She has been particularly interested in whether

hormones influence brains of women and men during development, during adulthood and during aging. She has been involved in the discussion of whether males

and females have different strategies in learning and memory and whether this may

make them more suited for some careers as opposed to others. She has been continuously funded by the NIH for over 25 years and has received two MERIT

Awards, which provide funding for innovative research over a 10-year period of

time.

She has served on a number of scientific advisory committees, including NIH

study sections, NIA Advisory Council, the NIH Advisory Committee on Research on

Women’s Health, the advisory board for the Oregon Regional Primate Center, the

advisory board of the University of Michigan Nathan Shock Center for Biological

Aging, the Kronos Research Foundation Board of Directors, the Buck Institute

Board of Directors the Allen Brain Institute and the Bullitt Foundation.

Wise was featured in Parade Magazine cover story on ‘‘The Quiet Heroes’’ engaged

in lifesaving research. She has received many awards, and is particularly proud of

those that have acknowledged her lifelong dedication to mentoring students and junior investigators, particularly women. She received the Excellence in Science from

the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology in 2002, and the

Women in Endocrinology Mentor Award in 2003.

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you, Dr. Wise. Dr. Hunt.

STATEMENT OF DR. CATHERINE T. HUNT, PRESIDENT,

AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY

Dr. HUNT. Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. Good afternoon. As President of the American Chemical Society, it is my great pleasure to

be here on behalf of our 160,000 members.

As you are keenly aware, the United States faces unprecedented

challenges with economic and technological leadership from global

competitors who are investing heavily in research and education.

94

Today, the NSF provides about one fifth of all federal funding in

support of basic research in America’s colleges and universities.

Chairman BAIRD. Dr. Hunt, is your mike on? Or maybe swing it

a little bit. That sounds——

Dr. HUNT. How about now?

Chairman BAIRD. Yeah, that is much better. Thank you.

Dr. HUNT. Okay. So, maybe I will just stretch back just a bit.

On behalf of our more than 160,000 members, I am pleased to

be here today.

As you are keenly aware, the United States faces unprecedented

challenges to its economic and technological leadership from global

competitors who are heavily investing in education and research.

Today, the NSF provides about one fifth of all federal funding in

support of basic research at colleges and universities in America.

The Foundation also plays an essential role in addressing challenges in the area of STEM education.

The NSF, likewise, has been given the challenging mission of

promoting science on a broad basis, and bridging the gulf between

scientific advances and public understanding. I also have submitted

a written statement for the record, and welcome the chance to offer

a few observations on how NSF can achieve its goals over the next

five years.

I would first like to address the question of how NSF might take

a more active role in cultivating the new generations of scientific

innovators. Young minds with fresh ideas are essential to advancing our understanding of science. So, it is of paramount importance

that we give young investigators ample opportunities to compete

for the funding they need, to establish research programs in academe and elsewhere.

We applaud the Committee for advancing legislation recently

that would strengthen the NSF Career Program by linking its

funding to the overall science budget, the NSF budget, so that as

NSF grows, so will its support of young investigators. Unfortunately, as NSF’s budget has remained flat over the last several

years, we have seen a marked increase in competition between established researchers and young investigators.

One reason our members have strongly supported the American

Competitiveness Initiative and other efforts to bolster our innovative capacity is that by increasing the size of the grant pool, we will

avoid, if you will pardon the analogy, robbing Peter to pay Paul.

In reality, we need to support both Peter and Paul if we intend to

keep producing the tremendous array of innovations that keep our

country competitive.

I am delighted that the budget resolution on the House floor

today would provide a significant boost to our investments in research and education, and thanks to the many Members of the

Committee that have worked with the House leadership to make

this happen.

Let me now turn to NSF’s role in fostering improvements in

STEM education. I begin by stating clearly that we must set aside

any notion that NSF’s education programs are either subservient

to or in competition with its research programs. NSF’s education

and research missions are mutually supportive. NSF is uniquely

95

situated to bridge the gap between scientific and education communities, from the K-12 level to graduate school and beyond.

NSF’s role should be to expand our knowledgebase, by providing

the answers to the tough questions we wrestle with in STEM education, like how to best train struggling teachers, how to outfit the

best possible science laboratories, and how to hook more of the best

and brightest young minds on careers in science.

In responding to the STEM education challenge, we need to do

what this country has done so well, assemble a world-class research effort at NSF with the resources necessary to produce real

progress. Last year, ACS supported a provision in the Senate’s

broad competitiveness package that would require that funding increases in NSF’s Education and Human Resources Directorate be

proportional to overall increases in the Foundation budget. This

way, as NSF grows, under the proposed American Competitiveness

Initiative, research and education will grow together.

We understand that the Committee is now contemplating a similar provision for NSF’s undergraduate programs, a step we enthusiastically support. NSF also needs to be more effectively organized

to facilitate interdisciplinary research. As rapid scientific advances

have opened new arenas and blurred the boundaries between traditional disciplines. An increasing number of chemists now work in

areas that may not even have been considered chemistry as little

as a decade ago.

A theme we emphasize at the ACS is that chemistry is an enabling science, meaning that breakthroughs in chemistry provide a

foundation for the many advances we see in other fields, or to

quote the former NIH Director, Harold Varmus: ‘‘Medical advances

may seem like wizardry, but pull back the curtain, and sitting at

the lever is a high energy physicist, a combinatorial chemist, or an

engineer.’’ This is also true of faster computers, the explosion of

nanotechnology, and batteries for hybrid cars, all examples of the

interdisciplinary nature of chemistry.

Today’s grand challenges of energy independence, national security, and improved health care, will require sustainable solutions.

Such solutions will be found through a collaborative and interdisciplinary paradigm, a paradigm that NSF can help develop and

drive. NSF doesn’t necessarily need to create a new program to

deal with this particular aspect of the research enterprise. One avenue of progress could be to broaden the backgrounds of NSF’s various review panels, advisory boards, and program officers.

When I am not serving in my role as President of the American

Chemical Society, my day job is Leader of Technology Partnerships

at the Rohm & Haas Company. The corporate environment has

placed a great premium on research that yields results in the

shortest time possible, so must industry research is of the applied

variety, and typically focuses on projects that yield near-term commercialization. Since NSF is a primary source of basic research

funding, it makes sense for industry to partner in a symbiotic way

with the NSF and its university grantees on projects that leverage

benefits from both the applied and the basic sides of the research

house.

We understand that the Committee is considering a change to

NSF’s merit criteria that would give special consideration to proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:48 Oct 12, 2007 Jkt 034012 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\R&SE07\032007\34012A SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
96

posals that include partnerships between academic researchers and

industrial scientists. That focus on areas that are specifically identified to improve our economic competitiveness, and the ACS supports such efforts as a means to encourage more industrial collaborations.

So, in conclusion, I would like to thank the Subcommittee for the

opportunity to represent the views of the American Chemical Society and the scientific community here today. We have been deeply

engaged in this debate about the future of American competitiveness, and we plan to see it through.

We thank you for taking swift action to ensure NSF has the tools

to play its part. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Hunt follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. CATHERINE T. HUNT

Introduction

Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and distinguished Members of the

Subcommittee:

Good afternoon.

As President of the American Chemical Society, or ACS, it is my great pleasure

to address the Committee on behalf of our more than 160,000 members as you consider reauthorization of the National Science Foundation (NSF).

Our Society was congressionally chartered in 1937 to advance chemistry in all its

branches, promote scientific research and inquiry, and foster public welfare and education. We have long been strong supporters of the National Science Foundation, an

agency of particular importance at this critical time in our nation’s history.

As the Members of this committee are keenly aware, the United States faces

threats to its economic and technological leadership from countries that have made

monumental investments in educating their workforces as well as investing in research and development—thus becoming emerging and growing innovation incubators—with the result that they are capitalizing on international economic and intellectual investment.

Our heretofore unmatched capacity to innovate—to create new products and processes, markets, and industries that change the world—depends on three critical and

interdependent elements:

• Novel new ideas that flow from a strong, diverse, basic research enterprise;

• A creative, well-trained, and determined workforce; and

• An environment that not only fosters, but facilitates, an innovation pipeline

that moves ideas from conceptualization, to invention to market.

The NSF is unique amongst federal research agencies in that it broadly supports

science and engineering—across all disciplines. The history of this unique mission

is instructive to our consideration about the future of the agency. NSF grew out of

the international and global challenges of the mid 20th century.

Allow me to quote from NSF: A Brief History, a 1994 report that detailed the formation and history of the Foundation:

President Truman signed the bill creating the National Science Foundation on

May 10, 1950. The act provided for a National Science Board of twenty-four

part-time members and a Director as chief executive officer, all appointed by the

president. Among other things, the law directed the agency to encourage and develop a national policy for the promotion of basic research and education in the

mathematical, physical, medical, biological, engineering, and other sciences; to

initiate and support basic scientific research in the sciences; and to evaluate the

scientific research programs undertaken by agencies of the Federal Government.

Organizationally, the Foundation could create whatever divisions were necessary

to carry out its activities, but the act specified that four divisions had to be included: medical research; mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences; biological sciences; and scientific personnel and education. The latter division was

responsible for scholarships and graduate fellowships.

It took five years of debate between Congress, the Truman Administration, and

the scientific community to establish an agency that truly supports the scientific enterprise in the United States by focusing concurrently on broad support for research

97

and university science and for science education. NSF and its unique mission are

equally relevant today as the agency plays a central role in our national response

to the innovation challenges of the 21st Century.

NSF provides about one-fifth of all federal funding in support of basic research

at America’s colleges and universities. The Foundation also plays an absolutely essential role in addressing challenges in the area of science, technology, engineering,

and mathematics (or ‘‘STEM’’) education from kindergarten through graduate school

and beyond.

The NSF has also been charged with the highly important and extremely challenging mission of promoting science on a broad basis and bridging the gulf between

scientific advances and public understanding.

A hardworking and entrepreneurial American workforce, coupled with aggressive

federal and private investment in scientific and technological research has achieved

such notable milestones as sending a man to the moon, harnessing the atom and

sequencing the human genome. These achievements, as well as reams of other examples, have long supported the economic underpinnings of the U.S. economy that

is the envy of the world.

But our future economic leadership is not something we can take for granted. As

the much quoted National Academies Gathering Storm report warns, we need to redouble our efforts to revitalize our science, technology, engineering and mathematics

(STEM) education system to generate future innovators, while at the same time

making a parallel investment in our federal research and development capabilities

to serve as the incubator to bring new ideas and innovations to fruition.

Education and research and development go hand-in-hand as among the most important pillars of American innovation that can sustain our global competitiveness.

NSF has a vitally important role to play in both education and research and development, especially in the years ahead as we rise to meet the unprecedented

threats to our global economic strength and competitiveness. With these grand challenges in mind, I welcome this chance to offer our Society’s observations on a few

of the key opportunities that NSF can pursue to achieve its overall goals during the

next five years.

Cultivating Young Investigators

I turn first to the question of how NSF might take a more active role in developing our future scientific excellence by supporting young investigators—our nation’s future innovators.

We applaud the Committee for taking action last month to advance legislation related to this specific topic. The ‘‘Sowing the Seeds through Science and Engineering

Research Act,’’ H.R. 363, would strengthen the NSF CAREER grant program by

tying CAREER grant funding to the overall NSF budget—so that as NSF grows, so

will its commitment to support young investigators—and also by helping universities better identify and target the needs of young investigators.

It has never been a great secret that young minds with fresh ideas are essential

to advancing our understanding of science, so it is of paramount importance that

we ensure that new investigators have good opportunities to compete for funding to

enable them to establish their research programs in academe and elsewhere.

We have long supported efforts by the Committee and others to expand the NSF

CAREER grant program, which targets resources for young investigators. CAREER

grants are clearly one of the best mechanisms for giving young investigators a

chance to compete against their peers for vital early support funding.

Unfortunately, as the overall research budget for the physical sciences and NSF

in particular has been effectively flat over the last several years—at least until very

recently—it has forced an unfortunate competition between more established researchers and new young investigators for grants, with the result that many new

investigators are finding it often difficult—and sometimes impossible—to the find

the funding necessary to establish innovative research programs of their own.

One reason that the American Chemical Society has strongly supported the American Competitiveness Initiative and other efforts that recognize the critical link between support for basic scientific research activities and our future economic competitiveness is that by increasing the size of the grant pool for research in general,

we avoid—pardon the analogy—robbing ‘‘Peter’’ to pay ‘‘Paul.’’

In reality we need to support both ‘‘Peter’’ and ‘‘Paul’’ if we intend for our country

to keep producing the tremendous array of innovations that will keep our economy

growing in the decades to come.

We have also come to understand that while most young investigators are

equipped with cutting edge technical and research skills, they are often poorly prepared for their teaching responsibilities and frequently ill-equipped to deal with the

98

‘‘non-research’’ tasks that they must take on, including grant writing and other essential academic endeavors.

One project supported by the American Chemical Society in this area is the Preparing Future Faculty (PFF) Program, which was started in 1993 as a partnership

between the Council of Graduate Schools and the Association of American Colleges

and Universities (AAC&U) and funded in part through an NSF grant.

The PFF program, which now reaches more than 300 partner colleges and universities, has helped increase our understanding of the expectations of new faculty with

regard to teaching, research, and university service are often at odds with the skills

that doctoral graduates have developed during their two decades of educational experience. Several years ago, the original PFF partners teamed up with the American

Chemical Society and other professional societies to participate in an NSF funded

extension of PFF to create a ‘‘Shaping the Preparation of Future Science and Mathematics Faculty’’ program at five universities across the country. This latest project

brings large research universities and smaller colleges into partnerships that provide an environment for graduate students to learn about the full range of faculty

roles and responsibilities in teaching, research and service.

What we are hoping to achieve is a better understanding of how to prepare future

faculty in the inter-related chemistry, physics, mathematics, and computer science

fields to be successful researchers. We encourage NSF to continue to support

projects like this that deal with the ‘‘human capital’’ side of the young investigator

equation.

But well prepared new faculty will not help power the engine of American innovation without the means to bring their creative ideas into reality—and for this we

must address the funding side of the equation as I have emphasized already.

Improving K–12 STEM Education

I would like to touch now on NSF’s role in fostering improvements in STEM education at the K–12 and university level.

Let me state clearly that NSF must recognize that its educational mission is every

bit as important to the Nation’s future as its research mission.

We must set aside any notion that NSF’s education programs are either subservient to or stand in competition with its research programs. NSF’s education and

research missions are mutually supportive, and play key, unique roles in building

our nation’s scientific and technological capacity.

Last year, we supported a provision in the Senate’s broad competitiveness package that would require funding increases in NSF’s Education and Human Resources

(EHR) Directorate that are proportional to the overall increase in the Foundation’s

budget, so that as NSF’s resources grow under the proposed American Competitiveness Initiative, research and education will grow together.

It is our understanding that the Committee is contemplating a similar provision

while reauthorizing NSF’s undergraduate education programs, a step that our Society enthusiastically supports.

One way that the American Chemical Society promotes excellence in chemistry

education for undergraduate students is through our approval of college and university chemistry programs. Graduates from ACS-certified programs must often complete requirements that exceed those of the degree-granting institution. The certified degree program establishes that the student has completed an integrated, rigorous program that includes laboratory experience and the development of the professional skills needed to be an effective chemist. In addition to the direct benefits

to students, the university program approval process provides a mechanism for departments to evaluate their program, identify areas of strength and opportunities

for change, and leverage support from their institutions and external agencies.

Given the tremendous complexity of the educational challenges our country faces,

I cannot emphasize strongly enough that NSF is uniquely situated as the agency

best-suited to bridge the distance between the scientific and education communities.

If, in responding to the math and science challenge our nation faces, we do not take

full advantage of the unique strengths of NSF, we will be making a mistake.

There are many government agencies that play vital roles in math and science

education, but the National Science Foundation should play the lead role. There is

little doubt that NSF is one of the premier research institutions in the world, or

that maintaining this position is a point of pride for the Foundation. I think it

should also proudly hold the title of being the world’s leader in educational innovation, helping future scientists more effectively deliver scientific knowledge to eager

young minds.

In order to achieve this, we must expand our research efforts in science and math

education. We need new technologies, new curricula, new resources and content materials, and most of all, new thinking on this subject. In other words, we need to

99

leverage what NSF does best—expand our knowledge base by funding the best possible educational research. The Nation has an ongoing need for research and innovation in math and science education, because, as we extend scientific and mathematical knowledge, develop new instructional technologies and uncover more about

human learning, we must apply this new information to improve student learning.

Creating the world’s best classrooms, teacher preparation programs and science

learning methods is going to require a structured, focused research effort on a fairly

large scale. We do not know what will work best in every U.S. classroom.

Education, in general, and math and science education in particular, is a very

complex undertaking involving a large number of variables. Therefore, we need to

do what this country does so well: assemble a world-class research effort at NSF

with the resources necessary to produce real progress in an area of national importance.

NSF must clearly be the lead agency in undertaking this crucial research task.

On Interdisciplinary Research

I would now like to address the subject of interdisciplinary research. Let me start

by pointing out something that is obvious among chemists, but may be less so outside of our discipline: The field of chemistry has dramatically changed—and it is

still changing.

An increasing number of chemists now work in areas that previously were beyond

our normal scope and might not have even been considered chemistry as little as

a decade ago. The rapid science and technology advances of the last few years have

not only opened new arenas, but the boundaries between traditional disciplines have

blurred. This presents new challenges to research agencies that are tasked to identify and support the best science—which has traditionally been found along clear

disciplinary lines.

Today’s studies are leading to new fundamental discoveries and an expansion of

the boundaries of molecular science that has given way to a bewildering increase

in the need to comprehend and integrate information and techniques across diverse

disciplines.

A theme we emphasize at the American Chemical Society is that chemistry is an

‘‘enabling science’’—the idea that breakthroughs in chemistry underpin many of the

advances we see in other fields. Faster computers, the explosion of nanotechnology

and batteries for hybrid cars are prominent examples of this.

To quote former National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director and Nobel Laureate

Harold Varmus: ‘‘Medical advances may seem like wizardry. But pull back the curtain, and sitting at the lever is a high-energy physicist, a combinatorial chemist, or

an engineer.’’

Thus, the grand challenges of today-energy, food, water, security, health care—

are interrelated and interdependent. These challenges will require strong collaborations between scientists and engineers in universities, industry, and national laboratories—and they will require us to focus on sustainable solutions. However, this

emerging collaborative, interdisciplinary and sustainability paradigm for scientific

endeavors is still relatively new.

In 2005, our Society conducted a comprehensive survey of its members that identified ‘‘continuing education in emerging and interdisciplinary fields’’ and ‘‘programs

to encourage greater collaboration among chemists internationally; across disciplines; and across industrial, academic, and government’’ as two high priorities

from a diverse list of more than 13 different proposed new initiatives. These subjects

barely registered in a similar 2001 survey.

As the importance of such interdisciplinary research continues to increase, the scientific grant system must adapt to this new paradigm.

The challenge of the federal research agencies will be in moving toward a grant

structure that maximizes scientific advances by supporting interdisciplinary research. Currently this is done by establishing initiatives at the borders of disciplines, which provides a new set of limitations to replace the traditional disciplinary boundaries.

The most effective way to support basic research, particularly in chemistry, is the

individual-investigator or small-team grant. Any solution to the challenge of promoting interdisciplinarity must preserve the strength of that mechanism, which traditionally has considered and awarded grants along disciplinary lines. This will require a long-term concerted effort and considerable patience.

We encourage NSF to watch the NIH experiment to award grants to a small number of co-equal principal investigators. This will likely have the effect of encouraging

both collaboration and interdisciplinary cooperation.

NSF doesn’t necessarily need to create a profusion of new programs to deal with

this particular aspect of the research enterprise. One avenue of progress could be

100

to make a concerted effort to identify ways to broaden the backgrounds of the members of NSF’s various review panels and study sections and also the appropriate program officers to include more individuals with experience, enthusiasm, and new

ideas for approaching interdisciplinary research.

One activity that the American Chemical Society has undertaken to promote

interdisciplinary research in this area has been to support the Bridging the Sciences

Coalition, a group of more than a dozen scientific societies and pharmaceutical companies—representing over 250,000 scientists—that is focused on supporting deep innovation in physics, chemistry, engineering, mathematics, and computer science—

the ‘‘bridging’’ sciences—that must interface with biology and medicine to enable

significant biomedical advances.

Without getting too much into the details, this ‘‘bridging’’ initiative seeks new federal resources to support research in these boundary fields as a means for pursuing

distinct and unmet opportunities in the biomedical sciences.

As you would expect, starting new interdisciplinary research initiatives begins by

clearly articulating the nature of the new research opportunity, the potential for

new discoveries, and the tools and resources that are required.

We envision support for this ‘‘bridging science’’ initiative to come through a federal structure that combines the biomedical research cachet of NIH, the disciplinedriven breadth of NSF, and the physical science depth of the Department of Energy—and we have met with progress on this front during the recent NIH reauthorization process.

While undertaking such broad collaborative efforts to bring together a productive

partnership across agencies can be challenging, this is the kind of effort we need

if we are to truly improve our capacity to capture the value that is inherent in interdisciplinary research NSF is ideally suited to promoting cross-disciplinary research

because, as I mentioned before, the Foundation already supports science and engineering broadly, across all disciplines.

Along these same lines, the Committee reported legislation in the last Congress

that would authorize the NSF to ‘‘establish a program to award grants for longterm, potentially path-breaking, basic research designed to simultaneously advance

the physical and non-biomedical life sciences’’—a provision that we supported.

On the administrative side, the Foundation has established several interdisciplinary project offices within its divisions and directorates. We note that the FY 2008

budget proposal for NSF would support the creation of a new, multi-disciplinary

center for environmental, health, and safety research—a development we encourage.

The Committee has done an excellent job in the past to ensure that NSF has the

flexibility to make alterations in its administrative organization to deal with the

evolving nature of science—and the American Chemical Society encourages you to

continue to empower NSF with the tools and flexibility necessary to allow it to fulfill

this aspect of its important national mission.

At the end of the day, it is clear that as NSF continues to grow through the American Competitiveness Initiative and the strong support of the Members of the Committee, the Foundation’s role in supporting interdisciplinary research must also expand and that the agency must adjust its institutions and structure to deal with

the changing nature of scientific research.

Encouraging Industry Partnerships

The final topic I would like to speak to is that of how NSF might better leverage

its partnerships with business and industry.

When I am not serving in my role as president of the American Chemical Society,

my day job is as Leader for technology partnerships at Rohm and Haas Company,

where I focus on building collaborations across companies, academia, government

agencies, and private foundations.

In the corporate environment, the financial decision-making structure places a

great premium on research that will yield results in the shortest possible time

frame. So the vast majority of industry funded research is of the applied variety,

typically focused on ideas that have potential for near term commercialization.

However, as this recent national debate on innovation and competitiveness has so

clearly demonstrated, basic research in the physical sciences is one of the true engines that drives the long-term prosperity of our economy if it can be converted into

the new products and industries that revolutionize our world.

Since NSF and other federal research agencies are the primary sources of basic

research funding, it makes good sense for industry to partner in a symbiotic way

with the agencies and their university grantees to collaborate on projects that can

benefit from combining expertise from both the ‘‘applied’’ and ‘‘basic’’ sides of the

research ‘‘house.’’

101

We understand that the Committee is considering a change to NSF’s merit review

criteria that would give special consideration to proposals that include partnerships

between academic researchers and industrial scientists and engineers and that address research areas that have been identified as having high importance for future

national economic competitiveness.

The ACS would support such efforts as a means to encourage more industrial collaborations through the NSF grant structure. As a final, I would also like to observe

that in thinking about the question of how to support young investigators that I addressed earlier, it is also valuable to encourage new investigators to pursue collaborations and partnerships with industry—possibly as an a provision of the CAREER

grant program.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to represent the views of the American Chemical Society and the scientific community

here today.

We at the American Chemical Society have been deeply engaged in the evolving

debate about the future of American competitiveness that has so dramatically unfolded over the last couple of years. This ‘‘competitiveness’’ movement is still picking

up steam and we plan to see it through to a new era where our nation’s technological leadership is again confirmed and renewed.

We see the process of NSF reauthorization as a key component of this debate and

we applaud the Committee for taking swift action to complete your work on this

front.

Let me conclude by touching on that old cliche ́ that history tends to repeat itself,

as illustrated by something the very first President of the American Chemical Society said at a time when another great technological ground shift—the Industrial

Revolution—was shaking the world:

‘‘Mankind has made the discovery that science is the great civilizing agent of the

world. Let us continue our labor unobtrusively, conscious of the integrity of our

motives, conscious of the portentous change in the thought of the world, conscious of the irresistible power that is behind us.’’

Thank you.

BIOGRAPHY FOR CATHERINE T. HUNT

Dr. Catherine ‘‘Katie’’ T. Hunt is Leader, Technology Partnerships for Rohm and

Haas Company, where she builds collaborations between the company, academia,

government agencies, and private foundations. Since creating the unit in 2002, she

has helped secure multi-million dollar grants from federal agencies to improve collaboration across all sectors of the chemical enterprise. In 2002, Dr. Hunt acted as

a member of the steering committee for the ‘‘Nanomaterials and the Chemical Industry Roadmap Workshop,’’ a collaborative effort between the Department of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (DOE/EERE), the National Nanotechnology

Initiative (NNI), and the Chemical Industry Vision 2020 Technology Partnership. As

a result of this workshop, Dr. Hunt co-authored the Chemical Industry R&D Roadmap for Nanomaterials by Design: From Fundamentals to Function.

Dr. Hunt began her career in industry with Rohm and Haas Company in 1984

after completing an NIH Postdoctoral Fellowship at Yale University. Since then, Dr.

Hunt has held a variety of positions at every level of the company from Senior Scientist in Analytical Research (1984) to Philadelphia Plant Laboratory Manager

(1991) to Director of Worldwide Analytical and Computational Competency Network

and Technology Development (1998). She was named to her current position in

2002.

Dr. Hunt holds an A.B. in Chemistry (Cum Laude) from Smith College, Northampton, MA, and a Ph.D. in Chemistry from the University of California, Davis.

She has authored 13 papers, one book chapter on Metallothionein.

Professional Organization Leadership

Dr. Hunt is the 2006 President-Elect for the American Chemical Society. She will

serve as President in 2007 and as a member of the board of directors from 2006–

2008. She has been a member of the society since 1977. She is also an active member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the International

Union on Pure and Applied Chemistry, and Sigma Xi. Dr. Hunt serves on the Board

of Directors of the Council for Chemistry Research and was a participant in the Vision 2020 Industry Group.

102

Over her professional career Dr. Hunt has received many awards including being

a member of the Women in Science Delegation to Cuba (2001); Best Paper Award

from INDA, Association of Nonwoven Fabrics Industry (1997); Rohm and Haas Company, S.J. Talucci Quality Award (1996); and NIH Postdoctoral Fellowship (1982–

1984)

American Chemical Society

The American Chemical Society is a nonprofit, member-governed organization

that consists of more than 159,000 individual members at all degree levels and in

all fields of chemistry and chemical engineering. The organization provides a broad

range of opportunities for peer interaction and career development, for a wide range

of professional and scientific interests. As the world’s largest scientific society and

in keeping with its congressional charter. ACS advances the chemical enterprise, increases public understanding of chemistry, and brings its expertise to bear on state

and national matters.

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you, Dr. Hunt. Dr. Ford.

STATEMENT OF DR. MARGARET F. FORD, PRESIDENT,

HOUSTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM, NORTHEAST

Dr. FORD. Good afternoon, Chairman Baird, Ranking Member

Ehlers, and Members of the Subcommittee on Research and

Science Education. I thank you for the opportunity to testify before

your subcommittee today. My name is Margaret Ford, and I am

President of the Houston Community College, Northeast, and a

board member of the American Association of Community Colleges.

AACC serves as the national voice for the country’s 1,202 community colleges. Counting more than 90 percent of these institutions as its members, on behalf of AACC and the students who benefit from competitively funded programs provided by the National

Science Foundation, I sincerely thank you, Chairman Baird and

Ranking Member Ehlers, for your interest in the efficacy of technical training at two year colleges through the Advanced Technological Education Program, and the success of community colleges

in delivering STEM education.

Now, my testimony today is based upon my employment with the

Houston Community College, where I have served in various administrative roles for over twenty years, and where I have served

as President of the Northeast College for ten years. The Houston

Community College is the third largest singularly accredited community college in the Nation. There are six regional colleges within

the district which serves 56,000 students per semester in academic

transfer, workforce, and continuing education courses. Houston

Community College offers over 75 technical programs, including a

long list of STEM programs, including biotechnology, chemical

process technology, and computer systems networking.

As you develop NSF reauthorization legislation, please be mindful that community colleges are crucial to educating the Nation’s

technical workforce, increasing the pipeline of students in STEM

majors, and preparing and providing professional development for

the Nation’s K–12 STEM teachers. The Nation’s global competitiveness in STEM fields has, as the Committee is well aware, been the

subject of a tremendous amount of discussion in recent years. One

important facet of this issue is often overlooked, the education of

the Nation’s technical workforce. We are absolutely delighted that

you have included the technical component, and we thank you very

much for that.

103

There are many STEM-oriented jobs that, at least at the entry

levels, require some post-secondary education, but not necessarily

a Bachelor’s degree. These are the people that keep our laboratories running, who oversee the operations of advanced manufacturing facilities, and provide information technology support to the

Nation’s businesses. The need to produce more of these skilled

workers, which continues unabated today, led to the creation of the

Advanced Technological Education Program in 1992. Now in its

fourteenth year of funding, the Program has grown from $10 million to over $45 million today. The ATE Program serves its primary

goal of improving and expanding technician education through 33

centers and approximately 250 active projects in fields such as

aerospace technology, biotechnology, advanced manufacturing, environmental technology, and a host of others.

ATE centers and projects create extensive partnerships with

businesses and industries, other two year colleges, four year colleges and universities, and secondary schools. Nearly 800 projects

have been supported by the ATE Program through the years,

reaching 320,000 two year college students, and thousands of high

school and university students.

HCCs, the Houston Community College’s ATE Project serves the

local energy industry by supporting articulation partnerships, so

students can complete the two year process technology degree, and

then transfer to a four year process technology program. Local industry is involved through an established alliance with the Gulf

Coast Technology Articulation Partnership, that represents 100 industry members and 20 colleges. The focus of our ATE grant is to

provide AAS degree holders in process technology an opportunity to

continue their education towards a baccalaureate degree. Given the

industry demand for higher credentials, this is really critically important.

The Project includes a significant outreach component and support systems to attract under-represented students; 32 of our students have completed the program, and have transferred to

McNeese State University in Lake Charles, Louisiana. The program is enhanced by a Two Plus Two Plus Two Partnership, where

dual credit is available to eligible high school juniors and seniors,

free of charge, through a waiver by a Board of Trustees.

By all accounts, the ATE program is serving the needs of its constituents very, very well. AACC supports reauthorization of the

ATE Program, to reaffirm the strong support that this committee

and Congress as a whole has shown for this program over the

years.

Beyond ATE, any serious effort to increase the number of students in STEM majors and entering STEM fields, particularly

those from under-represented minority populations, should include

a significant focus on community colleges. Community colleges enroll 46 percent of the Nation’s undergraduates, and higher percentages of minority and first generation college students, than any

other sector of higher education. 44 percent of students who obtain

a Bachelor’s or a Master’s degree in science and engineering-related fields complete, at some point, at the community college.

AACC supports reauthorization of the STEM Talent Expansion

Program in H.R. 362 and the coming legislation. I believe that

104

there is room for a greater role for community colleges in this program, or perhaps even a separate program focused on the unique

role of community colleges in this area.

Community colleges are also crucial to the preparation and professional development of K–12 STEM teachers. Up to 40 percent of

teachers, and perhaps, significantly more, have completed some of

their STEM coursework at community colleges. Teacher preparation and certification are significant activities at my institution.

For example, 1,521 students enrolled in our teacher education program that leads to an associate of arts in teaching degree, and is

fully articulated with four year institutions. HCC also offers an alternative teacher certification program that prepares individuals

for certification in elementary and secondary levels of teacher education, including several STEM fields.

The NSF has recognized the importance of community colleges to

growing the numbers of qualified STEM teachers, and I believe

there is room for growth of the agency’s ongoing support for community colleges in this area. For this reason, I applaud the expansion and modification of the Robert Noyce Scholarship Program. I

believe that further refinement of the language in that legislation

may be needed to effectively bring community colleges into the fold

of this important program. I also welcome the separate authorization for the Teacher Institutes for the 21st Century.

So, in closing, the NSF has become a key source of federal support for our institutions and students, and I look forward to our

continued partnership. As reauthorization moves forward, I believe

there is an opportunity to build upon this partnership to ensure

that community colleges are fully utilized in increasing the Nation’s STEM competitiveness.

Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, Members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity to the Research and

Science Education Committee today. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Ford follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARGARET F. FORD

Good afternoon, Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and Members of the

Subcommittee on Research and Science Education. I thank you for the opportunity

to testify before your Subcommittee today. My name is Margaret Ford, and I am

President of the Houston Community College–Northeast and a Board Member of the

American Association of Community Colleges (AACC).

I have the great privilege of serving on the AACC Board and working with Dr.

Ed Coulter, Chair of the AACC Board of Directors, 31 fellow Board Members who

were elected to the Board, and AACC President Dr. George Boggs. AACC serves as

the national voice for the country’s 1,202 community colleges, counting more than

90 percent of these institutions as its members. On behalf of AACC and the students who benefit from competitively-funded programs provided by the National

Science Foundation, I sincerely thank you, Chairman Baird and Ranking Member

Ehlers, for your interest in the efficacy of technical training at two-year colleges

through the Advanced Technological Education (ATE) Program and the success of

community colleges in delivering STEM education.

Community colleges play a major role in educating residents of the Nation’s communities. Did you know that community colleges enroll 11.6 million students annually? Forty percent of the students who enroll at community colleges are full-time

students. The majority (60 percent) of students who enroll at community colleges,

however, are part time students. The part-time students are usually employed,

many full-time; they have families or other obligations, and they recognize the importance of a college degree to improve their earning potential, their job security,

and their upward mobility on their jobs. An important distinguishing feature of

community colleges is that 46 percent of all U.S. undergraduates enroll at commuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:48 Oct 12, 2007 Jkt 034012 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\R&SE07\032007\34012A SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
105

nity colleges; they are first-time freshmen who, according to national reports, perform just as well or better academically when they complete their associate’s degree

and transfer to a four-year university as students who began at the university level

as freshmen.

These data, in part, illustrate why community colleges provide the comprehensive

educational programs to facilitate student success—whether for academic transfer

to a senior-level institution or for technical degree completion that will lead to employment. In either case, the community college Open Door provides access for millions of students who might not initially be accepted to a senior-level institution as

a freshman. Community colleges prepare students with the tools to succeed and create a sequential pathway, for many students, to senior-level institutions. Community colleges enroll a higher percentage of minority students than any other sector

of higher education. 47 percent of Black; 55 percent of Hispanic; 47 percent of Asian/

Pacific Islander, and 57 percent of the country’s Native American undergraduates

are enrolled at our institutions, where the average student age is 29.

As you consider reauthorization of the National Science Foundation, we appreciate your acknowledgment that some community college students may not have all

competencies required for success when they enroll at our institutions, but they will

have attained all of the competencies prior to exiting our institutions. In that spirit,

I acknowledge the testimonies of National Science Foundation Board Chairman, Dr.

Steven Beering and NSF Director Dr. Arden Bement. Dr. Beering stated, and I

agree, that the most effective partnership with industry is accomplished through

training undergraduate and graduate students who in turn enter the private sector

with advanced skills in science and engineering fields.’’ Community college students,

many of whom enroll to complete technical Associate in Applied Science (AAS) degrees, are employed in industry positions before they graduate from our institutions.

This success in placement is due, in large part, to the high caliber of training that

occurs, the competencies and skills that students attain, and the close alliance that

community colleges have with industry advisors in the development and implementation of all AAS degree programs. Thus, community colleges are poised, Mr. Chairman, to produce more student completers with the advanced skills in science and

engineering fields to help achieve the goals that you mentioned of increasing global

competitiveness and students’ interest in math and science.

My testimony today is based upon my employment with the Houston Community

College where I have served in various administrative roles for over twenty years

and where I have served as president of the Houston Community College–Northeast

for ten years. Prior to beginning my testimony, I acknowledge the fine work of the

Chancellor of the Houston Community College, Dr. Mary Spangler; the dedication

of the faculty and staff teams at all six HCC colleges, and the District personnel

who help to create the outstanding student successes that we experience in carrying

out the vision of our Board. I particularly acknowledge Dr. John Galiotos, who has

done an exemplary job in creating new Science and Technology Programs at the

Northeast College to train technicians for employment in the energy sector.

NSF support for community colleges is a relatively recent phenomenon. No substantial NSF funds went directly to community colleges before the first year of funding for the ATE program in FY 1994. In FY 2006, NSF provided over $80 million

in support of community and technical colleges, primarily through the ATE program, but also through several other initiatives. The NSF has become an important

source of support for community colleges, and it is safe to say that the NSF’s attitude towards community colleges has evolved from one of reluctant acknowledgment

to enthusiastic partnership.

Chairman Baird and Ranking Member Ehlers, given the introductory information

provided, my testimony will address the specific areas noted in your invitation: (1)

to provide a brief overview of science, technology, engineering and technician training programs at the Houston Community College—including partnerships with local

industries and the number of students we reach through these programs, (2) to describe the NSF-funded Advanced Technological Education (ATE) program at the

Houston Community College–Northeast and identify its markers of success. As requested, I will provide specific suggestions for NSF on how to improve its ATE program, and (3) to describe HCC’s relationship with the NSF outside of the ATE program. Finally, I will respond to your questions that ask whether we believe that

NSF is adequately serving the science and technology education and research needs

of U.S. community colleges, and what might NSF do differently or better, other than

providing more money, to serve community college needs.

In addressing these questions, I hope to make clear that as it develops NSF reauthorization legislation and in its endeavors in general, the Committee should be

mindful of the vital role that community colleges play in STEM education. In particular, community colleges are crucial to educating the Nation’s technical workVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:48 Oct 12, 2007 Jkt 034012 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\R&SE07\032007\34012A SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
106

force, increasing the pipeline of students in STEM majors, and preparing and providing professional development for the Nation’s K–12 STEM teachers.

Overview of Houston Community College Service-Area Demographics

As background information, the Houston Community College is the third largest

singularly accredited community college in the Nation. There are six regional colleges within the District which serves 56,000 students per semester in academic

transfer, workforce, and continuing education courses. The College District has

achieved excellence in many areas of student success. Some of those areas include

the rate and percentage of student transfer, student certificate and degree completion in technical program areas, the number of exemplary technical programs as

designated by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, rate of student job

placements, pass rate on State Exams, employer satisfaction, and the high level of

student satisfaction in the ‘‘Report of Findings’’ in the Community College Student

Engagement Report.

The Houston Community College District includes seven school districts with a

total population of more than two million residents and slightly over 1.5 million

residents comprising the adult population. The ethnicity of Houston Community

College’s service area is 22.5 percent African American, 33 percent Hispanic, 7.1

percent Asian, 37.1 percent White, and 0.3 percent other. Within the Service Area

Population, the educational attainment for residents 25 years and older is as follows: 26.3 percent have no high school or GED, 21.1 percent have high school or

a GED, and 52.6 percent have high school plus college, and 8.7 percent enrolled in

college. In the Northeast College Regional Service area where I serve as President,

there are 350,000 residents. The ethnicity reflects that 19.7 percent are White, 30.9

percent are African American, 48.5 percent are Hispanic, 0.7 percent is Asian or Pacific Islander, and 0.1 percent is other. Within the service area, the educational attainment for residents 25 and older reflects the following: 33.3 percent of the residents lack a high school diploma or GED, 27.7 percent have a high school diploma,

and 18.8 percent have high school and some college, and 21.2 percent have a degree

(associate, Bachelor’s, graduate or professional degree). These demographics are important because they help focus the training opportunities for the community and

the support services needed to ensure student success.

Overview of Science, Technology, Engineering and Technician Training at

the Houston Community College

The Houston Community College offers over 75 technical programs in diverse

areas under the leadership of Dr. Charles Hebert, Associate Vice Chancellor for

Technical Education and Dr. Charles Cook, Vice Chancellor for Instruction. Below

is a list of some of the programs and the number of student completers. All programs are industry driven and have industry advisors. There are 350 industry advisors in the Science, Engineering and Technology areas. In the area of Energy, there

are two Energy Collaborative partnerships. One is with the Great Houston Energy

Committee, and the other is with the Great Houston Energy Collaborative.

Below are the top ten academic programs by contact hours:

Biology

English

Mathematics, Developmental

Mathematics

History

Government

Guided Studies

Psychology

Intensive English

Chemistry

Below are the top ten technical programs by contact hours:

Corrections

Emergency Medical Technician

Computer Science Technology

Fire Protection Technology

Business Technology

Accounting

Business Administration

107

Associate Degree Nursing

Audio Recording Technology

Cosmetology

An abbreviated list of the Science, Technology, and Engineering Programs (including some in the health fields not typically funded by NSF) are listed below with the

total number of graduates over a three-year period.

The Houston Community College has an increasing number of students completing Certificates and Degrees. In the 2005–2006 Academic Year, there were a

total of 5,741 completers.

The placement rates for graduates are high, and the satisfaction rate of employers

is also consistently high.

Community Colleges Educate the Nation’s Technical Workforce

The nation’s global competitiveness in STEM fields has, as the Committee is well

aware, been the subject of a tremendous amount of discourse in recent years, especially with the publication of popular books such as The World is Flat and seminal

reports like the National Academies’ Rising Above the Gathering Storm. Much of

this discussion has been about the number of American students obtaining Bachelor’s or advanced degrees in the STEM fields, and on the quality of K–12 STEM

Education. These are both vital topics, and I will address the community college role

in them below. However, there is another important facet to this issue which is

108

often overlooked, and that is the education and development of the Nation’s technical workforce.

There are many STEM-oriented jobs that, at least at the entry levels, require

some post-secondary education, but not necessarily a Bachelor’s degree. These are

the people that keep our laboratories running, man the floors of advanced manufacturing facilities, and provide information technology support to the Nation’s businesses. The need to produce more of these skilled workers, which continues unabated

today, led to the creation of the Advanced Technological Education program. ATE

was originally authorized by the Science and Advanced Technology Act of 1992 (SATA), and first funded at $10 million in FY 1994. Now in its 14th year of funding,

the program has grown to $45.4 million, and the Administration has proposed increasing ATE’s funding to $51.6 million in FY 2008.

The ATE program is jointly administered at NSF by the Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE) and the Division of Elementary, Secondary and Informal

Education (ESIE). NSF funds projects and centers across the Nation to carry out

the ATE program’s mission. Currently, the ATE program supports 33 national, regional and resource centers and approximately 250 active projects. Centers focus on

systemic approaches to technician education, usually within a specific discipline,

and are expected to have broad impact. Projects focus on specific aspects of technician education, such as standards development, curriculum development, and faculty development. The ATE program supports centers and projects in fields such as

aerospace technology, biotechnology, advanced manufacturing, environmental technology, and a host of others. All centers and most projects create extensive partnerships with businesses and industry, other two-year colleges, four-year colleges, and

universities and secondary schools. The ATE program supports curriculum development; professional development of college faculty and secondary school teachers; career pathways to two-year colleges from secondary schools and from two-year colleges to four-year institutions; and other activities. A secondary goal is articulation

between two-year and four-year programs for K–12 prospective teachers that focus

on technological education. The program also invites proposals focusing on applied

research relating to technician education.

According to researchers at The Evaluation Center of Western Michigan University, which annually surveys ATE principal investigators, nearly 800 projects have

been supported by the ATE program through the years, reaching 320,000 two-year

college students, 48,000 high school students, and 6,000 students at baccalaureate

institutions. More than 2,000 two-year college programs and 16,800 courses have

been created, as well as hundreds of programs and courses at the secondary and

baccalaureate level. More than 80,000 educators have received professional development. As you might guess from these numbers, the ATE program is the cornerstone

of the community college–NSF partnership.

HCC’s ATE Program

HCC’s ATE project was funded by NSF in May 2004. The project supports articulation partnerships so students can complete the two-year Process Technology

(PTEC) program and transfer to a four-year PTEC program. The focus of the grant

is to improve the way technicians are educated for the workplace. Faculty development, industry involvement, and student engagement are core requirements in the

professional development component of the program. The industry involvement is

through an established alliance with the Gulf Coast Technology Articulation Partnership (GCTAP) that represents 100 industry members and 20 colleges. The intent

of the partnership is to transition students from the Associate in Applied Science

Degree to the Bachelor of Science in Engineering Technology Degree. The Principal

Investigator is Dr. John Galiotos, Department Chair of Science Technologies and

Manager of the Energy Institute at the Houston Community College–Northeast. The

Co-Principal Investigators are Dr. Nikos Kiritsis, Ms. Dorothy Ortego, Ms. Carol

Schulte, and Mr. James Dautenhan. HCC–Northeast, through this program, is one

of the educational partners of the Center for the Advancement of Process Technology (CAPT), an ATE National Center of Excellence.

The focus of our ATE grant is to provide AAS Degree holders in PTEC an opportunity to continue their education towards a Baccalaureate Degree given the industry demand for higher level credentials. The project includes a significant outreach

component and support systems to attract and retain Hispanic students. This outreach includes meeting with parents of high school students, developing promotional

materials in Spanish, providing scholarships to students attending both institutions,

developing yearly one-day workshops at each institution for counselors and high

school teachers to become more informed about PTEC and to raise their student’s

awareness about the opportunities in PTEC, creating student cohorts that includes

109

mentoring support, and providing trips to McNeese State University to understand

how job opportunities in PTEC are enhanced by obtaining a four-year degree.

Like nearly every ATE project, there is strong industry support for our ATE

project and the larger partnerships in which it is involved. Industry partners supporting the partnership for the Gulf Coast Articulation include British Petroleum,

Shell Chemical Company, NALCO Chemical Company, Berric Davis International,

ExxonMobil, Chevron, Environ Test, Goodyear, Liquid Environmental, Halliburton,

Emerson, Schlumberger, and Pasadena Refining. The work of GCTAP and the CAPT

has had a profound impact on its industry partners. BP reports saving $16,000 per

person in reduced overtime expenses and training time by hiring PTEC AAS graduates.

Additionally, PTEC graduates have a 37 percent better safety record than new

hires. According to the NSF publication ATE Centers Impact 2006–2007, ‘‘representatives from BP and Shell Oil Co. have identified the core curriculum developed by

CAPT for the PTEC degree as essential to the strength of their internship programs.

Their long-term hiring projections now include the expectation that their PTEC internship programs will grow and that successful interns will increasingly fill fulltime process technician jobs.’’ This type of impact on the Nation’s industries can be

seen across the spectrum of the ATE centers and projects.

Thirty-two students have completed the Houston Community College program

and have transferred to McNeese State University which is located in Lake Charles,

Louisiana. McNeese State University was established in 1939 and is the largest

comprehensive university in Southwest Louisiana—serving 9,000 students per year.

Student-friendly features of the partnership allow students to pre-transfer and to

co-enroll. The program is enhanced by a 2+2+2 partnership where dual credit is

available to eligible high school juniors and seniors, via an HCC board-approved

waiver of tuition and fees, to enroll in the AAS Degree Program in PTEC.

The positive outcomes, or markers of success, are derived primarily from the application of the partnership concept. Currently, application of the concept is underway as listed below:

• The University of Houston Downtown is using a similar format to develop articulation partnerships between the Biotechnology program at HCC and with

their BS program in Biotechnology.

• The Sam Houston State University Criminal Justice program articulates with

the HCC Public Safety Program using the GCTAP platform.

• Prairie View A&M University will use a similar platform to articulate the

HCC Chemical Laboratory Technology Program with their Chemical Engineering Program.

• Bellingham College, Bellingham, WA, uses the platform to articulate with the

Western Washington University BS program in Engineering Technology.

• The platform is used for the University of Houston College of Technology to

articulate all of the HCC programs in the Science Technology Division with

the University of Houston Engineering Technology Division.

• GCTAP is used as the model for articulation for a NSF/ATE grant on Stationary Fuel Cells education submitted by TATC–Waco, HCC–NE, and Alamo

Community College.

• GCTAP is used as the model for articulations for a Center grant in

Nanotechnology by Austin Community College in collaboration with HCC–

Northeast Energy Institute.

• The GCTAP platform model will be used as the articulation platform for a

new certificate in Advanced Manufacturing funded by a Carl Perkins grant

from the State of Texas.

Reauthorization of the ATE Program

By all accounts, the ATE program as currently operating, and as originally authorized by SATA and modified by the NSF Reauthorization Act of 2002, is serving

the needs of its constituents very well. The Evaluation Center at Western Michigan

University, which annually surveys the ATE principal investigators to identify the

key factors either contributing to or inhibiting program improvement, has generally

found that none of these factors are ‘‘substantial enough to be addressed on a programmatic level for ATE as a whole.’’ This finding backs the overall satisfaction

with the program that we hear from the field. From our experience at HCC, I recommend that the ATE program continue to emphasize articulation between twoyear and four-year institutions to increase the number of AAS to BAAS degree programs in STEM disciplines and in STEM Career Pathways. Increasing federal supVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:48 Oct 12, 2007 Jkt 034012 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\R&SE07\032007\34012A SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
110

port for establishing such articulation agreements and other modes of cooperation

between the sectors of higher education, both inside and outside the STEM areas,

is one of AACC’s top priorities in 2007.

AACC supports reauthorization of the ATE program to reaffirm the strong support that this committee, and Congress as a whole, has shown for this program over

the years. In the past, NSF has indicated that $70 million would be required to

achieve their preferred acceptance rate for ATE proposals. If this is still the case,

we propose that this figure serve as the authorization amount for FY 2008, with

increased amounts for succeeding years.

On a side note, the Western Michigan surveys identify ‘‘student recruitment’’ as

the main ‘‘inhibitor’’ to ATE program improvement. Community colleges still find

that, on many fronts, there is an awareness gap in regards to technical programs

of study. Some students, parents, guidance counselors, and in some cases our colleagues at four-year universities still hold the outdated distinction between ‘‘higher

education’’ on the one hand and ‘‘vocational education’’ on the other. While maybe

not a subject for the reauthorization legislation, I would suggest that the NSF, perhaps in conjunction with other federal departments such as the Department of

Labor and Commerce, increase their efforts to educate the public on the sophisticated nature of today’s technical careers, in terms of their ‘‘respectability,’’

attractiveness, and the benefits to be derived from them for the student; and also

in terms of the serious academic preparation necessary to embark on careers in

these areas.

Community Colleges Are Vital to Increasing the Nation’s Pipeline of STEM

Students

Any serious effort to increase the number of students in STEM majors and entering STEM fields, particularly those from under-represented minority populations,

must include a significant focus on community colleges. A brief look at the numbers

backs this assertion. As noted above, community colleges enroll 45 percent of the

Nation’s undergraduates, and higher percentages of minority and first-generation

college students than any other sector of higher education. Even within the STEM

fields, the numbers are striking: 44 percent of students who obtain a Bachelor’s or

Master’s degree in science and engineering attended a community college at some

point during their degree studies.

AACC applauded and has supported the STEM Talent Expansion Program

(STEP) since its inception, and supports its reauthorization in the coming legislation. Currently, community colleges directly receive approximately 20 percent of the

grants from this program, and are partners in a substantial number of the other

grants. I believe that the facts I cited above support an even greater presence for

community colleges in this program, or perhaps even a separate program focused

on the unique role of community colleges in this area. In any case, AACC strongly

supports substantial growth for this program both in its authorization and appropriations.

Another program that has been very important to community college efforts to

grow the number of STEM students has been the NSF Scholarships in Science,

Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, or S–STEM program (formerly CSEMS).

This program makes grants to institutions of higher education to support scholarships for academically talented, financially needy students, enabling them to enter

the workforce following completion of an associate, baccalaureate, or graduate level

degree in science and engineering disciplines. Grantee institutions are responsible

for selecting scholarship recipients, reporting demographic information about student scholars, and managing the S–STEM project at the institution. In FY 2006,

community colleges and their students received nearly $18 million from this program, which is funded by the fees employers pay to obtain H–1B visas for skilled

foreign workers.

HCC has an S–STEM (then CSEMS) grant that was funded in 2000 and refunded

in 2004. Our grant has been quite successful in meeting the objectives established

to (1) recruit and enroll 33 students a semester into an Associate of Science and

Associate of Applied Science MET Scholarship Program; (2) retain at least 75 percent of participants to the completion of a degree and transfer to a baccalaureate

degree program; (3) establish six paid summer internships in STEM fields for promising students in the scholarship program to increase collaborations with industry.

The program is quite successful in increasing skilled employees in technical areas

and increasing student retention and completion.

The goal of the grant was to target students who can commit to two years as a

full-time student at HCC and retain them for transfer to a four-year institution to

complete their degrees in the S–STEM areas. According to the Co-Principal Investigator, Dr. Kenneth Holden, there are 53 students active in the program who are

111

pursuing careers in engineering, biomedical engineering, electrical engineering, civil

engineering, biotechnology, environmental science, mathematics, chemical engineering and computer science fields of study. Since 2000, there have been 45 graduates.

All have transferred to a four-year university.

Community Colleges Are Crucial to the Preparation and Professional Development of K–12 STEM Teachers

The anticipated demand for new teachers in the near future is daunting. It has

been estimated that 2.5 million new teachers will be needed over the next decade

to replace retirees, and deal with high attrition rates and population growth. The

issue is not just one of quantity, as the requirements for high-quality teachers and

paraprofessionals found in the No Child Left Behind Act also make it one of quality.

This problem is especially acute in STEM fields. In dealing with this looming crisis,

no stone must go unturned in recruiting and educating more qualified teachers, both

from our student bodies and from the professional ranks.

While definitive numbers are hard to come by, various studies have shown a tremendous community college role in the preparation of K–12 STEM teachers. These

studies have indicated that up to 40 percent of teachers, and perhaps significantly

more, have completed some of their STEM course work at community colleges. This

is not surprising given the percentage of STEM degree recipients overall that study

at community colleges.

Teacher preparation and certification are significant activities at my institution.

HCC offers a Semester-Credit Hour Teacher Education Program. The education curriculum is designed to help students develop competencies in selected teaching skills

that are basic to implementing the reflective decision-making model. As a prerequisite to entering the Teacher Education Program, a student must be considered

‘‘college ready.’’ Students must have a passing score in Reading and English. The

term-to-term completion shows an 80 percent retention rate of students in the

Teacher Education Program. During the 2006–2007 academic year, there are 1,521

students enrolled in the program that leads to the Associate of Arts in Teaching Degree. The program is fully articulated with several four-year institutions in Texas.

In addition to the Teacher Education Program, HCC also offers educational preparation in an alternative certification program that is offered via continuing education. The Alternative Certification Program is a state-approved teacher certification program that prepares individuals for certification in elementary and secondary levels of teacher education. The College offers certifications in 12 areas (Bilingual Generalist, Generalist, ESL, History, Life Science, Mathematics, Physical

Education, Physical Science, Science, Social Studies, Special Education, and Technology Applications). Since January 2003, the College has enrolled 398 students in

the program. Of that total, 148 students have completed the Alternative Certification Program. Among the requirements for the program are a Bachelor’s degree

from an accredited institution of higher education, an overall grade point average

of 3.0 or an advanced degree, 2.50 on Bachelor’s degree, and 2.5 overall. The State

Board of Educator Certification approved the Alternative Certification Program in

November 2002.

The NSF has recognized the importance of community colleges to growing the

numbers of qualified STEM teachers with a series of publications and conferences

addressing the issue. In terms of ongoing programmatic support for community college teacher recruitment, preparation, and professional development efforts, however, I believe there is room for growth. Support for these efforts at community colleges is found on a relatively small scale across a number of current programs, including the ATE program as noted above and the Math and Science Education Partnerships. In general, the NSF approach to this issue is fairly research-oriented. This

research is important, but so are the ‘‘implementation’’ activities aimed at growing

the ranks of teachers.

For this reason, I applaud the introduction of the ‘‘10,000 Teachers, 10,000 Minds

Science and Math Scholarship Act’’ (H.R. 362). In recent years, the Robert Noyce

Scholarship Program has been an important NSF program in this area, which provides scholarships and stipends to juniors, seniors and current professionals intending to become STEM teachers, as well as additional programming to support their

studies. Because of its design, community college involvement in the program has

been limited. For this reason, I am heartened to see in H.R. 362 an intention to

widen the program to the first two years of undergraduate studies. I believe that

further refinement of the language in that legislation may be needed to effectively

bring community colleges into the fold of this important program. I also welcome

the separate authorization for the Teacher Institutes for the 21st Century. AACC

looks forward to working with the community to ensure that community colleges are

active partners in these efforts.

112

Do community colleges believe that NSF is adequately serving the science

and technology education and research needs of U.S. community

colleges?

I am persuaded that the National Science Foundation continues to do an excellent

job in identifying specific areas for academic concentration and research funding

based upon their input from partnering agencies, such as the American Association

of Community Colleges, the National Academy of Science, and other agencies that

provide information on the ‘‘current needs’’ of the Nation. As I mentioned above, the

NSF has become a key source of federal support for our institutions and students

and I look forward to our continued partnership. As reauthorization moves forward,

I believe there is an opportunity to build upon this partnership through the suggestions made above to ensure that community colleges are fully utilized in increasing

the Nation’s STEM competitiveness.

Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, Members of the Committee, I thank

you for the opportunity to testify before the Research and Science Education Subcommittee today.

BIOGRAPHY FOR MARGARET F. FORD

Dr. Margaret Fincher Ford is President of the Houston Community College–

Northeast, one of six colleges within the Houston Community College System. She

was appointed President of the Northeast College in 1997 after a National Search

conducted by the Association of Community College Trustees (ACCT).

Dr. Ford was born in Marion, Alabama, and completed her early education at Lincoln High and Robert C. Hatch High Schools. She completed her Baccalaureate and

Master’s Degrees in the Teaching of English at Wichita State University, her Doctoral Degree in Education at the University of Houston, and Certificates from Oxford University and Kansas State University in International Relations and Urban

and Regional Planning, respectively. In 1997, she received a Certificate of Completion from the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) for participation

in the Presidents’ Academy; and in July 2001, she was an invited delegate to the

Oxford International Roundtable for Community College Presidents—held in Oxford, England, where she presented a paper to an international audience of community college presidents on the topic: ‘‘A Higher Education Transition Pedagogy for

Marginalized Populations: Challenges, Opportunities, Benefits.’’

Dr. Ford has over thirty years of experience in higher education. She began her

higher education career as a Professor at Wichita State University where she served

for ten years. She has also been a Visiting Professor at Bethany College in

Lindsborg, Kansas, a faculty member at the University of Houston and Texas

Southern University, and an invited delegate to the ‘‘Germany Today’’ educational

program. At the Houston Community College, she has served as an instructor of

English and in various administrative posts leading to the presidency. She has also

been a television producer and host with PBS Television Programs entitled ‘‘The

Capitol Report’’ (broadcast Statewide) and ‘‘The Margaret Ford Show’’ (broadcast locally on KUHT TV). Recently she was the Plenary Session Speaker at the Consortium for Student Retention Data Exchange (CSRDE) held in Albuquerque, New

Mexico, and a participant in the ‘‘Learning Matters’’ Podcast on Community Colleges produced by John Merrow.

Dr. Ford has written numerous articles that have been published in various scholarly journals and publications. The most recent articles include, ‘‘Factors Influencing the Matriculation and Course Completion of First Time In-College Students,’’

published in the Proceedings of the 2nd Annual National Symposium on Student Retention, and ‘‘Quality of Life and Resiliency: A Focus on Student Success,’’ published

in the Community College Journal—a publication of the American Association of

Community Colleges where Ford has also published other scholarly articles. She has

co-authored several resource workbooks and one textbook. The textbook is a formulary written by Ford and published by Sage Publications in 1997. The book is

entitled High School Students Earning College Credit: A Guide to Creating Dual

Credit Programs. The focus of Ford’s book is Dual Credit, which was the first text

on the subject. She is also the author of other related Dual Credit publications and

of the Teacher/Student Interaction Instrument, which is an assessment tool to measure the attitudes of teachers toward diverse student populations.

Dr. Ford is very active in the Houston community and serves on a number of

Workforce Development Committees and Advisory Boards. She is an active participant in local Chambers of Commerce and works closely with industry advisory committees for economic and community development. She is the recipient of the 2006

Education Award presented by the L&S Academy; the 2005 Carrol Sterling

113

Masterson Education Award presented by the YWCA Board of Directors, and the

2004 Education Award presented by the Acres Homes Citizens’ Chamber of Commerce. In March 2006, she became the recipient of the IMPACT Honoree Award in

Education presented by the Women’s Guild. In May 2006, she received the Education Award presented by Variety—The Children’s Charity of Houston. Dr. Ford

has also received the prestigious District Award of Merit presented by the Sam

Houston Council of Boy Scouts of America—Antares District where she served as

District Chair for several years. She is a Senior Education Advisor for the State of

Texas—an honor conferred by the Office of the Governor in 1999. Recently, she

served as a member of the National Academy of Science’s Transportation Research

Board that produced Special Report #275 on The Workforce Challenge. She also

serves on the AACC Global Education Commission and served as a member of the

Homeland Security Ad Hoc Taskforce which resulted in an AACC Report entitled

First Responders: Community Colleges on the Front Line of Security. Dr. Ford was

elected to the AACC Board in 2005 by peer community college presidents, where she

serves on the Executive Committee and is the Board Liaison for the National Council on Student Development.

Dr. Margaret Fincher Ford resides in Houston, Texas.

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you, Dr. Ford. Dr. Meriles.

Mr. MERILES. Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and

Members of the Subcommittee.

Chairman BAIRD. Dr. Meriles, make sure you have hit that mike

button. I always forget myself, so——

STATEMENT OF DR. CARLOS A. MERILES, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS, THE CITY COLLEGE OF NEW YORK,

CUNY

Dr. MERILES. Yes, it is probably too far. Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and Members of the Subcommittee, I greatly

appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today.

I am an Assistant Professor of Physics at the City College of New

York, where I have been since 2004. I am currently funded by the

National Science Foundation through two programs, a Career

Award, the signature NSF program for young investigators, and a

NIRT grant, a nanotechnology-oriented interdisciplinary program

that I run in partnership with three other investigators at CCNY

and the University of California at Berkeley.

These programs intersect three of the issues before this committee today: first, how to nurture young scientists; second, how to

catalyze novel, cutting-edge research through cross-disciplinary

teams; and third, how to effectively integrate academic and industry activities.

These are complex topics, and they do not lend themselves to

simplistic analysis. I hope, however, that my thoughts may constructively help you in developing wise public policy as you proceed

with the National Science Foundation reauthorization bill. For

young scholars, the Faculty Early Career Development Program is

arguably the most important federal activity supporting scientists

at the early stage of their careers. It is also one of the very few

that allows the participation of individuals who, as in my case,

teach at American universities but were born and raised abroad.

Finally, it is a program that integrates research and education, and

as such, serves as a model for other science agencies in the Americas and overseas.

Unfortunately, from my anecdotal experience with other young

scientists, many of them truly outstanding, the career program appears to suffer from significant lack of resources, leading many

114

worthy applicants to submit proposals two or three times before

they achieve success. Proposal writing is arduous and time consuming, and having to wait two or three years to land the career

grant, while the tenure clock is ticking, can put an end to a promising career.

Although shortage of money is a significant problem, it is not the

only one. The NSF seems to evaluate junior faculty proposals on

the basis of the same traditional merit review criteria it uses for

established investigators. While I believe the NSF must stress

quality and the likelihood of success of the research project, I believe that the NSF career program would benefit enormously if reviewers were instructed to place greater emphasis on creativity and

originality when judging proposals from junior scientists. The early

career enterprise in academia is a highly nonlinear process, a minimum threshold infrastructure is required to produce the very first

piece of significant data. At times, this proves a formidable task,

especially in universities and colleges that do not emphasize research as strongly, or that lack an adequate human and physical

infrastructure. Even in an adverse environment, young scientists

are, by nature, the most prone to take risks and think in a different, perhaps more creative manner.

Therefore, I suggest that, especially for younger scientists, NSF

program managers identify and nurture the most inventive ideas,

even if the chances of success are not completely locked in. For extremely high risk creative proposals, NSF could consider a preliminary award of somewhat shorter duration to achieve a proof of

principle. Taking into consideration that decisions on tenure are

often made after only a few years, the career program should also

have a more flexible chronogram, for instance, with proposals accepted two times during the year, rather than one, as is currently

the case.

For young, inexperienced investigators, problems may be encountered even after they obtain initial funding. Sometimes, costs exceed those originally envisioned. Unforeseen difficulties in the

progress flow, or family responsibilities intrude. The last applies,

in particular, to female scientists, when a child is born, but emergencies can arise when a family member requires special care. Program managers and university administrators ought to work closely with each other to maximize the possibility of a successful outcome of the research.

Let me turn now to the interplay between scholarly research and

industry application. This ought to be an important driving force

in a successful model of science policy, yet university-industry partnerships are far from widespread, and junior faculty often find it

difficult to initiate one, particularly in middle and small sized universities, where scholarly work has traditionally remained disconnected from industrial needs.

The NSF should invigorate the existing programs by broadening

the range of opportunities. Cooperation based solely on industry

cost sharing seems to me unrealistic, more so in the case of young

investigators, because companies tend to be very conservative and

risk-averse. The Federal Government ought to provide greater incentives through tax policies, but NSF ought to encourage other

avenues of partnership, for example, short-term student industry

115

internships. Internships are, indeed, an important ingredient in

programs such as the IGERT, but the large scale of these initiatives makes them unlikely to prosper in places other than those already having strong ties with industry.

Smaller size educational programs that emphasize academia-industry partnerships should be also considered and nurtured, especially when they are initiated and led by junior faculty. The Committee might also consider requesting the Foundation to explore

the feasibility of establishing an NSF-wide mission office to serve

as a liaison between industry and academia. Such an office could

serve as a forum to facilitate contact between young scholars and

entrepreneurs and coordinate the efforts of the various NSF divisions in areas ranging from education to instrumentation development.

Let me conclude by observing that many future scientific breakthroughs will occur across the boundaries of the traditional scientific disciplines. The Committee should encourage NSF to be ever

cognizant of these interdisciplinary opportunities.

Once again, I thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look

forward to responding to any questions the Members of the Committee may have.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Meriles follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CARLOS A. MERILES

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

greatly appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today. I am an Assistant

Professor of Physics at The City College of New York (CCNY), where I have been

since 2004. I am currently funded by the National Science Foundation through two

programs: a CAREER award, the signature NSF program for young investigators,

and a NIRT grant, a nanotechnology-oriented, interdisciplinary program that I run

in partnership with three other investigators at CCNY and the University of California at Berkeley.

These programs intersect three of the issues before this committee today: first,

how to nurture young scientists; second, how to catalyze novel, cutting-edge research through cross-disciplinary teams and third, how to effectively integrate academic and industry activities. These are complex topics, and they do not lend themselves to simplistic analysis. I hope, however, that my thoughts may constructively

help you in developing wise public policy as you proceed with the National Science

Foundation Reauthorization Bill.

Before I begin, let me say a word about my personal history. I was born in Argentina and received my undergraduate and graduate degrees in my native country. I

came to the United States in 2000 as a Berkeley ‘‘postdoc’’ before joining the faculty

at CCNY in 2004. I left my homeland because my passion for science led me to seek

the best opportunities for a young researcher. I believed and still believe that those

opportunities are greatest in the United States, although complacency and federal

budgetary strictures could place that status at risk.

For young scholars, the Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) Program

is arguably the most important federal activity supporting scientists at the early

stage of their careers. It is also one of the very few that allows the participation

of individuals who, as in my case, teach at American universities but were born and

raised abroad. Finally, it is a program that integrates research and education and,

as such, serves as a model for other science agencies in the Americas and overseas.

Unfortunately, from my anecdotal experience with other young scientists, many

of them truly outstanding, the CAREER program appears to suffers from significant

lack of resources, leading many worthy applicants to submit proposals two or three

times before they achieve success. Proposal writing is arduous and time-consuming,

and having to wait two or three years to land a CAREER grant, while the tenure

clock is ticking, can put an end to a promising career.

Although shortage of money is a significant problem, it is not the only one. The

NSF seems to evaluate junior faculty proposals on the basis of the same traditional

merit review criteria it uses for established investigators. While I believe the NSF

must stress quality and the likelihood of success of a research project, I believe that

116

the NSF CAREER program would benefit enormously if reviewers were instructed

to place greater emphasis on creativity and originality when judging proposals from

junior scientists.

The early career enterprise in academia is a highly non-linear process. A minimum, threshold infrastructure is required to produce the very first piece of significant data. At times this proves a formidable task, especially in universities and colleges that do not emphasize research as strongly or that lack an adequate human

and physical infrastructure. Even in an adverse environment young scientists are,

by nature, the most prone to take risks and think in a different, perhaps more creative manner. Therefore, I suggest that, especially for younger scientists, NSF program managers identify and nurture the most inventive ideas, even if the chances

of success are not completely locked in.

For extremely high-risk creative proposals, NSF could consider a preliminary

award of somewhat shorter duration to achieve a proof of principle. Taking into consideration that decisions on tenure are often made after only five years, the CAREER program should also have a more flexible chronogram, for instance, with proposals accepted two times during the year, rather than one, as is currently the case.

For young, inexperienced investigators, problems may be encountered even after

they obtain initial funding. Sometimes costs exceed those originally envisioned, unforeseen difficulties render progress slower or family responsibilities require attention. Unfortunately, the last applies in particular to female scientists when a child

is born. But emergencies can also arise when any family member requires special

care. Program managers and university administrators ought to work closely with

each other to maximize the possibility of a successful outcome of the research.

Let me now turn to the interplay between scholarly research and industrial application. This ought to be a potent driving force in a successful model of science policy.

Yet, university-industry partnerships are far from widespread, and junior faculty

often find it difficult to initiate one, particularly at middle and small-size universities where scholarly work has traditionally remained disconnected from industrial

needs. The NSF should invigorate existing programs by broadening the range of opportunities.

Cooperation based solely on industry cost sharing seems unrealistic to me—more

so in the case of young investigators—because companies tend to be very conservative and risk averse. The Federal Government ought to provide greater incentives

by amending the R&D tax policy to grant a company, at the very least, the same

credit for partnering with a university as it now receives for research it conducts

on its own.

But NSF ought to encourage other avenues of partnerships; for example, shortterm student industrial internships. Internships are indeed an important ingredient

in programs such as the Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship

(IGERT) program, but the large scale of these initiatives makes them unlikely to

prosper in places other than those already having strong ties with industry. Smaller-size educational programs that emphasize academia-industry partnerships should

be also considered and nurtured, especially when they are initiated and led by junior faculty. The Committee might also consider requesting the Foundation to explore

the feasibility of establishing an NSF-wide mission office to serve as a liaison between industry and academia. Such an office could serve as a forum to facilitate contact between (young) scholars and entrepreneurs and coordinate the efforts of the

various NSF divisions in areas ranging from education to instrumentation development.

Let me conclude by observing that many future scientific breakthroughs will occur

across the boundaries of the traditional scientific disciplines. The Committee should

encourage NSF to be ever cognizant of these interdisciplinary opportunities and to

ensure that interdisciplinary proposals do not fall between the cracks of NSF disciplinary offices.

Once again, I thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to responding to any questions the Members of the Committee may have.

BIOGRAPHY FOR CARLOS A. MERILES

Carlos Meriles is an Assistant Professor of Physics at the City College of New

York–CUNY. He joined CCNY in 2004 after working as a postdoctoral associate in

the laboratory of Prof. Alexander Pines at the University of California, Berkeley. He

carried out his undergraduate and graduate studies at the Facultad de Matematica,

Astronomia y Fisica (FaMAF–UNC), one of the leading scientific institutions in his

native Argentina.

Professor Meriles obtained his Ph.D. with honors in 2000. In 2006 he received an

NSF–CAREER award and soon after a Wegman Fellowship from the Wegman FounVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:48 Oct 12, 2007 Jkt 034012 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\R&SE07\032007\34012A SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
117

dation in New York City. He has been the recipient of a number of scholarships,

among them the prestigious CONICET postdoctoral fellowship for studies abroad.

During his graduate studies he received the Young Investigator award from the

Universidad Nacional de Cordoba (Argentina). His research focuses on the development of new methods for nuclear magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy and

on the application of these methods to materials science.

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you, Dr. Meriles. Dr. Welser.

STATEMENT OF DR. JEFFREY J. WELSER, DIRECTOR OF THE

NANOELECTRONICS RESEARCH INITIATIVE, SEMICONDUCTOR RESEARCH CORPORATION

Dr. WELSER. Good afternoon. My name is Jeff Welser, and I am

on assignment from the IBM Corporation to head the

Nanoelectronics Research Initiative, or NRI. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the NRI, the IBM Corporation,

the Semiconductor Industry Association, and the Semiconductor

Research Corporation.

Let me say at the outset that we are all strong supporters of the

NSF. We endorse the significant funding increases proposed in the

Fiscal Year 2008 budget, the House Democrats Innovation Agenda,

and the American Competitiveness Initiative. The Semiconductor

Industry Association has also endorsed H.R. 362 and 363, the Ten

Thousand Teachers, Ten Million Minds, and Sowing the Seeds Innovation bills.

My written testimony includes information about how the semiconductor research is not only one of the main drivers of the U.S.

economy today, but also saves the government itself significant

money. I also cover in detail our commitment and thoughts on education, and increasing the pipeline of students trained in the STEM

disciplines so crucial to our industry.

So, in the next five minutes, I would like to focus my remarks

on three of the questions submitted by the Committee, related to

why the semiconductor industry invests in basic research at universities, the relationship between the NRI and NSF, and what advice we have regarding industry-university partnerships in general.

Before answering these questions, I should provide a bit of background on the NRI and our quest for a new computing switch.

Computer chips today basically consist of a huge number of interconnected on-off switches called transistors. The unprecedented

growth in computing power over the past 30 years, and the information technology economy that it has driven, has been mostly due

to our ability to shrink these transistors over time, so that today,

billions of these inexpensive ubiquitous switches can be put on a

single chip, providing your laptops, cell phones, and Blackberries

with power.

We expect to continue to drive down the cost of computing

through this continued scaling and other innovations, for the next

12 to 15 years, at which point, we will reach the physical and

power limits of this switch technology. If we are to continue to advance information technology beyond that point, we will need a

new nanoelectronics switch. To take on this task, the SRA

launched the Nanoelectronics Research Initiative, and its mission

is to fund research to discover a new switch by 2020.

Which brings me to the Committee’s first question: why does the

semiconductor industry invest in university research? First, we

118

want to help generate basic science research that is relevant to industry needs. The close collaboration and technology transfer mechanisms that we have developed over time also help industry quickly commercialize that research as it becomes available.

Second, the graduate students that we support are the next generation workforce for the industry. Companies that work closely

with universities get to know the students, and the students get to

know the companies, and they also can benefit from the valuable

insights from industry advisors on their own research.

Even before the NRI, the SRC has been funding universities for

25 years, supporting over 5,000 students, and producing over

30,000 technical documents crucial to sustaining our semiconductor

roadmap and the IT economy which depends on it. This has never

been more crucial than now, as we are faced with the challenge of

finding a new switch.

Which brings me to your second question: why are the industry

and NSF working together? The SRC and NSF have a long, successful history of interaction, including joint workshops, funding to

NSF university centers, giving industry input and lists of expert reviewers for potential consideration in NSF program solicitations.

Now, in searching for a new switch, the NRI pulls together semiconductor companies, State governments, and the NSF to support

research at 25 universities in 13 states, including major centers at

California, Texas, and New York.

NSF was a natural partner, given the basic research needed in

a wide range of scientific and engineering disciplines. Simply put,

both the NSF and industry recognized that the country whose companies are first to market with a new logic switch will likely lead

in the nanoelectronics era, the same way the United States has led

for the last half-century in the microelectronics era.

U.S. leadership in microelectronics has had tremendous benefits

for the U.S., to our companies, to our national security, as well as

to the advancement of science in general. Indeed, the sequencing

of the human genome is as much a computing success as it is a biological success.

The Committee’s third question, asking for our thoughts on industry and university partnerships in general. First, we continue

to encourage multi-disciplinary research, as it is one of the unique

strengths of the NSF, that makes it attractive to industry. To this

end, we highly encourage the NSF to continue to support centers

and multi-year programs such as the Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers, or NSECs, and group awards, such as the

Nanoscale Interdisciplinary Research Teams, or NIRTS, and

Nanoscale Exploratory Research Awards, the NER Awards. The

NRI has already co-invested in projects at these centers, and they

are very effective vehicles for pursuing diverse research topics that

require expertise from different fields.

Second, we encourage the NSF to pursue these multi-disciplinary

research in other industries as well, beyond nanoelectronics, particularly in the emerging field of services science. Services today

makes up 80 percent of the U.S. economy, and the ability to integrate scientific, management, engineering, and other skills is a talent needed throughout the services sector. NSF’s budget in this

119

1 Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor

area should be increased, and universities should be encouraged to

establish research and curricula expanding in this nascent field.

Finally, we suggest the Committee consider authorizing NSF to

participate in as well as with industrial consortia. As an example,

DARPA has participated in semiconductor consortium through the

so-called other authorities, other agreements authority, which

moves away from the grantor-grantee role, or contractor-supplier

role, that is appropriate for engaging with universities directly, but

not as well suited if an agency is to participate directly in a consortium. Under this program, the industry and government money is

pooled, decisions to fund universities programs are approved

through a merit-based process, overseen by a council that includes

both industry and the Defense Department in that case.

I would emphasize that we find the partnership we have with

the NSF already very successful, and intend to continue to interact

closely, but providing NSF with this type of flexibility could open

the door to greater collaboration among the industry, NSF, and

universities.

In closing, I would like to point out that the magnitude of the

effort we face in finding a new switch is equivalent to what was

done in the ’40s and ’50s, as we searched for an alternative to vacuum tubes. Then, as now, success only came from the combination

of the best science coming out of the universities, the mission focus

of the industrial labs, and significant funding from the government.

This collaborative interaction enabled both the scientific breakdowns and reduction to practical implementation that was necessary for success.

To this end, increasing research funding at NSF, and expanding

NSF’s collaboration with the industry is absolutely essential if

America is to lead in the coming nanoelectronics era.

Thank you, and I look forward to answering any questions.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Welser follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEFFREY J. WELSER

Good afternoon. My name is Jeffrey Welser and I am on assignment from the IBM

Corporation to serve as the Director of the Nanoelectronics Research Initiative

(NRI). I am testifying today on behalf of the NRI; the IBM Corporation; the Semiconductor Industry Association; and the Semiconductor Research Corporation.

The Nanoelectronics Research Initiative (NRI) is a research consortium that supports university basic research in novel computing devices, to enable the semiconductor industry to continue technology advances beyond the limits of the CMOS1

technology that we have been using for the past four to five decades. The NRI

leverages industry, university, and both U.S. State and Federal Government funds,

to support research at universities that will establish the U.S. as the world leader

in the nanoelectronics revolution. Fundamental breakthroughs in physical sciences

and engineering resulting from NRI leadership will ensure that the U.S. remains

a world leader in high-technology.

At IBM, we strive to lead in the creation, development and manufacture of the

industry’s most advanced information technologies, including computer systems,

software, networking systems, storage devices and microelectronics. We translate

these advanced technologies into value for our customers through our professional

solutions and services businesses worldwide, which account for nearly three quarters of our annual revenues.

The Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) has represented America’s semiconductor industry since 1977. The U.S. semiconductor industry has 46 percent of the

$248 billion world semiconductor market. The semiconductor industry employs

120

232,000 people across the U.S., directly contributes $60 billion to U.S. GDP and is

one of America’s largest export sectors.

The Semiconductor Research Corporation is a world class university research

management consortium that seeks to solve the technical challenges facing the

semiconductor industry and to develop technical talent for its member companies.

SRC manages several semiconductor research programs including the NRI. Since its

founding 25 years ago, the SRC has managed through its core program $854 million

in research funds supporting 5,586 students and 1,244 faculty at 218 universities

resulting in 31,865 technical documents, and 270 patents.

Executive Summary

• The semiconductor industry strongly supports doubling the NSF research

budget as part of our complete set of competitiveness recommendations. These

recommendations include increased availability of green cards and H–1Bs

visas through immigration reform; increased numbers of science, technology,

engineering and math graduates and improved K–12, undergraduate and

graduate math/science education; enactment of a permanent and enhanced

R&D credit; and increased awareness of the impact of foreign tax incentives.

• The National Science Foundation’s (NSF) support for research, development,

and math and science education is a vital component of America’s science and

technology enterprise. NSF’s activities under gird the Nation’s innovation capacity, promote long-term economic growth, and enhance international competitiveness of the United States.

• The semiconductor industry supports significant funding increases for NSF as

proposed in the House Democrats’ Innovation Agenda and the President’s

American Competitiveness Initiative. The Semiconductor Industry Association

(SIA) also has endorsed H.R. 363, the Sowing the Seeds Through Science and

Engineering Research Act, that was reported out of the full Science and Technology Committee on March 8, 2007.

• SIA believes strongly that NSF’s education programs need to be expanded

and monetarily supported, and SIA also has endorsed H.R. 362, the 10,000

Teachers, 10 Million Minds Science and Math Scholarship Act. Continued robust NSF activities in the areas highlighted in the bill are vital for the future

competitiveness of the United States.

• Semiconductor technology advances have been credited with driving the increased productivity that the U.S. economy has enjoyed since the mid-1990’s.

The government sector has also benefited from faster and cheaper computing—receiving $152 billion of ‘‘free’’ computing cumulatively as a result of

technology improvements and resulting price declines in the last ten years.

• One way in which NSF contributes directly to U.S. competitiveness is by

funding basic research in nanotechnology jointly with industry. As we approach the fundamental limits of the current technology which has driven the

high tech industry, the country whose companies are first to market in the

subsequent technology transition will likely lead the coming nanoelectronics

era the way the U.S. has led for half a century in microelectronics.

• The Nanoelectronics Research Initiative (NRI) leverages industry, university

and government resources (both State and Federal) to fund university research that will keep America at the forefront of the nanoelectronics revolution. NRI currently works largely through three regional university centers

headquartered in California, Texas, and New York.

• The partnership between NSF and industry in NRI results in a more productive research program because it brings together the technical expertise of industrial research managers and university scientists. Moreover, by jointly

funding research with industry, NSF can focus basic research efforts on scientific questions that have maximum potential economic impact. It is a classic

win-win situation.

• To strengthen these partnerships and nanoelectronics research overall, we

recommend giving NSF the flexibility to participate in industry consortia,

funding basic science research at universities. We also recommend NSF continue to support centers, such as the Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers (NSECs), and group awards, such as the Nanoscale Interdisciplinary Research Teams (NIRTs) and Nanoscale Exploratory Research (NER) awards, as

very effective vehicles for pursuing research topics of national interest.

121

NSF funding should be significantly increased

Let me state at the outset that the semiconductor industry strongly supports doubling the NSF research budget, as envisioned in the House Democratic Innovation

Agenda, and the 2006 American Competitiveness Initiative. The industry’s support

for increased research funding is part of our complete set of competitiveness recommendations which include increased availability of green cards and H–1Bs visas

through immigration reform; increased numbers of science, technology, engineering

and math graduates and improved K–12, undergraduate and graduate math/science

education; enactment of a permanent and enhanced R&D credit; and increased

awareness of the impact of foreign tax incentives.

Federal funding of basic research, and in particular, funding in nanoelectronics

research, is vital to America’s future economic growth and global competitiveness.

Simply put, as we approach the fundamental limits of the current technology which

has driven the high tech industry, the country whose companies are first to market

in the subsequent technology transition will likely lead the coming nanoelectronics

era the way the U.S. has led for half a century in microelectronics, and NSF can

play a critical role in ensuring that America earns this leadership position.

Today I would like to share our thoughts on the critical need to continue semiconductor technology advances, the Nanoelectronics Research Initiative (NRI) as an example of NSF collaboration with industry on fundamental university research, the

importance of research in services as example of another industry where collaboration with NSF is highly valued, and the vital role NSF plays in promoting math

and science education.

To continue semiconductor technology advances, we must find a new

switch

Semiconductors are the enabling technology for computers, communications, and

other electronics products that in turn have enabled everything from Internet commerce to sequencing the human genome.

Better, faster, and cheaper chips are driving increased productivity and creating

more jobs throughout the economy. For over three decades the industry has followed

Moore’s Law, which states that the number of transistors on a chip doubles about

every eighteen months. The transistor is the basic building block within the semiconductor chip and can be thought of as an electronic switch or as a device to retain

one bit (a one or a zero) in memory. The transistor is composed of a series of precisely etched and deposited layers of materials, and with as many as two billion

transistors integrated on a single silicon chip, modern computer chips are some of

the most complex products manufactured on the planet.

Today the cost of making one million transistors is one penny.

The phenomenal advances in technology may slow drastically as semiconductor

technologists have concluded that we will soon be reaching the fundamental limits

of CMOS technology, the process that has been the basis of innovation for the semiconductor industry for the past 30 years. By introducing new materials into the

basic CMOS structure and devising new CMOS structures and interconnects, further improvements in CMOS can continue for the next ten to fifteen years, at which

time CMOS begins to reach its physical (layers only a few atoms thick) and power

dissipation limits. For the U.S. economy to benefit from continued information technology productivity improvements, there will need to be a ‘‘new logic switch’’ to replace the current CMOS-based transistor.

There are a number of candidates for the new switch, including devices based on

spintronics (changing a particle’s spin) and molecular electronics (changing a molecule’s shape). Scientists must address many challenges in many different basic research fields (chemistry, physics, engineering) in the search for the new switch, including measuring the dimensions, shapes, and electrical characteristics of individual molecules; manipulating and measuring the spin of individual electrons; fabricating whole new classes of materials with unique electronic properties, and then

characterizing their fundamental physical behavior and their long-term reliability;

inducing novel chemical compounds to self-assemble into the precise structures

needed by the new devices and architectures; and finally finding ways to interconnect the devices and integrate them into our technology infrastructure in a costeffective manner that will enable us to continue the historical cost and performance

trends for information technology.

Industry Research Consortia

Much of the early progress of the semiconductor industry derived from technology

developed in large, corporate research and development facilities, such as Bell Laboratories. In the early 1980s, industry leaders, such as Bob Noyce of Intel and Erich

Bloch of IBM, perceived a decline in the output of such corporate research facilities

122

and a need to bolster underlying technology as a means to keep the U.S. semiconductor industry globally-competitive.

To this end, the SIA’s Board of Directors established the Semiconductor Research

Corporation (SRC), a non-profit consortium of companies representative of the full

spectrum of the semiconductor industry. Erich Bloch of IBM was the first Chairman

of the SRC and later became a Director of the National Science Foundation.

In its current form, the SRC provides research management and administrative

services on behalf of the companies that participate in three semiconductor research

consortia: the Global Research Collaboration (GRC), the Focus Center Research Program (FCRP) and the Nanoelectronics Research Initiative (NRI).

Global Research Collaboration Program

The Global Research Collaboration program is the core research program of the

SRC. Its purpose is to: (i) sponsor university research in order to expand the number of students and the capability of universities engaged in semiconductor-related

research; and (ii) generate basic research results that are relevant and available to

the entire industry.

The approach of the GRC is to fund, on a competitive basis, project proposals from

individual university faculty, assisted by students, in targeted areas of semiconductor research. Since 1982, the GRC has funded approximately $850 million of university research projects.

Focus Center Research Program

In 1997, the Defense Department and the U.S. semiconductor industry launched

the FCRP—a jointly funded program to support a new type of university research

in semiconductor technology. By focusing on mid- to long-term technology challenges

of greatest interest to the Defense Department and the semiconductor industry, the

FCRP seeks to marshal university efforts into integrated and sustained centers of

research.

Oversight of the FCRP is through a governing council which includes industry

participants and officials from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

(DARPA). It currently operates on approximately $20 million in Defense Department annual funding managed through DARPA, coupled with $20 million of industry funds. FCRP contracts directly with the lead university at each center conducting the research.

Current FCRP funding supports select research projects at five university clusters

involving 38 universities, 200 research professors and 400 graduate students. The

five university centers receive three-year contracts as a result of a joint Defense Department-industry solicitation and award for breakthrough research proposals.

Nanoelectronics Research Initiative

As the laws of physics narrow the potential for the kind of scaling that has historically characterized the semiconductor industry, attention has turned to the development of a new logic switch as a means to continue the progress depicted by

Moore’s Law. To take on the daunting task of identifying and demonstrating the

commercial feasibility of a new logic switch, the SIA launched, under the SRC umbrella, the Nanoelectronics Research Initiative.

The NRI is an industry-university-government partnership to find a new

switch

The NRI pulls together semiconductor companies, 25 universities in 13 states,

State governments, and the NSF. The industry contribution through the NRI is

about $5 million per year. This is in addition to about $60 million that the semiconductor industry is investing in universities through research consortia, with millions

more invested directly by individual companies.

The research activity is organized within three NRI university centers that were

established in 2006, plus NRI and NSF supplemental co-funding of nanoelectronics

projects at 10 existing NSF university centers. The three NRI university centers are

virtual centers, grouped largely by geography, and while all of the centers are working on research aimed at finding a new logic switch, the focus of the programs at

each center has its own specific character:

The Western Institute of Nanoelectronics (WIN) is headquartered at the UCLA

and includes the UC–Berkeley, UC–Santa Barbara, and Stanford University. WIN

focuses solely on spintronics and related phenomena, extending from material, devices, and device-device interaction all the way to circuits and architectures. In addition to its NRI funding, this center receives additional direct support from Intel and

the California’s UC Discovery program.

123

2 ‘‘The Committee commends NSF for its Silicon Nanoelectronics and Beyond program and its

partnership with the Nanoelectronics Research Initiative, which involves the sponsorship of research in the areas of information’ technology and electronics. The Committee encourages NSF

to continue its support for such research in Fiscal year 2007.’’ House Report 109–118—Science,

State, Justice, Commerce, And Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, Fiscal Year 2006.

The Institute for Nanoelectronics Discovery and Exploration (INDEX) is

headquartered at the State University of New York–Albany (SUNY–Albany) and includes the Georgia Institute of Technology, Harvard University, the Massachusetts

Institute of Technology, Purdue University, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and

Yale University. INDEX focuses on the development of nanomaterial systems; atomic-scale fabrication technologies; predictive modeling protocols for devices, sub-systems and systems; power dissipation management designs; and realistic architectural integration schemes for realizing novel magnetic and molecular quantum devices. INDEX also receives additional direct support from IBM and New York State.

The South West Academy for Nanoelectronics (SWAN) is headquartered at the

University of Texas–Austin and includes UT–Dallas, Texas A&M, Rice, Notre Dame,

Arizona State and the University of Maryland. SWAN focuses on a variety of new

devices, including spin-based switches, nanowires, nano-magnets, and devices which

use electron wave or phase interference. In addition, work is being done on modeling; novel interconnects, such as plasmonics; and nano-metrology techniques. In

addition to its NRI funding, SWAN receives additional support from Texas Instruments and the Texas Emerging Technology Fund.

In addition to these centers, NRI and NSF co-fund supplemental grants for NRIrelated research at existing NSF nanoscience centers (Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers (NSECs), Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers

(MRSECs), and the Network for Computational Nanotechnology (NCN) ). We are

currently supporting 12 projects at 10 NSF centers, which range from advanced

computer simulation of spin-based devices to measurements of non-equilibrium coherent transport in single-layer graphene sheets to directed self-assembly of quantum dot and wire structures for novel devices. The goal in making this joint investment with NSF is not only to complement the work going on in the NRI centers,

but also to leverage the work going in the NSF centers, with the NRI program gaining from the knowledge being created in the NSF center as a whole and the NSF

centers gaining from the industry involvement through NRI. We see the NSF centers as a very valuable resource for pursuing nanoelectronics research requiring the

integration of multiple science and engineering disciplines, and strongly support

NSF’s continued investment in the centers and multi-year, group awards.

Collaborative research is a classic win-win situation

The U.S. semiconductor industry is investing in basic university research because

it recognizes that the country whose companies are first to market will likely lead

the coming nanoelectronics era the way the U.S. has led for half a century in microelectronics. Investment in universities not only results in the science and engineering breakthroughs needed to continue the rapid progress in semiconductor technology, but also increases the number of students with advanced degrees in the appropriate areas to work in the industry, increasing our competitiveness in the longterm.

Industry recognizes that the tight collaboration of industry-university-government

involvement will be crucial to the success of this large research endeavor. Due to

the magnitude of the scientific challenges ahead, and the large diversity of scientific

disciplines required, NSF involvement in the effort to find a new switch is absolutely critical. The House Appropriations Committee recognized this fact when it

singled out the NSF’s work with the NRI as well as its Silicon Nanoelectronics and

Beyond program in its committee report and encouraged such work to be continued.2

The partnership between universities, industry, and the National Science Foundation in NRI results in a more productive research program because it brings together the technical expertise of industrial research managers and university scientists. In creating the NRI university centers, the NRI’s Technical Program Group

(TPG), which has members from all NRI member companies, released an open call

for proposals to all U.S. universities, to identify the most promising technical ideas

to pursue. From these proposals, the three university centers were created, and the

technical project plans are continually managed and evaluated by a joint team of

professors and the TPG. In addition, industry researchers work on-site at some of

the universities, to further insure a close, on-going connection between academia

and industry.

124

The NRI has also partnered with the NSF to fund work at existing NSF centers.

Again the proposals are chosen from an open call to the NSF centers, with technical

review by both the NSF and the NRI TPG, and the NRI stays closely linked to the

work through industrial liaison teams assigned to interact with each specific project.

In addition to the direct co-funding of research at the NSF centers, the NRI has

welcomed input from the government on our overall program, and would like to see

these partnerships increase going forward. NSF, DARPA, and NIST already attend

the NRI’s Governing Council meetings which provide executive oversight to the program, and we would like to expand these partnerships in the future to allow more

joint funding and technical management of the NRI work at the university centers.

As the research begins to come to fruition, prior industry involvement will facilitate technology transfer. Rapid commercialization of academic research is in the interests of universities and government funding agencies as well as industry, as it

directly contribute to American competitiveness. The NRI is building on 25 years

of experience by its parent, the SRC, in managing university research, in partnership with industry and the government.

Salient Features of Semiconductor Research Consortia

The GRC, FCRP and NRI have proven themselves to be highly durable and successful models for engaging universities in research. These consortia’s relationship

to universities is quite standard: it is generally defined by sponsored research contracts or, in some cases, grants. What is unique is the structure of the consortia

themselves. These structures call for a sharing of effort and risk, benefits and costs.

They have a number of salient features:

• Consortia provide multi-year support for research, faculty and students; industry participants must make a two- to three-year financial commitment and

shoulder the risks inherent in such a commitment.

• Research areas are derived from the International Technology Roadmap for

Semiconductors (ITRS) and have wide potential applications from personal

consumer, defense, telecommunications and computing applications.

• Research is generic in nature, long-term in content and pre-competitive for industry.

• Intellectual property (IP) derived from research is available to participants on

an equal, non-exclusive basis.

• Participants proceed as partners and in accordance with consensus, with no

single participant able to dominate.

The combination of these features results in a consortium structure that enables

participants to contribute to a broad research agenda, leverage their funding and

extract what they can use. In contrast to the colloquial meaning of the term ‘‘partnership’’ as any form of joint activity, the consortia structures establish a partnership through a coming together of participants to share equally or proportionately

in a common activity.

Overlap of Semiconductor Research Consortia with NSF’s Mission

At the same time, the semiconductor industry’s consortia operate in a manner

that is wholly compatible with and complementary to the NSF mission.

• Both provide substantial support to university faculty and students.

• Both proceed in response to university proposals focused on basic scientific research.

• Both distribute funds based on merit review and competition.

• Both allow universities to manage and conduct the research themselves; neither industry consortia nor NSF undertake research.

• Both are dedicated to seeing the research put to use.

There are, of course, some significant differences between the approach of semiconductor industry consortia and NSF. Consortia research has been more focused

and targeted to industry needs. Consortia bring more industry input and perspective

to both the solicitation and award of university research proposals. Finally, because

of industry involvement, the path to commercialization is more direct and widespread for universities dealing with semiconductor industry consortia.

Yet, none of these differences conflict with the primary NSF mission. On the contrary, they provide additional means that NSF could exploit and leverage in pursuing its mission.

125

Cooperation of Semiconductor Research Consortia with NSF

Over the years, semiconductor industry consortia have utilized three primary avenues of cooperation with NSF. First, the consortia have funded a few individual university centers such as the NSF/SRC Engineering Research Center for Environmentally Benign Semiconductor Manufacturing at the University of Arizona. The

centers were solicited and awarded separately by SRC and NSF, but were based on

a single statement of work and coordinated oversight.

Second, the SRC has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with

NSF which provides for specific and voluntary interaction between industry and

NSF in nanotechnology. The principal elements of the agreement are:

• SRC is to provide input to NSF for possible use in certain NSF solicitations.

• SRC is to provide a contact list of suggested industry expert reviewers who

agree to serve on proposal selection panels if requested to do so by NSF Program Managers.

• SRC agrees to review the selected awards, maintain contact with recipients

and offer the opportunity for voluntary participation in the SRC technology

transfer processes.

To date, over $20 million in annual research conducted under the auspices of the

NSF program has been subject to SRC involvement along the lines outlined above.

Third, as mentioned above, NRI has coordinated with NSF Nanotechnology Centers on supplemental solicitations. Industry has endorsed certain university proposals and made charitable contributions in support of NSF supplemental grants.

The three means of active cooperation between NSF and semiconductor industry

consortia have been productive and well-received by universities. However, the cooperation has been largely informal, with NSF and industry consortia proceeding

separately in accordance with their own rules and procedures.

Building on the NSF-industry NRI partnership

As is clear from the discussion above, the semiconductor industry has a long history of working with the NSF and other government agencies to support basic research and has built strong and effective partnerships. As the House Science Committee undertakes the reauthorization of the NSF, it should consider how it might

provide NSF with more flexibility to work with industry in support of university research, and in particular, areas of multi-disciplinary research.

By participating in these consortia, NSF could exploit a new research avenue to

enhance the value of its efforts. But maximizing the value of the consortia structure

implies more than merely issuing grants or cooperative agreements. It requires NSF

to join in the consortia. NSF’s participation can improve the operation of the consortia and increase the value of the research results coming out of universities. By

becoming a participant in NRI, for example, NSF would gain a new and powerful

dimension for its work in nanoelectronics.

For it to participate fully with semiconductor industry consortia, however, NSF

needs more flexibility and scope for innovation than its enabling legislation currently allows. While a grantor-grantee role or a contractor-supplier role are appropriate for engaging universities, they are not well-suited to engage with industry

consortia, at least if NSF seeks to participate directly with these consortia. As a participant in semiconductor industry consortia, NSF would have an equal status and

would be able to share the risks, costs and benefits of the research, like any other

participant.

In order for NSF to fully engage with consortia that sponsor university research,

new authority would be most helpful. DARPA, for example, has participated in the

Focus Center Research Program through the so-called ‘‘other agreements’’ authority

(10 USC 2371), which dispenses with many of the contractual requirements and

overhead of the Federal Procurement Regulations. In FCRP, industry and government money is pooled, and decisions to fund university programs are approved

through a merit-based process by a governing council that includes both industry

and Defense Department representatives. Providing NSF access to this authority or

similar authority could open the door to greater collaboration among industry, NSF

and universities. This could leverage the funds going to universities, orient university research in more productive directions and enhance the prospects for commercialization of research results.

In short, NSF could benefit from statutory authority to expand beyond its current

charter, with tools to enable participation in industry consortia, giving NSF the

maximum flexibility to determine the most appropriate way to achieve the research

objectives.

126

3Dale W. Jorgenson, ‘‘Moore’s Law and the Emergence of the New Economy’’ in ‘‘2020 is Closer than You Think,’’ 2005 SIA annual report.

Increases in NSF nanoelectronics research funding have tremendous public benefits

Given the importance of maintaining technology leadership, the semiconductor industry supports increased research funding at the NSF, particularly in the area of

nanoelectronics. The Administration’s budget proposes $390 million for

nanotechnology for 2008, a 4.6 percent increase over the $373 million for 2007. This

is $86 million below the $476 million authorized for nanotechnology at NSF under

the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act passed in 2003,

and should be increased.

Research investments to continue Moore’s Law have immense benefits to the U.S.

economy. Harvard economist Dale Jorgenson has noted, ‘‘The economics of Information Technology begins with the precipitous and continuing fall in semiconductor

prices.’’ Professor Jorgenson attributed the rapid adoption of IT in the U.S. for driving substantial economic growth in the U.S. gross domestic product since 1995, concluding, ‘‘Since 1995, Information Technology industries have accounted for 25 percent of overall economic growth, while making up only three percent of the GDP.

As a group, these industries contribute more to economy-wide productivity growth

than all other industries combined.’’ 3

To see the impact of the productivity gains on a single sector, it is instructive to

consider the benefits the government (federal, State, and local) receives as a consumer of semiconductors. The Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis has data indicating that the government sector of the economy purchased $6.8

billion of computers in 2005, but that they would have had to spend $34 billion for

that same amount of computing power if they had to pay 1997 prices. The cumulative benefit from technology improvements and resulting price declines from 1997

to 2006 is $152 billion of ‘‘free’’ computing. In this tight budget year, it is important

to remember that the federal investments made to support basic research are not

only beneficial to the overall U.S. economy, but they also allow the government itself

to do more with less as a result of falling computing costs.

Increased funding needed for services-related education programs and

multi-disciplinary research

Another critical area where the National Science Foundation is leading among

federal agencies is in its support for multi-disciplinary research and education in the

emerging field of services science. Importantly, Chairman Baird and Ranking Member Ehlers referenced this NSF role in their remarks at the March 20 Subcommittee

hearing on NSF’s reauthorization.

Services make up about 80 percent of the U.S. economy, while employing approximately the same percentage of the U.S. labor force. As a country, we need to invest

in the skills needed for 21st century jobs—jobs that almost certainly will be dominated by the services market. High-value services jobs require skills, beyond simple

programming or systems administration. They require the ability to integrate scientific, management, engineering and other disciplines like law, economics or operations research with the people aspect of business. This talent is needed not only

by the technology sector but also by every sector employing and utilizing services,

including banking, health care, retail, education, government and manufacturing. In

short, more skilled professionals are needed to design and implement modern service architectures that drive productivity and create new value for all types of clients,

whether they are public or private sector.

The National Science Foundation is blazing new ground in this area by partnering

with industry and U.S. universities to support services science research and curricula development at the undergraduate and graduate levels. This important but

little-known work within the Engineering and the Education and Human Resource

directorates supports the high value-added, service-sector jobs that will differentiate

the U.S. economy from those of our competitors around the world. Increasing NSF’s

overall budget for research and education supports the nascent but incredibly important work they are doing in this field—research and curricula development that to

our knowledge is not being done by any other federal agency. Establishing the academic discipline of services science will help keep the U.S. workforce competitive

and prepared to lead in a rapidly evolving global economy.

NSF education programs need to be increased

A number of studies have documented the Nation’s crisis in math and science

education. For example, the National Academies’ ‘‘Rising Above the Gathering

Storm’’ report stated, ‘‘Fewer than one-third of U.S. fourth grade and eighth grade

127

4 National Academies, ‘‘Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America

for a Brighter Economic Future,’’ October 2005; available at: http://

www.nationalacademies.org/morenews/20051012.html 5See National Academy of Engineering, ‘‘Enhancing the Community College Pathway to Engineering Careers’’ (2005) at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11438.html

students performed at or above a level called ‘‘proficient’’ in mathematics; ‘‘proficiency’’ was considered the ability to exhibit competence with challenging subject

matter’’ and recommended that the Nation ‘‘increase America’s talent pool by vastly

improving K–12 science and mathematics education’’ through steps including ‘‘annually recruiting 10,000 science and mathematics teachers by awarding four-year

scholarships and thereby educating 10 million minds, and strengthen the skills of

250,000 teachers through training and education programs at summer institutes

and other programs.4

The NSF has an important role to play in expanding the talent pipeline by supporting programs and adequate appropriations to improve science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education and attract students to these disciplines at the K–12, undergraduate, and graduate levels. For example, the additional funding for the Robert Noyce Scholarship program, named after the co-inventor of the integrated circuit, provides scholarships for undergraduates majoring in

STEM disciplines in return for a commitment to teach K–12 math or science. Other

NSF education programs include the Math and Science Education Partnership program to prepare undergraduates for K–12 math and science teaching, and the

STEM Talent Expansion Program (STEP), which awards competitive grants to institutions of higher education to boost the number of undergraduate majors in STEM

disciplines. The semiconductor industry fully supports Chairman Gordon’s ‘‘10,000

Teachers, 10 Million Minds’’ Science and Math Scholarship Act (H.R. 362) that increases the authorizations for many of these programs.

Another important NSF program is the Advanced Technology Education program

which helps community colleges with workforce development. The ATE program was

instrumental in establishing the Maricopa Advanced Technology Education Center,

an organization that helps community colleges around the country train technicians

to work in semiconductor factories. Community colleges are also an important

source of transfer students to four year colleges and universities, and thus should

have a key role in any strategy to increase the Nation’s engineering talent.5 We

would encourage the House Science Committee to draw greater attention to this opportunity as part of the reauthorization process.

It should be noted that the semiconductor industry is doing its part to support

education. SIA’s member survey shows that in the period 2001 to 2005 the combined

spending by member companies on K–12 programs is over $250 million with more

than 370,000 teachers and seven million students reached by the programs these

companies support.

Summary

The U.S. Government, and the NSF in particular, is an important player in the

strategy to maintain U.S. technology leadership, at a time when we face fundamental limits on the base devices which have been driving the information technology economy for the past half-century.

Discovering, developing, and implementing a new logic device is a daunting task,

but not unprecedented. In the 1940’s, when vacuum tubes were the state-of-the-art

but were reaching their own limits, the U.S. Government realized there was a critical need for finding smaller, faster, lighter devices for its radar and guided missile

systems. A concerted effort began between the government, universities, and industry labs to find alternatives, with approximately $5 billion of federal money (in today’s dollars) being invested in semiconductor research specifically to answer this

challenge. The result was not only technology to enable advanced weapon systems,

but the birth of the solid-state transistor, which became the foundation of the information technology revolution that drives our economy to this day. And it was only

the combination of the best basic science research coming out of the universities;

the practical guidance and mission-focus of the industrial labs; the significant research funding from the government; and the collaborative interaction of all of these

groups that enabled both the scientific breakthroughs and the reduction to practical

implementation necessary for such a project to succeed.

We now face a similar transition, as we look for a switch to replace our current

CMOS transistor. We are just beginning this research, and the initial efforts are

small in comparison to what was done in the 40’s and 50’s. It is critical we grow

these efforts significantly over the next several years, and finding flexible models

for industry and government to interact will be critical to success. To this end, inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:48 Oct 12, 2007 Jkt 034012 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\R&SE07\032007\34012A SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
128

creasing research funding at NSF particularly in the Nanoelectronics area, and expanding NSF’s collaboration with the semiconductor industry is absolutely essential

if we are to continue our accelerated economic growth and productivity and if America is to lead in the coming nanoelectronics era.

BIOGRAPHY FOR JEFFREY J. WELSER

Dr. Jeffrey Welser is on assignment from the IBM Corporation to serve as the Director of the Nanoelectronics Research Initiative (NRI), a subsidiary of the Semiconductor Research Corporation (SRC). The NRI supports university-based research on

future nanoscale logic devices to replace the CMOS transistor in the 2020 timeframe.

Dr. Welser received his Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University

in 1995, and joined IBM’s Research Division at the T.J. Watson Research Center.

His graduate work was focused on utilizing strained-Si and SiGe materials for FET

devices. Since joining IBM, Jeff has worked on a variety of novel devices, including

nano-crystal and quantum-dot memories, vertical-FET DRAM, and Si-based optical

detectors, and eventually took over managing the Novel Silicon Device group at

Watson. He was also working at the time as an Adjunct Professor at Columbia University, teaching semiconductor device physics. In 2000, Jeff took an assignment in

Technology group headquarters, and then joined the Microelectronics division in

2001, as project manager for the high-performance CMOS device design groups. In

May 2003, he was named Director of high-performance SOI and BEOL technology

development, in addition to his continuing work as the IBM Management Committee Member for the Sony, Toshiba, and AMD development alliances. In late 2003,

Jeff returned to the Research division as the Director of Next Generation Technology Components. He worked on the Next Generation Computing project, looking

at technology, hardware, and software components for systems in the 2008–2012

timeframe. In mid-2006, Jeff took on his current role for NRI, and is now based at

the IBM Almaden Research Center in San Jose, CA.

DISCUSSION

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you, Dr. Welser, and thanks to all the

panelists for outstanding testimony. I will yield myself five minutes

now for questions. We have been joined by Dr. Jerry McNerney as

well, who is the Vice Chair of the Committee, and I am glad he is

here.

One of the issues that I think many of you touched upon has to

do with the industrial, the partnership between institutions of

higher learning, NSF, and industry itself. And I was intrigued by

a number of things.

Dr. Welser, I want to hear a little more about your alternative

approach. Describe a little more how that would work, and what

the pros and cons would be.

Dr. WELSER. Sure. So, currently, the way we interact mostly with

the NSF is through doing funding to university centers the NSF

has set up already, or trying to help them put out program proposals that would be in line with the Nanoelectronics Research Initiative or other industry initiatives. Which works quite well, and

actually, we have gotten a lot of mileage out of that kind of partnership.

The next step forward that we—which is what we do with

DARPA in our Focus Center Research Program, is to actually bring

the NSF onboard to the panels that we use, for actually deciding

where we are putting our money with—on the industry side, and

then, the money that comes in from the NSF. It is still all meritbased, in that all of these proposals come in open, it is an open call

for all universities. It is reviewed by scientific members from the

industry, and as well as the NSF, then, in that case, or DARPA in

129

the case of the FCRP. And all the money does go to the universities. There is no money going off to the industry in this case. It

is all being funneled back out.

The reason this is good is it allows us to focus programs and

focus center research more closely with what we think is the most

urgent needs within the nanoelectronics area, and hopefully, we

also, then, can help NSF or the other agencies in their other decisions in their other programs, as to where they think they can

most help for additional funding.

Chairman BAIRD. I appreciate that. I will make a note to my

staff here. I want to have further discussion on that, because it

seems kind of intriguing as a model, and I would like to go into

more detail on that.

Dr. Ford, I appreciate very much what you said about community

colleges producing the workforce for the technical industry. The

other Members of this committee have heard a study from my district where major potential—well, current employers potentially

are going to spend another $200 million to $500 million in the district. They need several hundred educated workers. They can’t find

people who can do an average and a standard deviation, and read

basic charts. And they are looking, really, to the community college. They are saying look, we need the high level scientists to do

the gee whiz stuff, but we need the people who can just make the

machines run, and that is requiring some basic skills that are lacking.

How are you—you mentioned a little bit about this. You are

partnering directly with the industries through the ATE Program.

The industries are coming to you and saying this is what we need.

Elaborate on that a little bit, if you would.

Dr. FORD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Absolutely.

Industry partners are coming to us, but for each one of our programs, our technical programs, we have an advisory committee,

and the advisory committee is comprised of representatives from

the industry, from representatives from four year institutions, and

they help us to determine precisely what those needs are, the

skillsets that they require in the industry. The advisory committee

is chaired by a representative from the industry, and then, we have

standards that we look at, we develop the curricula in all of the

training programs to deliver to the employees.

One of the things that we have done that I think is working very

well, and that is very consistent with other community colleges, is

that we are partnering with public schools as well. In Workforce

America, a publication that was released a couple of years ago, indicating that as you look at the Nation’s workforce, and the requirements in technical areas, that if all of the community colleges

and universities were to start today, to start looking at how we

prepare the technicians for the industries. They have tremendous

needs that we would not be able to fill that void by 2015. So, there

is a need.

So, we are now working with public schools on the career pathways, and we are providing the dual credits, so that juniors and

seniors who are eligible can come to the community colleges, and

they can earn all of the course requirements that are necessary to

fill those technical jobs that the industries need. And yes, the inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:48 Oct 12, 2007 Jkt 034012 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\R&SE07\032007\34012A SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
130

dustries do indicate to us precisely what those skillsets are, as we

develop the curricula for training.

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you very much. I only have a few seconds left, but I will—we will have a second round.

But Dr. Wise, one of the things I spoke some time back with the

University about was the practice of some NSF programs, to limit

the number of programs that can get approved per institution. I see

the merit of that potentially in your distributing the wealth, but

you may not be distributing it in the most efficacious way.

Would you care to comment on that at all?

Dr. WISE. I would actually like to comment on that.

Clearly, I think that there should be some control over that, but

I think that it would be beneficial, in terms of value added if that

basis was not an absolute number, but a number based upon NSF

previous funding, or number of funded researchers at each institution, and I think you are pointing out one of the things that frustrates us so much in the number of applications that we can put

in, for example, for IGERTs, where the preliminary number is a

certain number, there is a viewing of it, and then, only a certain

number of those, that have already been deemed qualified, are allowed for final submission, and it is difficult.

Chairman BAIRD. So, you could put in—you might have a number of potential projects that all are meritorious, but that is pared

down, even you had, you know, if you had some of your projects

much more meritorious than somewhere else, you would be limited,

and someone else might——

Dr. WISE. That is right.

Chairman BAIRD. Yeah. That may not be the most effective way.

We will be looking into that.

Dr. Ehlers has an appointment soon, so I want to yield to Dr.

Ehlers now.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have another meeting on science-related issues I have to leave for shortly.

First of all, a question for all of you. Do you have personal acquaintanceships or relationships with your Members of Congress or

your U.S. Senators? Any of you?

Dr. HUNT. In other words, do we go to their office and visit and

talk to them?

Mr. EHLERS. Yeah, or from your home district, preferably.

Dr. HUNT. I do.

Mr. EHLERS. You do. Good.

Dr. HUNT. Yes.

Mr. EHLERS. Anyone else? Okay. Yes, Dr. Ford.

Dr. FORD. We have a Governmental Relations Office that usually

meets with our Congresspersons, and occasionally, they will come

to our campuses, and we interact with them.

Mr. EHLERS. Okay.

Dr. WISE. We, too, have advisors from Senators and

Congressman——

Mr. EHLERS. Okay, good. I certainly want to encourage that, because I noticed almost all of you said NSF should have more

money. Now, the fact that it doesn’t have enough money is not our

fault. We are great advocates of the National Science Foundation,

and want them to have their funding increased.

131

Today, we had a big battle on the floor about the budget for next

year, and I have fought, as I suspect the chairman has fought, for

increasing the numbers for what is called Fund 250, which includes

the National Science Foundation and other research. It has gone

up perhaps a micron or two on the scale, but there is a long ways

to go. We need all the help we can get, and the scientific community really has to become active. They have not been as active as

they should be in seeking funding for the National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, and so forth. And that is not true of

all scientists. Some are extremely active, but I hope all of you will

become active, and recruit others to become active.

I recall when Chairman Sensenbrenner was the chairman of the

Science Committee, and scientists came to him and asked for

money for a project, his first question was: ‘‘Have you explained

this to your local Rotary Club?’’ And which was always greeted

with surprise, you know, why should we? He said: ‘‘Well, if you

can’t convince them this is worthwhile, how do you expect me to

convince my colleagues it is worthwhile.’’

The Congress starts from the bottom up, so I hope you will join

in that. We have someone in the audience who spends most of his

life lobbying for money and has a good friendship with many Members of Congress, and I would like to see that replicated many

times over.

I—first of all, Dr. Ford, I appreciate what you are doing, because

I have been leading the charge on improving STEM education,

science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and the response I

get from a lot of people is well, you just want to produce more scientists and engineers, because you are a scientist. The real point

of it is to do precisely what you are doing. The kids who are in

school today will not have jobs if we don’t educate them for the jobs

of the future, and that is precisely what you are doing.

Now, the reason the community colleges are doing it is because

the schools are failing to do it. The elementary schools, by and

large, are not getting them prepared or excited, and I just read an

article recently about the fact, compared to most developed countries, the United States is way down, as we all know, in the fourth

grade level, the eighth grade level, and the high school senior level,

compared to other developed countries, in the students’ knowledge

of math and particularly physics, but also, other sciences. And the

article went on to point out, and they had done some research on

this, the reason we still succeed fairly well as a Nation, because of

our community college system, so that students who do not learn

these things in school go to the community college, spend a couple

of years there, and then are able to get into the universities where

they finally hit their stride.

Now, that is wonderful but they can do this, but it is a very inefficient way of educating students. So, I just wanted to thank you

for what you are doing, but also, recognize that you are so successful only because we are failing elsewhere.

I think I have to run, so I better stop here, because my next comments would be much longer. But I do want to thank you for your

interest and the insights you have presented here is very good, precisely what we need.

Dr. Ford, do you want to——

132

Dr. FORD. Yes, thank you very much, Ranking Member Ehlers.

I would like to thank you for your remarks, and would like to indicate that based upon the data that we have found, national data,

that they would indicate that the students who begin with us at

the community college, often they come in, and they don’t have all

of the competencies and skills required, but by the time they exit,

they do have all of the competencies and skills required.

When they transfer to a four year university, that the community

college student transfers perform just as well or better than those

students who began at the university level as freshmen.

So, that, really, was very, very positive feedback for all of the

community colleges, recognizing that many of our faculty members

were trained at the university, and many of the faculty members

who teach for us part-time are the same university faculty members. So, the students who come to us are getting that interaction

and that interchange from the brightest minds, both at the community college, as well as from the university.

So, thank you very much.

Mr. EHLERS. Well, using a religious motif, you are here providing

salvation for people who desperately needing it.

The other interesting thing, too, is that the route through you,

if students are not prepared, is a much better route, because I have

looked at the data from major universities, and the number of students who fail because they are not properly prepared in math and

the sciences, is much higher than it should be, and that means

these students who are not prepared for a number of reasons, tend

to really have a terrible experience, in some cases, just dropping

out totally. Those students should have probably gone to your

school or a similar school, to get what they needed to succeed at

the university.

This is particularly true with some of the figures I have seen

about high school mathematics, and attempts to implement new

approaches without checking with the universities, and they end

up with high school graduates who are extremely adept at certain

parts of mathematics, but still can’t get it, can’t succeed in the calculus, because they just didn’t cover the material that the universities expect.

Thank you very much for being here. I apologize that I have to

run, but thank you for the wisdom you have shared with us. I appreciate it.

Dr. WISE. Thank you.

Dr. FORD. Thank you.

Chairman BAIRD. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers. Dr. McNerney is recognized for five minutes.

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank Dr.

Ehlers, too, for his insightful comments.

It is a pleasure to work on this subcommittee, because there is

so much educational level portrayed, and we have gone through the

rigors in this committee, and I see from your credentials that you

all have gone through the rigors of discipline, and as a consequence

of that, you understand the rewards of that hard work, both emotionally, intellectually, and in terms of your career, and maybe financially. And so, that is the joy of sitting here on this panel and

listening to a group like this.

133

Now, unfortunately, I think we have seen a devolution of interest

in technical subjects in the lower levels of education in this country. And I hate to say it, but it just plain isn’t cool to be a nerd,

to work hard for something that is long off into the future in our

country, and to develop the skills needed to be a successful scientist. And that is the challenge that we have, and that is a challenge I am presenting to you is how do we change this culture?

A little money from NSF here and there is going to be good, it

is going to be helpful, but we need to get the young children in this

country interested in putting in the hard work, both because of the

reward, financially and to the country, but also the reward they get

intellectually. We have seen a lot of young people running around

with the disrespect and so on, and now, it is time for us to change.

The paradigm has to change. We have to reach a tipping point

where this country moves toward understanding the magnitude of

the challenges that we are facing in the next century, and that is

up to them, that generation, the next generation, to rise up and

meet those challenges, because if they don’t, we are going to be devolving economically into a Third World country, so that is my

preaching.

And I have a few questions on the end of that. Dr. Wise, I guess

this isn’t really a question. You have some very good ideas and

very good visions of where we can go, in terms of our scientific

work. You said underwater mapping, the ocean floor, and so I think

that is very exciting. And you also mentioned the manipulation of

large, complex datasets, and I think Dr. Welser mentioned the

human genome recently, mathematics, and I am a mathematician,

had a very big discovery on E8, and that is the most complicated

structure ever studied. It is a 258 dimensional object, and just the

fact that we can corral that sort of an object, and map it out so that

it can be understood, is a tremendous achievement for the human

condition.

So, that wasn’t really a question, just a comment.

Dr. Hunt, you called for a symbiotic relationship between academia and industry, and I think that is very important. I have

spent my career in industry. I have a Ph.D., so I do understand the

need for that. And my question is this: do you think the National

Science Foundation is doing enough to sort of foster that symbiotic

relationship, and if not, do you have any specific suggestions or

ideas of how we could proceed down that road?

Dr. HUNT. So—I do. I think this is a great subject, and it hits

me both as President of the ACS, where I represent by members,

but it also hits me right squarely on my job at Rohm & Haas,

which is to build that relationship between industry, academia, and

national labs for cutting edge science.

And so, I think the NSF has certain programs, and we actually

work with those programs. We have associations with professors

who have GOALI grants, as well as being part of NIRTs and

IGERTs, and other programs like that. But when professors come

and approach us, that are just starting out, they many times are

not aware of these programs.

So, I think that there could be more, a broader knowledge of

these programs, because the professors who do have them, and

once we start working with them, and they become part of these

134

programs, they say our students, every one of our students, should

have a GOALI, because every student who has a GOALI gets a job,

because they get it. Whether it is in academics or industry, they

get that connection between forming the idea, and envisioning it to

a final product, even if they are not looking at commercializing it,

they understand and they can see the whole throughput.

We also have the students come and work in our labs, and we,

the PI on our project, co-PI, goes to the university, so I would love

to see more of that, and I understand the NSF is also looking at

broadening some of these programs, to be more, well, for instance,

the NIRT is more than one professor at one university, so I think

as you move forward, you develop those team collaborations.

So, I would love to see them build on these programs, and I think

that the legislation that we are talking about here today, or talking

about the reauthorization of NSF, will move us in that direction.

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you for your answer. I think I have run

out of the time. Will you allow Dr. Wise——

Chairman BAIRD. Absolutely.

Dr. WISE. If I could comment on your comment, your earlier comment about how young these children should be when they are first

exposed. We have a program that brings kids on to campus for a

couple of days when they are eight years old, to show them that

science, engineering, and math actually is fun, it is not for nerds.

It is actually cool to do. We take them into our labs. We show them

some experiments, and we follow these kids as they get older.

So we, I think, are beginning to realize, at the university and industry level, how critical it is to take these young minds while they

are still soft clay, and really mold them to realize that careers and

professions in science, technology, engineering, and math are invigorating for your whole lifetime.

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you.

Chairman BAIRD. We have been joined by Mr. Lucas from Oklahoma, who will fill in as Ranking Member, and he also has to catch

a flight about 4:15, so we will give him a bit of extended period of

questioning, if he likes.

Mr. LUCAS. What a tremendous temporary promotion. Thank

you, Mr. Chairman. I am fixing to go out across the countryside,

like a lot of my colleagues in this next couple of weeks, and visit

with my good constituents, and a goodly number of town meetings

that I will do.

And with science being one of my three committee assignments,

in the eyes of my constituents, not always is it a committee that

generates the kind of discussions that the Agriculture Committee,

or for that matter, the Financial Services Committee, generates.

But I guess a question I would like to put to the panel, and anyone who would care to touch on it, when interacting with my constituents, how do you recommend, or what kind of response do you

give, what kind of comments do you provide when the classic question comes up about our efforts, our current efforts to bridge basic

and applied research? How do you explain, if you were in my 20

town meetings I will do over the next two weeks, why those two

things are interconnected, and how are they interconnected?

Man, that is a tough subject.

Dr. WELSER. I will take a shot at it.

135

Mr. LUCAS. Please, Doctor.

Dr. WELSER. I think if you look at like what we are trying to do

with finding a new switch for computer chips, right now, what we

are studying is the spins of individual electrons that float around

in semiconductor metallic materials. I can guarantee you this is

basic science research. I don’t understand half of it myself, but

from that research, we already start to see someone saying well,

look, I can make this one go up on this side and down on that side.

Well, that is a 1 and a 0, that is a switch, that is the next, that

could be the basis of a new computer chip.

So, that kind of really simple idea, that electrons, individual electrons spinning up and down, can suddenly drive your whole computer in the future, that is the connection that I try and look for

myself, when we go to figure out which of the basic science areas

we are going to go invest in.

Mr. LUCAS. And the kind of place that no practical application

company could do the preliminary work, spend the years, come

from the various different angles that you do.

Dr. WELSER. Absolutely.

Chairman BAIRD. Mr. Lucas, if I may invite, Dr. Wise had what

I think——

Mr. LUCAS. Please.

Chairman BAIRD.—would be a great example of some research

that her people did on mosquitoes.

Mr. LUCAS. Please. Oh, mosquitoes.

Dr. WISE. Well, the example that I used——

Chairman BAIRD. Turn your mike on there.

Dr. WISE. The example that I used was that two researchers at

the University of Washington were interested in insect development and learned about the hormonal regulation of that development. That allowed us to develop pesticides. That also allowed us

to develop ways to control reproduction of mosquitoes, which are

the vector for malaria.

I mean, if we knew exactly how to go from the very fundamental

to the very applied, we certainly wouldn’t waste our time on things

that are very esoteric, but the amazing thing about the NSF is that

its funding has allowed the quality of the lives of Americans, but

actually, people and animals and plants around the world, to really

benefit from serendipitous findings that we could never predict

would go from one place to another.

The discovery of enzyme inhibitors that allow us to can food was

not from an investigator who was trying to make canned food stay

on the shelf longer. It was just this wanting to understand the metabolism of bacteria. The study of the human genome was not done

by someone who really wanted to understand DNA sequences. They

were just studying enzymes that broke DNA and bacteria, that led

us to be able to develop the mechanisms, and then, the computers

that were used to be able to do the human genome. It is an amazing—the magic of the NSF is truly in its respect for the human intellect, to be able to be creative, and driven by ideas of discovery,

and not really trying to cure anything or fix anything specific.

Mr. LUCAS. Dr. Ford.

Dr. FORD. Thank you very much. I will be brief.

136

I think one of the best examples, but not in the purest sense, of

a laboratory for applied research, is the local community college.

Because you, in effect, have individuals who come there, and as a

result of the grants that are funded by NSF, whether it is S–

STEM, or whether it is the ATE, you are able to have individuals

who have scholarships, who have the faculty support, to enroll in

the programs, and then transfer to senior level institutions. We

have substantial data to show that many of the students who are

academically capable but financially needy, are able to come into

the AAS degree programs in STEM areas, or into the associate in

science degree programs, and then transfer very successfully to

senior level institutions in STEM programs.

So, I think that is a concept that they would understand, and

they would be able to go to the community college, and see many,

many examples of that. Thank you.

Mr. LUCAS. I promise you, Dr. Ford, I am a true fan. My freshman year was at a community college, before I then transferred to

a land-grant institution, so yes, all of the reasons you have just described.

With that, Mr. Chairman, thank you for this hearing, and very

insightful panel.

Chairman BAIRD. Mr. Lucas, thank you very much, and when the

time comes, if you need to leave, we will only continue the hearing

just very briefly for the purpose of taking testimony.

Just a couple of remaining questions from me.

Dr. Meriles, you talked about the career merit review process,

and I think you raise a very good point, because there is a bit of

a Catch-22. If you are young and new, and have the energy and

all the enthusiasm, and maybe cutting-edge knowledge from just

having completed your dissertation or postdoc work, then you suddenly get to a university. You have got to gear up the hardware,

try to get a team onboard, et cetera, you are under tenure pressure,

and you are applying for grants, and it is sort of like a rookie in

baseball, they are saying well, what have you done in the majors

yet kid? Well, coach, I haven’t even been to the plate yet, here.

So, how do we do that? How do we do that better? What should

we look for? What should we tell NSF to look for in a different

way?

Dr. MERILES. My impression is that young faculty need lots of opportunities, different kind of opportunities. The CAREER Award is

a great way to get started, and particularly, if you work in experimental, if you do experimental research. Then you are going to necessarily have to get equipment for that, and the CAREER Award

may become, perhaps, one of the few ways that you are going to

be able to put together the infrastructure that you need. But—so

my point was that sometimes, you have the idea, you have the will

to go for that idea, and the idea might be pretty good, but sometimes, you are in an environment that, and you know, lacks the infrastructure to at least get started.

And as I said, in physical, in experimental science, it is fundamental that you have some piece of equipment to get started. So,

it is not in particular in my case, I got some startup, and I could

have some preliminary data to show in my proposal, but that, I

know, is not general case. I see people with great ideas, that in the

137

end, are not successful, simply because well, when the competition

is so tight, then you are going to go for proposals that not only

have the idea, but also have the experimental results, and you

know, once you have the experimental results, perhaps something

else.

So, my impression is that perhaps even if it is not within exactly

what we understand now as a CAREER Award, but perhaps

through some pilot program, people may have the opportunity to

get started somehow, and get a proof of principle, of what their

idea is, and so, move from there.

Chairman BAIRD. It occurs to me that it might be an interesting

exercise for NSF, and this is just thinking off the top of my head,

to select a number of programs that would not normally get funded, fund them, and then follow up and see the outcome data of the

potentially rejected versus the actually accepted, and see if the effectiveness of the research, you know, really test your screening

process, so to speak, by selecting the non-selected, and following up

a ways, and seeing what happens. It would be worth maybe doing

a few samples of that, especially in the kind of realm you are talking about, where somebody is taking some innovative ideas, maybe

a little higher risk, but maybe potentially, a much greater payoff

in that.

Dr. MERILES. Because I mean, somehow, at this point, you run

into a position where it is all or nothing, and so, either you get

granted, or in the end, you don’t, and if you don’t, then you fail.

And I believe that that is, somehow, unfair, because the environment is not the same everywhere, so you need to open up, to have

some opportunities for people coming from different origins and

having different backgrounds around.

Chairman BAIRD. Somewhat related to that, I will keep returning

to this theme about partnerships, and Dr. Hunt, you alluded to it,

Dr. Meriles, you talked about partnerships, and—what are—what

specific kinds of things, to the panel in general, but particularly,

maybe, for Dr. Hunt or Dr. Welser, through your organizations,

and you have already alluded to some of the NSF grant programs

that you work with—how would we do this better? And I know

more money, fine, fine. We will do our best. But let us suppose

money is finite, which it is, how do we do things better? How do

we better leverage the money? When Dr. Wise testified, she talked

about the amount of money that NSF contributes to her academic

institution, but that is actually a fairly small number, relative to

the total research budget you alluded to, so there is a lot of

leveraging. How do we better structure NSF grants or other programs for leveraging partnerships?

Dr. WELSER. I will start and——

Dr. HUNT. Okay.

Dr. WELSER.—I will let you jump in. I think that one of the

things that we found very useful in not only the work we do with

the NSF centers, and the NSF grants that come in, but also, some

of the other ways we fund the universities, is to make sure that

we have liaisons from the industry who are actually actively following the specific research programs.

So, for example, every time we do a joint funding with the NSF

at one of their NSECs, we actually have a liaison team from every

138

member of the—every one of our member companies, who is in

charge of going to that center at least once a year, as well as having regular, you know, telecons on a quarterly basis, to keep, not

only to keep track of it so that we understand what is happening,

but hopefully, to give our guidance from the industrial side, as to

what we think might be ways to go.

And the flip side, then, we also try very hard to get the students

who are working on that to come in for co-ops in our companies,

or internships, sometimes it is challenging, because the professors

want, you know, to keep them on campus to do their research, but

we always find that if they do come in for even three months or

six months, and work in the companies, overall, it not only accelerates their ability to complete their thesis, but also, prepares them

better in the end for working on the industrial side, if that is what

they choose to.

So, perhaps also putting that in as part of what you are doing

in your grant, money availability for actually, the travel, the expenses for doing the co-ops and internships, to share with the industry, would be great.

Dr. HUNT. So I guess I would say, one is you could promote these

programs more, two, with some of the other agencies that I work

with, DOE and DOD, there are requirements on the partnerships,

so if you do that, I even find that it is a great way for me to encourage my company to partner more, because in order to get this

funding and attack this problem, if you are made, encouraged, required to have a certain team, that will promote the partnership.

So, in some ways, it is a pull, as opposed to a push, and once you

get it going, it is like turning on the engine. It runs.

Rohm & Haas is a member of the SRC, and so, I also think that

it is a good model of how you get people together to collaborate

around a given program, like electronics materials, which is, you

know, 20 percent of Rohm & Haas’ business, and so, it is very

much of a focus for us.

I think that, and also, one thing, I am also on the executive

board of the Council for Chemical Research, which one of our main

goals is collaboration. And so, what we have done, we have actually

collaborated with NSF to have workshops to bring together people

from across industry, academia, and the national labs, so that you

bring them together. I had one professor say: ‘‘I don’t want a requirement to work with industry, because I don’t know anyone in

industry.’’ And I said: ‘‘Well, you know me, so don’t say that.’’

And so, I think we need to get people to think more broadly

about partnering and the importance of partnering, and I think

once you do it, you find that wow, you get there faster, and so, it

is, in some sense, it is making it happen.

Chairman BAIRD. One more thing. And it is partnering not only

between the university and industry, in many case. I think the

partnerships between professors——

Dr. HUNT. Yes.

Chairman BAIRD.—within universities and across universities, is

really crucial. I think one of the things that the NSECs do quite

well, on the NSF side, as well as the, like the centers that we do

for SRC and the NRI Program, is that we require the proposal to

come in from various universities and professors across disciplines.

139

And that forced communication, it is not natural for professors to

go, to work that way, of course, initially, but almost inevitably by

the end, they do appreciate that.

At our first annual review in November, we had to drag some of

them in, because you know, travel money is always tight, but they

all stayed right until the end, and continued talking long after the

meeting was over, because that was their only opportunity to really

interact with some of these other professors on topics that they

have great passion about.

Dr. WELSER. So, you feel those aspects are working pretty well.

Chairman BAIRD. Yes, absolutely.

Dr. HUNT. I guess I wanted to reinforce what we said earlier

about the NIRT, when universities have a limited number, because

you go through putting that collaboration together in order to get

it through the university stage, and when you then don’t get selected to be the group that goes forward, it is—disheartening may

be a hard word, but it is.

Chairman BAIRD. You put a lot of human effort into this.

Dr. HUNT. And then you have another year before you can apply

again. Now——

Chairman BAIRD. There is a lot of opportunity cost in preparing

a grant.

Dr. HUNT. That is exactly right. And when you talk about, you

know, your success rate, if you have to write ten grants to get one

funded, that is a lot of time.

Chairman BAIRD. Dr. Wise.

Dr. WISE. I would make a suggestion in terms of how to enable

junior faculty to be able to get funded right off the bat. I know the

statistics for the NSF are that 28 percent of the established investigators get funded, whereas only about 17 of the junior ones.

If the cutoff was 10 percent, so the top 10 percent of the grants

would get funded, but the study section was allowed, or the NSF

was allowed to fund down to the 20th percentile any grant between

the 10th and the 20th percentile, that was a first grant for a junior

investigator, basically, the first 20 percent of the grants are all

highly meritorious, and it is very arbitrary that you can only fund

10, but if you could pick and choose from that next 10 percent, so

that only assistant professors applying for their very first grant

would get the money, you would then be selecting and favoring

those that are still highly meritorious, but have never had a grant

before.

Chairman BAIRD. We have, and some of the language in H.R.

363, provisions to shift some of the research funding to earlier career investigators, and I think, and I don’t know that we have exactly codified the mechanism you have described, but it is an interesting way to approach that problem.

I want to thank all the panelists, and some of you have come a

very, very long way, and taken a great deal of your time, and I

want to assure you that these hearings don’t end here. I have a todo list already, the best hearings here are not the ones where the

Members yak and make speeches. They are where you folks give

us your expertise, which far exceeds ours, and we can take notes,

and go back, and try to incorporate these.

140

Some will be, you will be able to see, I think, in the hearing, or

in the ultimate bill, what we have at least tried to address some

of the elements that have been brought to our attention today. And

I am grateful for that. It has been very enlightening for myself and

my colleagues, and I assure you, too, that Members who are not

here in person will check very carefully the record when they get

back, and we will have a lot of discussions about your input, as we

move towards a final draft.

So, thank you very much for your time, thanks also to the folks

who are here in the audience, and thanks again for staff and their

work.

And with that, this meeting stands adjourned. Thank you very

much.

Dr. HUNT. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(141)

Appendix:

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

142

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Phyllis M. Wise, Provost, University of Washington, Seattle

Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall

Q1. You provide some interesting examples of research solving problems it was never

designed to solve. This is relative to the role of industry partnering with NSF,

as well as NSF-funded institutions. What is the appropriate balance between

identifying applications and pursuing them at the cost of serendipitous, fundamental research? What prevents industries from seeking NSF partnerships?

A1. Typically, research in the private sector is driven by evident need and application, and it is likely that less serendipitous discoveries will take place in industrysponsored research or in public-private partnerships. Although of course there are

numerous exceptions to this, especially for companies such as Microsoft and Bell

Laboratories, who have invested heavily in the past in fundamental research. Fundamental (basic) research should remain at the center of NSF, as this is one of few

sources of funding for university researchers that can and should encourage risk

taking. Unfortunately, as research dollars become tighter, review panels tend to become more ‘conservative’ in their expectations, and less willing to fund ‘risky’ research. NSF should in fact seek out ‘high risk—high reward’ research, perhaps with

some designated programs designed to explore the outer boundaries of important

questions. Something akin to the ‘Grand Challenges’ approach developed both by the

NIH and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is worth exploring.

Q2. Most of you have touched on the difficulties faced by early career scientists in

setting up their labs, beginning teaching loads, recruiting students, and above

all, preparing for tenure review. Could each of you please address the challenges

that the tenure process creates? Does the Federal Government have the ability

to lessen these challenges?

A2. At most universities, including the UW, the tenure decision process begins early

in the fifth year of an Assistant Professor’s appointment. Thus, the investigator has

only four years to become established as an independent investigator. Frequently

the first year is consumed by setting up a lab, buying equipment (assuming that

start-up funds are provided), hiring staff and/or recruiting new graduate students,

preparing new lectures, advising new students, establishing collaborations with new

colleagues, etc. It is a rare junior faculty member who is able to show much measurable productivity (e.g., published papers, funded grants) in their first year. Most ‘investigator-initiated’ grant applications are expected to contain significant amounts

of preliminary data to demonstrate that the investigator is capable of designing and

conducting successful experiments, and that the fundamental premise of the hypothesis is valid. Collecting such data requires months of research, such that it may be

well into the second year before a viable grant application (with preliminary data)

can be submitted.

Assuming that the faculty member submitted his first grant midway through his

second year, review and possible funding takes at least nine months from the time

of submission, pushing him into the third year. If not successful, revision and resubmission will take at least another full year (e.g., well into the fourth year). Likewise,

the publication process is often slow. Once experiments are completed and data analyzed (a process that may easily take a year), the paper must be written (another

few months) and submitted for peer review. The initial review process may take another two to three months, and usually will require revisions and re-review (another

three to four months) and may require that more experiments be completed. Even

in the most efficient laboratories, it generally takes at least a year from the time

an experiment is begun to the time a paper is ‘accepted’ for publication.

From the conceptual time table above, it becomes evident how challenging it can

be for a new Assistant Professor to have a ‘demonstrated track record of accomplishment’ (which is almost always measured in numbers of publications and grants submitted and awarded) in four years, with tenure review beginning early in the fifth

year. Most new assistant professors will also be expected to teach (and perhaps even

develop new courses), which is also time consuming and detracts from time available for research. What role can the Federal Government play in ‘lessening the challenges’ of tenure review? The primary way that the Federal Government can help

is to ensure that funding agencies such as NSF have adequate resources to devote

to funding of new investigators. This also requires some education of grant peer reviewers (who are external to the funding agency, but make the initial assessment

of the grant application) to ensure that their expectations for ‘preliminary data’ and

143

publication record of the new investigator are not unduly high. Recognizing that the

rejection of a first grant submission will likely delay significant progress by well

more than a year, it becomes obvious that most new investigators do not have the

time to go through two or three re-submissions. In many circumstances, a third revision may be too late.

It is also important to ensure that the investment in new investigators is made

wisely. It is certainly the case that not every new Professor is cut out for a career

in research, and the institutions rely upon effective peer review to ensure that the

faculty that receive funding are indeed competent researchers. I provided the example that if grants were funded for all investigators to the 10th percentile, allowing

grants submitted by new investigators to be funded which were between the 10th–

12th percentiles would provide them with funding. Usually the difference in merit

of proposals in these highest percentiles is not significant and thus we would not

be ‘lowering the bar.’ In addition, streamlined resubmission and re-review processes

for new investigators that come close, but are not funded the first time, would be

a substantial improvement in the current review process.

As noted in the submitted written testimony, the proposed NSF Charter did include language for a new program that could help to solve some of these problems:

Section 6 ‘‘Establishes a pilot program in which excellent proposals from new investigators that are not funded by the merit review committee can be funded for one

year, at the discretion of the program officer, with Small Grants for Exploratory Research (SGER).’’ This is an innovative approach to addressing the challenge of new

investigator funding. This approach does not circumvent the peer-review process,

yet will allow promising new investigators short-term funding to collect critical

‘‘proof of principle’’ data that are increasingly required to compete successfully for

a full NSF award. Providing NSF staff with the authority and resources to decide

which new investigators do and do not get such pilot funded is a reasonable approach for streamlining this process. Of course, a key issue will be, ‘‘how far the

money can go.’’ For this to be successful, appropriation of significant resources to

this program will be necessary.

Other programmatic ways of shortening the ‘start up’ time and ultimate success

in the tenure process for outstanding young faculty would be to develop four- or fiveyear career transition awards that a post-doctoral fellow could submit during his/

her fellowship years that would fund one or two additional years of post-doctoral

training plus the first three or four years of a new faculty position. The BurroughsWellcome Fund has developed a program similar to this (called the ‘Careers Awards

at the Scientific Interface,’ but this is targeted for a narrow ‘niche’—physical scientists or engineers pursuing research in biomedical sciences. See: http://

www.grad.wisc.edu/research/resadmin/bwfcasi08brochure.pdf)

Q3. You mention in your testimony that ‘‘Asking creative people to solve a defined

problem is not the path to discovery.’’ Along the lines of allowing unfettered research to take place, what is the current tenure environment like at research institutions, and do you feel like taking risks is acceptable in that culture? How

can the university manage/encourage certain perceptions?

A3. In general, most of our junior faculty are actively encouraged NOT to take risks

in the beginning stages of their careers. For many of the reasons delineated in

Question 2, there is little time for ‘failure’ of a good, novel idea that, in the end,

just doesn’t work. The advice is generally to ‘focus, focus, focus,’ and to hedge your

bets on relatively ‘safe’ research that is pretty much guaranteed to produce publishable results. Many novel ideas, even with supporting data, have a difficult time getting published the first time, and publication record at the time of promotion (and

tenure) review is arguably the most important criteria for promotion and tenure.

However, risk taking is certainly appropriate for Associate and Full Professors who

have lesser burdens and time constraints on productivity than junior faculty, and

there is nothing in the tenure environment that would dissuade senior faculty from

risk taking. But creative ways of funding such faculty that encourage risk taking

are needed. The ‘Pioneer’ awards at NIH are an example of such a program.

144

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Catherine T. Hunt, President, American Chemical Society

Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall

Q1. Most of you have touched on the difficulties faced by early career scientists in

setting up their labs, beginning teaching loads, recruiting students, and above

all, preparing for tenure review. Could each of you please address the challenges

that the tenure process creates? Does the Federal Government have the ability

to lessen these challenges?

A1. The long-established academic tenure process is rigorous and demanding on

young investigators. While there is little the Federal Government can or should do

to directly affect the tenure process, there is much the federal research agencies can

do to increase the availability of basic research funding in the physical sciences and

thus provide greater support for tenure-track faculty in these fields. Robust federal

funding for research and development in the physical sciences—chemistry, physics,

engineering and other fields—plays a vital role in providing an environment in

which future generations of scientific researchers can succeed. Ensuring that key research agencies like NSF, NIST, and the DOE’s Office of Science have ample resources to keep the physical science fields vibrant and innovative is a principle

mechanism for attracting our best and brightest students into academic careers.

145

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Margaret F. Ford, President, Houston Community College System,

Northeast

Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall

Q1. Most of you have touched on the difficulties faced by early career scientists in

setting up their labs, beginning teaching loads, recruiting students, and above

all, preparing for tenure review. Could each of you please address the challenges

that the tenure process creates? Does the Federal Government have the ability

to lessen these challenges?

A1. Community Colleges do not face the same challenges faced by senior-level institutions regarding scientists’ laboratories, beginning teaching loads, recruitment and

tenure review. Typically, community college professors teach a standard load—often

twelve to fifteen semester-credit hours of coursework—which would comprise a maximum of five courses for a standard load. University Professors often teach fewer

contact hours but are engaged in research as a part of their academic load. Both

the ‘‘Open-Admissions’’ University and Community College professors do, however,

have similar challenges recruiting sufficient numbers of academically prepared students into STEM-pathways. National Science Foundation support through its funding that positions community colleges as the bridge between public schools and universities (C–STEM and S–STEM) is creating a viable pipeline of students for the

future.

Challenges that the Tenure Process Creates:

In my estimation, the issues and challenges of the tenure process are more institution specific and require institution-specific solutions. According to the American

Association of Community Colleges data, about 51 percent of full-time public community college faculty are tenured, while another 35 percent are not in a system

with tenure available or are not in a tenure track. Only about 14 percent of fulltime faculty at public community colleges are in a tenure track and do not have tenure at all. As Tronie Rifkin wrote in her publication for AACC, the community college professoriate is distinguished by its mission, size, diversity, and educational

background. A hallmark of faculty members in this sector is a commitment to teaching all students, particularly nontraditional students and those who might not otherwise have access to higher education. For community college professors, excellence

in teaching and maximum student success are the primary focus versus the focus

on academic research.

Does the Federal Government have the ability to lessen these challenges?

Issues pertaining to tenure should be addressed specifically by the institutions.

The Federal Government can provide much needed support to institutions through

the following: continuation of funding for faculty research initiatives, in continuation

of funding for community colleges in STEM-fields to create STEM career pathways

for high school students, and in new funding to support the critical area of Teacher

Education.

146

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Carlos A. Meriles, Assistant Professor of Physics, The City College of

New York, CUNY

Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall

Q1. As a young investigator, are you asked to frequently participate in peer review?

Do you have a feel for whether the frequency is similar to more established researchers? How could NSF get more peer reviewers who would be open to new

ideas and potentially ‘‘risky research’’?

A1. My impression is that young investigators are, on average, less frequently

asked to serve as a peer reviewer than established investigators. I do not feel, however, this is intrinsically unfair. In listing reviewers for a proposal, investigators are

naturally prone to suggest (more) senior colleagues given their visibility and demonstrated expertise. Likewise, evaluation committees are more likely to give more

weight to reviews by more senior scientists. However, young investigators can often

provide a fresh, ‘‘out-of-the-box’’ insights, which could be very helpful to NSF program managers. No exact formulas apply in all cases, but, in my opinion, proposal

review teams generally should include at least one younger researcher. This practice

is healthy not only for NSF but for young investigators, as well. Participating in the

review process serves as a learning experience for young investigators that may ultimately translate into improvements in their own research proposals.

How to identify reviewers open to potentially transformative but ‘‘risky’’ projects

is an important issue and deserves special consideration. To start with, the very definition of ‘transformative research’ is not at all clear. To the best of my knowledge,

NSF lacks specific criteria for identifying such research. As a first step NSF should

establish clear criteria and guidelines that allow reviewers and panel members to

identify and separate projects that fall within this category. Once selected, panelists

must be instructed on how to deal with such proposals. In particular, they must be

provided with a clear framework that indicates how to weigh creativity and potential impact versus chances of success; for example, in evaluating the risk of a transformative project, the background of the PIs (even in the case of young researchers)

could be given a higher weight than usual. The NSF could also recruit a special pool

of reviewers whose research track record shows exceptional creativity and extremely

high scientific impact.

Q2. Most of you have touched on the difficulties faced by early career scientists in

setting up their labs, beginning teaching loads, recruiting students, and above

all, preparing for tenure review. Could each of you please address the challenges

that the tenure process creates? Does the Federal Government have the ability

to lesson these challenges?

A2. Faculty tenure in higher education is, essentially, a presumption of competence.

In general, but particularly in the hard sciences, decisions are made first and foremost by the level of external funding and the number of publications and its impact—usually inferred indirectly from a variety of parameters such as the journal

reputation. Teaching evaluations (by more senior colleagues and students) and contributions to departmental tasks play a role as well but, in my experience, the latter

are not as heavily taken into account, especially at research-oriented universities.

Obtaining substantial grant support represents, I feel, the most important challenge young investigators face. For experimental scientists, sufficient funding is inherently tied to the ability to provide an adequate laboratory setting and attract

students; ultimately, it impacts the quality of the research he/she will be able to

carry out. At small- and middle-sized colleges and universities, problems become

more acute, often due to the lack of adequate human and physical infrastructure.

Thus, NSF ought to make every effort to identify and nurture promising young investigators, particularly in these institutions. I indicated in my testimony that a

wider palette of programs for young investigators as well as a more agile and briefer

review process could be part of the solution.

Women in science research face an additional set of challenges. These stem from

a number of sources; for example, women with children often have a comparatively

greater share of the child-rearing responsibilities. Obviously, this affects the ability

of female scientists to effectively compete with their male peers. Some institutions,

such as The University of California and Ohio State University, have instituted the

option of ‘half-time’ tenure track for primary caregivers. One possibility is that, in

these cases, programs for young investigators be extended accordingly.

147

Question submitted by Representative Jerry McNerney

Q1. You suggested that NSF should consider creativity and inventiveness in judging

proposals. You also gave some suggestions including timing of RFPs and timing

of publications, but judging novel and creative ideas would surely involve more

than just administrative considerations. Do you have some ideas that would get

to the heart of a creative proposal?

A1. As you implicitly indicate in your question, the problem of identifying exceptionally creative proposals is indeed very complex and must be dealt with special attention. Ideally, creative proposals must be evaluated by individuals who appreciate

and understand risk-taking. It is difficult, if not impossible, to identify a priori who

those individuals are. But it is likely that reviewers with an exceptional, accredited

creativity record be more open to consider such proposals. That is the reason why

I indicated above that NSF ought to select and attract a special pool of reviewers

assigned to this specific task. At the explicit request of a program officer or the evaluation panel, creative but ‘‘risky’’ proposals may be submitted to an investigator in

this group for review.

Another possibility is that, once evaluated by reviewers and panelists, proposals

that are deemed creative but risky could be sent to the PI for clarification. Novel

ideas are often misunderstood and a timely rebuttal could make a difference. Program officers often play a significant role in the selection of a proposal. For this reason, it is also important that they be trained in identifying and weighing potentially

transformative ideas. Finally, it is important for NSF to establish a mechanism that

enables administrators to track the rate of success of risky research. In the medium

term, this will facilitate setting a baseline and making corrections if deemed necessary.

148

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Submitted to Jeffrey J. Welser, Director of the Nanoelectronics Research Initiative,

Semiconductor Research Corporation

These questions were submitted to the witness, but were not responded to by the

time of publication.

Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall

Q1. Most of you have touched on the difficulties faced by early career scientists in

setting up their labs, beginning teaching loads, recruiting students, and above

all, preparing for tenure review. Could each of you please address the challenges

that the tenure process creates? Does the Federal Government have the ability

to lesson these challenges?

Æ