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

55–835PDF 2010

THE STATE OF RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE AT

U.S. UNIVERSITIES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE 

EDUCATION 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

FEBRUARY 23, 2010

Serial No. 111–77

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology

(

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

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chair 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

DAVID WU, Oregon 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio 

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL D. TONKO, New York 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio 

KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

VACANCY 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION

HON. DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois, Chair 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio 

PAUL D. TONKO, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

VACANCY 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

DAHLIA SOKOLOV Subcommittee Staff Director 

MARCY GALLO Democratic Professional Staff Member 

MELE ́ WILLIAMS Republican Professional Staff Member 

BESS CAUGHRAN Research Assistant 
(III)

C O N T E N T S 

February 23, 2010

Page 

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

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

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Daniel Lipinski, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Research and Science Education, Committee on Science and Technology, 

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 7

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 8

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 ............................................... 9

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 13

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

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

Witnesses:

Dr. Leslie P. Tolbert, Vice President for Research, Graduate Studies and 

Economic Development, University of Arizona 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 15

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 17

Biography .......................................................................................................... 26

Mr. Albert G. Horvath, Senior Vice President for Finance and Business, 

Pennsylvania State University, and Chair, Board of Directors, Counsel 

on Government Relations 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 27

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 28

Biography .......................................................................................................... 47

Dr. John R. Raymond, Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost, 

Medical University of South Carolina, and Chair, State of South Carolina 

EPSCoR Committee 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 48

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 49

Biography .......................................................................................................... 55

Dr. Thom H. Dunning, Jr., Director of the National Center for Supercomputing Applications, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 56

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 58

Biography .......................................................................................................... 69

(1)

THE STATE OF RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE 

AT U.S. UNIVERSITIES 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2010

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:03 p.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Daniel Lipinski 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
2
3

HEARING CHARTER

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE

EDUCATION 

The State of Research Infrastructure at U.S. 

Universities

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2010

2:00 P.M.–4:00 P.M. 2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

1. Purpose

The purpose of this hearing is to examine the research and research training infrastructure of our universities and colleges, including research facilities, and 

cyberinfrastructure capabilities, the capacity of the research infrastructure to meet 

the needs of U.S. scientists and engineers now and in the future, and the appropriate role of the Federal government in sustaining such infrastructure.

2. Witnesses:

• Dr. Leslie Tolbert, Vice President for Research, Graduate Studies and Economic Development, University of Arizona

• Mr. Albert Horvath, Senior Vice President for Finance and Business, Pennsylvania State University

• Dr. John R. Raymond, Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost, 

Medical University of South Carolina, and Chair, State of South Carolina 

EPSCoR Committee

• Dr. Thom Dunning, Director of the National Center for Supercomputing Applications, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

3. Overarching Questions:

• What is the state of the nation’s academic research facilities? Are current academic research facilities keeping U.S. scientists and engineers competitive with 

their international counterparts and are they allowing for cutting edge science? 

How are universities and colleges maintaining and improving their research facilities? How has the economic climate affected short-term and long-term planning 

and investments in academic research facilities?

• What is the status of the nation’s cyberinfrastructure? Do our research and education networks have the capacity to support computational, storage, data transfer and scientific exchange needs that have become critical to performing innovative research? How are universities and colleges investing in their own 

cyberinfrastructure? How are universities partnering with state and local governments as well as the private sector to build regional cyberinfrastructure capabilities?

• What is the appropriate role of the Federal government in supporting the research infrastructure of our universities and colleges? How do Federal agencies 

such as the National Science Foundation support research infrastructure that 

benefits the science and engineering enterprise? Given the trade-off between support for research and the support of research facilities should NSF revive their 

Academic Research Infrastructure Program? What other options, beyond targeted 

programs, are there for Federal science agencies to support academic research infrastructure?

4. Background

University Research Infrastructure

Since 1988, NSF has conducted a biennial survey on the status of research facilities at academic institutions, nonprofit biomedical research organizations and uni-
4

1http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf07325/

2http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph¥reports/MIR1135-1/ 3http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/

versity hospitals. The survey currently includes data on: the amount of research 

space, the condition of research facilities, current expenditures and plans for new 

construction as well as the renovation of research facilities, sources of funds for construction and renovation, and information technology capabilities. 

According to the latest NSF survey,1 77 percent of the respondents rated the condition of their research space as satisfactory or superior with the remainder indicating that their research space needed to be renovated or replaced. The survey also 

showed that academic institutions spent $6.1 billion on new construction and $2.4 

billion on the repair and renovation of research facilities, but deferred $10.2 billion 

in new construction projects and $3.5 billion in renovation projects. Despite deferred 

investments, the amount of research space at academic institutions has steadily increased to 192 million square feet in 2007, although the rate of increase has slowed 

to 3.7 percent, down from its peak of 11 percent between 2001 and 2003. 

Academic institutions fund their capital investments through a combination of 

sources: the Federal government, state and local governments, and institutional 

funds, which include endowments, private donations, and facilities and administration (F&A) costs recovered from the Federal government. The Federal share of these 

capital investments is generally about five percent, with the state/local governments 

accounting for 22 percent, and the institutions themselves contributing 72 percent. 

As just noted, the institutional share does include F&A costs reimbursed by the 

Federal government as part of Federal contracts and grants, primarily research 

grants. The reimbursed funds are used for such activities as operation and maintenance of research facilities, library expenses, department administration, including 

secretaries, academic deans, and grant compliance officers. However, according to a 

2000 RAND study,2 the true F&A costs incurred by an institution are higher than 

the rate for which they are reimbursed and analyses indicate that universities are 

recouping between 70 to 90 percent of the amount they are actually spending on 

facilities and administration. 

Cyberinfrastructure

Advances in information technology have changed the way research is conducted. 

In 2005, NSF created the Office of Cyberinfrastructure (OCT) to ensure a comprehensive vision and set of investments in the research, development, acquisition, 

and operation of cyberinfrastructure across NSF’s research directorates. 

Cyberinfrastructure, which consists of computing systems, data storage systems, 

data repositories, advanced instruments, and the networks and software that link 

these systems, has become increasingly important to all science and engineering disciplines. OCI requested a budget of $228 million in FY 2011, a 6.4 percent increase 

from FY 2010, with the largest investment proposed for the development of 

petascale computing capabilities. 

NSF’s recent Science and Engineering Indicators report3 shows that all institutions of higher education have access to the internet, which was not the case earlier 

in the decade, but the bandwidth capability or speed of internet connection varied 

across institution type. The overwhelming majority (83 percent) of institutions with 

a bandwidth of at least 1 gigabit per second were doctoral degree granting institutions, and all but one institution with a bandwidth greater than 2.4 gigabits per second granted doctoral degrees. Despite the current differences in capabilities, data 

from NSF indicates that all colleges and universities are investing heavily in the 

expansion of their networks and are improving wireless campus coverage as well as 

their external and internal network speeds. 

NSF’s Academic Research Infrastructure Program

The Academic Research Infrastructure (ARI) program was originally authorized 

by the Science and Technology Committee in 1988, with funding authorized through 

1993. The authorization level grew from $80 million in 1989 to $250 million in 1993. 

The original ARI program consisted of two components: support for the acquisition 

or development of major research instrumentation and support for the improvement 

of research and research training facilities. 

ARI was included in appropriations bills from 1990 until 1996. It was initially 

funded at $20 million, and rose steadily to $100 million with an anomalous peak 

of $250 million in 1995. Beginning in 1997, NSF continued the instrumentation part 

of ARI only, and renamed it the Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) Program. 

The funding level for MRI in 1997 was $50 million, half the level the full ART pro-
5

gram received the year before. Today, it receives approximately $100 million annually with a FY 2011 budget request of $90 million. MRI also received $300 million 

in the Recovery Act, which helped NSF fill in much of the backlog in demand from 

universities. 

The long defunct facilities portion of the old ART program received $200 million 

in the Recovery Act. NSF stood up a revised version of the program, the Academic 

Research Infrastructure Program: Recovery and Reinvestment (ARI–R2), that does 

not require cost sharing and goes beyond physical research facilities, allowing for 

the modernization of virtual research space. Last August, NSF received 495 applications for funding under the ARI–R2 program, proposing a total of $1.2 billion in renovations. NSF plans to award 125 grants between February and September in three 

size categories: $250,000–$2 million, $2 million–$5 million, and $5 million–$10 million. According to NSF, the vast majority. of awards will fall into the $250,000 to 

$2 million range. Additionally, nearly half of the awards (46 percent) will go to doctoral degree granting institutions, with the remaining going to a variety of master’s 

degree granting institutions, undergraduate institutions, minority serving institutions and non-profit research organizations. The overall success rate of 25 percent 

is similar to the Foundation-wide success rate for its competitive awards.

NSF Support for Research Infrastructure Broadly

In addition to supporting cutting edge science through research grants, NSF invests in the infrastructure that enables such research. Approximately 24 percent 

($1.8 billion) of NSF’s FY 2011 budget is devoted to research infrastructure. These 

infrastructure investments are generally large, multi-user facilities, distributed instrumentation networks, or large pieces of equipment such as telescopes, research 

vessels, or accelerators that benefit an entire scientific discipline and could not be 

achieved without significant Federal support. For example, the Ocean Observatories 

Initiative, currently under construction with funding from the Major Research 

Equipment and Facilities (MREFC) account, will create a network of sensors for the 

continuous and real-time measurement of the physical, chemical, geological and biological variables of the ocean and seafloor. 

In addition to these targeted large-scale investments, NSF also supports the development of university research infrastructure through the Experimental Program 

to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) program. EPSCoR was created in 

1978 to build research capacity in States with few research intensive universities; 

in order to be eligible a state must receive less than 0.75 percent of the total NSF 

funding awarded in the previous three-year period. The intent of the program is to 

improve a state’s competitiveness for R&D funding primarily by supporting sustainable research infrastructure improvements across the states’ academic institutions. 

NSF has requested $154 million for the program in FY 2011, a five percent increase 

from FY 2010. The success of NSF’s EPSCoR program in the 1980s resulted in the 

creation of six other EPSCoR-like programs within DOE, DOD, NIH, NASA, EPA, 

and USDA. In FY 2008, these programs invested a total of $419 million across the 

approximately 25 EPSCoR-eligible states.

5. Questions for Witnesses

Dr. Leslie Tolbert

1. How does the University of Arizona plan for its research infrastructure needs, 

including its research facilities? What is the current state the University of Arizona’s research infrastructure and its plans for the next 5–10 years? How is the University of Arizona partnering with state and local governments as well as the private sector to improve the region’s research infrastructure and capabilities?

2. What federal funds currently support the University of Arizona’s research infrastructure, including research facilities? Please include a description of all sources 

of funding for your research facilities, including indirect costs reimbursed from federal research grants. What are your unmet research infrastructure needs? Would 

you support funding for the Academic Research Infrastructure Program if it meant 

decreasing NSF’s research budget by an equivalent amount? Are there other options 

beyond targeted programs for Federal science agencies to support the research infrastructure of our universities?

Mr. Albert Horvath

1. Please describe how research infrastructure is financed at Pennsylvania State 

University, including the financing of research facilities, cyberinfrastructure and 

other investments in the university’s research capabilities? What federal funds cur-
6

rently support Penn State’s research infrastructure, including research facilities? 

Please include a description of all sources of funding for your research facilities, including indirect costs reimbursed from federal research grants. What are your 

unmet research infrastructure needs?

2. How is Penn State partnering with state and local governments as well as the 

private sector to improve the region’s research infrastructure and capabilities?

3. Would you support funding for the Academic Research Infrastructure Program 

if it meant decreasing NSF’s research budget by an equivalent amount? Are there 

other options beyond targeted programs for Federal science agencies to support the 

research infrastructure of our universities?

Dr. John R. Raymond

1. Please describe the current National Science Foundation EPSCoR grant awarded to South Carolina. What role have EPSCoR funds played in facilitating partnerships with state and local governments as well as the private sector to improve the 

region’s research infrastructure and capabilities? How have EPSCoR funds been leveraged across institutions to improve the region’s cyberinfrastructure capabilities? 

Specifically, how have EPSCoR funds been used by the Medical University of South 

Carolina?

2. Please describe the state of Medical University of South Carolina’s research infrastructure, including its research facilities. What are your unmet research infrastructure needs?

3. Do you have any specific recommendations on how to improve the EPSCoR program? Are there other options beyond targeted programs for Federal science agencies to support the research infrastructure of our universities?

Dr. Thom Dunning

1. Please describe the state of the University of Illinois’s cyberinfrastructure, including the Blue Waters project. How is the University of Illinois partnering with 

state and local governments as well as the private sector to build regional 

cyberinfrastructure capabilities?

2. In your opinion, as the lead of one of six task forces established by NSF’s Advisory Committee for Cyberinfrastructure to address long-term cyberinfrastructure 

issues, what is the state of the Nation’s cyberinfrastructure? Do our research and 

education networks have the capacity to support computational, storage, data transfer and other scientific exchange needed to perform innovative research? Are we appropriately prioritizing our investments in cyberinfrastructure? What, if any, critical 

investments or opportunities are we missing?
7

Chairman LIPINSKI. This hearing will now come to order. 

Good afternoon. I want to welcome you to the Research and 

Science Education Subcommittee hearing on the state of our universities’ infrastructure for research and research training. This is 

one in a series of hearings and roundtables that we are holding as 

this Subcommittee works on the bill to reauthorize the National 

Science Foundation and the Committee works on the reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act. Our focus on this legislation 

is a direct acknowledgement of the fact that America’s science and 

technology enterprise underpins the long-term economic competitiveness of our country, and we need to do whatever we can to 

make sure we maintain that. 

Over the past 60 years, a great number of our societal and economic benefits have come out of the highly successful partnership 

between the Federal Government and our Nation’s colleges and 

universities. Not only do these institutions train the workforce 

needed in a modern economy, but they also conduct the research 

that generates new knowledge and technologies. It is a testament 

to the productivity of this arrangement that 80 percent of the National Science Foundation research dollars go to academic institutions. 

But successful R&D takes more than intellectual freedom and 

grant funding. You also need state-of-the-art lab space, networks, 

instruments and computing facilities, and I have heard some concerns from the academic community that this infrastructure is 

being neglected. Public institutions especially are suffering as the 

recession has eroded state support. I am worried that unless we actively modernize our R&D facilities that we could not only be 

spending federal research dollars inefficiently, but that we could 

lose our position as scientific leaders, finding it harder to attract 

top scientists and engineers. 

Our competitors are investing in all aspects of their R&D ecosystems. Only a decade ago, if you asked an exceptional Chinese 

graduate student in science or engineering whether they would 

rather return home or stay and become an American citizen, nearly 

all of them would have chosen the latter. But that is no longer the 

case, with the best students increasingly being lured back home. At 

least part of the reason for this is the new availability of cuttingedge facilities and support they need to succeed as researchers. 

Today we want to examine the state of our universities’ research 

infrastructure and to consider the federal role in supporting this infrastructure, in particular the appropriate balance between investing in the research itself and investing in the infrastructure that 

underlies and supports both research activities and workforce 

training. 

Currently, universities maintain and upgrade their own campusbased facilities with funding from a variety of sources. Federal 

agencies such as the NSF directly or indirectly support some of this 

infrastructure, but their primary mission is to support research 

and multi-user facilities that benefit the scientific enterprise and 

society broadly. Historically, however, the NSF has at times funded 

merit-based academic research infrastructure. For example, in the 

1960s and 1970s the NSF ran a laboratory development program, 

an institutional science grant program, and a development program 
8

for University Centers of Excellence. In the mid-1980s, this Committee systematically examined the issue, beginning by requiring 

the NSF to prepare biannual reports on the research facilities 

needs of universities, and ultimately passing the Academic Research Facilities Modernization Act. This Act led to both the NSF’s 

Major Research Instrumentation Program and the Academic Research Infrastructure Program. 

But apart from one-time funding in the stimulus bill last year, 

federal programs to modernize scientific infrastructure have languished in recent years. Perhaps as a result, the 2005 Survey of 

Science and Engineering Research Facilities found that academic 

institutions were deferring $3.5 billion in needed renovation 

projects. 

During today’s hearing, I want to hear our witnesses’ thoughts 

on whether they think the NSF should once again directly invest 

in research infrastructure for universities. Obviously, even with increases in NSF funding, tradeoffs would have to be made. I also 

hope to learn about how academic institutions are currently 

leveraging federal investments to improve the research capacity of 

their institutions. I would also like to hear our witnesses’ ideas on 

how best to ensure that our research infrastructure keeps up with 

both the frontiers of the science and our international competitors. 

Finally, I am interested in learning about the opportunities to expand our research and educational capabilities through growing 

our cyberinfrastructure. 

I want to thank the witnesses for their flexibility in the rescheduling of today’s hearing. The Committee already had a very full 

calendar over the next few weeks, and with hearings postponed by 

this month’s record snowfall, some changes had to be made, and I 

want to thank the witnesses for their flexibility. Thank you for 

being here this afternoon and I look forward to your testimony. 

Before I move on and recognize Dr. Ehlers, I just want to say 

that I am going to—with the announcement that Dr. Ehlers made 

that he will not be running again for reelection, I want to say how 

much I will miss having him here. We only had about a year here 

on this Subcommittee together but he has always provided not only 

his knowledge but his passion for what we are working on, and we 

have worked very well together. I know that things don’t always 

run very well up here on Capitol Hill but Vern has made things 

run very well, and I think for the betterment of this Committee 

and the betterment of our country, and I look forward to the next 

ten more months that we have to work together on this Committee. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Lipinski follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DANIEL LIPINSKI

Good afternoon and welcome to this Research and Science Education Subcommittee hearing on the state of our universities’ infrastructure for research AND 

research training. This is one in a series of hearings and roundtables that we are 

holding as this subcommittee works on the bill reauthorizing the National Science 

Foundation and the committee works on the reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act. Our focus on this legislation is a direct acknowledgement of the fact 

that America’s science and technology enterprise underpins the long-term economic 

competitiveness of our country. 

Over the past 60 years, a great number of societal and economic benefits have 

come out of the highly successful partnership between the Federal government and 

our Nation’s colleges and universities. Not only do these institutions train the work-
9

force needed in a modern economy, but they also conduct the research that generates new knowledge and technologies. It is a testament to the productivity of this 

arrangement that eighty percent of the National Science Foundation’s research dollars go to academic institutions. 

But successful R&D takes more than intellectual freedom and grant funding. You 

also need state-of-the-art lab space, networks, instruments, and computing facilities, 

and I have heard some concerns from the academic community that this infrastructure is being neglected. Public institutions especially are suffering as the recession 

has eroded state support. I am worried that unless we actively modernize our R&D 

facilities that we could not only be spending Federal research dollars inefficiently, 

but that we could lose our position as scientific leaders, finding it harder to attract 

top scientists and engineers. 

Our competitors are investing in all aspects of their R&D ecosystems. Only a decade ago, if you asked an exceptional Chinese graduate student in science or engineering whether they would rather return home or stay and become an American 

citizen, nearly all of them would have chosen the latter. But that is no longer the 

case, with the best students increasingly being lured back home. At least part of 

the reason for this is the new availability of cutting-edge facilities and support they 

need to succeed as researchers. 

Today we want to examine the state of our universities’ research infrastructure 

and to consider the Federal role in supporting this infrastructure, in particular the 

appropriate balance between investing in the research itself and investing in the infrastructure that underlies and supports both research activities and workforce 

training. 

Currently, universities maintain and upgrade their own campus-based facilities 

with funding from a variety of sources. Federal agencies such as the NSF directly 

or indirectly support some of this infrastructure, but their primary mission is to 

support research and multi-user facilities that benefit the scientific enterprise and 

society broadly. Historically, however, the NSF has at times funded merit-based academic research infrastructure. For example, in the 1960s and 70s the NSF ran a 

laboratory development program, an institutional science grant program, and a development program for university centers of excellence. 

In the mid-80s, this Committee systematically examined the issue, beginning by 

requiring the NSF to prepare biannual reports on the research facilities needs of 

universities, and ultimately passing the Academic Research Facilities Modernization 

Act. This Act led to both the NSF’s Major Research Instrumentation Program and 

the Academic Research Infrastructure Program. 

But, apart from one-time funding in the stimulus bill last year, Federal programs 

to modernize scientific infrastructure have languished in recent years. Perhaps as 

a result, the 2005 Survey of Science and Engineering Research facilities found that 

academic institutions were deferring $3.5 billion in needed renovation projects. 

During today’s hearing, I want to hear our witnesses thoughts on whether they 

think the NSF should once again directly invest in research infrastructure for universities. Obviously, even with increases in NSF funding, trade-offs will have to be 

made. I also hope to learn about how academic institutions are currently leveraging 

Federal investments to improve the research capacity of their institutions. I would 

also like to hear our witnesses’ ideas on how best to ensure that our research infrastructure keeps up with both the frontiers of the science and our international competitors. Finally, I am interested in learning about the opportunities to expand our 

research and educational capabilities through growing our cyberinfrastructure. 

I want to thank the witnesses for their flexibility in the rescheduling of today’s 

hearing. The Committee already had a very full calendar over the next few weeks, 

and with hearings postponed by this month’s record snowfall some changes had to 

be made. I thank the witnesses for being here this afternoon and I look forward to 

your testimony.

Chairman LIPINSKI. I will now recognize Dr. Ehlers for his opening statement. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate those kind 

words, and I am impressed now that we have come back together 

after all the snow how many of my colleagues appreciate me. It is 

too bad they didn’t say that before I decided not to run again. But 

at any rate, I appreciate your comments, and I just think, I have 

been here 16 years, it will be almost 17 by the time I leave, and 

I think that is a good long time and it is time for someone else to 

carry the banner, but I do hope we can get more scientists to run 
10

for the Congress. I have been told that I was the first research 

physicist ever to be elected to the Congress. I can’t vouch for the 

accuracy of that but there is not much evidence to say that I 

wasn’t. But at any rate, I hope we get a lot more scientists interested in the political arena because it is desperately needed. 

Thank you for holding this hearing too. It is a very important 

issue. And now that I am officially achieving old fogey status, I 

thought I might give a little historical perspective on research institutions, and I want to assure you, I was not born 200 years ago 

but that is roughly where I will start, because back then at the 

time of Newton and before there was no such thing as a government grant; occasionally a very bright individual would get support 

from the local king, prince, duke, noble, whatever, provided, of 

course, he also devoted some energy and time to developing better 

instruments of warfare. But that was a very informal arrangement 

for many years. 

That continued well into the 19th century, but that is when 

things began to change somewhat, and the first person I think who 

really has led to the development of modern science was Mr. Faraday, and there is a marvelous biography of his that is out there, 

so I recommend everyone to read that, but an amazing man. When 

he got out of school, he went to work in a bookstore selling books, 

and part of his pay was to have a room up in the attic so he literally lived in the bookstore, and proceeded to read virtually all the 

books in the bookstore. So he was self-educated. He did not have 

any higher education. Then he discovered scientific books and read 

them and devoured them and started doing some experiments on 

his own in the bookstore at night and made some interesting discoveries. For example, he discovered the effect that led to the generation of electricity by rotating electrical coils in magnetic fields, 

and he developed very good scientific techniques. He eventually became a member of the Academy of Sciences equivalent in the British Empire, and he popularized science for the people by scheduling 

special lectures, I think it was every other week or something like 

that, and the public turned out in full force for them. It was as popular to go to the science lectures as it was to go to the symphony, 

and was well respected. Unfortunately, we have slipped from that. 

But he really educated a lot of laymen about science. He also 

worked on war efforts. He developed an oatmeal that would last 

and stay fresh much longer than any he ever had before and he 

was awarded medals by the British Navy because they were out at 

sea for months and so it was a problem to keep the food fresh. So 

he went into many different fields but his primary contributions 

were to electricity. 

The lectures he established were a real effort to educate the public and became very popular. But one time he invited Mr. Ohm to 

speak, and we are all familiar with the term ohm because that is 

the unit of resistance and electricity is named after him. So he was 

invited to give a lecture, and when they went down the stairs to 

enter the lecture room, and Faraday was going first because he was 

going to introduce Mr. Ohm, and when Mr. Ohm entered the room, 

looked around and saw 200 people, he panicked. He was a bit of 

an introvert. He panicked and ran back up the stairs and left. So 

Faraday wrote a little note. Being the scientist that he was, he had 
11

to record all the data, so there was a little note in his data book, 

‘‘When escorting speakers to the auditorium, be sure to follow them 

and not lead them.’’ So he was a very good observer. 

Well, that is enough of history. Well, let me add just another bit 

that is more recent and I am more familiar with because I did 

some of my research using the cyclotron that resulted from that. 

E.O. Lawrence was hired by the president of the University of California at Berkeley to teach in the physics department and he was 

hired primarily because someone said that E.O. Lawrence is likely 

to get a Nobel Prize at some point. He was very bright. And the 

president said he wanted a Nobel Prize winner on the Berkeley 

campus so he offered him a job. They now have more Nobel Prize 

winners there than any other university, I believe. But in any 

event, E.O. Lawrence invented the cyclotron. It was small enough 

to sit on a kitchen chair. In fact, I have seen that original cyclotron 

and the kitchen chair. And then he realized he could scale up but 

where would he ever get a magnet that was big enough, and he discovered that AT&T, which had planned to send radio waves across 

the ocean, the Pacific ocean, a very long distance, and they were 

going to send those so that they could get telegrams across oceans, 

and they had the magnet and things just didn’t work out right and 

then they started laying undersea cables so the magnet was in Palo 

Alto, and E.O. Lawrence heard about it, went and saw it, persuaded AT&T to donate it to the University of California, and that 

became the 60-inch cyclotron at Berkeley, which was the biggest 

accelerator in the world for quite a few years and enabled us to 

learn enough about nuclear physics that we could develop the ultimate weapon that ended World War II. 

Well, that is a lot of history, but the reason I am bringing that 

up, because the tradition over the years has been that universities 

provided the facilities for research. That came out of their tuition 

funds. It came out of their gifts from alumni and so forth, and the 

buildings were considered the university’s responsibility. The 

money for research initially came primarily from donors, largely industry such as AT&T, and later on the universities took it upon 

themselves to also fund some of the research. Nowadays, universities are in tough financial times and so more and more they are 

trying to find other sources of money to build their buildings and 

their laboratories. The Federal Government has been fairly generous in funding equipment. That has just carried over. That has 

been considered a part of the responsibility of the central Federal 

Government. State governments contribute some as well but not as 

much. But it has always been considered the universities’ requirement that they provide the buildings whether they get it from contributions or from state government, and that it how it has been 

for quite a while. 

What we are talking about today is what is the—and I am not 

trying to take words out of your mind or rephrase your objectives, 

Mr. Chairman, but basically the issue is, should the Federal Government be more active in providing not just grants for researchers 

to pay them or the graduate students or to buy equipment but 

should the Federal Government also become involved in building 

laboratories outside of the national laboratories, and that is a very 

important issue. I have mixed feelings about it. It would be a 
12

change in direction, although NSF has, by funding its Centers of 

Excellence, has gotten to a certain extent into the business of paying for buildings, but it is a very small part of their budget. 

So the issue we are discussing today, Mr. Chairman, I see as a 

very important issue and it is good for you to bring it up, but at 

the same time recognize that we are plowing new fields at this 

point by saying well, maybe the Federal Government should be 

providing more money for facilities, not just for salaries, not just 

for equipment but for the facilities that house these devices. And 

so I just wanted to emphasize that long history because as I say, 

it is a very important issue and we have to understand the history 

of it. 

In my formal statement, I go on to point out that universities 

have to have state-of-the-art science and technology facilities in 

order to remain at the cutting edge of research. With proper laboratory buildings, equipment and computing systems, students will 

graduate well prepared for the workforce. As the institutions represented here today know well, the most innovative students are 

attracted to universities with the best facilities. However, it is also 

important that we recognize that the National Science Foundation’s expertise lies in the support of peer-reviewed basic research. 

They appoint panels of like-minded scientists to review proposals. 

These panels take it very, very seriously and they know that from 

personal experience because my son is currently sitting on the 

panel of the National Science Foundation and every few months he 

spends four days here in Washington, before that reads voluminous 

numbers of proposals and takes it very seriously and his colleagues 

on the panel do the same. It is not clear that the National Science 

Foundation has the expertise nor could it appoint the panels that 

have the expertise to research and judge proposals involving specialized facilities. Those new panels would have to be created, 

where we would get the people power to review it. I am just simply 

pointing out it would be quite a change for the National Science 

Foundation as they get very heavily into providing funding for facilities, buildings and so forth. 

We also recognize that science funding has changed dramatically 

in another area, and I apologize for going too long but I want to 

bring all these things together. When I was first elected to the Congress, Newt Gingrich asked me to write a science policy study to 

recommend science policy for the next generation. The last policy 

was written in 1945 by Vannevar Bush, and Newt and I both 

agreed that was a bit outdated, from 1945 to 1995, and so I pointed 

out that with the increasing expense of major facilities, the Federal 

Government was no longer even going to be able to fund the research facilities, not just the buildings but also the equipment, because of the huge cost, and recommended that we should concentrate on international cooperation to do that, and that is come 

to an ITER, which the idea was originated in the United States. 

When we dropped it, the Japanese thought they would pick it up, 

then decided not to. Now the French are doing it with international 

collaboration, and that may be the direction of the future for the 

really expensive things such as CERN. CERN is another cooperative international effort which we are now joining. And it is very 

interesting to watch this evolution. 
13

As the projects get bigger and bigger, get more and more expensive, the buildings get extremely more expensive and so you are on 

the forefront of a major issue, Mr. Chairman, in terms of outlining 

where is the money going to come from and whether it is NSF or 

DARPA or ARPA-E or whatever. I think it is a major problem that 

has to be faced and discussed by the Congress and not just this 

Committee. So this gives us all a chance to do that. 

With that, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE VERNON J. EHLERS

Universities must ensure they have state of the art science and technology facilities in order to remain at the cutting edge of research. With proper laboratory buildings, equipment, and computing systems, students will graduate well-prepared for 

the workforce. As the institutions represented here today know, the most innovative 

students are attracted to universities with the best facilities. 

However, it is important that we recognize that the National Science Foundation’s 

expertise lies in the support of peer-reviewed, basic research. That research often 

requires the use of various types of equipment and specialized facilities. Many scientific questions we are faced with today will only be answered through the use of 

very expensive facilities, such as ITER, that often require the participation of multiple countries to construct. There are also many smaller facility needs at our research institutions, some of which the NSF currently funds. However, I have some 

reservations about expanding this type of support, because it does not fit well into 

the primary mission and expertise of the NSF. 

I thank the Chairman for holding this hearing today, and look forward to hearing 

from our witnesses how we can support high-quality, sustainable research and infrastructure at our universities.

Chairman LIPINSKI. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers. You knew after I 

said all those wonderful things about you that I wouldn’t gavel you. 

I thought maybe you were going to filibuster until the end of your 

term. 

Mr. EHLERS. Well, that is a very good deductive process. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. I am an engineer, so—as you were telling 

that first story about Faraday and Ohm, I was wondering what the 

punchline was going to be, and I thought it might be something 

about Ohm’s second law or something like that. 

With that, we are here to hear from the witnesses so maybe we 

should move on. We will have more time for this in the Q&A. If 

there are Members who wish to submit additional opening statements, your statements will be added to the record at this point. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member for holding today’s hearing on, 

‘‘The State of Research Infrastructure at U.S. Universities’’. 

The United States’ world-class university infrastructure is one of our greatest 

strengths that we must sustain to remain competitive in the 21st century. It is a 

bastion for academic research and education and a catalyst for scientific innovation. 

I am pleased that significant funding in the budget and the Recovery Act has been 

set aside towards expanding and sustaining our research and infrastructure. 

I am pleased that in 2010 the majority of our Nation’s colleges and universities 

have access to high-speed internet. Additionally, according to the latest National 

Science Foundation (NSF) survey on the status of research facilities, 77 percent of 

universities nationwide rated their condition as satisfactory or superior. We must 

strive for excellence by funding initiatives and seeking new ways to improve our 

universities research facilities. Programs such as the Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) Program and the (ARI–R2) Program among others are good beginnings. 

As you are aware, nationally, our rate of increase in research space construction 

has slowed from 11 percent in 2003 to 3.7 today. These past few years, many col-
14

leges and universities have been hit hard by our recent economic recession, particularly Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU’s). Last year, $85 million 

in the additional funding was omitted from the federal budget for HBCU’s. Many 

struggling universities have been forced to cut faculty and staff, delay construction, 

and furlough payrolls in order to survive during our current economic climate. Increased federal investment in our nation’s research infrastructure is necessary to 

keep our colleges and universities competitive during these tough times. 

When considering the state of our national research infrastructure at U.S. universities we must protect those hurting the most first. For example, Historically Black 

Colleges and Universities graduate students in STEM degrees higher than most traditional universities and currently are conducting world-class research in AIDS and 

Cancer research. We must do what we can to help and protect minority serving institutions. 

While the topic of today’s hearing is focused primarily on the research infrastructure of Universities, I must emphasize the bigger issue at hand which is increasing 

the number of U.S. students who enroll and graduate from these institutions. What 

sense does it make to have a world-class facility that is only half full? The United 

States faces a looming shortage of students enrolling in STEM disciplines. The key 

problem facing us right now is that we need more students in our university research infrastructure. 

I am interested in hearing from today’s witnesses who are experts from universities across the nation. I thank you for your thoughtful testimonies as we look to 

address these issues. I am interested in hearing from you on how the federal government can strengthen our national university research infrastructure. I am also 

curious as to how our resources can be effectively distributed to institutions of higher learning that are in need the most. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

So at this time I am going to introduce our witnesses. First we 

have Dr. Leslie Tolbert, who is the Vice President for Research, 

Graduate Studies and Economic Development at the University of 

Arizona. We have Mr. Albert Horvath, who is the Senior Vice 

President for Finance and Business at Pennsylvania State University, as well as the Chair of the Board of Directors for the Council 

on Government Relations. I will now yield to my distinguished colleague, Mr. Inglis, to introduce our third witness. 

Mr. INGLIS. Well, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is wonderful 

to have Dr. John Raymond here today, the Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost at the Medical University of South Carolina, a practicing nephrologist and a physician with the Department of Veterans Affairs. He has been with the Medical University 

since 1996, lending his expertise in medicine and academia to one 

of the strongest and oldest schools of medicine in the South. Dr. 

Raymond is also a prolific researcher. He has published over 100 

full-length manuscripts and has received over $25 million in competitive research grants from the National Institutes of Health, the 

Department of Veterans Affairs and various foundations. As Chair 

of South Carolina’s EPSCoR Committee, he plays a major role in 

expanding South Carolina’s scientific and technical research. In 

2009, South Carolina received a $20 million award from the National Science Foundation to work on biofabrication of human tissues. It is the largest NSF grant in our state’s history. It will bring 

together the work of diverse South Carolina institutions including 

Greenville Tech and Furman University. The Medical University of 

South Carolina is playing a very significant role in this work and 

I know that Dr. Raymond shares my excitement about the great 

step forward this grant presents for both medical science and the 

research engine in South Carolina. 

Thank you, Dr. Raymond, for all the work you have done to expand opportunities in South Carolina and thank you for sharing 
15

your expertise with us today, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the 

opportunity to introduce this fine South Carolinian. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Inglis. 

And finally we have Dr. Thom Dunning, who is the Director of 

the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 

As our witnesses should know, you will each have five minutes 

for your spoken testimony. Your written testimony will be included 

in the record for the hearing. When you have all completed your 

spoken testimony, we will begin with questions. Each Member will 

have five minutes to question the panel 

So we will start here with Dr. Tolbert. 

STATEMENT OF DR. LESLIE P. TOLBERT, VICE PRESIDENT 

FOR RESEARCH, GRADUATE STUDIES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 

Dr. TOLBERT. Chairman Lipinski, Ranking Member Ehlers and 

other distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank you for 

the opportunity to speak with you today on the state of research 

infrastructure in our Nation’s universities. I am Leslie Tolbert. As 

you heard, I am the Vice President for Research, Economic Development and Graduate Studies at the University of Arizona in Tucson, Arizona. I am here speaking on behalf of the University of Arizona and also the Association of American Universities and the Association of Public and Land Grant Universities. 

The astounding research accomplishments in our universities 

have been the backbone of our country’s economic competitiveness, 

our high living standard and our national security for over 60 

years. In recent decades, though, our global leadership position in 

innovation is being threatened. 

As the major provider of support for our university-based research, the Federal Government must act quickly to build on the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to make continued strategic investments in research itself, and also the subject of 

today’s hearing, in the physical foundation for that research, which 

includes research instrumentation and cyberinfrastructure as well 

as bricks-and-mortar laboratories. 

In the current economic crisis, state support for research-related 

expenses in public universities and charitable giving and returns 

on endowment to universities have declined precipitously. Federal 

support for research is as important as ever before. Federal support 

for research infrastructure comes in part through the provision of 

facilities and administration, or F&A, cost recovery that is included 

in grant awards. F&A is intended to reimburse universities for the 

collective hidden but real expenses of research. But growing federal 

mandates, for research compliance in particular, consume more and 

more of those funds, leaving little to support the physical infrastructure. The Federal Government also has embedded in a number of agencies mechanisms that are designed specifically to fund 

research infrastructure. I will mention some of these in a moment 

but first let me discuss the situation at my university, which I 

think provides a useful model for study. 

The University of Arizona, or UA, is a large comprehensive land 

grant university with annual R&D expenditures in science and en-
16

gineering amounting to $550 million. We are one of the top 25 research universities in the Nation, and we are number one in the 

physical sciences in the latest NSF rankings. UA revenues come 

roughly one-quarter from state appropriations, one-quarter from 

student tuition and fees, and half from other sources, which includes sponsored grants and contracts, which come primarily from 

the NIH, the NSF and NASA. 

The State of Arizona appropriations for its three public universities have fallen steeply in the last two years, precipitating the 

deepest crisis in recent history. In these last two years, the UA’s 

annual state appropriation has been reduced by $100 million. 

Founded in 1985, the UA has many science buildings that are old 

and deeply in need of repair. State funding for new buildings and 

for building maintenance has been very small over the years. For 

building maintenance and repair in the last decade, we received 

$11 million from the state to address a documented need that now 

exceeds over $200 million. 

Given our constraints, careful planning is essential. Our current 

planning efforts are driven by several principles, two of which are 

using flexible open design laboratories. That is economical. They 

promote collaboration and they allow individual projects to grow 

and shrink without the expense of moving walls. And another thing 

we do is, we support shared equipment facilities over facilities that 

are dedicated to individual researchers, to maximize the impact of 

these facilities. 

It has become clear at the UA and across the country that more 

federal support is needed for the research infrastructure that enables federally funded research. My colleagues and I would recommend that the NSF strive to increase the percentage of the 

budget that it spends on infrastructure from 24 to 27 percent by 

fiscal year 2016. Building to that level gradually as the overall 

NSF budget grows should minimize the impact on funds available 

for research grants. 

The increasing infrastructure support, I would argue, should go 

to several programs. One is the Academic Research Infrastructure 

program that provides critical funding to modernize existing research laboratories. Funding from ARRA this year was very welcome and we point to the importance of continuing that program 

beyond ARRA. The Major Research Instrumentation and Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction programs are also 

essential to provide state-of-the-art research equipment priced in 

the range of several millions of dollars or above tens of millions of 

dollars. In my written testimony, I have outlined several specific 

changes in these funding mechanisms that would give them greater 

impact. 

Perhaps most importantly, we recommend that OSTP create a 

national science and technology working group to assess instrumentation and infrastructure programs at all federal agencies, and 

make recommendations concerning steps that the government 

should take to ensure adequate support for its national research infrastructure. Our researchers, if armed with direct research funding and a strong research infrastructure, can continue to lead the 

world in innovation and discovery. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony. 
17

[The prepared statement of Dr. Tolbert follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LESLIE P. TOLBERT

Chairman Lipinski, Ranking Member Ehlers, and other distinguished Members of 

the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today on the 

state of research infrastructure at our nation’s research universities. 

My name is Leslie Tolbert. I serve as the Vice-President for Research, Graduate 

Studies, and Economic Development at the University of Arizona, in Tucson, Arizona. I am honored to have the opportunity to offer testimony on behalf of the University of Arizona, the Association of American Universities, and the Association of 

Public and Land-grant Universities.

Overview

Our nation’s research universities are falling behind in their ability to provide the 

physical infrastructure—both the laboratory buildings and the high-end technical facilities in those buildings—needed to keep our researchers working at full capacity. 

As state and private sources of funding dwindle, even more quickly during the current economic slump, federal support is growing in importance. Strategic investments in research infrastructure by the federal government are absolutely essential 

to maintaining a global leadership position for U.S. science. The University of Arizona, with its sharply declining support from the state, provides a useful model for 

understanding the current situation in a large public research university and the 

specific remedies that federal resources could provide.

Background and Context

Funding for University-based Research

The record of research accomplishment of U.S. universities is astounding. For the 

past 60 years, at least, these accomplishments have been the backbone of our economic competitiveness, high living standard, and national security. As documented 

in the National Academies ‘‘Rising Above the Gathering Storm’’ report, our leadership position in education and innovation has been threatened in recent decades as 

other countries have sought to emulate us by making huge investments in their research enterprises. U.S. leadership in science and engineering will be maintained 

only if we maintain a modern and effective research infrastructure. 

For many decades, the federal government has assumed the responsibility of providing the dominant support for university-based research and research training, 

providing billions of dollars in support, virtually all of it on a competitive basis to 

ensure that the most meritorious research ideas receive funding. Our system of competition through review and ranking of applications by peers is the envy of the 

world. 

In recent years, however, federal support of university research in science and engineering, while still substantial, had become essentially flat in real dollars (AAAS 

Report XXXII Research and Development FY 2008, Chapter 2: Historical Trends in 

Federal R&D; http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/08pch2.htm), even while that of other 

countries was growing. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 has 

provided much needed federal funding to reverse this trend for two years, but it is 

unclear what the picture of federal research support will look like after ARRA funding ends. 

Adding to the problem, as the states have faced growing economic challenges, 

state support for research-related expenses in many public universities has declined 

precipitously, and charitable giving and endowment returns to both public and private institutions have also fallen sharply (Council for Aid to Education, http://

www.cae.org/content/pdf/VSE¥2009¥Press¥Relsease.pdf, and National Association 

of College and University Business Officers, http://www.nacubo.org/Documents/research/2009¥NCSE¥Press¥Release.pdf). As a result, American research productivity and scientific advances are likely to diminish. The private sector spends more 

than twice as much as the federal government spends on research and development 

(National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2010), but in tight economic times, private industry is driven increasingly to focus its research dollars on 

applied research and development for short-term profit, leaving to the universities 

the basic research—and unexpected discoveries—that ultimately must form the 

basis for future applications. 

Maintaining America’s universities’ competitiveness in fundamental research and 

research-enriched education has become a serious challenge. Meeting this challenge 
18

will require strategic investments in the physical infrastructure for research as well 

as in the research and educational activities themselves.

Funding for Physical Infrastructure for Research in Universities

The physical infrastructure for research includes not just bricks-and-mortar buildings, but also research instrumentation and a robust cyberstructure (for internal 

and external communication and for research requiring high-performance computing). The increasing complexity of science and engineering requires advanced 

technical equipment and tools, as well as specialized workspaces that encourage and 

enhance collaboration and interdisciplinary pollination of ideas. 

The physical infrastructure that must be in place for cutting-edge research was 

historically provided by a combination of federal and state government and university funds. Federal dollars for infrastructure have decreased, however. As described 

by Homer Neal, Tobin Smith, and Jennifer McCormick in their book, Beyond Sputnik—U S. Science Policy in the 21st Century (U. Mich. Press, 2008):

‘‘In the years following World War II and immediately after Sputnik the .US government invested heavily in the development and funding of scientific infrastructure at universities, national laboratories, and other federal research facilities. 

However, by the early 1970’s many federal programs that had previously existed 

to support construction and renovation of research facilities ended, and federal 

obligations for research facilities and large equipment in colleges and universities dropped significantly. During this period, the neglect of laboratory instrumentation and the erosion of the physical infrastructure for research threatened 

the long term vitality of even leading universities.’’

Today, federal dollars are directed primarily to supporting research operations, 

with little targeted directly to the costs of providing the necessary research infrastructure. To fill this gap, universities have relied heavily upon state support, endowments, gifts, and other institutional resources to support their physical research 

infrastructure needs. However, declines in state support for public universities and 

in endowments and gifts for public and private universities, have made it increasingly difficult for us to sustain and renovate existing laboratories or to build the 

new facilities that are required for increasingly sophisticated research. 

As a result, universities are falling behind the need to provide the physical facilities to do the research that will propel our economy forward. According to the National Science Board’s 2010 report of ‘‘Science and Engineering Indicators:’’

‘‘Research performing colleges and universities continued a two-decade trend of 

increasing the amount of research space at their institutions. [. . .] In recent 

years though, the rate of increase in research space has begun to slow. [. . .] The 

rate of increase peaked in FY 2001–03 at 11%. Since then, the rate of increase 

has gradually declined [. . .] In conjunction with the slowdown in the increase 

in research space, the total amount of newly constructed research space also 

began to slow at the beginning of the decade (table 5–5). Since FY 2002–03, the 

total amount of new research space constructed declined by approximately 45%.’’

Current Situation Regarding Federal Support for Research Infrastructure

The federal government provides support for research infrastructure in several 

ways. Some support for research facilities comes through the provision of Facilities 

and Administration (F&A), or ‘‘indirect,’’ cost recovery that is included in grants and 

contracts awards. F&A cost recovery is intended to reimburse universities for expenditures on the buildings, utilities, equipment, libraries, and administration that 

collectively support their research. 

A large portion of the funds awarded for F&A costs are, in fact, not available for 

the kinds of infrastructure projects I have mentioned. Most notably, growing federal 

mandates and research compliance requirements have pulled institutional funds 

away from support of research facilities. A 2004 report from the Council on Government Relations (‘‘A New Research Business Model: Incentivizing Research’’) points 

out that universities actually provide significant cost-sharing:

‘‘Universities contribute to the direct costs and the indirect (i.e., F&A) costs of 

federal research. The National Science Foundation’s (NSF) annual survey on Research and Development (R&D) Expenditures at Universities and Colleges shows 

the significant and increasing financial contributions made by all colleges and 

universities, in total, to the research enterprise over the past sixty years. [. . .] 

when shown as a percentage, the important role of Institutional Funds is clear. 

Over the period from 1976 to 2006, the share of R&D expenditures in this category has grown faster than any other category. According to the 2006 NSF Sur-
19

vey, Institutional Funds account for 19.0% of all R&D expenditures, compared 

to 12.0% of all R&D expenditures in 1976. To put this in another context, the 

increased share from 12.0% to 19.0% represents a growth factor of 58%.’’

In addition, there are a limited number of federal mechanisms designed specifically to fund research infrastructure. These include NSF’s Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) program and their Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) program; NIH’s Shared Instrumentation Grants and High-End 

Instrumentation Grants; the NCRR Animal Facility, Research Facility Improvement 

(C06), and Core Facility Renovation, Repair, and Improvement (G20) programs; research facility construction funds from the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology; and the Department of Defense’s University Research Instrumentation 

Program. Some of these infrastructure programs and their scopes were temporarily 

expanded with the use of American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) funds. 

One program that was revived with ARRA funds was the NSF’s Academic Research 

Infrastructure (ART) program, which I will discuss further in my recommendations.

How the University of Arizona Supports Research Infrastructure

At the University of Arizona, one can see firsthand the impact of all the aforementioned issues, including the precipitous decline in state funding as well as the 

shrinking funding for research infrastructure from federal sources. I think you will 

find the UA to be a useful case study. 

The University of Arizona is a large, comprehensive land-grant university that includes, together on one campus, liberal arts colleges and colleges of medicine, pharmacy, nursing, public health, engineering, optical sciences, and law. On a separate 

campus, we have a Science and Technology Research Park. We are one of the top 

25 research universities in the nation and a member of the Association of American 

Universities. In FY 2008, our Science and Engineering Research and Development 

expenditures amounted to $546 million; we were ranked #1 in total R&D expenditures in physical sciences by the NSF. Approximately 27% of our operating expenses 

are in support of research. 

In FY 2010, 22% of UA revenues were from state-appropriated funds; 27% were 

from student tuition and fees; and the remaining 51% were from other sources, including sponsored grants and contracts, auxiliary funds, gifts, and investment income. [See Table 1 below.] Each year, sponsored grants and contracts come primarily from the federal government, with the remainder from industrial sponsors, 

foundations, and private contributions. Among federal sponsors, the Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS) provides the largest single share of sponsored 

grants and contracts (primarily via the National Institutes of Health), followed by 

NASA, National Science Foundation, Department of Defense, and Department of 

Agriculture.
20

To date, we have been awarded $83.7 million (including anticipated year 2 

amounts) in ARRA federal stimulus funds for a wide range of important projects on 

topics ranging from solar electric materials to optical imaging methods for cancer 

detection to methods for monitoring soil moisture in arid lands. Most of the ARRA 

support is for research projects; $4.7 million from the U.S. Department of Commerce 

supports a new biotechnology park; and just under $1 million from NSF is for research equipment. 

Another federal funding source from which we will receive support in the near future is the MREFC program at NSF. We will serve as the Southwest’s core site for 

the National Ecological Observatory Network, or NEON, for regional—to continental-scale ecological research. The project has recently passed its Final Design Review and the President’s FY 2011 budget proposes $433M in MREFC funds to begin 

the construction phase of NEON. The exact amount of funding that will flow to the 

UA is not yet determined. 

In contrast to federal funding, State of Arizona support of its public universities 

has fallen steeply in the last two years, precipitating a crisis deeper than any other 

in recent history. As shown above in Table 1, the percent of the UA budget that 

comes from the state has fallen from 34% to 22% in the past decade. Table 2 below 

shows the dramatic decline in just the last three years, from $443 million appropriated to the UA in FY 2008 to $348 million appropriated in FY 2010.
21

Our research buildings range from modern and well-equipped to outdated and 

deeply in need of maintenance. The university was founded in 1885, and most of 

our science related buildings were built in the 1960s through the 1990s. Our older 

buildings do not meet current safety codes, limiting their utility for research involving hazardous biological or chemical agents. With their small, compartmentalized 

spaces, they certainly are not conducive to current modes of collaborative research. 

We struggle to find the resources to update those buildings, as well as to build new 

research buildings that can provide the new lab space that we need. 

We received no State of Arizona funds for new building projects between the early 

1980’s and FY 2008. House Bill 2529, signed into law in 2003, provided significant 

relief in the form of state appropriations of over $440 million for Research Infrastructure Financing for the three state universities over 23 years (FY 2008—FY 

2031). From HB 2529, the UA receives $14 million per year for debt financing. 

Table 3, below, shows the sources of funding for our ten most recently constructed 

research buildings.

A major shortage of state support for Building Renewal at the universities contributes to the challenges of using existing aging buildings for research. The state 

has a formula forcalculating Building Renewal needs based on the replacement values and ages of our buildings. The state provided only partial funding for the universities’ Building Renewal needs in 1987–2001, and has failed to provide any 

Building Renewal funds for eight of the past nine years. Over the past five years, 

FY 2006–10, we should have received $200 million. Instead, we received only $10.9 

million, in FY 2007, thus falling short by $178 million for this period ,alone. Added 

to the shortfalls from before 2001, this leaves the UA with an accumulating Building Renewal need that far exceeds $200 million in FY 2010. Old chemistry and engi-
22

neering buildings are in particular disrepair and can not be used for most types of 

research in their nominal fields. 

In sum, it has become clear that the state cannot fund the improvements needed 

to keep pace with emerging research needs, and the university struggles to fund the 

improvements needed to comply with general laboratory safety codes as well as 

emerging research needs. To guide that struggling effort, the UA has a Space Committee, chaired by the Provost and the Senior Vice President for Business Affairs. 

The Committee plans building renewal and construction, assessing and balancing 

research infrastructure needs against the availability of funding and a universitywide commitment to safety and environmental stewardship. 

Our conceptual framework for efficient, cost-effective campus build-out addresses 

several key issues:

• We have accepted an urgent mandate to protect the environment even as we 

continue to build. When addressing space needs, we first consider refurbishment of old buildings. Often it is too expensive to upgrade existing research 

facilities, so older research space is converted to offices and classrooms instead. When new buildings are needed, we are committed to building them 

to at least LEED silver specifications, which is more expensive in the short 

run but will provide future energy savings to help offset the expense. For laboratory research buildings, which use more energy than office buildings, these 

savings over time can be great.

• We build out the campus utility infrastructure sector by sector, rather than 

building by building, in accordance with our campus master plan and capital 

improvement planfor the coming 5–10 years. This coordinated approach is 

very economical, allowing the infrastructure and new buildings to be constructed as efficiently and inexpensively as possible. For example, we have 

applied for a $15M NIH C06 ARRA grant to build a new research building 

for imaging sciences. The building construction cost and schedule are greatly 

reduced because utility infrastructure is already in place. Thus, any funding 

received will be most effectively used for its core research-support purposes.

• New laboratory buildings generally have a flexible open-laboratory design. 

This is economical, promotes collaboration among research groups, and allows 

space for particular projects to grow and shrink as funding waxes and wanes, 

without the expense of moving walls or utility spines. This approach leads to 

research funding and discovery successes that would otherwise not occur. 

Within a few years of the opening of our new open-configuration, interdisciplinary life sciences building, our faculty landed a $50M NSF grant (the largest 

ever to an Arizona institution) to support collaboration of molecular plant biologists, ecosystems biologists, information scientists, earth-imaging specialists, and others to tackle Grand Challenge problems in plant biology.

• Shared equipment facilities are preferable to facilities under the control of individual researchers. At the centers of our new open-lab buildings are shared 

core facilities for the most expensive instruments they need, such as those for 

microscopy, genomic and proteomic analysis, and high-end computing. These 

core facilities are an economical way to provide large numbers of researchers 

access to the latest equipment, equipment that they could not afford on their 

individual grants.

The UA has built ten new research buildings in the past ten years and our Capital Plan includes plans to build three more in the coming two years, to meet our 

most urgent projected needs. One of these, a research support building for our new 

College of Medicine arm in Phoenix (in partnership with Arizona State University), 

will be funded primarily with ARRA funding through an NIH C06 award. Incidentally, the development of that entire medical campus has been a collaboration of 

many entities dedicated to research advancement, including the UA, the City of 

Phoenix, and public-private partnerships. 

Our recently constructed buildings, in both Tucson and Phoenix, are funded by 

a combination of state and local funds. Projected sources of funds for the next three 

new research buildings and for research-related renovations on our Capital Plan are 

shown in Table 4, below. We take advantage of the State of Arizona’s recently approved Stimulus Plan for Economic and Educational Development (SPEED), a creative mechanism whereby the State will provide 80% of annual debt service payment from state lottery funds, while the universities will cover 20% of the annual 

debt service payments through institutional funds (which include student retained 

collections; State appropriations; and indirect cost recovery). Indirect cost recovery 

alone will be expected to cover approximately 10% of the debt service.
23

In addition to building renewal and construction, we track our expenditures on 

capital equipment (item cost >$5,000). While the total investment in capital equipment varies year to year, the percent contribution from federal funds has declined 

systematically in recent years, from 68% in FY 2003 to just 46% in FY 2009. [See 

Table 5 below.] Thirteen percent ($10 million) of our equipment purchased with federal funds in the past ten years has been purchased with funds designated for 

shared-use instrumentation.

In addition to our primary campus in Tucson and second medical campus in Phoenix, we have a Science and Technology Park in the outskirts of Tucson. With more 

than 7,000 employees, the UA Tech Park reflects one aspect of our partnership with 

the private sector in regional development and is one of the region’s largest employers. It is home to 40 high-tech companies and business organizations, including several emerging technology companies, as well as branches of five Fortune 500 companies. It includes a business incubator, which currently hosts 12 emerging companies, 

several of which are spin-offs from the university. The Park is an independent legal 

entity [501(c)3]. We currently are developing a second UA Tech Park, focused on biotechnology, closer to the UA campus, and recently received $4.7 million in ARRA 

funds from the U.S. Department of Commerce to build the utility and roadway infrastructure that will allow us to develop the property.

Gaps in Our Ability to Provide Necessary Research Infrastructure

All of the innovative collaborations and approaches being used to facilitate leading-edge research require new or upgraded research facilities, for which there is currently insufficient funding. Under current conditions, many of these needs will likely go unmet. 

As we seek multiple funding sources and new arrangements to fund building renewal and upgrades, the UA and other universities across the country face a specific 

and severely hobbling gap in funding opportunities. Donors may be willing to help 
24

to fund new buildings, but they are very rarely willing to contribute to ongoing operations, maintenance, or upgrades. For lack of funds, maintenance and upgrading are 

often deferred or neglected. Allowing our universities’ older research buildings to 

languish raises the future costs of providing the necessary physical research infrastructure. As discussed earlier, the University of Arizona has a growing need for refurbishment of its buildings that exceeds $200 million today. 

Beyond a shortage of funds for building renewal, universities face a confounding 

problem: a gap in funding opportunities for mid-scale instrumentation facilities. 

NSF’s Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) program 

supports the acquisition, construction, and commissioning of large scale research facilities and equipment, in the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars range, that 

uniquely advance the frontiers of science and engineering. Initial planning and design, as well as follow-on operations and maintenance costs of the facilities, are provided. NSF’s Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) program funds the acquisition 

or development of single pieces of research instrumentation, up to $4 million in cost 

(or $6 million, with ARRA funds), that are to be shared by multiple investigators. 

The program explicitly does not support acquisition or development of the whole 

suite of instruments that is often needed to outfit high-end research facilities. Similarly, the NIH has a Shared Instrumentation Grant (SIG) program that supports 

the purchase of instruments up to $600,000 in cost. The huge gap between these 

two funding mechanisms and the MREFC makes it very difficult to fund mediumscale infrastructure. 

A smaller but still constraining issue arises from the fact that the MRI and SIG 

programs support the purchase or development of expensive pieces of scientific instrumentation, but do not provide for the renovations that often are needed for installation of the new instruments and do not provide for personnel, ancillary equipment, and upgrades to keep the instruments at the cutting edge as technology advances. In addition, the MRI program requires universities to provide 30% in matching dollars. Because of the difficulty in finding the funds to fulfill those particular 

requirements, we are sometimes unable to apply for needed instruments, and even 

if we do obtain the funds to purchase new items, good instrumentation may fall 

away from the cutting edge, even when relatively inexpensive upgrades could have 

kept them up to date.

Recommendations

In light of the severity of the issues I have raised, we recommend the following:

1) The NSF should increase the percentage of its budget that it spends on infrastructure to 27 percent by FY2016—in accordance with the recommendation 

made by the National Science Board in its 2003 report, ‘‘Science and Engineering Infrastructure for the 21’’ Century: the Role of the National Science 

Foundation,’’ (http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/03/pr0340.htm).

Recent figures suggest that NSF currently devotes some 24 percent of its funding 

to infrastructure support. As the Congress and the Administration seek to double 

funding for the agency by FY 2016, we believe the 27 percent target set forth by 

the National Science Board is a reasonable goal. Moreover, slowly increasing the 

percentage of funding NSF devotes to infrastructure over five years as the overall 

NSF budget grows should minimize the negative impact on the funds potentially 

available for research grants and awards. 

To help to achieve this goal, we specifically recommend that:

a. The Congress and NSF should continue to support the Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) and Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction 

(MREFC) programs.

These programs are essential to provide state-of-the-art research equipment 

priced in the range of several millions of dollars or above tens of millions of dollars. 

It would be especially helpful for MRI grants in the future (1) to fund not only the 

purchase of the equipment, but also renovations, ancillary equipment, and personnel 

that may be needed to put those instruments to best use, and (2) not to require the 

significant (30%) matching dollars currently required of universities. Absent that 

additional support, the full costs of providing new technical capabilities are so high 

that some universities are unable to participate in the MRI program.

b. The Committee should authorize and funds should be appropriated for the 

Academic Research Infrastructure (ARIA program to enable NSF to solicit 

proposals to make additional ARI awards beginning in FY 2012.
25

Renovation of existing facilities is a critical need for which it is often difficult to 

find funding solutions. The inability to modernize existing research facilities often 

decreases research productivity, meaning that the value of the research funding provided is not fully leveraged, as researchers are forced to conduct their research in 

suboptimal facilities. 

The NSF Academic Research Infrastructure (ARI) program was originally authorized to try to address this very issue. Unfortunately, the program was never very 

well funded and its last solicitation was in 1996 which is, in part, why the funding 

provided with ARRA dollars this year for the ARI–R2 program was received so favorably by the universities I represent here today. The program is right on the 

mark, aimed at modernizing existing shared research facilities. It will be important 

in helping to ensure that our research infrastructure keeps pace with our science—

that is that the research that NSF funds can be done in appropriate research facilities—but it is funded for one year only, at $200 million. In its single solicitation, 

it received proposals for $1.02 billion in projects. Extension and expansion of the 

ARI program, through authorization and funding in FY 2012 and beyond, is critical, 

and the return on this investment will be high. Placing the emphasis on shared facilities ensures maximum impact per dollar.

c. The NSF should develop a new program to support mid-scale infrastructure 

projects not currently eligible for support through the MRI and MREFC accounts.

Such a program would be a significant means to support major research infrastructure needs. The National Science Board (NSB) has identified several specific 

areas where mid-scale infrastructure is needed. These areas include: acquisition of 

an incoherent scatter radar to fill critical atmospheric science observational gaps; 

replacement or upgrade of submersibles; beam line instrumentation for neutron 

science; and major upgrades of computational capability. 

As the 2003 NSB report on scientific and engineering infrastructure noted, ‘‘In 

many cases the midsize instruments that are needed to advance an important scientific project are research projects in their own right, projects that advance the stateof-the-art or that invent completely new instruments.’’ Thus, this program would advance the state of research technology, as well as spread the use of such high-end 

technologies.

2) OSTP should convene a National Science and Technology working group to 

assess the effects of the serious decline in state and private funding for university research infrastructure and recommend steps by the federal government to ensure adequate support for the nation’s academic research infrastructure.

The need for such analysis and thought on the financial future of research universities is so dire that, in multiple forums, university leaders across the country already are convening for discussion of, among related topics, specific research infrastructure needs and the most effective solutions that could be implemented. An 

OSTP working group could incorporate the perspectives of individual agencies and 

these university discussions to move the national conversation forward with focus, 

in time for deliberations around the 2012 budget formulation. 

Specifically the OSTP working group should:

a. Assess existing and propose new research instrumentation and infrastructure 

programs at all federal agencies, including those recommended above for the 

NSF.

In recent years, the funds available for research infrastructure programs outside 

of NSF, such as those supported by the NIH’s National Center for Research Resources Division of Research Infrastructure, have dwindled. Meanwhile, the need 

and demand for these programs remains very high. As just one example, NIST’s 

competitive university facilities construction grant program, which received funding 

of only $24 million in FY08, was able to support only three out of 93 proposals. 

Through additional funds provided to this program in FY 09 and through ARRA, 

NIST has been able to go further to address some of the pent up demand for new 

research facilities, however, the demand is still very high. Moreover, this demand 

will only grow as we move to increase the amount invested in research activities 

at key agencies such as the NSF, Department of Energy Office of Science, and 

NIST, as called for by the President and in the America COMPETES legislation 

which this committee will be looking to reauthorize this year.
26

b. Conduct a critical review of the increasing financial pressures that impede the 

ability of research universities and other institutions to adequately support 

critical physical research infrastructure needs.

In recent years the amount that universities, including the University of Arizona, 

have had to spend to ensure compliance with an increasing array of federal regulations has dramatically increased, requiring a significant amount of university revenues to go to supporting a greatly expanded ‘‘research compliance infrastructure.’’ 

Many of these costs are not currently reimbursable by our sponsoring agencies. 

Thus, they must be paid out of the universities’ own institutional funds, draining 

the resource pool that otherwise is available to help to support the university’s physical infrastructure needs. The increasing financial pressure, as well as the impact 

of increasing cost sharing requirements on universities, should be carefully examined.

Conclusion

The National Academies ‘‘Rising Above the Gathering Storm’’ report had proposed 

that the government:

‘‘Institute a National Coordination Office for Advanced Research Instrumentation and Facilities to manage a fund of $500 million in incremental funds per 

year over the next five years—through reallocation of existing funds or, if necessary, through the investment of new funds—to ensure that universities and 

government laboratories create and maintain the facilities, instrumentation, and 

equipment needed for leading-edge scientific discovery and technological development. Universities and national laboratories would compete annually for these 

funds.’’

While we stop short of endorsing the specific amount of funding for infrastructure 

programs across all government agencies, we feel that there clearly is a need for 

a revitalization of existing agency infrastructure programs as well as the development of new programs. It is therefore time that the Congress, OSTP, and all federal 

agencies work together to conduct a serious assessment of what the government can 

do to ensure that research infrastructure needs required to support governmentsponsored research activities are being met adequately. 

The significant amount of money devoted to research infrastructure programs in 

ARRA provided a critical shot in the arm which helped to inoculate the nation 

against the effects of years of neglect of our research infrastructure. That being said, 

additional federal support for research infrastructure is still very much needed after 

ARRA funds end, to carry forward our ability to meet the significant needs that 

exist for renovation and upgrade of aging facilities across the country. This is particularly true in light of declining alternative funding sources that universities have 

traditionally been able to rely upon to support their infrastructure needs. 

The return on this investment will be high. Our researchers, armed with direct 

research funding and supported by a strong research infrastructure, will be able to 

continue to lead the world in innovation and discovery. At my own institution, we 

have seen what can happen when modem infrastructure is made available: our faculty members almost certainly would not have landed the $50 million grant from 

the NSF to address major global issues in plant biology if they had not been located 

in well-outfitted facilities that were designed to enhance cross-disciplinary collaboration. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony.

BIOGRAPHY FOR LESLIE P. TOLBERT

Leslie P. Tolbert, Ph.D., has been the Vice President for Research, Graduate Studies, and Economic Development of the University of Arizona since 2005. In this role, 

she supports the research and other scholarly activities of a $565M research enterprise, promotes technology transfer and commercialization, and oversees the graduate programs of the university. Dr. Tolbert received her undergraduate and Ph.D. 

degrees from Harvard University and obtained postdoctoral training at Harvard 

Medical School. She has been on the neuroscience faculty of the University of Arizona since 1987. She currently is a Regents’ Professor with appointments in the College of Science and in the College of Medicine. For over 25 years, she has led a research group that investigates the critical role of sensory input in guiding the development of the brain. Dr. Tolbert has served as president of the Association of Neuroscience Departments and Programs and of the Association for Chemoreception 

Sciences, is active in the Society for Neuroscience and the American Association for 

the Advancement of Science, and is a member of numerous boards, including those 
27

of the Arizona Center for Innovation, the Arizona Alzheimer’s Consortium, and the 

Large Binocular Telescope. She has served on numerous review and advisory panels 

of the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health.

Chairman LIPINSKI. Thank you, Dr. Tolbert. 

Mr. Horvath. 

STATEMENT OF MR. ALBERT G. HORVATH, SENIOR VICE 

PRESIDENT FOR FINANCE AND BUSINESS, PENNSYLVANIA 

STATE UNIVERSITY, AND CHAIR, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, 

COUNSEL ON GOVERNMENT RELATIONS 

Mr. HORVATH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

Subcommittee for allowing me to participate as part of this distinguished panel. 

Research is central to the mission at major universities like Penn 

State. The research enterprise is complex, requiring a robust infrastructure that is modern and flexible. Elements include dedicated 

buildings, specialized equipment, high-end computing and substantial administrative support. Such an infrastructure is complicated 

and expensive to develop and maintain. Universities have had to 

subsidize the physical and administrative infrastructures supporting research with revenues other than funding from sponsors. 

Major infrastructure investments are commonly financed with substantial amounts of long-term debt, based upon an expectation that 

research funding will continue over the term of the issued bonds. 

The bonds are repaid used unrestricted revenue sources, including 

a portion of recovered facility and administrative costs, F&A, on 

federally sponsored research awards. 

Three recent events have caused anxiety around the sustainability of these expensive assets. First, unpredictable funding available for major federal research sponsors puts pressure on universities’ plans to service its external debt. Second, the economic 

downturn of the last 18 months has reduced endowment values and 

constrained future borrowing potential. And third, other sources of 

possible funding for research facilities, namely philanthropy and 

state investments, have fallen considerably because of the economic 

downturn. These events have dampened the ability of research universities to invest in all facilities, including those supporting research. 

In light of this challenging environment, the most important element toward encouraging investment in the research infrastructure 

is a reliable stream of direct research funding. If a long-term commitment is made to predictable growth in funding agencies’ budgets, it would help to provide the confidence that revenues would be 

available to support the activities within them over a 20- to 30-year 

period. We strongly encourage the continuation of programs that 

have helped to support research infrastructures such as the ARI 

and other similar programs. They have provided critical assistance 

in our ability to meet the needs of our faculty and research staff. 

Consider support for research-focused capital investments designed to help reduce the risk of these long-term financial commitments. This could be in the form of low-interest capital made available to universities for specific types of projects, or rate subsidies 

for borrowings made directly by the university. The success of the 

Build America bonds program over the past year is an indication 
28

of how modest investments by the Federal Government confer significant economic activities. 

Allow universities to cover the costs of money on internal funds 

used to finance research infrastructure investments. This is an allowable cost for commercial recipients of federal funds. The change 

to our cost accounting guidelines can send more allocation of university reserves to such projects. 

We would urge consideration of the removal of the cap that was 

placed upon administrative cost recovery by universities almost 20 

years ago. Most of these universities now exceed the 26 percent 

cap, resulting in millions of dollars worth of legitimate research 

support expenses that go unreimbursed. No other type of contractor 

performing work for the Federal Government is subject to such a 

cap on supportable allocable costs. 

A new, uncapped pool for regulatory compliance costs should be 

considered if removal of the administrative cost cap is not deemed 

feasible. Since implementation of the cap, several new requirements and regulations have been enacted that require greater effort by universities. However, none of the incremental costs associated with the regulatory changes can be recovered. 

Require all federal sponsors to reimburse F&A costs at approved 

federal rates. A study by the RAND Corporation in 2000 estimated 

that universities are subsidizing federally sponsored research by as 

much as $1.5 billion that would be eligible for reimbursement if all 

sponsors were paying the approved F&A rate. Dozens of new and 

expanded federal regulations on the conduct of research implemented since 2000 have surely added to the university subsidy. 

In conclusion, the research partnership between the Federal Government and American research universities has enabled great 

achievements in science, yielded innovation and economic growth 

and helped our system of higher education become the envy of the 

world. It is recognized that financial issues for both partners are 

more complex than ever before. I hope that we can jointly commit 

to ensuring that the research infrastructure is maintained, nurtured and permitted to evolve along with the science that it supports. 

I greatly appreciate the opportunity you have provided to me to 

present this information, and that concludes my summary. 

[The statement of Dr. Horvath follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALBERT G. HORVATH

Chairman Lipinski, Ranking Member Ehlers, and other distinguished Members of 

the subcommittee on Research and Science Education, thank you for allowing me 

to participate in this hearing on a topic that is very important to those of us who 

manage the financial and administrative aspects of organized research at major research universities. 

My testimony is provided on behalf of the Pennsylvania State University, where 

I am Senior Vice President for Finance and Business/Treasurer, and representing 

the Council on Governmental Relations, or COGR, where I currently serve in the 

role of Chairman of the Board of Directors. COGR is an association major research 

universities (and affiliated academic medical centers and research institutes) that 

helps to develop policies and practices that fairly reflect the mutual interests and 

separate obligations of federal agencies and universities in research and graduate 

education.
29

Background and Context

As a chief financial officer of a major research institution, fiscal oversight of the 

research enterprise is an important and challenging aspect of my responsibilities. 

Research activities account for almost 19% of Penn State’s operating budget, trailing 

only instruction and patient care in scale. The percentage of total revenues generated by research could be much more significant at other universities, depending 

on their mix of various mission-driven activities, Research is a complex activity 

which requires dedicated facilities, specialized equipment, significant physical infrastructure, substantial administrative support, and a number of specific compliance 

processes. 

While research is central to our universities’ missions, keeping the research enterprise solvent, and keeping our finances solid, has become a greater challenge. Since 

the early 1990’s, universities have faced tighter regulation with respect to funded 

research, with more limitations on our ability to effectively and reasonably recover 

those costs. A COGR paper in 2004 entitled ‘‘A New Research Business ModelIncentivizing Universities’’ (Attachment B) stated:

‘‘Six examples describe the impact of current regulations, all of which provide 

short-term cost savings to the federal government, at the risk of long-term damage 

to the research enterprise. The regulations impose:

• Limits on legitimate cost recovery by agency or type of award,

• A cap on administrative cost recovery in a time of growing administrative and 

regulatory requirements,

• Lack of commitment to life cycle costs for capital projects and the requirement 

to invest capital recoveries,

• An artificial distinction between internal and external interest costs on borrowed funds,

• The exclusions of many universities from receiving adequate utility cost reimbursement,

• Conflicting and duplicative requirements among funding agencies.’’

Universities have had to subsidize the physical and administrative infrastructures 

supporting research with revenues generally provided by State governments (public 

universities) or private philanthropy (private universities). Following the economic 

challenges of the past 18 months, both of those funding sources have become seriously constrained. 

Additionally, the infrastructure necessary to enable cutting edge research is complex and expensive. Universities have made significant investments in such infrastructure—buildings, major equipment, utility systems, organizational changes and 

processes with long-term financial commitments based upon an expectation that research funding would continue over the term of amortization. Regulated funding restrictions and budget uncertainty conspire to create tremendous financial risk and 

anxiety over the ability to fund the debt that has been incurred. It also dampens 

the willingness to make new investments in the future. 

A summary of Penn State’s research funding/activity can be found in Attachment 

A.

How research infrastructure is financed at Penn State

The University’s overall capital plan is financed through a variety of sources. The 

current multi-year plan, which runs through June 30, 2013, anticipates a total of 

$820 million of projects that will be financed as follows:
30

Major research facility projects—renovations or new construction—are generally 

enabled through the issuance of tax-exempt bonds. This long term obligation (20–

30 year repayment) is repaid using unrestricted revenue sources, including a portion 

of recovered facility and administrative costs (F&A) on sponsored awards. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, in addition to its annual $40 million commitment of 

capital funding, sometimes provides special allocations for such facilities, but these 

commitments historically amount to a modest fraction of total construction cost. 

Penn State has a strong credit rating (AA by Standard & Poors, Aa2 by Moody’s 

Investor Services) and has been successful at obtaining favorable interest rates for 

its tax exempt bond issuances. This access to ‘‘reasonably priced’’ funding has enabled the University, along with many other research institutions, to invest in its 

facilities and infrastructure particularly as endowments grew and balance sheets 

strengthened. Encouraged by the commitment to research funding, particularly 

through NIH during the 1990s, research facilities were expanded or renovated to enable the cutting edge work implied by such Federal investments. However, a few 

critical changes have caused uncertainty and anxiety around the sustainability of 

these expensive and complex assets.

1. Once the doubling of the NIH budget was achieved, subsequent years’ budgets began to erode some of that growth. While there was no assumption that 

such extraordinary growth would continue forever, allowing some of that 

growth to recede was not expected. This has caused uncertainty in planning 

for the future and put pressure on universities’ ability to service its external 

debt as had been planned.

2. The severe economic downturn, which hit higher education beginning late in 

2008, has significantly reduced endowment values and constrained future 

borrowing potential. The ability to continue to reinvest in research at past 

levels will be difficult if not impossible, given that those facilities must compete for priority against all other activities of comprehensive universities 

(classrooms, student support facilities, libraries, student housing and the 

like). While markets and endowments have somewhat recovered, it will take 

some time and sustained improvement for values to return to what they 

were previously.

3. Other sources of possible funding for research facilities—private philanthropy and state investments—have fallen considerably because of the effects 

of the economic downturn.

The events noted above have dampened the ability of research universities to invest in all facilities, including those supporting research. The specific impact at 

Penn State has been a delay in our ability to move ahead with our five year capital 

plan as originally drafted. Projects generally have not been cancelled, but many 

have been delayed by generally 12–18 months. Also, our borrowing plans, although 

historically conservative, have become even more so as we monitor the activity of 

the capital markets and move cautiously with new debt. 

As an example of the process followed and the issues encountered with the planning and execution of a major research facility is Penn State’s Millennium Sciences 

Complex. This 175 thousand square foot research facility will house faculty conducting research in material science and the life sciences. The building is intended 

to encourage collaboration between these two disciplines and will include many of 

Penn State’s most pre-eminent research faculty, The building is projected to cost 

$215 million and is scheduled for completion in 2011. The Commonwealth has pro-
31

vided $82 million of funding (the majority of which was a Penn State allocation of 

its annual capital allocation); the $133 million balance is financed with bonds issued 

in 2009. The interest expense associated with this project is calculated to be $63.8 

million over the life of the bonds. Sponsored research funding generated by faculty 

in this facility will provide partial repayment of the interest costs of the related borrowing through recovery of F&A costs. 

Penn State has approximately 1.6 million square feet of space dedicated to research at its University Park campus, with expressed needs for up to another 500 

thousand square feet just to support the present research portfolio. There are over 

$32 million of identified research equipment needs, Over $475 million of deferred 

maintenance exists in its research buildings, based upon facility condition audits 

conducted across the campus. Other research needs/initiatives could be addressed 

with additional facilities that don’t currently exist. Clearly, this is a big challenge 

as these needs must compete for access to funding against other institution priorities (including the Penn State Hershey Medical Center, which also competes for 

this investment capital and supports a significant research enterprise).

Academic Research Infrastructure Program (ARI)

The inclusion of additional funding for the ARI as part of the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act was most welcome in the research community, While the 

total amount allocated to funding for renovation and renewal of existing facilities, 

this was a positive step toward helping research universities to address a critical 

issue—deferred maintenance and aging facilities, Without a regular stream of funding toward such buildings and equipment, they become obsolete. Many labs exist in 

buildings built 30 or more years ago. Building systems did not contemplate the requirements of modem day science and engineering research. Often the most difficult 

part of recruiting new research faculty is the extent to which facilities need to be 

upgraded or renewed in order to support the research program of the faculty member. Such upgrade can run into the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. 

Both Penn State and COGR would encourage the Congress to consider extension 

of the ARI in future years to assist in dealing with the challenge of maintaining 

facility viability. It will help in generating positive economic activity as well. 

The trade-off between increases in direct research funding versus more money in 

the ARI or other infrastructure support programs is a difficult one. ARI has been 

most welcome and beneficial. However, a strong, consistent stream of funding for 

the primary research supporting agencies is also critical, This basic research funding provides the support for labs, research technicians, graduate students, support 

personnel, as well as funding toward supporting infrastructure. We hope that consideration of accomplishing both of these goals—steady strong research funding and 

some form of ARI—could be goals that are achievable together and not at each other’s expense. Additionally, we would encourage establishment of a larger fund for 

such projects. As noted earlier in my testimony, the needs for such funding are large 

and compelling. The ability to fund a larger number and wider range of projects 

would be extremely effective in maintain facility capability.

Other ideas to provide support for research infrastructure needs 

We would encourage the consideration of additional investments by the Federal 

government to help support the infrastructure that supports research at universities. Such investments will help to ensure that the continued cultivation of the 

basic science as the fundamental foundation of innovation and progress envisioned 

by Vannevar Bush several decades ago. Also, the economic benefit that such research provides is demonstrable. However, recognizing the realities of difficult budget choices, I offer some other ideas for ways in which the Federal government can 

more effectively support research on campuses and reduce some of the growing burdens that this activity places on University finances.

• Predictable, long term research financing—By far, the most important element toward reducing risk as universities make substantial financial commitments to research, spanning several years, would be a reliable stream of direct research revenue. As budgets are prepared and business plans developed, 

a major assumption in the evaluation of a project is the reliability of revenues 

that will be available to repay debt incurred. If a long term commitment to 

predictable growth in major funding agencies budgets for extramural research, it would help to provide confidence that the research such facilities 

are designed to support will, in fact, be able to financially support them over 

a 20–30 year period.
32

• Federal programs to assist in financing research infrastructure—The Federal 

government could provide mechanisms to help reduce cost of major investments or the risk of long term decisions. Such programs/systems would help 

to incentivize new investments in an era following balance sheet declines. The 

economic benefit of such investments has both a short run component (the activity stimulated during the construction phase) and a long run component 

(addition of higher paying knowledge jobs).

Æ Provide support for research capital investments

 ̨ Pool of capital dedicated to support investments in research buildings, building renovations, computing infrastructures

• Explore the possibility that a pool of dedicated capital could be 

made available to research universities with very favorable repayment terms. These funds would be accessed by institutions, 

according to specific criteria (types of facilities/uses) to finance 

new facilities and would be repaid at subsidized interest rates. 

This pool then would be self-sustaining over time and could help 

to ease some of the tough choices universities face on how to invest its limited capital.

 ̨ Debt service subsidies for university-issued bonds

• Provide subsidies for payment of debt service on borrowing undertaken by research universities for new facilities, major renovations or major equipment purchases that benefit Federal 

sponsors.

Æ Provide ‘‘grants’’ to fund a portion of new facilities, major building renovations or capital equipment acquisitions, This would serve to reduce 

the overall amount needed from bond issues or other external borrowings, thus reducing the impact on an institution’s credit rating/debt 

capacity issues.

• Allow recovery for the cost of internal capital, which is permitted for commercial contractors

Æ There are a number of differences between the cost accounting rules that 

exist for commercial and non-profit recipients of Federal funds. One notable example is the inability for universities to recover the ‘‘cost’’ of internal funds (reserves) that are used to finance research assets. Changing 

OMB Circular A21 to allow such costs to be recovered would help to 

incent perhaps a greater commitment of institutional reserves into such 

projects. This cost would become a component of the institution’s F&A 

rate, which is audited and approved by its cognizant Federal agency.

• Consider elimination of the administrative cost cap in OMB Circular A–21

Æ While not directly related to ‘‘bricks and mortar,’’ the cap that was placed 

upon administrative cost recovery by universities almost 20 years ago 

continues to create burdens on institutions. Most of the major research 

institutions have calculated administrative cost components which exceed 

the 26% cap, resulting in millions of dollars worth of legitimate research 

support expenses that go unreimbursed. No other type of contractor performing work for the Federal government is subject to such a cap on supportable, allocable support costs. Since implementation of the cap, several 

new requirements and regulations have been enacted that require greater effort by universities; however, none of the incremental costs associated with the regulatory changes are recoverable (if the institution is 

over the administrative rate cap).

Æ If removal of the administrative cost cap is not considered feasible, then 

consideration of the creation of a new, uncapped pool for regulatory compliance costs should be considered. As mentioned above, the growth of 

new requirements, seemingly every few weeks, has placed financial pressure on universities which other non-research revenues must subsidize. 

Universities WANT to be compliant,, and often the regulations are complex, requiring new investments or additional staff. This is not a signal 

of inefficiency but recognition of the cost of being compliant. A listing of 

new compliance requirements implemented since imposition of the administrative cost cap was compiled by COGR in March 2009, and demonstrates this point effectively (Attachment C).

• Require all Federal agencies to reimburse universities at Government-approved 

F&A, rate—A study by the Rand Corporation in 2000 estimated that univer-
33

sities are subsidizing Federally sponsored research by roughly $0.7 billion 

and $1.5 billion that would be eligible for reimbursement through negotiated/

approved F&A rates if all sponsors were paying the approved rate. We would 

support changes in appropriate regulation that would require Federal sponsors to pay the negotiated Federal rate on all research it funds.

Conclusion

The research partnership between the Federal government and U.S. research universities has enabled great achievements in science, innovations that have fueled 

economic growth, and helped our system of higher education to become the envy of 

the world. It is recognized that financial issues for both partners are more complex 

than ever before. Infrastructure—in the form of buildings, equipment, computing 

networks, and other necessary support ingredients—allow this research to flourish 

and discoveries to be made. We must jointly commit to ensure that this infrastructure is maintained, nurtured and permitted to evolve along with the research that 

it supports. As discussed in the 2003 COGR paper ‘‘New Research Paradigms Call 

for Regulatory Change:’’ (Attachment D).

‘‘The essential premise for a new business relationship between the government and 

universities is the simple acknowledgment that both parties engage as ‘‘business 

partners’’. This means, among other things, a recognition of complementary interests in the cost effective administration of awards and the providing of adequate 

funds to meet the joint expectations for the outcomes of research.’’

Steady, predictable streams of research funding form the foundation for the 

science and technology discoveries that result. A commitment by the Federal government to such funding will help to make future investments in facilities and support 

by universities less risky projects. Additionally, the continuation of programs like 

the Academic Research Infrastructure Program, NSF’s Major Research Instrumentation program, among others will assist in the development of new facilities along 

with ensuring the viability of existing facilities. Finally, changes to policies that will 

enable full and reasonable recovery of costs associated with research will help to 

ease pressure that caps and other funding reductions have created. 

I greatly appreciate the opportunity you have provided to present this information.
34

Attachment A
35
36
37
38

Attachment B 

A New Research Business Model: Incentivizing Universities

Introduction

This paper illustrates some of the difficult choices that universities face in order 

to comply with the current cost policy restrictions of the federal government as expressed by federal agencies and by OMB. Many of these policies were imposed for 

the purpose of saving taxpayer dollars, while at the same time providing maximum 

support for research. The paper illustrates that these measures are not the best way 

to reach the stated goals. Instead of imposing restrictions, we propose that the government look to a new business model, We maintain that it would be preferable to 

offer incentives to allow the academic community to manage the increasingly rare 

research finds on terms comparable to those granted to any experienced, cost-conscious and competitive provider of research. 

Six examples describe the impact of current regulations, all of which provide 

short-term cost savings to the federal government, at the risk of long-term damage 

to the research enterprise. The regulations impose:

Limits on legitimate cost recovery by agency or type of award,

A cap on administrative cost recovery in a time of growing administrative requirements, Lack of commitment to life cycle costs for capital projects and the 

requirement to invest capital recoveries,

An artificial distinction between internal and external interest costs on borrowed funds, The exclusions of many universities from receiving adequate utility cost reimbursement, Conflicting and duplicative requirements among funding agencies.

Taken either in isolation or as a short-term mandate, any one of these restrictions 

may seem immaterial, but their cumulative impact is acutely felt in the higher education community. The costs to the federal government are not as immediately evident but nonetheless real. They may be financial, they sometimes represent lost opportunities, i.e. loss of research capacity or they inadvertently encourage less than 

optimal research decisions. The impact would be no different and as strongly resisted, if these regulations were imposed on any other business entity. 

It is true that the government’s current costing polices do not deprive universities 

of the freedom to make choices, but the choices have become increasingly narrow 

and at times dysfunctional. It should be evident that universities can best serve the 

nation if they are free to make their best intellectual judgment about the future direction of research. Universities have historically accepted the risk that today’s research focus is likely to change tomorrow, if new discoveries redirect the progress 

of science or if the federal government changes its priorities. The risk, however, is 

much greater today, because artificial limits and prescriptions have been injected 

into the basic compliance structure that is the foundation of government research 

support policy. Cumulatively these prescriptions create financial disincentives that 

impact program choices and may encourage decisions that are neither in the best 

interest of taxpayers’ nor consistent with government goals and policies in supporting university research.

Situation 1: Limits on legitimate cast recovery by agency or type of award

A tenured professor retires and her 30-year-old laboratory must be renovated to 

accommodate a new faculty member. In deciding how to allocate the new space, the 

university has to weigh the risk that a junior faculty’s primacy research support 

may come in the form of awards that do not pay the full, negotiated facilities and 

administrative (F&A) rate. An example is the NIH career development program, 

under which F&A recovery is limited to 8%. In establishing this program the government has demonstrated its resolve to support young investigators, recognizing 

that the nation needs a steady stream of accomplished researchers. However, the 

government’s failure to provide the requisite support costs diminishes the impact of 

the program. Alternately, a more senior faculty member, whose cutting-edge research is so novel that federal funding has yet to be secured, might claim the newly 

renovated space. But for how long can the university afford to cost share the F&A 

costs for his laboratory? 

The financial realities of setting up a recent hire to the faculty are large and are 

real. Renovating space, equipping and running a modem research lab, and providing 

seed money for new research requires as many institutional resources (research proposal assistance, utilities, administrative support) as providing research space for a 

more senior colleague. It may turn out that the space is given to an established in-
39

vestigator operating in a mature branch of her field, where F&A costs are provided. 

Financial considerations, of course, may not be the final determining factor in. academic decisions. Nevertheless, from a strictly ‘‘business’’ perspective, the choice favors the more senior appointment in ‘‘safe’’ and well-funded research areas. 

These situations illustrate how academic and financial arguments create difficult 

trade-offs when important strategic research decisions are made. Some universities 

have decided to recognize faculty, who are successful grantees and who bring in the 

full negotiated F&A rate, by awarding them the best research space in newly-renovated buildings. Other universities might consider prioritizing the renovation of 

buildings that will house successful grant applicants, at the expense of other disciplines that are not as likely to be ‘‘funding winners.’’ Without sufficient revenues 

to support total costs, both direct and indirect, the need quickly arises to subsidize 

research activity from other sources (primarily from tuition or gifts from private donors). 

These cases illustrate how financial disincentives may lead to results that are neither in the best interest of the taxpayers nor consistent with government goals and 

policies in support of university research.

Situation 2: A cap on administrative cost recovery in a time of growing compliance 

requirements

The university determines that changes to its oversight requirements for bio-medical research must be substantially enhanced due to much stricter regulation by the 

federal government. Such enhancements will require the institution to incur additional costs in the hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars, all directly 

supportive of research primarily sponsored by federal agencies. Some are the result 

of new regulations, others are the result of changes in federal interpretation of compliance needs in research areas that develop commensurate with the advance of scientific methods. However, due to the fact that the institution’s negotiated F&A rate 

is already at the 26% administrative cost cap, the government does not provide its 

fair share of these new compliance costs. 

In order to continue the relevant research and to comply with federal regulations, 

the administrative costs supporting such research must be subsidized by other revenue sources, possibly tuition revenue or private donations or increasingly shrinking 

state funds. Compliance with these federal mandates is not a matter of choice and 

‘‘efficiencies’’ cannot be easily achieved. If no revenue sources are left and if additional subsidies to the research enterprise can no longer be found, the research-intensive universities face even more difficult choices. Their options are reduced to 

gradual elimination of certain research programs or the even more problematic decision of reducing compliance standards to the required minimum level.

Situation 3: Decreasing pool of investment capital for universities to invest in research facilities

The university determines that a research building dating from the I930s has outlived its usefulness and that it would be most cost-effective to raze the building and 

to build all new space. However, the common source of funding in the past-tax-exempt bond funding-is now in shorter supply. With the economic downturn of the 

past few years, the institution’s endowment value has declined, thus reducing the 

level of borrowing capacity available. While the institution has extensive borrowing 

ability, a significant additional borrowing will likely push its credit rating down a 

level, thus creating more expensive interest costs. Capital campaigns, although desirable, can only be initiated slowly and have unpredictable outcomes. These realities could force the university to defer a decision, with the result that the building 

in question will deteriorate further and that current or future research will be negatively impacted. 

The federal government has for years failed to include a well-funded facilities support program in the federal agency research program budget. The unfortunate consequence of this has been the increase of earmarks in Congressional appropriations. 

Also, to date there exists, no federal policy that commits the government to participate in its share of debt service over the life of the loan. It would make good business sense to provide incentives, since the research to be performed in these facilities is in the government’s interest. A variety of incentives have been proposed and 

could include a reasonable facilities funding program placed in the federal budget, 

offering universities a federal sharing in loans, or a federal loan guarantee program. 

The common denominator in all these would be removing the uncertainty that universities currently experience under the given federal policy. 

Business decisions for the university are further complicated by the federal government’s requirement that for every dollar of depreciation recovered on the new 
40

building, a dollar must be spent on some future project. This means in effect that 

the university will never recover the cost of its investment, and may be committed 

to new construction at times when it is not in a sound financial position to do so.

Situation 4: An artificial distinction between internal and external interest costs on 

borrowed funds

The university’s bond rating is in jeopardy due to depressed financial markets. 

Because of this, it would be less expensive on a gross basis to allocate internal capital funds to pay for a new science building. However, the university knows that 

there is no option for recovery from the government of the university’s internal cost 

of capital. Under these circumstances, the university may make a rational business 

decision to borrow at a higher external rate because it then can recover a fraction 

of the interest costs from the federal government, thereby lowering its net cost of 

interest. 

It would clearly be in the taxpayers’ interest to provide incentives for the university to use its own money, possibly by sharing some of the investment costs, so that 

the federal contribution does not go to defraying avoidable higher interest costs.

Situation 5: The exclusion of certain universities, from receiving the utility cost adjustment factor

A space vacancy occurs in the cancer research center. The university could make 

the space available for a number of equally worthy projects. One of them is a large 

laboratory where the research project requires constant air changes. Unfortunately 

such a laboratory would entail high energy use. Since the university had not undertaken an energy study prior to 1996, it is now prevented from receiving higher compensation through the F&A rate for higher energy research consumption. When the 

government put new energy studies on hold in 1996, it promised to develop a fair 

formula for all academic energy consumers, but has yet failed to do so. As a result, 

more than one hundred universities are now prevented from recovering the costs for 

higher energy use which they consume, which they could easily document, and 

which their peers who had done prior energy studies now enjoy. 

For the university faced with this choice, the uncompensated energy costs inject 

an artificial economic factor into a determination which should be based solely on 

academic and scientific needs. This may influence the university to make a decision 

not in the best interests of science.

Situation 6: Regulatory Burden Reinforces Bureaucracy

Universities, like commercial businesses, seek to maximize the use of financial 

and human resources to meet their strategic objectives. As resources become more 

constrained, institutions attempt to streamline their efforts, including the maximum 

use of available technology, to reallocate resources into priority areas. But research 

universities find it increasingly difficult to reduce the administrative burden of research in order to fund more strategic activities. The following three examples illustrate how federal requirements contribute to high administrative costs, and thereby 

detract from effective decision-making.

• Each federal agency views itself as unique, operating within its own set of 

administrative guidelines and regulations. This requires counterpart experts 

at the university to effectively deal with the day-to-day operations of each respective agency funding.

• New initiatives in the government’s administrative processes, such as electronic research administration, have not been coordinated across sponsoring 

agencies in a way that establishes common standards to assist universities 

in implementing simple, cost effective solutions. As a result, the same task 

(i.e., submission of a research proposal) must be accomplished in a variety of 

different ways.

• Costing regulations became more burdensome and complex in the 1990s, including the requirement to develop and adhere to Cost Accounting Standards 

Board protocols that are expensive to implement and maintain but often ignored by the cognizant agencies. Significant time and effort that could have 

been used elsewhere was expended to develop the Disclosure Statements, and 

continues to be devoted to maintaining them as changes are required to business processes.

A specific example of how such administrative requirements negatively impact the 

drive towards efficiency is one university’s attempt to create a new staff classification 

for ‘‘research faculty. ‘‘ The sole motivation for this change is to build and strengthen 
41

the university’s research capability. In order to create the new position, the institution 

needs to have a cost recovery model that enables all leave costs to be charged directly 

to grants and contracts. This requires changes to the written disclosure statement 

that must be negotiated through the cognizant agency, even though costing practices 

were recently reviewed in negotiation of the F&A rate. Such requirements delay the 

implementation process in a way that is difficult to explain to faculty administrators 

and counter to the shared desire for increased efficiency.

Conclusion:

These examples illustrate the dangers to the research enterprise when sound 

business decisions can no longer be reconciled with what appear to be sound research decisions. Unless the government changes some of its policies, it may trigger 

outcomes that are adverse to its own stated goals: to foster an environment in which 

the government’s academic business partner is empowered to manage itself and the 

federal investment in research in the most pendent and cost effective manner. For 

each of the examples cited in this paper, there exist. a number of possible policy 

solutions. Some are very specific, such as extending the utility cost adjustment factor, and allowing ‘‘cost of money’’ for universities that use their own capital for facilities. Others have broader implications, such as eliminating the administrative 

cap, or establishing loan guarantee programs for new facilities. Still others would 

only require adherence to government-stated purposes and principles, such as payment of negotiated F&A rates on all federal awards, and streamlining financial and 

research administration requirements to eliminate unnecessary processes and to 

create consistency among sponsoring agencies. 

The unique position of universities precludes their being treated as business partners in the same sense as commercial business partners. According to the latest information from NSF, university funds to support research’ reached $6.55 billion in 

2001, or 20% of total expenditures, As recently as 15 years ago the university share 

of total expenditures was 10%. Stated differently, for every $1 million of funding received in new awards, a university provides an additional $200,000 of direct and infrastructure costs. This significant investment of funds demonstrates the universities’ commitment to support research. Recognizing this, universities must and do 

take every opportunity to maximize administrative efficiency and reduce costs. However, we believe a comprehensive strategy is needed to address the growing imbalance in support for the university research infrastructure. The government will justifiably expect to get the best results from federally funded research on the most 

reasonable terms, and with the expectation of cost sharing. But where the government fails to recognize the universities’ legitimate business constraints, and the result is increased research cost shifting, it is time for new research business models, 

which recognize these constraints and design funding programs consistent with 

them.
42

Attachment C 

Federal Regulatory Changes, Since 1991

These regulations directly affect the conduct and management of research under Federal grants and contracts. The list of current regulations is in chronological order.

Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (Common Rule, 1991)

Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention & Control Act of 1990 (Implemented, 1992)

NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules (1994)

Deemed Exports (1994, EAR & ITAR)

DFARS Interim Export Control Compliance Clauses (July 2008)

Conflict of Interest

Public Health Service/NIH Objectivity in Research (1995)

NSF Financial Disclosure Policy (1995)

Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995

Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) in OMB Circular A–21 (1995)

Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy Rule

OMB Elimination of Utility Cost Adjustment (UCA) (1998)

Data Access/Shelby Amendment (FY 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act); related 

amendments to OMB Circular A–110

Policy on Sharing of Biomedical Research Resources (NIH, 1999)

Misconduct in Science (Federalwide Policy, 2000)

NEH, 2001

NSF, 2002

EPA, (Directive, 2003)

Labor, 2004

HHS/PHS, 2005

NASA, 2005

Energy, 2005

Veterans Affairs, 2005

Education, 2005

Transportation, 2005

USDA (Proposed, 2008)

HHS Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) National Coverage Determination for Routine Clinical Trials (Clinical Trials Policy), 2000

Executive Order 13224, Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten to Commit or Support Terrorism (September 2001, also 

EO 12947, 1995)

Select Agents & Toxins (under CDC and USDA/APHIS) Public Health Security 

& Bioterrorism Preparedness & Response Act of 2002; companion to the USA PATRIOT Act (2001)

FISMA Federal Information Security Management Act (Title III, E Government Act 

of 2002) OMB Circular A–130, Management of Federal Information Resources, Appendix III, Security of Federal Automated Information Systems

CIPSEA Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act (OMB 

Implementation Guidance 2007, Title V, E Government Act of 2002)

Federal Policy on Embryonic Stem Cell Research (2003)

Data Sharing Policy (NIH, 2003)

Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)–12, Common Identification 

Standards for Federal Employees and Contractors (2004)

Higher Education Act, Section 117 Reporting of Foreign Gifts, Contracts and 

Relationships (20 USC 1011f, 2004)

Model Organism Sharing Policy (NIH, 2004)

Constitution & Citizenship Day (2005, Consolidated Appropriations Act FY 2005)

Genomic Inventions Best Practices (2005)

Combating Trafficking in Persons (2008)

Code of Business Ethics & Conduct (FAR) 2008

Homeland Security Chemical Facilities Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) 2008
43

1The Report is available at: www.cogr.edu/docs/COGRAAUTroublesomeClausesReport.pdf

E-Verify 2008

Military Recruiting and ROTC Program Access (2008, Solomon Amendment, National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2005)

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Order Imposing Fingerprinting and Criminal 

History Records Check Requirements for Unescorted Access to Certain Radioactive Materials (Feb. 2008, Section 652, Energy Policy Act of 2005)

National Institutes of Health Public Access Policy (2008, Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, Division G, Title II Section 218)

Certification of Filing and Payment of Federal Taxes (Labor, HHS, Education 

and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2008, Division G, Title V, Section 523)

Health and Human Services/FDA Clinical Trials Registry Implementation/Interpretation Changes, Since 1991

Foreign Nationals (See COGR/AAU/FDP Troublesome Clause Report, 2008 1) 

Publication Restrictions (see COGR/AAU/FDP Troublesome Clauses, 2008)

P.L. 106–107/Grants.gov: Electronic Applications, Financial Reporting Progress 

Reports, iEdison Invention Reporting, etc. CCR/DUNS Registry requirements

Subrecipient Monitoring (OMB Circular A–133, Compliance Supplement)

Changes to A–21 F&A Proposal Format

Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects:

Federalwide Assurance (2004), mandatory training

IRB Registration (2008)

Title IX of Education Amendments of 1972: Access to science and math educational 

programs (2007+)

EPA Hazardous Waste, Subpart K (2008)

IRS 990 Reporting

Significant Proposed Changes

Export Controls: Export Administration Regulations (EAR) & International Traffic 

in Arms Regulations (ITAR) (2003)

Responsible Conduct of Research Training—NSF (America COMPETES Act 

2006)

Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) Subrecipient Reporting (2006)

National Science Advisory Board for Biosafety (NSABB) Oversight of Dual Use 

Life Sciences Research of Concern

Nuclear Regulatory Commission—Considerations concerning the Security and Continued Use of Cesium-137 Chloride Sources (July 2008)

USAID Partners Vetting System (re: EO 13224 et al. re: terrorist financing)

USDA Animal Welfare Act, Contingency Planning (2008)
44

Attachment D 

New Research Paradigms Call for Regulatory Change 

Executive Summary

During recent discussions initiated by the Office of Science and Technology Policy 

about new research business models, much attention was given to interdisciplinary 

research activities and the team efforts required to carry out such research. Expanding these thoughts further, this paper offers an analysis of the increased administrative responsibilities that are encountered when research projects scale up to more 

complex, multi-disciplinary and multi-institutional levels. 

Starting with streamlining that would benefit the administration of the basic assistance award, the paper recommends changes that would facilitate business practices commensurate with increasingly complex business relationships. The requested 

changes in current federal regulations described here are not new, but are gaining 

greater urgency in order to assure accountability and to reduce the administrative 

burdens and costs that impact both the government and its awardees as projects 

scale up. 

Although this paper focuses primarily on the government-university relationship, 

it does not seek to diminish the importance of university-industry collaboration nor 

does it deny the many beneficial relationships existing between universities and 

their State agencies. The close nexus between education and research that exists in 

universities makes them not more important, but certainly different from most 

other research providers.

Introduction: Premise for research business relationships

The essential premise for a new business relationship between the government 

and universities is the simple acknowledgment that both parties engage as ‘‘business partners’’. This means, among other things, a recognition of complementary interests in the cost effective administration of awards and the providing of adequate 

funds to meet the joint expectations for the outcomes of research. These mutual interests exist in both the assistance and the procurement mode because in each both 

parties provide value. Towards these ends, regulatory requirements that create unnecessary burdens should be removed, and funding for administrative expenditures 

should be based on a thorough and fair examination of the universities’ F&A documentation. The term ‘‘rate negotiation’’ is inappropriate and implies a broken process. Equally important is the avoidance of cost shifting and imposing of caps and 

other restrictions by the government, which the commercial sector would describe 

as ‘‘price controls’’. It now appears that not only has the Congress called for new 

business practices, as evidenced in P.L. 106–107, but that the White House, through 

the Office of Science and Technology Policy has joined that call for change.

Business Models for the Basic Assistance Award

The simplest research platform is a basic assistance award, which may provide research support of up to $1 million in federal funding. An example of how a new 

business practice could remove unnecessary regulatory burden for even this simple 

platform is provided by the proposals of Robert Newton, a former NSF official. 

In. the early 1980s, Newton proposed that a faculty’s entire research should be 

considered as one ‘‘research program’’ to be managed as an integrated whole rather 

than as individually sponsored and managed ‘‘research projects’’. The key prerequisite to aggregation was the concept of ‘‘relatedness’’, which the faculty researcher would be obligated to assert and demonstrate. Once relatedness was established, the researcher should be able to use all sources of funding to charge costs 

to serve research needs rather than be restricted by individual agency budgets. This 

concept was one of the motivating factors for forming the Florida Demonstration 

Project in 1983. It is not yet widely embraced in the Federal Demonstration Partnership of 2003. 

Several other unnecessary regulatory impediments to the cost-effective management of research could be similarly eliminated by simple changes to the current requirements. These include flexibility in starting a project, the ability to adjust expenditures according to the needs of the research without having to obtain agency 

prior approval for each individual action; and the authority to extend the timeframe 

for expenditures as dictated by progress on the project, without being accused of violating the ‘‘expenditure rate’’. 

The value of the business efficiency of such changes was recognized when OMB 

revised Circular A–110 in the early 1990s. OMB directed federal agencies to adopt 
45

a unified position on grant management matters and to provide ‘‘expanded authorities’’ to the grant recipient for management without the need for individual prior 

agency approval at each step. This recommendation reflected broad public support. 

Agency implementation however was uneven and even today federal agencies are 

far from uniform in granting such ‘‘expanded authorities’’ to research universities. 

In 2000, public comment on the statutory requirements of P.L. 106–107 again indicated overwhelming support for granting expanded management authorities to all 

funding recipients under all government awards. Until these simple steps are taken 

to adopt sensible business practices, there is little point in discussing the more complicated issues associated with more complex research and funding efforts.

Recommendation:

• Revise OMB Circular A–110 to direct all federal agencies to grant the ‘‘expanded authorities’’ for grants management in accordance with federal regulations to all research universities.

• Endorse the concept that individual but related research projects by a single 

investigator can be considered one research program for purposes of management and accountability.

• Rely on business system reviews and project audits at universities rather 

than prior approvals by individual federal agency staff.

Business Models for Multi-Sponsor, Multi-University Projects

Awards for multi-sponsor, multi-university projects range from $1–5 million dollars. Coordination and leveraging of effort is critically important to their success. 

It is widely acknowledged that their management is complex because they involve 

teams of scientists working at different sites and on various aspects of one common 

research problem. Yet, in most cases, none of the participating universities has 

enough support to cover more than their minimum share of the administrative burden. Because the federal agencies take a narrow view of the budget categories under 

OMB Circular A–21, sufficient funds are not provided to support the secretarial and 

clerical personnel required for such. a sophisticated effort. 

Recently, some federal officials seemed to imply that a ‘‘new business model’’ 

would require that OMB Circular A–21 be withdrawn and fundamentally revised. 

We do not believe that such drastic cure is required. All that is required to meet 

research needs is to go back to Circular A–21 in its original form. That would delete 

a number of requirements which do not add value. 

Several other modest changes to OMB Circular A–21 would further advance businesslike management of research. The language of the cost circular needs to be coordinated with the management circular to avoid discrepancies. Universities should 

be granted use of the cost of money, which other business sectors currently use. University responsibility for monitoring their sub recipient awards must be limited to 

reasonable procedures focused on scientific program objectives. The government 

should not expect universities to serve as auditors on one another’s projects. This 

becomes particularly important in multi-campus arrangements, where the designation of subrecipient vs. research partner may not be sufficiently well defined. 

Another federal agency practice contrary to sound business principles is that not 

all federal agencies pay the negotiated F&A rate. They cite various reasons, some 

programmatic, some historical. This uneven approach to what is intended to be the 

government-wide rate becomes particularly visible and detrimental in multi-agency 

awards. The resistance by several agencies to fully fund the negotiated. F&A rates 

of universities results in extensive under recovery of costs that the science projects 

can ill afford. Respective data have been provided by the Rand Corporation and 

more recently by COGR. It would be good business. practice for all agencies to scrub 

their policies, some of which date from the late 50s, and to eliminate restrictions 

to full rate reimbursement that have been carried forward without appropriate statutory justification. 

Large multi-campus research projects may require institutional cost sharing. The 

capacity of the participant universities to come up with such funds is dependent on 

many factors. One might surmise that federal oversight over cost sharing as well 

as general project administration on multi campus awards would be facilitated by 

Cost Accounting Standards. However, internal consistency rather than commonality 

is the major objective of these standards. CAS standards add no value to multi-campus or to single investigator awards. They are duplicative and unnecessary because 

they reiterate A–21 standards. Doing away with these clearly unnecessary requirements, which the federal government admitted it cannot meet in a timely manner, 
46

would result in cost savings both for the government and for the universities that 

would clearly benefit research. Eliminating CAS standards is overdue. 

We recognize that the government has legitimate interests in the establishment 

of ethics safeguards and multi-disciplinary and multi-campus projects may provide 

special concerns in this area. A new business model for this platform would benefit 

particularly from agency implementation of the government-wide misconduct in 

science policy promulgated in 2000. We also ask that all federal agencies follow the 

lead of NIH and NSF and develop conflict of interest regulations.

Recommendation:

• Return to the original language of 0MB Circular A–21

• Allow the direct charging of secretarial and clerical staff

• Provide full funding of negotiated university F&A rates

• Reduce subcontract monitoring to reasonable levels

• Issue Government-wide ethics rules

• Rescind the CAS coverage for universities

Business Models for Large Center Awards

Institutions which compete for large awards for Centers or for specialized institutes for up to $15 million must commit substantial infrastructure support, Such 

support depends largely on available cost sharing resources. The size and complexity 

of these awards creates a big gap in management and operation between these 

awards and the single assistance awards. Yet, the same policies govern both. No 

reasonable business practice would expect to run a multi-million dollar automobile 

company like a neighborhood small business enterprise. The current restrictions in 

OMB Circular A–21 make no such distinction and as a result many of the large universities are stretched to the limit of their fund raising capacity for improvements 

of the infrastructure and for planning needed new facilities. 

For such large projects, the recovery of F&A costs is especially significant and 

consequently agency cognizance becomes a factor. Universities report considerable 

differences between the two cognizant agencies in their procedures for rate negotiation. There is no basis for two federal agencies to treat universities differently. Good 

business practices would call for closer coordination between DCAA and DCA, with 

respect to their audit and their oversight over F&A rate negotiation. 

The more one tries to scale up to a new platform, the clearer the impact of the 

cap on administrative cost will be felt. No other research performer is subject to 

caps, which were imposed in addition to three major revisions of the circular that 

took place in the 90s. While these OMB revisions provided a clearer definition of 

cost categories and eliminated ‘‘gray’’ areas, they also hold universities’ administrative rates at a level that was below average even at the time it was adopted. 

After a decade without adjustment for cost increases, the university community 

is no longer able to cover the growing gap between regulatory requirements and the 

restriction in reimbursement. No other business is precluded by the government 

from recovering its legitimate business-related compliance costs. Since 1992, universities have had to absorb all administrative costs for new requirements and/or for 

the upgrading of systems that have become necessary in the intervening time. One 

would expect that it is in the government’s own best interest to support universities 

in their effort to stay competitive and compliant, especially as new security measures become imperative for the nation. The cap needs to be lifted. 

These large awards also reinforce the need for government-wide acceptance of regulations governing human subjects, and to overcome the apparent distrust of the 

‘‘common rule’’ which leads agencies to establish duplicative reviews of protocols and 

IRB procedures. 

Finally, unnecessary administrative costs could be eliminated simply by the establishment of government-wide payment systems that would replace the labor intensive and outmoded system of grant-specific draw-down by each federal agency.

Recommendations:

• Seek agreement between cognizant agencies

• Implement rate determination, not negotiation

• Remove the administrative cap

• Adopt a uniform government-wide payment systems

• Discourage duplicative administrative reviews
47

The New Research Business Model in Review

As we propose it, the new business relationship between the government and universities is based primarily on trust. This trust relies on the understanding that it 

is in the university’s own best interest to self regulate and hold costs down but also 

on the understanding that the government will provide stable funding and that the 

recovery of costs for facilities and for administrative services will not unexpectedly 

be capped. 

Universities face a growing perception that science can be separated from administration. That is a fallacy. Universities also witness the encroachment of administrative procedures that siphon funds that could otherwise support research or teaching. A new business model would eliminate such duplicative federal requirements.

Recommendation:

• Treat universities as business partners

• Permit performance based budgeting

• Set reasonable audit expectations

• Replace certifications with assurances

• Do not permit budget decisions to drive policy

In this new business environment, the government will not be asked to appropriate more, it will merely be asked to allow universities to use resources the way 

universities determine necessary to support the mutual goal of obtaining the deliverable of sound scientific research.

In Conclusion

Scaling up to different research platforms entails responsibility for scientific, administrative and financial decisions. It influences decisions regarding the workforce 

and infrastructure, including space and equipment, and calls for careful coordination between centers at different locations and subject to a variety of administrative 

regulatory requirements. It reaches into areas of regional and national security and 

raises fundamental questions regarding how one deals with potential restrictions on 

foreign scientists, with audit oversight and with the freedom to publish research results. 

The key to a successful research business model for increasingly complex projects 

lies in designing comprehensive but simplified administrative guidance and then 

permitting universities to take responsibility for management and oversight of the 

wide range of their projects. We believe that success depends largely on the extent 

to which the government will grant research universities the flexibility to make 

sound business decisions on campus, subject to subsequent review and audit by the 

government.

BIOGRAPHY FOR ALBERT G. HORVATH

Albert G. Horvath is senior vice president for finance and business/treasurer at 

Penn State effective July 1, 2009. He is responsible for leading the day-to-day management of Finance and Business and the strategic planning process for the unit 

which has an operating budget of more than $500 million and more than 2,500 employees. He is also responsible for special projects and assignments, including information systems and technology, succession planning, and emergency preparedness. 

Al oversees the direct reporting relationships in the areas of auxiliary and business services; corporate controller and controller for the College of Medicine/Milton 

S. Hershey Medical Center; Office of the Physical Plant; University Budget Office; 

Office of Investment Management; Commonwealth Operations; University Police; 

and Human Resources. 

Al joined Penn State on June 29, 2007 as vice president for finance and business. 

He came to Penn State with a wide range of experience in finance and business, 

much of it in higher education. He has previously served as executive vice president 

for finance and CFO at Columbia University, where he has been responsible for the 

financial activities of the university—including its medical center—with a $2.7 billion operating budget. At Columbia, he developed a five-year capital plan and debt 

strategy and created a procurement organization, was involved with several issues 

at the medical center, and acted as primary administrative liaison to the audit and 

finance committees of Columbia’s board of trustees. He also served as associate vice 

president for finance/controller, and later vice president for business and finance 

and CFO, at The California Institute of Technology; as controller at New York Uni-
48

versity; and as audit director and assistant vice president for finance at Carnegie 

Mellon University. He started his career as an auditor with Mellon Bank, before becoming a manager in Mellon’s trust and investment department. 

A 1981 Penn State graduate with a degree in accounting, I also earned an MBA 

from Duquesne University in 1985.

Chairman LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Horvath. 

Dr. Raymond. 

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN R. RAYMOND, VICE PRESIDENT FOR 

ACADEMIC AFFAIRS AND PROVOST, MEDICAL UNIVERSITY 

OF SOUTH CAROLINA, AND CHAIR, STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA EPSCOR COMMITTEE 

Dr. RAYMOND. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you very much for allowing me to testify today. The NSF 

EPSCoR program has a statutory function to strengthen research 

and education in science and engineering throughout the United 

States, and to avoid undue concentration of such research and education. This has been accomplished through providing strategic programs and opportunities for EPSCoR participants that stimulates 

sustainable improvements in their R&D capacity and competitiveness, and to advance science and engineering capabilities in 

EPSCoR jurisdictions for discovery, innovation and overall knowledge-based prosperity. Twenty-seven states plus Puerto Rico and 

the U.S. Virgin Islands are currently eligible for NSF EPSCoR support. These 29 jurisdictions comprise 20 percent of the U.S. population, 25 percent of the research in doctoral universities, and 18 

percent of our nation’s scientists and engineers. NSF EPSCoR 

funding is awarded through a merit-based peer review process. 

EPSCoR has been very beneficial to South Carolina. The Medical 

University of South Carolina has made relatively modest contributions to the creation of knowledge in science and engineering disciplines. However, with the assistance of programs like NSF 

EPSCoR, we are now poised to contribute in a substantial and sustainable way to the competitiveness of our Nation. 

The current NSF EPSCoR RII grant was awarded to South Carolina in July 2009. This RII has presented us with an exciting opportunity for South Carolina to implement a statewide vision for 

building a competitive edge in the emerging field of organ printing 

that can create human organs such as hearts, kidneys and blood 

vessels. This has ample depth and breadth to bring together faculty 

and students from nearly all of South Carolina’s institutions of 

higher education to work together toward a common purpose. Furthermore, NSF EPSCoR funds have been leveraged through the recruitment of new professors to the State through the South Carolina Centers of Economic Excellence Act and the Research Universities Infrastructure Act.

The NSF RII award provided the impetus for South Carolina and 

Tennessee to partner on a new NSF EPSCoR cyberinfrastructure 

award that provides personnel and equipment to facilitate coordination with Clemson’s High Performance Computing support staff 

and with TeraGrid specialists. 

Finally, NASA EPSCoR funds have catalyzed connections among 

South Carolina’s researchers and the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory to design and test a useful and efficient lunar wheel for use 
49

on a small pressurized rover that will enable astronauts to explore 

the moon. 

We believe that the EPSCoR program can be improved. Targeted 

options continue to be the most viable and effective pathways to develop the scientific infrastructure, talent and critical mass in the 

EPSCoR states. There should be continued investment in these 

competitive grant opportunities for states that meet EPSCoR criteria. The current EPSCoR program could be improved by dividing 

it into research, education and workforce components. 

With regard to the entire EPSCoR program, I would suggest that 

NSF set a goal of doubling the percentage of its funds annually 

that are awarded to the 27 EPSCoR states and two jurisdictions 

and slightly less than ten percent of NSF’s annual R&RA obligations to 20 percent within ten years. We also need assurances that 

as the new states are added, the funding needed for them will be 

requested and appropriated. 

EPSCoR states have trained a lot of scientists and engineers over 

the years, and we need incentives to keep and bring new talent to 

our state. Physical infrastructure initiatives outside of the EPSCoR 

program could also be very useful. Cutting-edge facilities, renovations and equipment remain a major obstacle to competitiveness for 

the EPSCoR states. Our institution has over $100 worth of deferred 

maintenance in our research facilities. A separate program or a setaside in existing programs would be very helpful. 

Finally, while South Carolina has made impressive progress in 

cyberinfrastructure, it has not been easy or inexpensive. Many of 

the EPSCoR states have not been as fortunate as South Carolina 

and are still lacking the bandwidth systems that will enable the 

modeling and computer simulations needed for climate change, biomedical and advanced research for visualization. 

In closing, we believe the value, effectiveness and sustainability 

of EPSCoR programs is very clear, both as a catalyst for improving 

our respective states, and to enhance America’s overall competitiveness in the global economy. Again, I thank you for the opportunity 

to testify today. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Raymond follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN R. RAYMOND

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Dr. John Raymond. I am Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost at the Medical University of South Carolina. I have also served as Chair of the State of South Carolina 

Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) Committee for 

the past eight years. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding the 

research infrastructure needs of our universities and colleges including research facilities and cyber-infrastructure capability, the capacity of the research infrastructure to meet the current and future needs of U.S. scientists and engineers, and the 

appropriate role of the Federal government in sustaining such infrastructure. 

In this testimony, I have been asked to answer questions related to the current 

National Science Foundation EPSCoR grant awarded to South Carolina. Specifically, I will address EPSCoR’s role in facilitating partnerships with state and local 

governments and the private sector to improve our research infrastructure, its 

leveraging effect on improving cyber-infrastructure capabilities, and its impact on 

the Medical University of South Carolina. Secondly, I will describe the state of research infrastructure and research facilities at the Medical University of South 

Carolina and our unmet research infrastructure needs. Thirdly, I will provide recommendations on how to improve the EPSCoR program based on the findings and 

recommendations of the EPSCoR Foundation. 
50

1 Eligible EPSCoR jurisdictions: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, 

Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South 

Dakota, Tennessee, U.S. Virgin Islands, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Before answering the three specific questions posed to me, it might be useful to 

provide a brief summary of the EPSCoR program and my university to place my 

answers into the appropriate context. The National Science Foundation EPSCoR 

program has a statutory function ‘‘to strengthen research and education in science 

and engineering throughout the United States and to avoid undue concentration of 

such research and education.’’ This is accomplished through two goals, which are (1) 

to provide strategic programs and opportunities for EPSCoR participants that stimulate sustainable improvements in their R&D capacity and competitiveness; and (2) 

to advance science and engineering capabilities in EPSCoR jurisdictions for discovery, innovation and overall knowledge-based prosperity. South Carolina is one of 

the original NSF EPSCoR-eligible states designated in 1980 (please see Figure 1). 

Twenty-nine jurisdictions including twenty-seven states, the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are currently eligible to compete for support through various NSF EPSCoR mechanisms.1 Those 29 jurisdictions comprise 20 

percent of the U.S. population, 25 percent of the research and doctoral universities, 

and 18 percent of the nation’s scientists and engineers. NSF EPSCoR funding is 

awarded through a rigorous process of merit-based peer-review to ensure quality, accountability and sustainability. Many other federal agencies support programs similar to the NSF EPSCoR program; for example, the National Institutes of Health has 

a program called the Institutional Development Award (IDeA) program. 

Founded in 1824, the Medical University of South Carolina is a freestanding academic health science center composed of six health-related colleges (Dental Medicine, Graduate Studies, Health Professions, Medicine, Nursing, Pharmacy). Until recently, our institution made relatively modest contributions to the creation of knowledge in science and engineering disciplines; with the assistance of programs like 

NSF EPSCoR, we now are poised to contribute in a substantial and sustainable way 

to the competitiveness of our nation. We were awarded extramural research funding 

of nearly $218 million in FY 2009–10, of which $140 million was from federal 

sources, and $103 million from the National Institutes of Health. 
51

The current NSF EPSCoR Research Infrastructure Improvement (RIO grant was 

awarded to South Carolina in July 2009. This RII has presented an exciting opportunity for South Carolina to implement a statewide vision towards building a competitive edge in the emerging field of ‘‘organ printing’’—operationally defined as 

computer-aided, layer-by-layer deposition of biologically relevant material with the 

purpose of engineering functional tissues and organs. The idea is that we can use 

cultured cells and supporting materials as ‘‘ink’’ that can be built up using modified 

ink jet printers and powerful computers to create human organs such as hearts, kidneys, and blood vessels. The patient’s own cells (such as fat cells) can be used to 

make these organs to provide a ready source for transplantation to treat and cure 

diabetes, kidney failure, heart failure and atherosclerosis. What patient with diabetes wouldn’t donate some of their excess fat cells to make a new pancreas to cure 

their diabetes? 

Organ printing poses a grand challenge in terms of engineering and biological 

principles, and a grand opportunity for South Carolina to contribute to the competitiveness of our country. Currently, the thickness of printed tissue constructs is limited to four cell layers or less due to lack of a blood supply. In order to manufacture 

more complex organs, one must successfully engineer a vascular supply, which will 

require a 3–D tree-like network of blood vessels. 

The grand vision of this RII has ample depth and breadth to bring together faculty and students from nearly all of South Carolina’s institutions of higher education to work toward a common purpose. The 2009 SC NSF EPSCoR RII focuses 

on a diverse subset of institutions including three research intensive institutions 

(Clemson University, Medical University of South Carolina, University of South 

Carolina), three historically black colleges (Claflin University, South Carolina State 

University, Voorhees College), two other predominately undergraduate institutions 

(Furman University, USC-Beaufort) and 3 technical colleges (Denmark Technical 

College, Greenville Technical College, York Technical College). Together we form the 

SC Alliance for Tissue Biofabrication. 

EPSCoR funds were essential for demonstrating the feasibility of using existing 

rapid prototyping equipment to print an intra-organ vascular tree. Drs. Vladimir 

Mironov and Roger Markwald at MUSC facilitated the fabrication of a 3–D ‘‘plastic’’ 

kidney (see Figure 2), which was recently printed based on a computer-aided design provided by Prof Nicolas Smith from the University of Oxford (UK) using expertise and facilities at 3–D Systems/York Technical College. This initial success 

and preliminary data strongly suggest that existing rapid prototyping technology 

using layer-by-layer addition of building blocks has sufficient resolution for bioprinting a complex branched vascular tree. Rapid prototyping is a rapidly growing, 

$100 billion/yr industry and 3–D Systems, Inc, located in Rock Hill, SC, is a leading 

global provider of 3–D printing, rapid prototyping and additive manufacturing products. This is an excellent example of EPSCoR funds being used to catalyze academic-industrial collaborations towards building an advanced biomanufacturing industry in South Carolina.
52

The NSF EPSCoR funds have been leveraged through the recruitment of new professors to the state of South Carolina through the Centers of Economic Excellence 

Act, and the Research Universities Infrastructure Act, two key economic development initiatives passed by the South Carolina Legislature in 2002 and 2004, respectively. Those acts provide state matching funds for recruitment of endowed professors, and for research construction. We have used state funds and private sector 

matching funds to create multi-institutional Centers of Economic Excellence in Regenerative Medicine, and in Tissue Biofabrication. Several of the professors recruited to these centers have faculty appointments at Clemson, USC and MUSC, 

thus serving as bridges between our institutions. These new centers will be based 

in a new 100,000 ft2 Bioengineering Building, which will be completed in late 2011. 

This building will house engineers from Clemson and USC, and life scientists from 

MUSC, working in interdisciplinary teams to address grand challenges like the 

organ bioprinting project. We also have leveraged the NSF EPSCoR award by developing interdisciplinary educational programs that bring together students and faculty from the technical colleges, historically black serving institutions, four-year and 

research-intensive institutions. 

Finally, the NSF RII award provided the impetus for South Carolina and Tennessee to partner on a new NSF EPSCoR cyberinfrastructure award that provides 

personnel and equipment to facilitate coordination with Clemson High Performance 

Computing support staff and TeraGrid specialists. This cyberinfrastructure grant 

also enables South Carolina institutions to have access to the TeraGrid Kracken 

system housed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. This grant, along with a $21 million award from The Duke Endowment and an $8 million award from the Federal 

Communication Commission, has allowed us to develop a high-speed, high-bandwidth optical and wireless communication grid that spans the state and facilitates 

competitiveness. 

NASA EPSCoR funds have catalyzed connections among Dr. Joshua Summers’ 

team at Clemson, and Michelin, Milliken and the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory 

to design and test a useful and efficient lunar wheel for use on the Small Pressurized Rover that will enable astronauts to explore the moon. The futuristic rover with 

its ‘‘tweels’’ joined NASA astronauts in President Obama’s inaugural parade on 

Pennsylvania Avenue. The accompanying Figure 3 shows Dr. Summers and undergraduate student Ms. Samantha Thoe inspecting the metallic prototype.
53

Other federal agency EPSCoR funds have been applied to the areas of energy and 

alternative fuels. For example, Dr. Terry Tritt’s research group at Clemson University has extensive interactions with Oak Ridge National Lab and Savannah River 

National Lab through the DOE EPSCoR Partnership Program. Dr. Tritt has received international attention for his study of thermoelectric energy, and on materials that can recapture ‘‘lost’’ energy from ‘‘wasted’’ heat. 

These are just a few examples of how EPSCoR funds have been used to advance 

research and science education in South Carolina. 

With regard to MUSC’s research infrastructure, we have a number of new, stateof-the-art research buildings focusing on childhood diseases, bioengineering and 

drug discovery and development. We also have a number of aging buildings that will 

require significant upgrades and renovations to accommodate our expanded scope of 

research; and new high-end instrumentation to enable our teams to perform the 

mass spectroscopy, magnetic resonance imaging, high capacity computing, emerging 

microscopic methods, and interactive teaching, materials sciences, and biofabrication, as well as other emerging methods. We share these needs with many edu-
54

cational institutions, even those in the research powerhouse states. The continued 

support of EPSCoR programs will be essential for our state, and for institutions like 

MUSC, to make sustainable contributions to scientific discovery, contemporary 

science and engineering, education, innovation and the overall competitiveness of 

our country. 

We believe targeted options continue to be the most viable and effective pathways 

to develop the scientific infrastructure, talent and critical mass in the EPSCoR 

states. There should be a continued investment in competitive grant opportunities 

for states meeting EPSCoR criteria. We believe the current EPSCoR program could 

be improved by dividing it into several components—(1) research and (2) education 

and workforce: Alternatively, we could simply adopt the NIH dual model of COBREs 

which are research center development grants, and INBREs which are state network grants to educate and train the next generation of biomedical scientists. This 

would be a much more direct approach to meeting both research infrastructure and 

‘‘pipeline’’ needs. Each component should, of course, be adequately funded at levels 

similar to those at NIH. 

We would appreciate renewed efforts to involve EPSCoR states in the regular 

NSF programs. This means more representatives from EPSCoR states on the National Science Board, NSF Advisory committees and other relevant ‘‘planning’’ entities; more co-funding especially as the NSF budget is growing, and greater use of 

mechanisms that will ensure EPSCoR participation in major NSF initiatives. I believe that a few years ago, extra points were awarded for including EPSCoR states 

in certain applications for large programs. This should be reinstated. Other efforts 

should be made to assist EPSCoR states in participating in more large-scale NSF 

efforts such as Science and Technology Centers (STCs), Engineering Research Centers (ERCs), and Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers (MRSECs). 

Unless that is done, the dollar imbalance between the established states and the 

EPSCoR states will continue to grow. In this regard, I would suggest that NSF set 

a goal of doubling the percentage of its funds, annually, that are awarded to the 

27 EPSCoR states and 2 jurisdictions—from slightly less than 10% to 20% within 

ten years. Then, coalesce some of the initiatives recommended above, as well as others gleaned from the broader EPSCoR community, into a ‘‘Strategic Implementation 

Plan’’ to meet that goal. 

We also need assurance that as new states are added, the funding needed for 

them is requested and appropriated. It costs $5–10 million a year to bring a new 

state into the EPSCoR program during its first five years and these new EPSCoR 

states tend to be more competitive than some of the existing ones. Consequently, 

it is self-defeating to drain resources from one to help the other. 

We should look at other mechanisms as well. EPSCoR states have trained a lot 

of scientists and engineers over the years who, regrettably, have then simply moved 

to other states. More are staying in our states as we build our infrastructure and 

attract innovative companies. We need incentives to keep and bring new talent to 

our states. Physical infrastructure initiatives outside of the EPSCoR program could 

also be useful. Renovations and’ equipment remains a major obstacle to competitiveness for the EPSCoR states. Cutting edge facilities, renovations and equipment remain a major obstacle to competitiveness for the EPSCoR states. A separate program or a set aside in existing programs would be helpful. 

Physical infrastructure initiatives outside of EPSCoR or in addition to the existing 

EPSCoR program are essential. That is your focus today. The EPSCoR states unquestionably and unequivocally require such investments. Construction of scientific 

facilities, renovations and equipment remain a major obstacle to competitiveness in 

the EPSCoR states. 

Finally, while South Carolina has made impressive progress in 

cyberinfrastructure, it has not been easy or inexpensive. Many of the EPSCoR states 

have not been as fortunate and many are still lacking the bandwidth and support 

systems that will enable modeling and simulations needed for climate change, biomedical and advanced research and for visualization. 

We thank this subcommittee for its ongoing support of our states and for the wisdom to invest in programs that engage the populace of all of our states in building 

science and engineering capabilities that will broaden the base of talent and the capacity for innovation throughout the United States. We believe in the value, effectiveness and sustainability of EPSCoR programs—both as a catalyst for improving 

our respective states and to enhance America’s competitiveness in the global economy. 

In closing, I thank you for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee today.
55

BIOGRAPHY FOR JOHN R. RAYMOND

Chairman LIPINSKI. Thank you, Dr. Raymond. 

Now I will recognize Dr. Dunning. 
56

STATEMENT OF DR. THOM H. DUNNING, JR., DIRECTOR OF 

THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR SUPERCOMPUTING APPLICATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 

Dr. DUNNING. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to 

address the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education. 

Before I start, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Representative Ehlers for his service to the Nation’s science and educational enterprise. We all have greatly benefited from your dedication to advancing science and engineering, and we thank you. 

Now let me return to the topic at hand, the state of 

cyberinfrastructure in the United States. To ensure that we are all 

on the same page, I would like to note that cyberinfrastructure consists of computing systems, and consists of data sources, data storage systems, visualization environments all linked by high-speed 

networks, knitted together by software and enabled by expert support staff. Cyberinfrastructure allows us to make discoveries and 

innovations not otherwise possible, and as such, it is now a critical 

part of the Nation’s research infrastructure. 

Given the time constraints, I will focus my comments mainly on 

the high-performance computing, or HPC, aspect of 

cyberinfrastructure including the University of Illinois’s Blue Waters, which, when it comes online in 2011, will be the most powerful computer in the Nation for open scientific research, and in fact, 

it will likely be the most powerful computer in the world for such 

research. This extraordinary computer will be capable of sustaining 

a million billion arithmetic operations per second, have more than 

one petabyte of memory, a million times what you have in your PC, 

more than 10 petabytes of online disc and 500 petabytes, or half 

an exabyte, of archival storage. 

National resources like Blue Waters are not the result of one organization’s work. This computer reflects a model, in fact, of a university-state-federal-industry partnership founded on a 24-year relationship between the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 

the State of Illinois and the National Science Foundation. In the 

specific case of Blue Waters, the State of Illinois built the national 

petascale computing facility and provided I-wire connectivity to 

connect that facility to the national research networks. The University of Illinois is buying the archive system and networking gear 

and investing in software for Blue Waters. NSF is buying the computing system and funding its operation and maintenance. And finally, IBM, which is the computer vendor for Blue Waters, is working closely with the university to ensure that Blue Waters delivers 

maximum value to the scientific community. 

In this regard, I do have one concern. Continuing progress requires that industry be researching, developing and producing 

high-end computers for scientific research, and I am very concerned 

at the drop-off in companies investing in this particular area, especially in the highest end. 

Let me now make four comments on the status of 

cyberinfrastructure for high-performance computing and what is 

needed for this cyberinfrastructure to be effectively and efficiently 

used for discovery and innovation. First, let me note that the deployment of fast high-end computing systems by NSF has been 

very successful, providing extraordinary value to the scientific com-
57

munity, but what has been lacking is the investment in user support. Even scientists experienced with high-performance computing 

require assistance to use systems at the leading edge, and as we 

have found at NSCA and other sites, researchers in a growing 

number of other fields are finding high-performance computing 

critical to meeting their particular goals. Expert support is required to bring them into the fold. 

A second concern about NSF’s HPC program is the frequency of 

competitions associated with the deployment of these resources. 

Competition is good, but when you are building infrastructure, 

completeness, robustness and continuity are also critical. Too-frequent competitions make it difficult to attract high-quality staff, result in discontinuities and inefficiencies in support service and are 

a drain on valuable staff support time. To be blunt, the current 

model is unsustainable and a task force currently advising NSF on 

future HPC strategies will recommend longer term, more stable 

funding, coupled with rigorous reviews to ensure quality. 

A third concern is the balance between investments in hardware 

and software. Scientists and engineers certainly need access to ever 

more powerful computers, but science and engineering applications 

must be carefully designed to fully exploit the capabilities of the 

high-performance computing systems available. New tools and approaches are needed to help scientists develop applications for Blue 

Waters and the even bigger computers that will come next. This is 

a major area for NSF investment and will require significant collaboration between NSF directorates and offices on developing a 

new generation of science and engineering applications as well as 

a robust and complete HPC software stack. 

A fourth area of concern, not just for HPC but also for 

cyberinfrastructure in general, is networking. While the United 

States may appear to be in good shape on the surface, this smooth 

surface hides a number of issues. Scientists are choosing not to undertake some activities because they know those activities will 

stress the networks. Data volumes are rapidly increasing and will 

overwhelm current capacities in the next few years. 

And finally, as mentioned by Dr. Raymond, networking capabilities are not evenly distributed. Many universities may not be able 

to benefit from the major advances being made in data-intensive 

science. 

To tackle some of these current and upcoming challenges in networking, NSF must do more. One key area of need is to interconnect NSF’s major research facilities, instruments and computers. A potential model for this is the Department of Energy’s 

ESNET, which is a high-performance network being built to connect major Office of Science research facilities. Another key area, 

and one that is specific to NSF, is the need to enhance the ability 

of university researchers to connect to NSF’s major facilities, the 

so-called end-to-end problem. All of the concerns I have raised are 

driven by the need to tackle not only existing problems, but to prepare for future opportunities such as the coming revolution in datadriven discovery. 

One of the most exciting advances in science and engineering is 

the increasing digitization of observational science, from astronomy 

to biology to environmental science. Advanced sensor arrays, micro-
58

scopes and automated sequencers, and telescopes are allowing us 

to produce huge quantities of meaningful data. At NSF, this can 

clearly be seen in its large MREFC projects. To build the 

cyberinfrastructure for these projects, we need to share and reutilize software, whenever possible, that is both costly to build and 

maintain. Such coordination is not easy with independent projects, 

and the lack of continuity at supercomputing centers leads to their 

under utilization by these major data-driven discovery projects. 

I would like to conclude with a brief word about education and 

cyberinfrastructure. Two key questions that we have are: what 

does the next generation of scientists and engineers need to know 

about cyberinfrastructure, and second, how can we modify the curriculum and courses to provide the needed knowledge? NSF with 

its broad mandate in science and engineering, research and education is well suited to explore the options and serve as a catalyst 

for the needed changes at universities. 

This concludes my verbal remarks. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today, and I am more than happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Dunning follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOM H. DUNNING, JR. 

What Is Cyberinfrastructure?

Cyberinfrastructure, n., cyberinfrastructure consists of computing systems, data 

sources and data storage systems, visualization environments, and support staff, all 

linked by high speed networks to make discoveries and innovations not otherwise 

possible.

Over the past quarter century, computing has become an integral part of the fabric of experimental and theoretical science. All but the simplest laboratory experiments are performed under computer control, the data is analyzed using software 

running on a personal computer or small compute cluster, and the results compared 

with the latest theories through computational simulations on high performance 

computers. The use of computing technology is now spreading to the observational 

sciences, which are being revolutionized by the advent of powerful new sensors that 

can detect and record a wide range of physical, chemical and biological phenomenafrom massive digital detectors in a new generation of telescopes to sensor arrays for 

characterizing ecological and geological areas and new advanced sequencing instruments for genomics research.
59

Research Advances Enabled by Cyberinfrastructure

Three major modes of scientific discovery are enabled by cyberinfrastructure: computational modeling and simulation, data-driven discovery, and, increasingly, the 

coupling of these two modes. To address the questions posed by the Subcommittee, 

I will discuss the cyberinfrastructure needs of these three modes of scientific discovery and then provide an analysis of the status of the existing cyberinfrastructure. 

To begin, let us briefly review the science and engineering advances made possible 

by cyberinfrastructure. 

Computational Modeling and Simulation. In computational modeling and simulation, scientists develop a mathematical model of the phenomena of interest, e.g., the 

chemical and physical processes involved in an internal combustion engine or the 

processes involved in the prediction of weather, and then use high performance computers to solve the resulting equations. For most phenomena of interest, the equations are very complex and, so, the power of computational modeling and simulation 

grows with increases in computing power. As computing systems have progressed 

from the megaflops era in the 1970s to the petaflops era of today, our ability to accurately simulate a broad range of biological, chemical, physical and, even, social 

phenomena has grown dramatically.

• The Southern California Earthquake Center seeks to develop a predictive understanding of earthquake processes aimed at providing society with improved understanding of seismic hazards. In partnership with earthquake engineers, SCEC researchers are developing the ability to conduct end-to-end 

simulations [‘‘rupture to rafters’’) to extend this improved understanding of 

seismic hazards to an improved understanding of earthquake risks and risk 

mitigation strategies.

• Researchers at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign are using 

computational simulations to obtain a detailed understanding of the functioning of the ribosome, the large cellular machine responsible for synthesizing proteins in our cells, as well understanding the mechanism used by the 
60

1See: http://www.oceanleadership.org/programs-and-partnerships/ocean-observing/. 2See: https://portal.leadproject.org/gridsphere/gridsphere.

poliovirus to gain entry into our cells. The former will enhance our fundamental understanding of cell biology, while the latter may lead to the development of better anti-viral drugs.

• A team from Michigan State University and the University of California, San 

Diego are studying the formation of the first galaxies. Based on a fundamental understanding of the physical processes and the initial conditions that 

led to the formation of the first stars, powerful numerical simulations are 

helping astrophysicists understand how and when the very first sources of 

light formed.

All of these simulations are numerical- and data-intensive and can only be performed on the most powerful computers available. 

Data-driven Discovery. In data-driven discovery, scientists gather information 

from various data sources, e.g., a large digitally-enabled telescope, an array of environmental sensors, or ‘‘gangs’’ of genome sequencers, and then analyze the resulting 

mass of data usingsophisticated mathematical procedures seeking patterns, information and understanding. Data-driven discovery requires an extensive 

cyberinfrastructure that supports data collection and transport to storage sites, followed by data cataloging, integration and analysis (including visualization). Often, 

the cataloged data becomes a resource for a large research community. Depending 

on the quantities of data involved as well as the mathematical demands of the analysis, data-driven discovery may require extensive computing resources as well as 

large data storage facilities.

• The Ocean Observatory Initiative is constructing an integrated observatory 

network to provide the oceanographic research and education community 

with: (i) a cabled network of monitoring devices on the sea floor spanning important geological and oceanographic features, (ii) an array of relocatable 

deep-sea buoys that can be deployed in harsh environments, and (iii) construction of new facilities or enhancements to existing facilities leading to an 

expanded network of coastal observatories. The OOI will provide earth and 

ocean scientists with unique opportunities to study multiple, interrelated 

processes over timescales ranging from seconds to decades; to conduct comparative studies of regional processes and spatial characteristics; and to map 

whole-earth and basin scale structures.1

• The Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) is unlike other ground-based 

telescopes. It is a wide-field survey telescope and camera that can image the 

entire sky in just three nights, providing a time history of celestial events. 

Using an 8.4-meter ground-based telescope, the LSST will, for the first time, 

produce a wide-field astronomical survey of our universe. Its 3 gigapixel camera—the world’s largest digital camera—will provide digital imaging of faint 

astronomical objects. The LSST will provide unprecedented three-dimensional 

maps of the mass distribution in the universe, in addition to the traditional 

images of luminous stars and galaxies, These maps will be used to better understand the nature of the mysterious dark energy that is driving the accelerating expansion of the universe. In addition, the LSST will also provide a 

comprehensive census of our solar system, including potentially hazardous 

near-Earth asteroids

Data-driven Computational Modeling and Simulation. There are increasing opportunities for linking data-driven discovery with computational modeling and simulation. For example, in the NSF-funded LEAD project (Linked Environments for Atmospheric Discovery),2 one of the goals is to gather and analyze the data from a 

distributed array of Doppler radars to determine, in real time, when atmospheric 

conditions are ripe for the formation of a tornado and then launch computational 

simulations to determine the likely path and intensity of the tornado. Such opportunities will grow in the future as sources of sensed data become more widespread. 

Development of a National Cyberinfrastructure

In recognition of the increasing importance of research cyberinfrastructure, the 

National Science Foundation recently issued a Dear Colleague Letter on 

‘‘Cyberinfrastructure Framework for 21st Century Science and Engineering.’’ This 

letter stated that it was imperative for NSF to develop a long term vision for the 

nation’s cyberinfrastructure that covered the following critical areas:

1. Cyberinfrastructure for:
61

3See: https://nsf.sharepointspace.com/acci¥public/default.aspx. 4See: http://www.er.doe.gov/ascr/incite/index.html.

a. High end computational, data, visualization and sensor-based systems 

and the associated user support for transformative science.

b. NSF’s large-scale collaborative research facilities and projects, integrated 

with that of other federal agencies and international organizations.

2. Linkage of this cyberinfrastructure into campuses (including government and 

businesses) accompanied by programs that support integrated, widely dispersed, broadly based activities and resources.

3. Education and outreach to help develop computational science- and technology-savvy researchers and workforce.

This letter was signed by all of the Assistant Directors at NSF as well as the directors of many major NSF programs. 

The development of a national cyberinfrastructure for research poses many 

unique challenges for NSF. Cyberinfrastructure is very different from physical infrastructure such as a laboratory building. Computing and related technologies are still 

rapidly advancing—computing power doubles every two years, disk capacity increases even more rapidly, 60% per year. The software that ties all of the infrastructure elements together to create a unique research capability has to be revised in 

response to these changes in technology. Finally, the use of cyberinfrastructure is 

still in its infancy—high quality support staff are needed to ensure that the U.S. 

research community can take advantage of the new capabilities provided by 

cyberinfrastructure. This close coupling of hardware, software, and expertise with 

a rapidly changing technology base is unparalleled in other types of infrastructure. 

Cyberinfrastructure must also be funded through different mechanisms. Infrastructure must be sustained over long periods of time to be useful to researchers, 

and it cannot be sustained through a series of short term, loosely integrated 

projects. Like an interstate highway, cyberinfrastructure must provide a smooth, 

continuous path from one point to another. On the other hand, cyberinfrastructure 

must also evolve as computing technology advances; otherwise, it will rapidly become outdated. So, there must be flexibility in how the funding is used in long term 

cyberinfrastructure projects. Finally, cyberinfrastructure is expensive, both in terms 

of the hardware that must be deployed, the software that must be developed and 

maintained, and the support staff that are critical for its efficient functioning. It is 

important to avoid duplication and leverage existing capabilities and resources 

whenever possible. 

The NSF-wide Advisory Committee for Cyberinfrastructure has begun work on 

the development of the new cyberinfrastructure framework outlined in the Dear Colleague letter,3 establishing six Task Forces: 

Campus Bridging 

Data 

Grand Challenges 

High Performance Computing 

Software and Tools 

Work Force Development

The Task Forces involve distinguished scientists and engineers from across the 

nation as well as NSF program officers. Although the Task Forces are in the early 

stages of their work, they have already held a number of meetings and teleconferences to explore and discuss new concepts and strategies for developing a comprehensive national cyberinfrastructure. I am participating in three of these Task 

Forces: Grand Challenges, Software and Tools, and High Performance Computing 

and have colleagues who are involved in the other three Task Forces. This testimony provides a prologue to the work of the six NSF Task Forces. 

Before moving on, I should note that NSF is not the only federal agency that supports cyberinfrastructure in the nation’s universities. The Office of Science in the 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE–SC) also funds cyberinfrastructure for university 

researchers. DOE–SC has a well defined, long term plan to provide computational, 

data and communications resources for laboratory and academic researchers based 

on the identified needs of its major research programs. However, with the exception 

of the INCITE program,4 DOE–SC’s cyberinfrastructure is closely tied to its mission 

needs, serving only those laboratories and universities deemed critical to that mission. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) supports a number of 

cyberinfrastructure-related software development efforts in its biomedical research 

programs but, by and large, depends on agencies such as NSF as well as the academic institutions that it supports to provide much of its cyberinfrastructure, especially the hardware. However, biomedical research is approaching a tipping pointthe amount of data being accumulated in NIH’s research programs will soon far ex-
62

5 A typical arithmetic operation is the multiplication of two 14-digit numbers to yield a 14-

digit result. 6 ‘‘From Desktop to Teratlop: Exploiting the U.S. Lead in High Performance Computing,’’ NSF 

Blue Ribbon Panel on High Performance Computing, Lewis Branscomb (chairman), NSF 93–205, 

August 1993. 7 NSF supports the acquisition of computer systems at the lower levels of the Branscomb pyramid through many other programs, e.g., the Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) program. 

See: http://nsf.gov/pubs/2010/nsf10529/nsf10529.htm. 8The peak performance of a computer system is the theoretical limit of its computing capability; it can never be achieved. The sustained performance of a computer is the performance 

that is actually achieved on a given science or engineering application. Although peak performance is used as a proxy for sustained performance, the correlation can be very weak. 

ceed that which can be stored, managed and analyzed by the other agencies and 

institutions. NIH has several strategic planning activities underway to identify the 

best path forward. Whatever the outcome of these planning activities, meeting the 

growing computing and data needs of NIH’s intramural and extramural research 

programs will surely require substantial increases in NIH’s cyberinfrastructure investments. 

High Performance Computing

As noted earlier, advances in computational modeling and simulation are driven 

by increases in computing power. Over the past few decades, increases in computing 

power have largely been driven by Moore’s Law, with a doubling in computing 

power occurring every 18–24 months. Thus, the end of the 1980s saw the deployment of computers capable of performing a billion arithmetic operations per second.5

Ten years later, computing technology had advanced to the point that it was possible to perform a trillion arithmetic operations per second. In 2008, computers capable of a quadrillion operations per second were deployed. It is expected that 

exascale computers, 1,000 times more powerful than petascale computers, will arrive in another eight years, although many hardware and software challenges must 

first be overcome. 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Office of Science in the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE–SC) have committed to providing high performance computing resources for open scientific and engineering research, including for researchers who are funded by other government agencies. DOE–SC is funding several 

major computing centers in support of its energy and environmental missions as 

well as its broader national science mission: its flagship facility at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and its leadership computing facilities at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Argonne National Laboratory. NSF funds large national computing facilities at the Texas Advanced Computing Center and University of Tennessee/Oak Ridge National Laboratory and its largest national facility at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Although I am familiar with DOE’s computing program, I will only discuss NSF’s program here since NSF’s programs are 

most relevant to the Subcommittee’s charge. However, DOE–SC’s contributions to 

the national cyberinfrastructure should be kept in mind. 

Cyberinfrastructure for High Performance Computing. NSF’s high performance computing plan for 2006–10 was outlined in the document 

‘‘Cyberinfrastructure Vision for 21st Century Discovery’’ (March 2007). The report 

recognized the need, first articulated in the Branscomb report,6 for a broad range 

of computing resources, from leadership-class national computing resources to university high performance computers and the compute/data clusters and workstations 

used by small research groups-the so-called Branscomb pyramid.7 The report stated 

NSF’s intent to fund the highest performance computing systems, the so-called 

Track 1 and Track 2 systems, as national resources. It envisioned that, in the 2006–

10 time frame, Track 2 systems would provide 500+ teraflops (TF) of peak computing power and a Track 1 system would provide a sustained performance approaching 1 petaflop (PF) on a broad range of science and engineering applications.8

NSF awarded funding for Track 2 systems to the Texas Advanced Computing 

Center (TACC) in 2006 (Sun system with a peak performance of 579 TF) and the 

University of Tennessee/Oak Ridge National Laboratory in 2007 (Cray system with 

a peak performance of 1,028 TF). NSF announced the award of a Track 2 system 

to Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center in 2008. Unfortunately, the downturn in the 

economy led to the demise of the selected computer vendor, Silicon Graphics, Inc., 

which was acquired by Rackable Systems. Rackable Systems subsequently changed 

its name to SGI but cancelled the on-going contract negotiations with PSC. So, a 

third Track 2 system has not been deployed, despite clear evidence of a need for 

additional computing resources in the national allocation process run by NSF. 
63

9See: http://www.ncsa.illinois.edu/BlueWaters. 10See: http://www.iwire.org/.

To complement the Track 2 systems, NSF has also deployed a number of experimental and specialized computing systems to serve the nation’s scientists and engineers, These include the many-core system deployed at the University of Illinois at 

Urbana-Champaign and another under development at the Georgia Institute of 

Technology, the data system being deployed at the San Diego Supercomputing Center, the experimental grid test-bed system at Indiana University, and the visualization systems at the University of Tennessee/Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the 

Texas Advanced Computing Center. 

In August 2007, NSF announced that it had selected the University of Illinois at 

Urbana-Champaign and its National Center for Supercomputing Applications 

(NCSA), IBM Corporation, and the Great Lakes Consortium for Petascale Computation to develop and deploy the Track 1 system called Blue Waters 9 by July 1, 2011. 

Blue Waters is based on the most advanced technologies under development at IBM. 

These technologies are embodied in PERCS (Productive, Easy-to-Use, Reliable Computing System), which IBM is developing with funding from DARPA’s High Productivity Computing Systems (HPCS) program. Blue Waters will be the first production 

deployment of PERCS and will be a truly extraordinary resource for science and engineering research. 

Blue Waters will have more than 300,000 compute cores, 1 petabyte of main memory, 10 petabytes of user disk storage, and 500 petabytes of archival storage. It will 

have an innovative low latency, high bandwidth communications network that will 

facilitate scaling to large numbers of compute cores, and an I/O subsystem that will 

enable the solution of the most challenging data-intensive problems. With a peak 

performance of approximately 10 petaflops, performance analyses indicate that Blue 

Waters will sustain 1 petaflops or more on a broad range of science and engineering 

applications. 

The breakthroughs enabled by the extraordinary computing capabilities of Blue 

Waters will revolutionize many areas of science and engineering. In the past two 

years, NSF has awarded allocations of time or provisional allocations of time to 

eighteen (18) research teams from thirty (30) institutions across the country, with 

more to follow in future years. Research to be carried out on Blue Waters covers 

all areas of science and engineering from astronomy through biology, chemistry and 

materials science to geosciences and social and behavioral sciences. 

The Blue Waters Project is based on a 24-year partnership between the state of 

Illinois, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and the National Science 

Foundation. To ensure the success of the Blue Waters Project, the state of Illinois 

agreed to provide a new state-of-the-art, energy efficient facility to house Blue Waters. In addition, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign is making substantial investments in the development of software for Blue Waters—collaborating 

with IBM and the Great Lakes Consortium to: (i) enhance the systems software for 

Blue Waters, (ii) develop software and tools to facilitate the development of science 

and engineering applications for Blue Waters, and (id) aid scientists and engineers 

in rewriting their applications to obtain maximum performance on Blue Waters. In 

addition, previous investments by the state of Illinois in I–WIRE,10 a high performance communications infrastructure connecting the major research universities and 

laboratories in Illinois, provides the transport mechanism for connecting Blue Waters to national research and education networks. 

Status of High Performance Computing Cyberinfrastructure. I will discuss 

the status of computer hardware and software for high performance computing separately as the issues are distinct, if interconnected. 

Computer Hardware. NSF has been successful in deploying new computing systems that are delivering extraordinary value for the U.S. research community—the 

first system delivered to TACC exceeded the total computing capacity of NSF’s 

TeraGrid by a factor of more than five. However, the focus of these acquisitions was 

on the delivery of raw computing cycles and the funding available to provide support 

for the users of these new high performance computer systems was limited, This is 

unfortunate because this approach favors those scientists and engineers who are already using supercomputers and need little assistance, while our experience at 

NCSA and that at many other centers indicates there is a growing need for high 

performance computing resources in almost all fields of science and engineering. 

Without adequate user support, it will be difficult for these new researchers to make 

effective use of the available resources. High quality support staff is one of the most 

valuable resources in NSF’s supercomputing centers and a fully funded user support 

program is needed. 
64

11 ‘‘The Good, the Bad and the Ugly: Reflections on the NSF Supercomputer Center Program,’’ 

Larry Smarr, HPCWire, January 4, 2010 (http://www.hpcwire.com/features/The-Good-the-Badand-the-Ugly-Reflections-on-the-NSF-Supercomputer-Center-Program-80658282.html). 12 ‘‘Thoughts, Observations, Beliefs & Opinions About the NSF Supercomputer Centers,’’ Sidney Karin, HPCWire, January 28, 2010 (http://www.hpcwire.com/features/Thoughts-Observations-Beliefs-Opinions-About-the-NSF-Supercomputer-Centers-82972987.html).

Both the Track 1 and Track 2 awards were made through open competitions that 

included the existing centers as well as many new entrants. The outcome of these 

competitions is that the two Track 2 awards went to new centers—the Texas Advanced Computing Center and University of Tennessee/Oak Ridge National Laboratory. This is not necessarily bad, although it represents a lost of significant capability at San Diego Supercomputer Center and Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center. 

At this point the long term impact of the loss of funding on SDSC and PSC is unknown, but the potential loss of expertise at these sites is of great concern to the 

computational science and engineering research community. 

It should also be noted that the prospect of continual competitions has a corrosive 

effect on the staff at the centers—it is not only difficult to hire quality staff with 

funding that only lasts for 4–5 years, but enormous amounts of staff time have to 

be dedicated to preparing for the competitions, rather than assisting researchers. 

The advantages of competition must be carefully balanced against those of stability 

in NSF’s supercomputing centers program. 

The above problems have been extensively discussed by the Task Force on High 

Performance Computing. It is clear that stability and sustainability are critical if 

NSF’s supercomputing centers are to attract high quality staff who can advance the 

use of high performance computing across the frontiers of science and engineering. 

Increased stability of the supercomputing centers that NSF supports, coupled with 

a rigorous review process to ensure operational quality, will certainly be one of the 

major recommendations from the Task Force. For additional thoughts on this topic, 

see the published comments by Larry Smarr 11 and Sid Karin,12 the founding directors of NCSA and SDSC, respectively. 

Computer Software. During my two years as Assistant Director for Scientific Simulation in DOE’s Office of Science, I played a central role in crafting its Scientific 

Discovery through Advanced Computing (SciDAC) program. This program highlighted the intimate connection between hardware and software and sought to advance computational modeling and simulation through balanced investments in 

these two areas. Experiences from this program, as well as DOE’s ASCI program 

clearly show that advancing our ability to model complex natural systems requires 

as much, if not more, investment in software than in hardware. 

This problem is actually more acute now than when the SciDAC program was initiated. Since 2004, because of rapidly increasing thermal loads, the speed of a single 

compute core has not increased. Instead, computer vendors are adding additional 

cores to the chips and running the chips at lower speeds (to reduce the heat load). 

As a result, most laptops now use at least dual-core chips and quad-core chips are 

found in large compute servers, with eight-core chips now available from Intel and 

IBM. This trend has two major impacts:

1. Science and Engineering Applications. In the future, increases in the performance of computational modeling and simulation codes will only be 

achieved through the use of larger and larger number of processors. Although this ‘‘scalability’’ problem has been with us for nearly twenty years, 

for much of that time its impact was not felt because of the dramatic increases in the performance of single cores—a factor of two orders of magnitude from 1989 to 2004. With single core performance now stalled, computational scientists and engineers must confront the scalability problem 

head on.

The need for ever more scalability has increased the difficulty of developing 

science and engineering applications for high performance computers. At the 

heart of the problem is algorithms that scale well to large numbers of compute cores. This problem can only be solved through inspired research. But, 

even given the appropriate algorithms developing science and engineering 

applications for computers with hundreds of thousands of compute cores, 

hundreds of terabytes of memory and tens of petabytes of disk storage is 

challenging, The software must be written, debugged, optimized and, to the 

extent possible, made resilient to computer faults (e.g., the loss of a compute 

core)—none of which is easy or straightforward. Progress will require the 

creation of new software development tools or the revision of existing tools 

(compilers, debuggers, libraries, performance analysis tools, etc.) and inte-
65

13See http://www.exascale.org/iesp/Main¥Page. 14See: http://www.almaobservatory.org/. 15See: http://atst.nso.edu/. 16See: http://www.gsmt.noao.edu/.

gration of these tools into a robust, easy-to-use application development environment.

2. Computing System Software. Although computer companies provide the base 

computing system software for high performance computers, enhancements 

to this base software can greatly facilitate operation, control and use of the 

system. This problem is becoming more acute as the computer systems become larger and more complex. Recently, a large international group of computer and computational scientists has come together to discuss plans for the 

development of software for petascale and exascale computers.13 They are exploring how laboratories, universities, and vendors can work together to coordinate the development of a robust, full featured software stack for 

petascale and -beyond computers. 

The development of high performance computing software—science and engineering applications and computing systems software—is a topic that is being heavily 

discussed in several NSF Task Forces (Grand Challenges, Software and Tools, High 

Performance Computing, and Data). What is clear is that the current approach to 

developing a high performance computing software stack is too fragmented. The 

Task Forces have noted the need for long term, multi-level efforts in high performance computing software that involves all of NSF’s directorates and the Office of 

Cyberinfrastructure. A partnership between OCI and the Computer & Information 

Science & Engineering directorate would help create software to manage, control 

and operate petascale and beyond computers as well as the new tools and software 

development environment needed to develop science and engineering applications 

for these computers. A partnership between OCI and the other directorates at NSF 

would foster the development of a new generation of science and engineering applications that can take full advantage of the power of petascale and beyond computers 

and realize the promise of these extraordinary resources for advancing science and 

engineering. Such partnerships already exist, e.g., the Accelerating Discovery in 

Science and Engineering through Petascale Simulations and Analysis (PetaApps, 

NSF 08–592) program, but they could be substantially strengthened. 

High Performance Computer Vendors. There is one last concern that deserves to 

be mentioned—the dwindling number of supercomputer vendors in the U.S. just a 

few years ago, five companies were involved in the development and deployment of 

supercomputers: IBM, Cray, Sun, SGI and Hewlett-Packard. Sun has now been subsumed by Oracle and SGI has been taken over by Rackable Systems. Although the 

long term consequences of these actions are not yet known, it is unlikely that Oracle 

and Rackable Systems/SGI will have as strong an interest in supercomputing as the 

original companies. Of the remaining companies, only IBM and Cray are actively 

involved in research and development on supercomputing. Although you would have 

to talk with these companies to better understand the issues surrounding this situation, it is clear than the supercomputing industry in the U.S. is not as healthy as 

it was just a few years ago.

Advanced Information Systems

One of the most exciting research advances in science and engineering in the past 

decade is the digitization of observational science. Fields as disparate as astronomy, 

biology and environmental science are being revolutionized by the use of digital 

technologies: digital detectors like those in digital cameras in astronomy, highly 

automated sequencers in biology, and sensor arrays in environmental science. Datadriven discovery requires sophisticated, advanced information systems to collect, 

transport, store, manage, integrate and analyze these increasingly large amounts of 

invaluable data. The knowledge gained from data-driven discovery is already transforming our understanding of many natural phenomena and the future is full of 

promise. 

National Observatories. National astronomy observatories are major investments in the NSF research portfolio. At the leading edge of this portfolio are the 

latest additions to the NSF’s list of approved major research equipment and facilities: the Atacama Large Millimeter Array 14 (ALMA) and the Advanced Technology 

Solar Telescope 15 (ATST). In addition, two other observatories are in the planning 

phases: the Giant Segmented Mirror Telescope 16 (GSMT), which will operate in the 

ultraviolet to the mid-infrared with unprecedented resolution and sensitivity, and 
66

17See: http://www.lsst.org/lsst. 18See: http://www.oceanleadership.org/programs-and-partnerships/ocean-observing/ooi/. 19See: http://www.neoninc.org/. 20See: http://www.watersnet.org/. 21See: http://www.lternetedu/. 22 ‘‘Genome 10K: A Proposal to Obtain Whole-Genome Sequences for 10,000 Vertebrate Species,’’ Journal of Heredity, November 6, 2009. 

the Large-aperture Synoptic Survey Telescope 17 (LSST), which will be able to image 

faint astronomical objects across the sky, including objects that change or move. 

NCSA is heavily involved in the LSST project and has been designated as the 

main storage and distribution site for all of the data produced by the telescope’s 3.2 

gigapixel camera. The data challenges to be faced by the LSST are typical of next 

generation optical telescopes, although the data-processing needs of the Square Kilometer Array (SKA) radio-telescope will dwarf those of the LSST. The LSST will 

produce more than 15 terabytes of data per night, yielding several petabytes of data 

per year, and 200 petabytes over its lifetime. This data rate, when combined with 

the need for real-time analysis to identify and characterize changing or moving objects as well as traditional data mining on petabyte-size data sets, requires a new 

approach to data management, automated processing, and analysis. Although the 

telescope will not see first light until 2014, NCSA is already working with other 

partners in the LSST project to design the cyberinfrastructure needed to meet these 

challenges. 

Several national-scale environmental observatories are also major initiatives in 

the current NSF research and development portfolio. These are represented by the 

Ocean Observatory Initiative 18 (001), which is leading the way in this space, along 

with the National Ecological Observatory Network 19 (NEON), and the WATERS 

Network.20 Ecological observatories have been in existence for many years with one 

of the oldest large-scale observatories being the Long-Term Ecological Research Network,21 although the grand challenges being addressed and the level of integration 

required for the new observatories far exceeds those of earlier observatories. 

Environmental science often depends upon observations from multiple observatories not only of the same type but also complementary observatories. For instance researching the effects of climate change on a terrestrial species might include temperature, rainfall and other traditional measurements from the region 

being studied, but it might also include ocean temperature, and tidal and current 

flow data that may directly or indirectly influence the region, and it may also include weather patterns and pollution counts, all of which may be derived from observatories geographically far away that are owned and operated by other organizations. The ability to interact with and integrate data from multiple observatories 

that cross scientific, geographical, and administrative domains is an increasing requirement for environmental scientists today and presents a number of additional 

challenges with respect to coordination, standardization, and long term support for 

deployed cyberinfrastructure. 

Environmental observatories share many of the same general needs with other 

science domains including data storage and management, application codes, 

workflow systems to coordinate their research activities, and collaboration tools. 

However, it is the challenge of supporting potentially thousands of highly variable 

in situ sensors along with the need to manage and share them across vast geographical distances and administrative boundaries that makes environmental observatories unique. 

The proposed Genome 10K project 22 is an example of the future of genomic research. The authors of this project, which includes scientists from across the world, 

are proposing to dramatically increase the number of vertebrate genomes available 

to the research community. This is made possible by a dramatic drop in sequencing 

costs coupled with a corresponding increase in computing capability. The Genome 

10K Community of Scientists propose to assemble and sequence a collection of some 

16,203 representative vertebrate species spanning evolutionary diversity across living mammals, birds, non-avian reptiles, amphibians, and fishes. This will allow scientists, for the first time ever, to carry out a comprehensive studies of vertebrate 

evolution. Just as computers enabled the assembly and annotation of the human genome, supercomputers will be required to manage and analyze massive quantities 

of genomic data to achieve the goals of the Genome 10K project. 

Status of Cyberinfrastructure for Data-driven Discovery. The development of 

cyberinfrastructure for data-driven discovery is in its infancy. Within NSF, most of 

the activity in this area is being driven by large Major Research Equipment & Facilities Construction (MREFC) projects. Each of these projects is developing the 

cyberinfrastructure needed to accomplish its mission, relying to some extent on the 
67

23See http://www.iplantcollaborative.org/. 24Some scientists note that the current ‘‘favorable’’ situation is deceptive. Because of bandwidth limitations, they note that many scientists are simply avoiding research practices that 

would stress the current networks. 

cyberinfrastructure developed in other projects but often redeveloping 

cyberinfrastructure capabilities in slightly different guises. Since one of the major 

issues associated with cyberinfrastructure is the ongoing support and maintenance 

costs associated with the software, sharing cyberinfrastructure software, wherever 

feasible, will help keep these costs under control. 

More recently, NSF has created major programs that are focused largely on the 

development of the cyberinfrastructure needed to support data-driven discovery. 

These include the iPlant Collaborative,23 a project aimed at developing 

cyberinfrastructure to address a number of grand challenges in plant biology (Genotype to Phentotype in Complex Environments, Tree of Life for Plant Sciences, etc.), 

and DataNet (NSF 07–601), which consists of several projects designed to explore 

different approaches to organizing, managing and preserving the data being created 

in scientific and engineering research. 

One of the major cyberinfrastructure requirements for data-driven discovery is the 

availability of the required data storage capacity, computing resources and associated software. Although these needs could often be met by augmenting the resources 

available at the NSF-funded supercomputing centers, most major data-driven discovery projects, which usually have lifetimes measured in decades, are reluctant to 

use the centers because of their uncertain future (current Track 2 grants are only 

for four years and funding for the Track 1 system expires in 2016). This is a lost 

opportunity for leveraging the expertise at and cost efficiency of the supercomputing 

centers.

Networking

To first order, the cyberinfrastructure most needed by universities to participate 

in or benefit from NSF’s high performance computing and data-driven discovery 

projects is adequate network bandwidth linking them to the relevant project sites. 

The nation’s major research universities are partners in Internet2, which provides 

a national high performance network. In addition, the National LambdaRail, which 

is also owned by the U.S. research and education community, provides a testbed for 

research in the development and use of communication technologies. However, this 

does not mean that all universities and colleges have access to network bandwidth 

adequate for their participation in or interaction with the big computing and data 

projects, an imbalance that will become more acute as the data volumes increase. 

As comfortable as the situation may be now,24 at least for the nation’s major research universities, the volume of data that will be generated over the next few 

years in high performance computing and data-driven discovery will far outstrip the 

capacities of the current networks. For example, many simulations on Blue Waters 

will generate multiple terabyte data sets with the total amount of data generated 

in a given project being measured in petabytes. Although NCSA can provide 

connectivity to Chicago at 100–400 gigabits per second (Gbps), the national networks passing through Chicago (or any other U.S. city for that matter) do not have 

the capacity to deliver these data streams to the researchers’ home institutions. Separate from the capacity issue, the underlying communication architecture, services 

and networking technologies required by data intensive science are very different 

from those that support common consumer services. Common carriers have shown 

little interest in meeting the specialized requirements of scientific research communities. 

In this regard it is worthwhile to note the DOE–SC’s ESnet is a welcome exception. ESnet connects more than 40 sites across the nation, including all of DOE–

SC’s major experimental and computing facilities. DOE–SC’s new Science Data Network, which is a part of ESnet, provides services that are specifically targeted for 

data-intensive science. The SDN circuits provide a wealth of services that are invaluable to scientists who need reliable, high performance, end-to-end connections 

between two or more sites. ESnet received funding under the American Recovery 

and Renewal Act to develop and deploy a 100 Gbps network linking its open supercomputing centers in California, Illinois and Tennessee. This is the first step toward 

DOE–SC’s vision of a 1 terabit per second (Tops) network linking its major facilities. 

Although communications bandwidth. is critical to participating in high performance computing and data-driven discovery, the TeraGrid’s Campus Champions pro-
68

25See: https://www.teragrid.org/web/eot/campus¥champions. 26See: http://www.cse.illinois.edu/. 27See: http://www.greatlakesconsortium.org/education/VirtualSchool/.

gram 25 has shown that access to local expertise is also critical. This program supports individuals on university campuses who are knowledgeable about the 

TeraGrid and who can help faculty and students apply for and make use of the resources and services available through the TeraGrid. Such programs are likely to 

be just as important for data-driven discovery as for high performance computing. 

Status of Networking. NSF was one of the pioneers in establishing a national 

networking infrastructure, e.g., NSFnet and Mosaic (the first web browser, which 

was created at NCSA). However, its networking infrastructure support programs 

were eliminated several years ago. So, the nation’s scientists and engineers must 

rely on commercial providers, research and education network providers such as 

Internet 2 and National LambdaRail, and state governments for their communications needs. To date, these entities have been able to provide the bandwidth and 

connectivity needed by researchers.24 However, with the major new data-intensive 

research resources coming on line, this will no longer be adequate. 

Another major problem is that, to date, there has been little focus on improving 

end-to-end networking capabilities, i.e., providing high performance connections between the researcher’s desktop or local compute/data cluster and large computing 

and data sites. Even if it appears that there is adequate network bandwidth between these two end points, a bottleneck, often, but not always, on the researcher’s 

campus dramatically limits the network performance. We need to have a better understanding of the issues affecting end-to-end performance to enable researchers to 

interact with their ongoing research activities at the major facilities. 

There are steps that NSF could take to ensure that researchers in U.S. universities have the networking capacity and policies needed to support their research. 

NSF could begin by developing a high performance network connecting all of their 

major research facilities, observatories, and supercomputing centers, interconnecting 

this network with those serving other major federal research facilities, e.g., ESnet, 

as needed by the academic research community. There are many advantages that 

will accrue from connecting NSF’s large experimental and observational facilities 

with its computing and data facilities, especially if the future of these centers were 

secure. In addition, NSF could undertake pilot projects to obtain a better understanding of the problems limiting high performance end-to-end connections between 

researchers/small research groups and its major research facilities. This would require close collaboration between groups providing national networking resources 

and campuses providing the ‘‘last mile’’ connection.

Education

I would be remiss if I did not include a section on education in responding to the 

Subcommittee’s request for information on the state of cyberinfrastructure at U.S. 

universities. Although not a part of the cyberinfrastructure per se, our ability to advance science and engineering using the national cyberinfrastructure requires a new 

generation of scientists and engineers who can contribute to and understand the use 

of the basic technologies involved in cyberinfrastructure and computational science 

and engineering and who can collaborate with colleagues in other fields to take full 

advantage of the extraordinary capabilities provided by this infrastructure. We need 

to define the core competencies important for the next generation of scientists and 

engineers, followed by the development of implementation plan(s) to affect the needed curriculum and course changes. 

The curriculum and course changes required to educate the next generation of research leaders is not obvious. Many schools have established graduate programs in 

computational science and engineering that supplement study in a discipline with 

courses in ,computer science and engineering and applied mathematics; see, e.g., the 

Graduate Program in Computational Science and Engineering at the University of 

Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.26 Such programs are invaluable in preparing students for future careers in computing- and data-intensive fields. But are they sufficient? And what about undergraduate education? At the rate that analog science is 

becoming digital science, what do we need to teach all undergraduates in science 

and engineering about computing and related technologies to prepare them for life 

and work in the 21st century. Through its investments in research and education, 

NSF can serve as a catalyst for this transformation. 

In the Blue Waters Project, we are pursuing this goal through the Virtual School 

of Computational Science and Engineering,27 headed by Professor Sharon Glotzer at 

the University of Michigan. The Virtual School brings together faculty across the 
69

universities in the Great Lakes Consortium for Petascale Computation to address 

the unique opportunities and challenges associated with petascale computing and 

petascale computing-enabled science and engineering. The Virtual School supports 

the creation and integration of courses and curricula that are tailored to the educational needs of 21st Century scientists and engineers, delivered using 21st century 

instructional technologies. Although the Virtual School is initially targeting graduate-level education, efforts in undergraduate education will follow. 

BIOGRAPHY FOR THOM H. DUNNING, JR.

Chairman LIPINSKI. Thank you, Dr. Dunning. 

I would like to thank all the witnesses for their testimony. It is 

good to see especially with the rescheduled hearing that we have 
70

a pretty good turnout here. This is something that I think is very 

important to discuss since it is really key to figuring out what is 

best for our competitiveness, where to invest, although there are always tradeoffs that need to be made in talking about bringing back 

a program that was ended. I think it does require a lot of thought, 

so we will move on to questioning right now, and as is my tradition, I will leave myself to last on my side, so I will begin by recognizing Dr. Baird for five minutes, and I want to ask members to 

try to keep it down to the five minutes to at least get us through 

the first round of questions. I will be tight in trying to keep it to 

that. Dr. Baird 

Mr. BAIRD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to begin by echoing 

the accolades for our good friend and colleague, Dr. Ehlers. He 

served this committee and this country extraordinarily well, and it 

has been a privilege to serve with him. As I have said when people 

speak about my retirement, I am not dead yet, so I am sure, 

Vernon, the rest of us have a lot of good work to do but, Vern, 

thank you for your work. 

Thanks to the witnesses for their great comments and for your 

service to your schools and communities. I am very troubled by this 

issue of the infrastructure deficit that you talked about. Dr. 

Tolbert, you mentioned it; Dr. Raymond and Mr. Horvath, and then 

Dr. Dunning talked about sort of a different kind. There is one 

kind of deficit which seems to be the maintenance backlog, what 

are we doing to keep our existing facilities up to date, and then Dr. 

Dunning talked about the ability to keep up with what is happening in the other direction. Let me start with this maintenance 

issue. Dr. Tolbert, I think you said a $100 million deficit in some 

fashion. Can you elaborate on that a little bit? 

Dr. TOLBERT. I think you may be referring to the $200 million 

building renewal——

Mr. BAIRD. I have cut your deficit in half. That is the kind of effective legislation I——

Dr. TOLBERT. Thank you very much. The $200 million number is 

actually a lower limit. It is actually much more than that. The 

State of Arizona owns the buildings, but it is up to the universities 

to keep them in shape and actually to try to keep them upgraded 

so that they are appropriate for the research in the fields they were 

built for. As state funds coming to the university have declined and 

private funding is scarce, this has become a real issue. In particular, donors are interested in funding new buildings when they 

have the funds. Right now isn’t a good time for that. But when 

they have the funds, they are interested in new buildings. It is very 

hard to keep our older buildings in good working order. It is a little 

bit like the Nation’s highway system. We built a lot of great universities some decades ago and now many of our science buildings are 

deteriorating. 

Mr. BAIRD. That is why I asked. I actually serve on the Highway 

Transportation Committee as well, and we talk a lot about the fiscal deficit in this country. It is about $1.3 trillion per year. There 

is an existing infrastructure deficit exceed $1 trillion in highway, 

roads, et cetera, and now we are hearing about academic buildings. 

Dr. Raymond, you talked about a pretty large number in your 

case as well. What is your situation? 
71

Dr. RAYMOND. Our situation is very similar to the University of 

Arizona. The $100 million number that I gave you would be required to bring our buildings up to the minimum standards. If we 

brought them up to good standards, it would be closer to $200 million. The State of South Carolina provides a lump-sum appropriation to our university, which primarily is used to pay the light bills 

and salaries of support staff. There is very little left at the end of 

the day to take care of these older buildings, and we rely heavily 

on clinical revenue from our hospital, which obviously is diminishing these days, and from philanthropy to try to keep those buildings in good shape. 

Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Horvath, do you want to comment from your institution’s perspective? 

Mr. HORVATH. Sure. It is similar to the other two institutional 

examples. We have an overall facility deficit across the university 

of about $1 billion, and if you look at our annual capital plan, 

about 50 percent of the funding that we are investing in facilities 

and infrastructure is really being targeted to try to reduce that deferred maintenance backlog, and roughly 40 to 50 percent of that 

total relates to research, buildings and facilities which tend to be 

more intensive from a cost perspective. 

Mr. BAIRD. These are three of our major universities in the country and we are hearing now of deficits well exceeding $1 billion 

from just three universities. Nationwide, this has got to be a serious problem, and you know, at a time when people are saying, well, 

we have got to cut taxes, et cetera, et cetera, there are going to be 

consequences, presumably for the quality of education received by 

your students and the competitiveness of their academic and intellectual products, I am guessing. 

Dr. Dunning, you are looking at it from the other side. One of 

the things this committee and others are worried about is the lag 

in U.S. competitiveness in other areas. If we don’t make the investments, what happens to our supercomputer competitiveness? 

Dr. DUNNING. Well, it is clearly going to decline if we don’t make 

these types of investments. We see a resurgence of interest in highperformance computing and supercomputing across the world. The 

European Union has outlined a very aggressive program for building its supercomputing capability. The Japanese have long been in 

the game. But now we are also seeing significant advances in 

China and in other countries. So this is clearly an area in which 

competitiveness—although we are in a good position at the current 

time, competitiveness is something that will be challenging to 

maintain. 

Mr. BAIRD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to the witnesses. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Thank you, Dr. Baird. That is a very good 

way to start us out here, and I will recognize Dr. Ehlers for five 

minutes. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would also like to 

point out that Dr. Baird is not running for reelection either, so the 

message is clear. 

I appreciate your kind words for me, Dr. Dunning. I hope you 

feel that because we are both leaving, there is such a great need 

here for scientists that you will run for the Congress this fall and 
72

perhaps all of you carry that message back to your home institutions. 

Mr. BAIRD. Talk to me before you embark on that. 

Mr. EHLERS. But we desperately need more scientific and engineering talent in the Congress. We have most of it right here. 

Dr. Dunning, I just wanted to point out another dimension. A 

computer scientist in my district who teaches at the institution I 

used to teach at has come to see me and is very concerned about 

the declining enrollments in computer science nationwide, and in 

fact introduced a resolution to declare a week to emphasize computer science throughout the Nation and so forth. The professor 

who talked to me had very good statistics about what has been 

happening in declining enrollment but particularly what is happening in high schools; that they are now getting away from the 

subject, not getting students excited about computer science and all 

the issues related to it, and that doesn’t necessarily even mean just 

programming or development, it means everything. And I am just 

wondering if you have encountered the same situation in your facility. 

Dr. DUNNING. We have certainly seen that same situation. In 

fact, when we talk to our industrial partners—NCSA has a very 

large industrial partners program—one of their concerns is about 

the ability to really be able to recruit the type of workforce that 

they are going to need in the future where high-performance computing has become a way of designing, for example, the next generation of products, products that reduce the environmental impact 

or can be done in a timely fashion. So we certainly see it at the 

university. We do see that it is slowing, which I think is good. One 

of the things that I think actually we find is an attractant to students interested in computer science is the applications of computer science. Many of them come in thinking of only a small number of applications of computer science, but basically what they 

aren’t realizing is, all of science is open to a computer scientist, 

ranging all the way from astrophysics to zoology if they want to understand how they take the skills they learn as a computer scientist and really participate in this new era of digital science. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you for those comments. That reinforces 

what I have been told and what I have been trying to change here, 

and I hope you can get the rest of the computer science world excited about this. 

Dr. DUNNING. So do we. 

Mr. EHLERS. That may be one of my retirement projects. 

Dr. DUNNING. Good. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers. 

I will now recognize Ms. Fudge. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of you for 

being here. 

I represent northeast Ohio. We have one of the largest research 

institutions, Case Western Reserve University, and over the years 

Case has found time and found a way to work more collaboratively 

with our large research hospitals, the Cleveland Clinic and university hospitals in particular, and so just understanding how we function in our area. My question to any of the panel members is that 
73

certainly we all recognize that states are struggling and the current economy is really not very good, but the fact is that many 

states began divesting in higher education long before the economic 

downturn, and industry as a whole invests very little in higher 

education and university research, even though both the states and 

industry rely very heavily on strong universities for their own 

growth and success. I just want to know from you or hear from you 

what you are doing as a university community to lobby your states, 

your local industry and some public support to sustain your investments in higher education that will benefit all of us. Anyone? Dr. 

Tolbert, thank you. 

Dr. TOLBERT. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Fudge, for 

your question. This is a really important role that I think we all 

play. Certainly in my role at the University of Arizona as a senior 

administrator, I must be making that kind of argument all the 

time, both to the state and locally, actually, to local government as 

well, and also to the private sector. We are working hard to broaden and deepen our relationships with the largest corporations that 

we work with. We have a huge Raytheon presence in Tucson. 

Raytheon Missile Systems is based in Tucson and the University 

of Arizona provides more Raytheon employees than any other university in the country. That is really important to us, and we are 

trying to find ways that we can increase the benefit to both by increasing the number of internships, for example, available to our 

students and so on. 

But the argument that has to be made, I think, is, importantly, 

not one about short-term gain only. It is that this is a long process 

we are engaged in. We need long-term relationships with the private sector. We need the state to understand our long-term needs 

and not to say that we can enhance economic development tomorrow, but that if we want Arizona to pull itself out of this deep, deep 

economic slump, we must have research universities doing research 

but also educating students in a research-oriented environment. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you. 

Dr. Raymond, in your testimony you mentioned that there are 

certain initiatives that the State of South Carolina has done to expand state research capabilities. Can any of the other witnesses 

talk about how their universities are linking research investments 

to regional economic goals? And I am taking this line because I 

went to Ohio State University, which is a very well known research 

institution as well, but we have them all over the country, and certainly if their reliance is going to be on us, we can’t do all of them. 

So what we are doing as a community is to try to find other 

sources, but as well as to collaborate more, because I think that is 

where we are all going to have to be heading. Anyone? Dr. Raymond, if you would like to expand, or someone else on the panel? 

Dr. RAYMOND. Thank you. By the way, I was born in Akron and 

went to Ohio State. 

Ms. FUDGE. All right. I knew there was something I liked about 

you. 

Dr. RAYMOND. South Carolina is trying to build critical mass 

through a collaboration between the four largest hospital systems 

in the state and the three research-intensive universities, Clemson, 

USC and MUSC, in which we all put at least $2 million a year into 
74

joint initiatives and recruitment of endowed professors to the state. 

This interdigitates well with the State of South Carolina’s investment through the Centers of Economic Excellence program, that 

provides matching dollars for recruitment of new talent to the 

State of South Carolina. So we have really worked very well together. This initiative now is in its fifth year and it has spawned 

patient safety initiatives, public-private partnerships and partnerships with large pharmaceutical companies and device makers that 

wouldn’t otherwise be interested in dealing with one of our universities, but the power of having a $10 billion budget and 40,000 employees can convince them that we are good partners. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you very much. Yes, Dr. Horvath. 

Mr. HORVATH. One of the things that I would point out just recently that we were successful with was the achievement of a grant 

through the Recovery Act that is going to enable us to be part of 

a 19-institution consortium in Pennsylvania to really expand and 

add robustness to our computing networks throughout the State of 

Pennsylvania. It is a large-scale project. There is private money 

that will be involved in that and it is really, I think, one of the indications of a new way in which we are going to have to collaborate 

across institutions to make some of the needs or address some of 

the needs that we have in our states and locally. 

Ms. FUDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Thank you, Ms. Fudge. 

I will recognize Ms. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let me 

express my appreciation to Dr. Ehlers. I hate to see Dr. Ehlers retire. He has been a friend of mine on this committee now for as 

long as he has been here, and I have relied heavily on your knowledge. What I would like to ask of the distinguished witnesses—and 

thank you for being here—are you seeing any more student readiness as a research university? That is number one. And then, we 

have some major research departments, and I don’t know how well 

they coordinate—NIH, the National Science Foundation, Department of Defense, Energy, Ag, Education. Is there enough collaboration between them to maximize research dollars? 

Dr. TOLBERT. I will answer your first question, and then I would 

also like to say something about your second question, Congresswoman. The first question had to do with readiness. We do not see 

improving readiness. In fact, we are having to put in place or deciding to put in place a lot of sort of one-on-one assistance to students to try to help students who really aren’t quite ready to find 

their way into the university but also we are greatly growing our 

relationship with the community colleges in the state so that we 

can do two-plus-two programs that help with readiness. 

And the other question? 

Ms. JOHNSON. The other question is, we have major research departments here and some of it could overlap or some could be in 

coordination with medical schools and others, and I wonder if there 

is enough collaboration between these departments to maximize 

what dollars we do have for research. 

Dr. TOLBERT. I think that is an extremely good question because 

the NIH has done something interesting. They have several programs working across institutes within the NIH. I am a 
75

neuroscientist. My funding has almost all been through the NIH. 

And that is I think working very well for NIH. Is there enough coordination across agencies? I am sure we would all argue no. It is 

very difficult but more coordination would be better. And one of the 

things that I suggested was a committee be appointed that would 

look across federal agencies at this issue of funding of research infrastructure for just that reason. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Anyone else? 

Dr. DUNNING. Let me take a slightly different tack on your question, and that is readiness of graduate students to participate in research that is heavily involved in computing, and I would say 

again, we are not properly educating the next generation of scientists and engineers to really understand the major role that computing and information science is going to play in their careers, especially when you consider that their careers are going to last 30 

to 40 years into the future. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. 

I will now recognize myself for five minutes. I think we had very 

good questions so far. I wanted to follow up a little bit on some of 

the questions and answers. All of you talked about what really is 

the deficit in terms of the infrastructure right now, and we know 

that a lot of the university laboratories and other research facilities 

were built 30 or more years ago, even before some of the requirements of modern science and engineering researchers were even 

thought of. Two questions that I want to ask related to that. The 

first is for all of you. Do you find it difficult to compete for faculty 

and graduate students because of the infrastructure or lack of infrastructure that you have? Whoever wants to offer. Dr. Tolbert. 

Dr. TOLBERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. That is such 

an interesting question. What we find is that in the areas in which 

we have built recent research buildings, or research laboratories 

when in older buildings, we are much more competitive. Of course, 

we have put the dollars into areas where we wanted to grow, but 

for instance, we have a life sciences building that is doing a wonderful job for us of attracting new faculty and also very good undergraduate and graduate students. So as we put facilities in place, 

I think I can argue pretty strongly that we find that we are more 

competitive, not only in bringing people but in keeping them, which 

is also a very important issue. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Anyone else want to take a stab at that? Dr. 

Raymond. 

Dr. RAYMOND. Well, I would echo our experience. When we have 

put up new buildings for our health professions, the quality of students and faculty that we are able to attract and retain goes up 

enormously. So if you superimpose that on our background, I would 

say that we probably are having difficulty recruiting top talent to 

some of the buildings and facilities that maybe aren’t as up to date. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. I had a dual listening session last week in 

northern California with a number of universities, and one thing 

that they had mentioned and I had raised earlier was losing out 

to other countries. Have you seen, especially graduate students 

who come from other countries, a greater likelihood that they re-
76

turn to their home country than, say, was the case five, ten years 

ago? Dr. Raymond? 

Dr. RAYMOND. I recently completed a trip to Shanghai and 

Guangzhou, China. We have a partner university there, Zhejiana 

University, and we have post-docs and faculty members who have 

been at our institution for 5 to 20 years who are now returning to 

China because they find that the facilities are as good or better 

than we have here and there is a lot of investment by the local government and the federal government in startup companies and in 

providing them with opportunities for entrepreneurship. So we 

have a very tangible loss in our own institution to China. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Anyone else? Dr. Dunning? 

Dr. DUNNING. Yes, another comment related to that is that the 

Chinese government is in the process of establishing three to five 

major supercomputing centers which are going to be partnerships 

between the provinces in China. And the federal government in 

China, and this clearly is attracting recent graduates and more 

senior professors back to China to participate in this effort. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. One thing that, certainly, as we look to the 

future and competitiveness, one thing that people often say to me 

is, well, we still have the greatest universities in the world in this 

country, and it certainly is a concern if we see that starting to go 

away and lose our competitiveness there. 

One other thing I wanted to—the second part I wanted to put out 

there is, are we losing productivity in our research because of the 

facilities? We talked about, and I mentioned at the beginning, there 

is a tradeoff. We would all love to fund this infrastructure but we 

know that there is not unlimited dollars, and I realize that, and I 

know bringing up the possibility of reauthorizing ARI would raise 

this issue but I wanted to do it. Is there a problem and do you see 

a potential problem, do you see it happening already of losing how 

productive the research is? We just keep putting the funding into 

research, and if we don’t have the facilities, are we losing out on 

the value of that money? Mr. Horvath? 

Mr. HORVATH. In older facilities that have more substantial 

needs, essentially what happens is, band-aids are applied rather 

than, perhaps, more fundamental changes or upgrades being made 

to building infrastructure or the specific instrumentation or equipment in a particular lab. I think if we had the flexibility and ability 

to make more fundamental investments in those types of facilities, 

I think we would see greater productivity and better cost efficiency 

as a result of being able to do those things. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Dr. Raymond, did you——

Dr. RAYMOND. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We just did a 

study on a research facility, a very simple metric, dollars per 

square foot of federal grants earned by our faculty, and it is no coincidence that the newer and more modern buildings are populated 

by faculty that are more productive. And furthermore, to operate 

the buildings costs a lot more for the older facilities so our investment is not getting the same kind of returns in the older facilities 

that it is in the newer facilities, both in terms of faculty productivity and in terms of the cost to keep those buildings operating. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Dr. Tolbert. 
77

Dr. TOLBERT. We found exactly the same thing. I would just like 

to echo what Dr. Raymond said, same statistics. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Thank you. With that, I will yield back my 

time. Dr. Ehlers, do you have further questions? I will yield five 

minutes to Dr. Ehlers. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to clear up 

a few questions that I have. 

Mr. Horvath, in your testimony you had a list of federal regulatory and legislative changes that you say directly affect the conduct and management of research under federal grants and contracts, and some of them are self-evident but you mentioned the 

Lobbying Disclosure Act and a section of the Higher Education Act 

relating to the reporting of foreign gifts, contracts and relationships. I am curious, how do those impede your efforts? 

Mr. HORVATH. I think they were all essentially listed to provide 

some background to how the regulatory environment has changed 

in which universities have to operate, and those changes have occurred since the imposition of the indirect cost cap, the 26 percent 

administrative cap back in 1991. All of those things have come together to create greater complexity and encouraged us to add processes and staff to be able to respond to those things. So I think the 

point of that was to say that the regulatory environment has become much more complex in an era when we are constrained in 

terms of the amount of costs that we can recover to respond to 

those. 

Mr. EHLERS. Now, is it because the researchers have to take time 

from their research to meet their requirements or because your office is burdened with having to respond? 

Mr. HORVATH. It is basically the administrative responsibilities 

that faculty, for example, now have to shoulder as a result of some 

of those new requirements, are not able to be recovered and take 

some of their time away from conducting research in their laboratories. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you. 

Then Dr. Raymond, you got the NSF research infrastructure improvement grant. That sounds very exciting. What is the value of 

the grant, and I am wondering how the money will be distributed. 

You mentioned it expands on the contribution of the non-research 

but I would like to see you expand on the contribution of the nonresearch incentive intensive institutions, the smaller universities, 

community colleges, minority institutions. I have often wondered 

how we could develop an effective method of doing that nationwide. 

Could you give me a little background on that, please? 

Mr. RAYMOND. I would love to have the opportunity to update 

you in three or four years when we can actually measure outcomes, 

but for the first time we have the senior research universities willing to sit at the same table with community colleges, technical colleges and four-year institutions to develop an overall plan to address the deficiencies in the pipeline for STEM disciplines in our 

universities, and they are also now reaching out to K–12 in the 

state, so I hope that this provided the seed corn, so to speak, to 

really have a good outcome. 

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 
78

Chairman LIPINSKI. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers. I was just discussing 

the timing of the grant announcements from the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and I know that is going to be relatively soon. 

Have your universities applied for grants? Dr. Tolbert? 

Dr. TOLBERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have never seen so 

much grant-writing activity as we have seen in the last year. In 

fact, it has been a huge burden on our sponsored projects office, 

which reports to me, another one of these hidden costs. People have 

been working nights and weekends to handle all the grant proposal 

activity that has happened. We have won $83 million in Recovery 

Act funds, and the reporting now of the activities also is another 

hidden cost, administrative cost. We are delighted to have those 

funds. Most of the funds are for research projects. About $6 million 

of that is for infrastructure, buildings and equipment, but most of 

it is for the direct costs of research. Our faculty are delighted, but 

the research reporting requirement on my office is now huge. That 

is the downside of being very successful. We are delighted with the 

Recovery Act. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. In terms of the research infrastructure 

grants, we are supposed to hear soon on a lot of those. Some of 

those will have to wait until September. Mr. Horvath? 

Mr. HORVATH. We have submitted applications for grants on two 

specific facilities. One is the renovation of one of our health and 

human development buildings, and the second for biological research lab and building, and we are hoping to hear positive news 

sometime in the next few days or few weeks. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Dr. Tolbert? 

Dr. TOLBERT. And we have learned that we will be getting an 

NIH grant for $15 million for a research support building in the 

new arm of our college of medicine in Phoenix. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Dr. Raymond? 

Dr. RAYMOND. We have also recently learned that we received an 

$8 million grant to substantially renovate an older facility on campus to bring the microbiology and immunology labs up to speed. 

One of the problems we had in the building, it is humid in Charleston and we were having difficulty maintaining positive air pressure 

so there was mold growing in some of the micro and immuno labs 

so you can’t do bacteriology research with fungus growing in there, 

so this will help us to bring our facilities up to snuff. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Thank you. I just wanted to conclude, I want 

to ask Dr. Dunning a couple things. How much does the NCSA 

spend helping its user community? 

Dr. DUNNING. I would say on the average probably around $4 to 

$5 million a year. That is primarily staff time. I must say not all 

of that is funded by the National Science Foundation, however; a 

good portion of that is funded by the State of Illinois and the University of Illinois. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Do you think there should be more funding 

to help users? 

Dr. DUNNING. We are seeing large growth in the number of communities that need high-performance computing to be able to move 

into the new areas they want to go into and to solve the types of 

problems that they are encountering. I think the only way to suc-
79

cessfully move those communities in that direction is through 

strong user support. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. I have heard that there are issues in terms 

of being able to—people who can really use those facilities being 

able to understand how they can use them, the ability to—not even 

having the knowledge of what is possible to do and how to do it. 

Do you find that? 

Dr. DUNNING. Some of the communities are coming from a very 

low base. One of the environmental communities we worked with 

a couple of years ago was using Excel spreadsheets as the means 

of storing and analyzing all of their data. That works for a while, 

but when you start accumulating the quantities of data that these 

environmental groups are now talking about being able to gather 

by the sensor arrays and other devices that they have, that won’t 

work in the future, and so there is a tremendous education and 

training aspect that goes along with the user support. One of the 

things that we find really critical for our user support is to have 

a staff member that actually has some training in either that area 

or related areas, so he understands the scientific objectives and 

techniques that community is using, because the more you know 

about the community, the better you’re able to move them down 

the pipeline toward being able to use these much larger computing 

systems. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. Thank you. I will yield back. Dr. Ehlers, any 

more questions, closing comments? 

Mr. EHLERS. I have taken too much time already. 

Chairman LIPINSKI. I want to thank all of our witnesses for testifying before the Subcommittee today. The record will remain open 

for two weeks for additional statements from the Members and for 

answers to any follow-up questions the Committee may ask of the 

witnesses. 

Again, I thank the witnesses all for their testimony. Certainly as 

we move forward with NSF reauthorization, with America COMPETES reauthorization, I welcome any more comments that you 

have. Your input is critical if we are going to do this right, and we 

are really going to make sure we are putting our resources in the 

best possible place for our universities, for research and for our 

competitiveness. 

With that, the witnesses are excused and the hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:27 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ